Talk:Emily Willoughby

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon race.svg

This Race related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Steelbrain.png
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Archives for this talk page: , (new)


Emily Willoughby was a poster on OpenPsych but later asked for her profile to be deleted, more of her deception uncovered[edit]

https://web.archive.org/web/20230617145004/https://openpsych.net/forums/18/thread/125/?page=2#1812

A comment where she was defending hereditarianism and Davide Piffer's race and IQ pseudoscience:

I have very mixed feelings on this issue, and can see plenty of valid points on both sides. I will say here that not long after I became aware of Piffer's paper on the use of factor analysis to detect polygenic selection for IQ, I emailed it to Steven Pinker (as well as the follow-up paper that explored the methodology further). This was when both papers were still published only in IBC. He gave me quite a bit of interesting response and also sent it to James Lee, but one thing he said early on in our discussion is that they "have not been published in high-quality journals so [he's] a bit worried about their soundness."

Pinker is brilliant, but I don't think he's as intimately familiar with the methodology in this sub- subfield as some researchers are. Refusing to publish in legacy or mainstream journals also means that the research is unlikely to be translated to "layman" terms by science media, science writers and so on. The public's perception of this field is a big part of the problem, not just fellow researchers unwilling to read it and take it seriously. Have any of you ever considered collaborating to write a neutral overview of the new research in this area intended for a general lay-audience? Self-publishing books is fairly easy nowadays, and if you're willing to pay for advertising it has the potential to reach a wide audience without a mainstream publisher.

I admire your idealism, and I think the research that you, Piffer and others are doing is really important. I'd like to try and support it however I can (I would not have sent my genome and IQ scores to just anyone!), and if all I can do for now is send your research along to important people I know, then I will continue to do so.

She later asked Emil Kirkegaard to delete her profile and if you now search account #44 ("Emily") you will see it is deleted:

https://openpsych.net/person/profile/44/

More info here: https://medium.com/@Keira_Havens/box-of-rocks-7-ouroboros-3cc530d7782e 159.89.89.139 (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

"Emily (pseudonym)". Seeing as the forum is run by Kirkegaard, if it prompts someone to come up with their own pseudonym if they choose to use one, I could see someone mentally shifting "Emil" to "Emily" if they wanted a lazy option, as Emil was already on their mind. If pseudonyms are just random, well, there you go. Chillpilled (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Another scandal involving Emily Willoughby - her academic colleague Alexandros Giannelis at the University of Minnesota bought neo-Nazi merch[edit]

There was recently a leak of buyers of neo-Nazi merch reported in Vice. from the far-right Midgård website which specializes in neo-Nazi music and other racist merch.

Alexandros Giannelis an academic at the University of Minnesota was discovered to have bought neo-Nazi merchandise from Midgård:

Giannelis notably was defending Willoughby in August 2022 when she was accused of eugenics and racism including posting a photo of them together:

"The fact that both Alexandros Giannelis and Emily Willoughby co-author together on papers about the genetics of IQ, while both have an interest in Nazi aesthetics, makes me somewhat suspicious of their interest in genetics of IQ."

Both Willoughby and Giannelis have now locked their Twitter (X) accounts after receiving criticism. 103.50.33.218 (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Blue-check reply to the VICE tweet: "Did someone tell Zelensky?" Meanwhile the actual database: around five pages worth of entries from Russia, and three singular entries from Ukraine...
Regarding Willoughby, it could call into question that one of her co-authors may have had pre-formed motivations, which is important. Chillpilled (talk) 13:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Current page is locked? However, I think a section should be added considering Giannelis is a regular co-author of papers with Willoughby:
  • "Parent contributions to the development of political attitudes in adoptive and biological families" EA Willoughby, A Giannelis, S Ludeke, R Klemmensen, AS Nørgaard, ...Psychological Science 32 (12), 2023-2034
  • The association between saving disposition and financial distress: A genetically informed approach" A Giannelis, EA Willoughby, R Corley, C Hopfer, JK Hewitt, WG Iacono, ... Journal of Economic Psychology 96, 102610
  • "Not by g alone: The benefits of a college education among individuals with low levels of general cognitive ability" M McGue, EL Anderson, E Willoughby, A Giannelis, WG Iacono, JJ Lee Intelligence 92, 101642

103.50.33.220 (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Did Emil Kirkegaard create Emily Willoughby's article?[edit]

With various recent fake accounts blocked as Kirkegaard and more evidence of his deceptions, quote:

It originally belonged to someone who later agreed to let Kirkegaard share it, while setting up a private proxy server so that they could both edit from the account without the IP address changing. Kirkegaard also has shared other people's Wikipedia accounts by the same method. When he tried to get me to share the account, he offered to send me the "proxy info" so I could also edit from the same IP address, and that was part of the email I mentioned here that I forwarded to Wikipedia's ArbCom in March.

Are we sure the article creator was not another of Kirkegaard's? A case can certainly be made and I will list this evidence here in the next 12 hours. 104.156.232.17 (talk) 04:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

It's no longer relevant based on the edit history.[1] You're not going to get the page deleted now based on that assertion. Bongolian (talk) 07:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Page is very similar to when it was created. I was already questioning the subject's notability, although taking all her activity together I could see how she is. If the page creator wasn't Smith (their first edit summary on this page sure sounds like him), it seems plausible it was someone imitating him. Skimming the talk page archives, I found a reference to the page supposedly referring to her having a "vore fetish" before, which sounds extremely like some of the other parody pages although I don't know if Boar added it. This page should at least be reviewed for accuracy if it hasn't been yet, and if there's a big problem all of Boar's additions should maybe be contestable. Chillpilled (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
I already went through the whole page for text-citation comparisons, removing any paragraphs without citations. This was after User:Tetrapteryx had contacted me about problems with the page. He and I are satisfied that it's reasonably accurate. Anyone else is of course welcome to recheck the page. Bongolian (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
His sticking point seems to be that it still says she collaborated with Kirkegaard (on Wikipedia specifically). What's the proof for it? It seems to be Twitter hearsay on first look? Chillpilled (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
@Bongolian: Saying that I'm satisfied with this article is putting it too strongly. What I said is that I no longer consider it defamatory, which isn't the same as saying that I think it's accurate now.
@Chillpilled: The article also states, "Kane and Willoughby have defended Emil Kirkegaard and they all edited race and IQ related articles with overlapping edits as a sort of 'tag-team' with the same point of view." If the polygenic score article is the only Wikipedia article she and Kirkegaard both edited at close to the same time, and she and Kirkegaard never restored one another's reverts on that article (which is what "tag-teaming" means), that seems to be a false statement. --Tetrapteryx (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

It's new year and I don't want to waste time on this now in much detail. I will come back in a few days and present a lot more analysis but some brief initial observations:

  • All of Kirkegaard's page creations were of non-hereditarians (Paige Harden, Turkheimer) or scientists 'agnostic' on the cause of IQ differences between groups (Plomin, Haier, although Haier nowadays leans slightly towards hereditarianism) rather than hereditarians. The reason for this is simple: it would not make sense for him to attack his hereditarian allies, who hold his own POV. Furthermore, the creation of those articles to tarnish the reputations of non-hereditarians was to damage the credibility of this wiki for obvious reasons.
  • Willoughby apparently is now agnostic on the cause of IQ differences between groups or has changed her views. Her pro-hereditarianism posts are a decade old; note that her comment quoted above on OpenPsych was from 2014. Hence she is now a Kirkegaard target (like Plomin). Furthermore, Willoughby apparently post-2020 had a falling out with Kirkegaard, unfriending him on social media and has been criticising his trolling on Wikipedia for the past few years. So again, this would make her a target.
  • The creator of Emily Willoughby's article (User:Boar) voted to delete Laird Shaw's article. There is a significant link to Kirkegaard here since Shaw is a self-described friend of Kirkegaard who elsewhere "thanks" him on his website. Note Shaw also created a RationalWiki account (User:Laird) to defend Kirkegaard and voted for his article to be deleted.
  • Kirkegaard is not fond (screenshot) of vitamin (especially vitamin D) supplements while User:Boar also criticised these in their early edits.

Only brief observations as I said but the Shaw link is quite significant.107.191.56.68 (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Considering that Kane has come forward here about what Kirkegaard had been up to, a split does seem to have happened. I also am leaning towards Boar being an EmilOWK sockpuppet myself. Anyway, I found some tools that can help investigate any Wikipedia link between Willoughby and Kirkegaard (or anyone else for that matter). Find them here. I went ahead and used these, the most useful of which seems to be these and these results. Although Willoughby and Kirkegaard edited the same topic-space, the only time they closely brushed shoulders was when they both edited the same page within 11 minutes of each other. Given the shared topic interest, this singular incident could easily have been coincidental, to my mind (keep in mind, one or the other may have simply watchlisted the page). That was the "polygenic score" page, which Kirkegaard created and Willoughby quickly began editing, later contributing to it substantially. Other co-edits took place at least 110 days between each other, and often years between each other. Chillpilled (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Something overlooked: User:CBH made two edits to Willoughby's article and were apparently inserting misinformation about [2] User:Tetrapteryx. That's always been Kirkegaard's MO. In fact, I believe CBH was trying to restore incorrect information Boar originally inserted. 107.191.56.68 (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Well, I think there's a (very) plausible explanation for Willoughby showing up on the new polygenic score page so soon after Kirkegaard created it, which doesn't involve nefarious secret "meat-puppeting": he quickly tweeted about it and invited people to edit it. Chillpilled (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Now I'm stuck with a bit of a pickle, because she clearly did collaborate with Emil on Wikipedia, but to say this might leave the reader with the impression she was secretly coordinating with him, which seems to be undemonstrated. Chillpilled (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Willoughby used to follow Kirkegaard's account and the OpenPsych account (owned by Kirkegaard) on Twitter but unfollowed them both when they parted ways in 2020. Yes, it's well documented Kane/Willoughby were at one point close to Kirkegaard and supported his "research". In 2014, Willoughby was an OpenPsych forum poster and praised Kirkegaard's and Davide Piffer's papers on race and IQ (see quote above). However, they have not been on friendly terms for the past few years after they discovered and criticised his trolling activities. This animosity between them explains Kirkegaard editing Willoughby article at least as User:CBH and there are reasons to believe he or someone associated with him (since he is known to share accounts based on what emails Tetrapteryx has leaked) as having created the article as User:Boar. Ps. I cannot believe no one has yet mentioned this but the creator of these parody/troll accounts is using word clues to their names as they mentioned on Wikipedia:

At the time when we were adding this material to RationalWiki in 2018-2019, the fact that it was intended as a deliberate parody was quite widely acknowledged. See the discussions here and here, among other places. Some of the really obvious parodies such as the Kathryn Paige Harden article were deleted for that reason, but more than 90% of our parody material about ISIR and the people associated with it has remained basically unaltered. In some cases, the users adding this material about intelligence researchers left deliberate clues so that those who looked carefully could know they were trolling. For example, the person who created the Richard Haier article used the username Kfotfo, which is a one-letter shift forward in the alphabet from "Jensen", in the same way that "IBM" is a one-letter shift from "HAL".

So what is "CBH"?

Well it's simply: HBD (D is one letter shift from C).

Kirkegaard of course is well known for using this term (HBD) and identifying with so-called human biodiversityWikipedia. Their name was a clue the whole time. I am sure Jean Lusaz and Boar are also meant to refer to something similar by slightly changing to alphabet and rearranging the words.207.148.86.10 (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I knew of this, it's worth noting but it's probably a time-waster to focus on their little cryptography game too much. We're not cracking the Da Vinci code or something. Maybe you can find some kind of tool that finds cryptographic associations between certain letters/words/names, otherwise please don't spend too much time trying to analyze people's usernames, lol. I'm sure they amused themselves with it. Chillpilled (talk) 23:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Should there be an AfD for this? Carthage (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Maybe. There was one before, but it unanimously failed (but — mostly not on merits, but because it was proposed by another long-term troll). I also think this page may be easier to get into decent shape (including by noting her shift in viewpoint if true) than some others like the brain size article which would probably require some intimate research on somebody's part. So I dunno. It's also not truly well proven that Boar was one of the troll accounts. Also we may like to look at the Jonathan Kane page a bit again as well — though it seems that wasn't written by Boar? Chillpilled (talk) 03:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm. Chillpilled (talk) 10:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents: User:BUFO was blocked as a Rome Viharo sock and it was suggested by a mod they were linked to User:Boar because they both canvassed to delete the Laird Shaw article. Shaw is a close friend of Emil Kirkegaard. They both had each other added on Facebook, although Kirkegaard has recently deleted or made his account private after an investigative journalist on December 20 found his location and published an article in a German newspaper. He is a hiding in a private villa (owned by his friend Mathilda Huss) to evade a judgment debt and various lawsuits. This information was added to his article by User:Pinkerite a week ago. Shaw as noted also joined this wiki to defend Kirkegaard and voted to delete his article - so it would make sense Kirkegaard would return the favour. They have both used multiple accounts on this wiki to try to delete each other's articles. As for where does Viharo fit in: he is someone who has long communicated with both Kirkegaard and Shaw. He published an article on his former website defending both. However, his website was removed for a ToS violation (it was basically chock-full of doxxing and hit-pieces) so all the articles are down. Although they are probably on an archive somewhere. Note that User:Boar was dedicated to deleting not only Shaw's but Viharo's article. In fact they created the AfD for Viharo's page. This evidence is rather compelling the account owner if not a Kirkegaard sockpuppet is at least a meatpuppet. 122.10.138.235 (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
I am surprised above that users are talking about a possible afd for this article. It doesn't matter who wrote this article, even if was proven that Kirkegaard, or a banned user wrote the article, the facts remain that the article is accurate per all the sourcing and it is a good article, not a joke article. If an article is accurate and checks out then it doesn't matter who wrote it. There is no policy that says we have to delete an article depending on who wrote it if it is accurate. Much of this article was updated since the original author created it. There is indeed a connection between Rome Viharo, Laird Shaw and Emil Kirkegaard as they have all quoted each other on their websites but this isn't conclusive proof. Abd Lomax also cites all these people on his website. Cranks cite other cranks that hate RationalWiki.
Laird Shaw is on Kirkegaard's personal Facebook where he has left comments so there is a close connection there but I don't see the connection to this article. My advice is to stop all this armchair detective work and put time into creating other articles. This article shouldn't be deleted, let's not waste time speculating on who wrote it because this will never be proved. Johns (talk) 13:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Fair. Genetic fallacy and all that. Carthage (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough. I won't further make an edit beyond this one. I maintain though the evidence is compelling if you compare User:Boar's edits to those made by User:EmilOWK and User:Heyguy (an almost certain Rome Viharo sockpuppet blocked for doxxing mentioned on one of the URLs Chillpilled linked to). For example, compare this edit by Boar:

I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by censorship. The AfD was created because I discovered extensive impersonations and other suspicious accounts on the edit history, see here. After many years I'm surprised no one looked into this. Rome Viharo has been impersonated on fake accounts as recent as earlier this year and these fake/impersonation/spoof accounts date back to 2014.

To Heyguy's edits which mention "impersonations" pertaining to the same two individuals (i.e. Rome Viharo and Emil Kirkegaard). These unsubstantiated claims of impersonations should be taken with a pinch of salt since Kirkegaard is notorious for misinformation, impersonating or imitating others (while accusing others of his own activities); further we have proof he lies about his accounts. The evidence User:CBH was him is conclusive but he previously lied on his talk page and tried to disregard accusations he was Kirkegaard as "conspiracy theories".122.10.138.203 (talk) 14:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's unreasonable to be concerned about edits by likely extremists and their allies. If you've blocked Oliver Smith permanently - he gave me the heads-up about Kirkegaard's hide-out article in the German press, so he was indirectly responsible for my Kirkegaard article edit - it's not too much to keep a look-out for potential Kirkegaard-related mischief. You can do that and still write new articles. Pinkerite (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
RE: Johns, there was concern the article isn't quite accurate. There is a case Willoughby wasn't coordinating with Kirkegaard on Wikipedia in specific, and there was a suggestion above that her views changed. Chillpilled (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
While Willoughby may have changed her views of IQ as a metric per the above assertion, we have yet to see the evidence on that. She's still listed as a board member at International Society for Intelligence Research since 2020.[3][4] I think that one might reasonably conclude that board members of ISIR believe that race is a legitimate concept worthy of research. Bongolian (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Well, I've come across this comment, not sure where that lands (six years old anyway, but at least it's not a 14 years old Wikipedia edit). I have the impression Kane & Willoughby may be more (maybe a lot more) confident in certain premises than they ought to be, especially reading one of those Wikipediocracy threads. Somebody told him he really should consider plausible confounding factors more, reasonable enough criticism to me. But then who am I, certainly not someone in this field. Chillpilled (talk) 06:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

"Linda A. Ashtear"[edit]

Concrete proof this is her? The only public source I could find claiming Ashtear is her was, well, Pinkerite. And in turn, Pinkerite's article cited... this article. There's also a citation to Wikipediocracy here, but the forum is private or something. Anyone who can verify there's proof there, or produce anything convincing at least? Chillpilled (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I guess you found evidence of Ixerin already, but here are is Ixerin presenting Acheroraptor artwork,[5] and Willoughby presenting the same artwork as their own.[6] Bongolian (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
The accusation she's Ashtear seems to be based on reasonable inference, but it's hardly proven. I'd have to see what Wikipediocracy says to see if they know any more than I do. Chillpilled (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Didn't I read here that @Tetrapteryx is Willoughby's ex-boyfriend Jonathan Kane? Who allegedly goes by the name Shuichi Tezuka, who co-authored with Linda A. Ashtear? Pinkerite (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
This seems to be circular again — I think him being Shuichi Tezuka is based on the premise that she's Ashtear. I mean, at this point we can say she's probably Ashtear based on shared traits (biology major, North Carolina, upset at Wikipedia's workings, Tezuka cites their book). But y'know, unexpected coincidences happen, it could be say a colleague of hers or something like that for all one knows. Chillpilled (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Well it says here that "@Tetrapteryx (confirmed by himself, GeeJayK, and @Bongolian to be Jonathan Kane)..." so I guess the next step is to determine if all these people really did confirm @Tetrapteryx is Jonathan Kane, and then if it checks out, ask Jonathan Kane directly if he is Shuichi Tezuka and if Willoughby is Ashtear. Pinkerite (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
I've added talk page links to the part about people confirming he's Kane to the ATIM entry. I doubt he'll answer the question since he apparently didn't before. Chillpilled (talk) 05:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Wait, now that I look for it again, I'm not sure where I even read that Ashtear was a biology major from North Carolina. I thought it was in the Critic's article, but I don't see it now. If we don't have those two pieces I don't think we can even say that Ashtear is probably Willoughby. Chillpilled (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Create a new Afd to discuss and vote on deletion given these various problems and the fact there are multiple people who now are investigating and coming to conclude the article creator is another Kirkegaard sock. The fact Willoughby's article criticises Kirkegaard isn't evidence against he created, on the contrary, this was cover for Kirkegaard to have made it and we know he attacked Robert Plomin and other scientists on here while pretending to be a leftist.122.10.138.227 (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
As I'm verifying the article (I multi-task while editing so that's what the pace is about), AfD would need to be based on her not being notable which could be argued perhaps, but I lean toward her being about notable enough (published in Quillette, published researcher in missional topics, doing illustration for major publications, co-wrote a noteworthy book on anti-creationism, significant participation on Wikipedia, and board member for ISIR). Chillpilled (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
From looking at deleted parts of this article, I can infer that the proof on the Wikipediocracy thread for them being Tezuka and Ashtear was simply that Kane didn't deny being Tezuka. I guess that's something, but it is not especially strong. Chillpilled (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
One of the articles published by Shuichi Tezuka (likely Kane) who wrote another article with Linda, published an article in the Journal of Controversial Ideas. In the article, Jonathan Kane's writings are mentioned which reads as self-promotion:

Jonathan Kane has discussed the similar shortage of positive proposals among young-Earth creationists in their arguments about the origin of birds, which have usually attacked existing research without making any attempt at proposing an alternative explanation for the fossil data. Kane’s criticism of this aspect of young-Earth creationism applies equally well to the equivalent aspect of cognitive creationism: “This is a destructive attitude because at its most basic level, science is about coming up with a model to explain what you observe, and testing whether your model’s predictions match reality.

Furthermore Tezuka's article references Kane's and Willoughby's coauthored book on creationism. I do not believe this is a coincidence. Additionally, Tezuka's separate article about Wikipedia in Quillette, describes the exact same pages he and Willoughby have had edit conflicts on, furthermore he even highlights and mentions her Wikipedia account:

Wikipedia user Ferahgo the Assassin—a postdoctoral researcher in behavior genetics

There is a bunch of other clues but since they apparently deny it is them or avoid answering, you cannot be 100% sure. There is a very slight possibility Tezuka is a third individual closely linked to both (I don't personally though believe this). Note as well that Tezuka recently wrote an article promoting Justapedia. Jonathan Kane has also praised Justapedia on Wikipediocracy forum, so that's another link.

In my opinion, the reason Kane does not publicly admit to being Tezuka and Willoughby, Linda, is because under those names they have sympathised with eugenics:

In a discussion about the changes to the “Dysgenics” article, Wikipedia user Ferahgo the Assassin—a postdoctoral researcher in behavior genetics—pointed out that the “no evidence for dysgenic effects” statement contradicts every recent major textbook and literature review about this topic, including The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence and Cognitive Neuroscience (Cambridge University Press, 2021), An Introduction to Statistical Genetic Data Analysis (MIT Press, 2020), and the paper from Nature Human Behavior quoted above. While a few of the site’s members acknowledged the validity of Ferahgo’s objection, the person rewriting the “Dysgenics” article ignored it. Since that time there have been a few attempts by other people to make this aspect of the Wikipedia article consistent with the field’s source literature, but the person who rewrote the article has undone these attempts, again describing these sources as “profringe.”

Kane/Willoughby actually believe in the pseudoscience of 'dsygenics' and were upset Wikipedia's article was modified to add skeptical literature. 122.10.138.227 (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Ferahgo's topic-ban was actually reported about (apparently multiple times) in Wikipedia's The Signpost, as I've just stumbled across. I agree the pseudonyms are probably-to-possibly them (personal opinion) but conclusive in-article wording needs conclusive evidence. Chillpilled (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Before Emil Kirkegaard and Emily Willoughby unfriended each other on social media, Kirkegaard used to promote Linda Ashtear's articles on his social media accounts. I agree with you though about lack of conclusive or definite evidence. They won't publicly admit to being those pseudonyms because they espoused controversial views on them such as belief in "dysgenic effects". 122.10.138.227 (talk) 02:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Even if they did believe in those effects, it doesn't tell me that they support any particular response to them. It would at least be feeding into one of the premises for the eugenics movement though. Didn't she allude to something about another academic being "optimistic" about genetic engineering on Twitter? This would be eugenics, though it certainly takes a different tone than the old version... still raises harsh ethical questions either way. Chillpilled (talk) 03:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Definite proof CBH is Emil Kirkegaard[edit]