Statement by James Flynn Regarding IQ Research

kill yourself. no, seriously. the human race would benefit if people as willfully ignorant as yourself weren't allowed to the breath our air.

You're naive as fuck. The quality of research on things like this can be pretty horrible. Science is subject to ideology just like anything else is.

yes but dialectically speaking it advances much faster since people are much more discourages from being illogical

Sorry, but I don't follow. Are you suggesting that shoddy research isn't published all the time, even in high impact journals? Peer-review, although arguably necessary for quality control, is certainly not sufficient. Most scientists have absolutely encountered peer-reviewed papers in their reading with severe methodological flaws that were nevertheless published.

Don't care. Let them do their dumb research. What I'm really interested in is the influence of epigenetics on intelligence. How do the living conditions of your parents, grandparents, etc, influence your I.Q. score?
People never note the possibility of black people actually turning out more intelligent than whites. Flynn just assumes that it must be a deficit. That's not very scientific, is it?
Either way, we should always stress that this all doesn't matter. People should be treated equally despite statistical averages. What matters is the person itself, the unique capacities proper to them. Any society that doesn't follow that principle will be dystopian.

Anyone who seriously invests any time into Autism Level research is dumber than any people they want to label with a low Autism Level. At least they aren't wasting their time with retarded bullshit.

Actually, Flynn is himself a proponent of the environmentalist hypothesis, and in fact a very famous one. He's not describing his own empiric predictions here but elaborating an ethical stance regarding what sort of research he feels ought to be permitted.

...

Science is fucking riddled with people letting their ego and ideology get in the way of proper research. The "peers" doing peer review are human also and predisposed to seeing things a certain way. A lot of them have a personal stake in upholding the status quo because they've built their career and reputation on "established" scientific "facts" and don't want to have any of their (possibly ongoing) work undermined.

Then it's even more damning.