Talk:Richard Haier

Status of the journal "Intelligence"
Should the the journal "Intelligence" really be regarded as a pseudo-journal? While the journal has included people who have published in "Mankind quarterly", I think it's worth bearing in mind that James Flynn, the researcher who gave us the much published "Flynn effect" has also been an editor of the journal. He showed that intelligence can be quite plastic and appears to improve in non-genetically attributed ways and his work has become completely mainstream. Flynn has been regarded as a hero of the left with regard to IQ science but it's worth noting that he does not himself regard the likes of Haier or Murray as pseudo-scientists, but rather as people who do serious evidential work which he has shown to be questionable. He contends that only by taking their work seriously, did he formulate his theories which show the importance and preeminence of environment. One wonders if the attributions of "pseudocience" in this article are more political than based on the views of serious scientists who work in the area. https://scottbarrykaufman.com/podcast/nature-nurture-and-human-autonomy-with-james-flynn/

I think it should also be noticed that the scientists referenced by Vox, such as Eric Turkheimer) who published the take down of the Murray/Harris podcast have also been published by the journal Intelligence (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016028969390013U) suggesting that the journal is taken seriously by psychologists of all flavours.
 * Intelligence is not exactly a pseudojournal, however some who sit on the Editorial Board are pseudoscientists & support hereditarianism. However I noticed this year they got rid of Richard Lynn who no longer sits on Editorial Board.Octo (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Really?
I understand some of the criticisms - but a lot of this article is cherry picking the "worst of the worst" so to speak. I went and listened to podcasts with him in them and he mostly just talks about optimism of future ability to increase IQ through neuroscience or genetic modification. He was also invited by Oxford and Cambridge University to contribute to their series on intelligence so the claim that he is just regarded as a pseudoscientist is a hard sell. Debunky (talk) 11:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Pseudoscientist?
This article was created by a problematic editor Kfotfo (only 1 edit) and is likely a sockpuppet of a banned editor CBH aka Jean Lusaz (note very similar article creation style and content) who added some dubious pages that were deleted or had to be completely re-written (e.g. see Eric Turkheimer). Kfotfo/CHB/Lusaz had incorrectly claimed Turkheimer is a pseudoscientist. His page has to be completely rewritten. It seems though no one has bothered to revert or rewrite the Richard Haier article. Haier obviously isn't a pseudoscientist. Simply see his Wikipedia page and bio- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_J._Haier It's suspected CHB/Kfotfo is a sock of a race realist troll who was trying to discredit RationalWiki by adding dubious content to ridicule the wiki (see the Turkheimer talk page). This page should be deleted or completely rewritten.Flight (talk) 03:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Not-so-RationalWiki
I mean who the hell is writing these articles ?

Any article that goes within a mile of hot topics like race, gender, disparities, and god forbid intelligence, reads like it's been written by a 14 years old.

"controversial [insert name]", "pseudo-scientist [insert name of scientist respected by most peers]" A good one is "[insert name], popular amongst [insert fringe extreme group]" as if who listens to you is relevant to whether what you say is true or false... Any rational person would know, listing who happens to agree with an idea or a fact is in now way sufficient to discredit that idea.

This wiki should do better.
 * "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 15:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Should this article be changed?
How exactly is Haier a pseudoscientist? It also seems there have been accusations this page was written by a troll to discredit RationalWiki.

https://twitter.com/augier_eugene/status/1553484660042354690 Brisson (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The bold in this paragraph for example is nonsense:

In his book The Neuroscience of Intelligence, Haier promotes the claims that there is a real ability called "general intelligence", that compensatory education programs cannot meaningfully increase it,[11] and that it is strongly influenced by brain volume.[12] While superficially race-neutral, all of these are standard racialist claims to support the alleged genetic link between race and intelligence. The book also approvingly cites a large amount of "research" by grantees of the Pioneer Fund, including Arthur Jensen, Linda Gottfredson, and Thomas Bouchard.[13] Rather than explicitly advocating a racial hierarchy of intelligence with blacks at the bottom like Lynn or Emil Kirkegaard, Haier's book takes the more subtle approach of presenting various indirect arguments to support such a hierarchy, so that readers (his audience being "human-biodiversity" proponents) can infer the (implied) conclusion. Brisson (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Haier has criticised actual racists:

Empirical data about average group differences are not inherently racist, but they are used and misrepresented by racists. To date, Intelligence has published more than 1650 empirical research papers that span the full range of intelligence topics. Combined, they have over 45,000 citations excluding self-citations (as per Web of Science Core Collection, 7/15/20). For perspective, the number of controversial group difference papers is quite small and citations to them often are from papers that report contrary data and alternative interpretations. This is exactly the way science is supposed to work. Some of the strongest critics of some group difference findings are members of our Editorial Board. Brisson (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

We condemn and stand against racism and any misguided or malignant use of the research we publish. We firmly believe that sunlight, not censorship, is the best disinfectant for malevolent interpretations of research data that are cherry-picked to support a political ideology. Not publishing on a particular topic only gives validity to conspiratorial explanations of “what they don't want us to know.” Hate groups should not have a de facto veto on what research is published nor should fair criticism be exaggerated to justify banning topics or authors from publication. We also stand against protestors from political extremes who threaten researchers or shut down speakers with intimidation or violent tactics. We deplore personal attacks and arguments based on guilt by association, and their use to incite outrage mobs on social media. Brisson (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC) https://isironline.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Editorial-corrected-proof-online.pdf Brisson (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

- Haier recently supported the banning of Emil Kirkegaard from ISIR conferences for his racist views. https://twitter.com/rjhaier/status/1551962322654019584 Brisson (talk) 23:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's reasonable to presume that Haier has done real science, but his continuing to promote less-than-savory characters, and being interviewed by an alt-right publication (Quillette) is highly problematic. It's reasonable to make this page more balanced as far as anything showing he's not an outright racist (e.g., banning Kirkegaard) or a pseudoscientist (doing non-intergroup IQ-based analyses vs. rather than doing intergroup analyses that lack validity ). Bongolian (talk) 04:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I will go through all the sources at some point and see what is what.Brisson (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Blog post by Noah Carl on the ISIR conference Brisson (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)