Talk:Satoshi Kanazawa

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon pseudoscience.svg

This Pseudoscience related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Copperbrain.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.

"Evolution makes you hot" does make evolutionary sense (including for the selfish genes: the more attractive you are, the more likely to have (multiple) partners, and thus moe likely to have offspring. But... airheads are less likely to look after their children well, and are more likely to use prophylatics. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Beauty is entirely subjective. Also, the people most likely to use prophylactics are intelligent people, especially those with career aspirations. And moreso those who happen to be left-leaning (primarily because the further right you go, the more you encounter groups like Quiverfull and those "all women should be mothers & homemakers" types). "Airheads" are more likely to cause or have accidental pregnancies.69.249.111.215 (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Terrible article is terrible[edit]

Aside from the fact that it cites the herd of communications majors over at skepchick like they have anything to actually say about science,

"Kanazawa continued shoehorning some blatherskite about women evolving to be more beautiful into his findings"

is the kind of thing I would expect from Conservapedia. Icewedge (talk) 04:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow oh wow. The more I read this article the more I am convinced it was written by the liberal version of Andrew Schlafly. Like, what the fuck is up with the criticism that "one of the studies in the pair he published didn't even use an IQ test — he simply extrapolated "intelligence" from a verbal test." Are we denying that verbal intelligence is a decent proxy for general intelligence? Icewedge (talk) 04:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
First of all, this isn't Wikipedia. Snark is to be expected. Second of all, how is it at all comparable to the outright lies, slander, revisionism & delusion at Conservapedia? And if you think that verbal skill directly correlates to intelligence enough to determine overall intelligence from that, you are severely misguided. See: autistic geniuses, high-intelligence people raised in poor areas (thus giving them "poor verbal skills," i.e., speaking with urban or "country" speech patterns).69.249.111.215 (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

why was his name in Japanese changed from kanji to kana? I mean Kanji is much more beautiful than kana 23.16.16.207 (talk)Tony23.16.16.207 (talk)

PZ Meyer is a collection of detritus with it's own blog. A biologist that is unaware that white people have neanderthal ancestry but blacks don't. — Unsigned, by: 84.59.156.225 / talk / contribs (signed by bot) 04:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Correction: SOME white people have neanderthal DNA in their ancestry (where their ancestors mingled with Neanderthals during their migration through that species' region), and MANY blacks (because they are not a homogeny) do not.69.249.111.215 (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I can't find links to adversarial papers, sadly people shouting "bigot" seem to be the new and universal peer review process.