Rebecca Sear: I didn’t even bother requesting retractions from Intelligence. They’ve already refused to retract a paper which not only used “national IQ” data but also used a methodology which assumes the earth is flat, so I think their editorial standards are pretty clear

Our article has also unleashed revealing comments from scientific racists. Several are now openly admitting that Lynn’s research was bad science but that the flaws in his work don’t matter; “the project” is all that matters, and, after all, he did get the “right” results. Here’s the article

Journals that published Richard Lynn's racist 'research' articles should retract themwww.statnews.com Richard Lynn's work has been repeatedly condemned for using flawed methodology and deceptively collated data to support racism. It's past time to retract the studies.

Whenever that crowd turns up to defend the project in the face of its infinite scientific shortcomings, I remember that Lynn presented a correlation between national IQ and “skin pigmentation” as validation evidence for national IQ, and the fine editors at Intelligence said “okay, that sounds legit”

I didn’t even bother requesting retractions from Intelligence. They’ve already refused to retract a paper which not only used “national IQ” data but also used a methodology which assumes the earth is flat, so I think their editorial standards are pretty clear

👀

(And thanks, as always, for all you’ve done to push back against this utter dreck)

Post