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.— Unsigned, by: WikiWomble / talk / contribs
- 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)
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)
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)
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.
- "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 15:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)