Talk:Robert Plomin/Archive1

Not a fan of the current phrasing
As is obvious from my recent edit to this page I am not a huge fan of the way it is worded esp. in the first few sentences. The only things we learn are that he is a white nationalist who thinks whites are genetically superior (highly questionable at best) and that he advocates for racist policies in an indirect way (I suppose true, but not a huge part of what he is known for). His behavior genetics research deserves to  be WAY  more prominent than this  other stuff that is not that major a part of his career, IMO. As an aside none of the sources appear to back up the assertions about him being a white nationalist/white supremacist. Jinx (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I recommend looking at this discussion, and at the accompanying revision history of racialism from 30 September to 3 October. You are making the same fallacious argument that the 174.119.80.219 IP made there. As User:ClickerClock explained, RationalWiki does not have a neutral point of view, it has a scientific point of view. A scientific point of view includes recognizing that racially inexplicit biological determinist theories are white supremacism dressed up with scientific-sounding language. If you try to introduce material giving equal validity to those theories, your edits will be reverted for the same reason that the 174.119.80.219 IP's were. --Jean Lusaz (talk) 03:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * White nationalism is not entirely accurate. Jinx is wrong in that, yeah, he really does take a hardline racist pseudoscience genetic determinist position.  You're wrong because that's not fucking the definition of white nationalism.  Just the pseudoscience they rely on.  I have a dim view of his publications and other geneticists have said he purposely misrepresents the reality of behavior genetics research, which is probably a symptom of something seriously fucked up about his positions.  But white nationalism is an ethnostate ideology.
 * We don't have a neutral point of view, but we sure as hell don't have an pointlessly inaccurate point of view either. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 23:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of Plomin or his  work, but again, I don't think calling him a white nationalist is accurate,  in line with what Ikanreed said above. Jinx (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "A scientific point of view includes recognizing that racially inexplicit biological determinist theories are white supremacism dressed up with scientific-sounding language". Wow, strong stuff. Would you care to back it up with some citations - and not to non-scientific works, please.--Greenrd (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that sounds like a losing argument.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The last line of this article comes off pretty badly. It doesn't cite any evidence which shows that they are advocating eugenics policies or segregation. I think it would be more accurate and effective to just describe their actual research and who they are working for. I think the ethical issues of trying to predict intelligence from genetics so parents can choose the best IVF embryo while working for a research institute connected to a government which in the past had sterilization programs are pretty clear even though (at least Hsu's) public stance is that the ethical implications are still "up for debate". Explaining this with citations is a better idea IMO than linking to a word document which doesn't actually source its own claims re: policy advocacy. Rtnlwikiuser (talk) 04:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Nazi troll throws a tantrum

 * "RationalWiki does not have a neutral point of view, it has a scientific point of view." That is quite frankly the most hilarious thing i've ever heard. The Stalin and Lysenko is strong with this one. If you want balls of clay that you can push your ideology onto, go to a toy store and buy some clay. Don't pretend that you're doing Science though.113.30.156.69 (talk) 06:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


 * "RationalWiki does not have a neutral point of view, it has a scientific point of view." That is quite frankly the most hilarious thing i've ever heard. The Marx and Lysencko is strong with this one.113.30.156.69 (talk) 06:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The illiteracy is strong in the previous comment... Do you even know what those ideologies are? Have you even read the RW articles on them? Do you know anything at all? Or did you just barf up the soundsbytes you were previously fed like a good little dog? 17:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I reverted your childish tantrum. Learn to read. Come back when you've finished studying, so as to avoid strawmanning. 03:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * P.S. you know jack shit about me or my beliefs, or even my reasons for said beliefs. I however, know quite bit about you from our brief interactions, none of it indicating you're anyone worth caring about beyond the context of this thread. 03:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * P.P.S. I went through your sources. Two basically just say that people get smarter as they get older (though I'm guessing you're an exception to that rule), one is a 404 error, and the one co-authored by Plomin (nice try sneaking that past me) mentions "race" a grand total of 0 times. Congratulations, you've proven you can't even do cherrypicking research via google correctly. 04:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to believe an idiot who takes "water memory" seriously, who cites a 404 link, and who accuses people of being Jewish commie shills without jack in the way of evidence. (By the way, I'm ethnically white as all fuck, Mr Ego.) Bye now! 04:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You know, the main reason I started reverting you was because you're so insecure about that collapse template. Just pointing that out. Maybe if you actually indented, signed your posts, quit edit warring, and engaged with the facts rather than bringing Marxism and shill allegations out of nowhere, you'd look like less of a moron. Just a thought. 04:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So... Yeah... What you're suffering from is called a delusion. You can allege all you like that there's some sinister motive for my actions (there isn't), you can keep edit warring over a template that anyone can open if they so choose, and you can keep using poor formatting and forgetting to sign your posts even though there's a message for how to do so every time you open the gods damned page to edit it. Doesn't matter, you still look like an insecure moron. Oh and if you keep edit warring I'll just revert it and lock the page, because to be honest I just don't want to deal with an idiot from 4chan who can't be bothered to fucking learn how the Wikimedia interface works. To summarize, prove your claims (or retract them), learn to use the interface correctly, and stop acting like a spoiled 12 year old. Failing that there's nothing more to say. Thank you for completely ignoring this advice. Ta! 16:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * One last parting shot, for such an adamant opponent of censorship, you sure do like censoring your opponents. Food for thought. 16:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm the most active propogandist here, ask me anything about heritability, the validity of twin studies, the underlying assumptions of g and whether you're full of shit. I've got the full records on all of them.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The citations do not support content in the article
The second sentence in the first paragraph states "According to David Gillborn, although he believes non-whites to be genetically inferior, he is a practitioner of racial inexplicitness, the tactic of advancing racist policies without directly mentioning race." The citation does not claim Gillborn stated Plomin "believes non-whites to be genetically inferior." If you believe the reference suggest that, please include a quote.

The first sentence in the second paragraph states "Plomin argues that differences in wealth and social class are caused by differences in genetic ability" but the two cited references do not state Plomin believes wealth and social class are determined by genetics. This statement appears to be an opinion of Plomin's work. In fact in an interview, Plomin stated his research did not include the affects of serious trauma and neglect, and the results cannot infer differences in intelligences between countries and people who have suffered different degrees of significant neglect and trauma. He said his research tested people who were exposed to the normal degree of trauma and opportunity, so his research can only be used to infer the genetic causes for the differences in intelligence for that population of people. See the interview How DNA Makes Us Who We Are with Robert Plomin.

This second sentence is untrue. It states, "In a typical biological determinist fashion, he also thinks that his own obesity is due to genes rather than due to his lifestyle and diet." The article does not say he is obese, and Plomin does consider lifestyle and diet. The article quotes him saying, "To Plomin, whose weight sometimes nears 240 pounds, the genetic prediction explains his lifelong battle with starches and sweets. “People will say, ‘Oh, there’s nothing you can do—you’re a genetic fatty,’ but it helps me to know. It’s a constant battle of the bulge,” he says." When he says, "it's a constant battle" he is implying he struggles to have a healthy lifestyle and diet due to his genetic predisposition to obesity, so he does recognize lifestyle and diet.

The last sentence is untrue and a sloppy interpretation of the reference. It states "He has partnered with Steve Hsu, the head of China's eugenics program, to advocate policies such as allocation of resources away from lower-class families, mandatory abortion of children with genetic disorders, and racial segregation." Please read the referenced article, it does not support this claim, so the sentence needs to be rewritten.

I think Plomin's work is subject to misunderstanding because, in my opinion, he uses a lot of genetically deterministic hyperbole so critics focus on that, but if you listen to his entire views on genetics, he does recognize the importance of environment. I don't think it's accurate to label him as a social darwinist, and he may not even be a hereditarian or a genetic-determinist. I think he just may underemphasize the importance of environment because of the difficulty of explaining his complex research and because he knows taking a controversial position will help to attract readers. In the video I cited, he seemed to concede that his phrase, and title of his Psychology Today article, Parents Matter but They Don’t Make a Difference is confusing and misleading and he should have explained that better.

There needs to be more concern taken with this article. It is not libel defamation if it is an opinion based on a disclosed fact, but the sloppy interpretation of these references are not facts. What I see in this article are opinions based on untrue statements. Redpepper (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , those seem to be reasonable criticisms of this stub. Perhaps the original author of this page,, would care to comment? Bongolian (talk) 04:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)