Thou shallt not look at the polygenic scores

submitted by DragonerneJesus is white from self.debatealtright

https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2021/09/thou-shallt-not-look-at-the-polygenic-scores/

Emil goes through how they're trying to make "Open Science", but its hidden far behind a wall of Terms of Conditions that aren't "open" at all.

It's a good read, so I can recommend it and it is also a good article to demonstrate to leftists how their "holy science" is biased

all 11 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Nombre27 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Putting restrictions on the type of data analysis that is acceptable is completely insane.

https://twitter.com/KirkegaardEmil/status/1438599493885341696

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

It's so insane on so many levels.

Note too the tweet he's quoting is from the new It girl in genetics who is supposedly taking a balanced approach and trying to tell the left they can't ignore generits while at the same time fight off us evil eugenicist cranks who are all icky and think genes are 'everything'.

Funnily enough she's still getting buckets of slime poured on her by the left and being called a eugenicist herself who is enabling the 'alt-right'.

[–]Nombre27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Any amount of dissent is unacceptable. They do police much better, too bad it's for the worst reasons.

[–]Noam_Chomsky 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

"Polygenic scores" are algorithms that are alleged to indicate something, or another about a certain category.

Could be cancer risks, or death rates, or crime statistics, or IQ. Generally related to human group X and outcome Y, etc.

First, anyone who is fooled into believing that "social sciences" are even remotely scientific has no understanding of the inherent absurdity of the social sciences community.

The Lancet's former editor made a convincing claim that half of all medical published papers were bogus.
Medicine is much closer to an actual science than any social science.

The closest social science that could theoretically measure anything is economics.

Every real-world study is labeled, "a special case" because the economic theories are literally bullshit.

The predictions never align with the real world.

However, economics is exceedingly useful for political reasons.

Their concerns you described, are objectively funny.

The social science stupids...
Are worried their bullshit data...
Will be used by other bullshit stupids...
For bullshit reasons other than their own....

Probably the only thing the social science stupids have ever accurately predicted.

One thing is certain.

The wealthy and powerful groups will manipulate the bullshit data to produce bullshit bullshit results.

These results will then be weaponized against EVERYONE.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

The closest social science that could theoretically measure anything is economics.

LOL. Economics models are about as good as climate models.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics. Selective spin.

One thing is certain.

The wealthy and powerful groups will manipulate the bullshit data to produce bullshit bullshit results.

These results will then be weaponized against EVERYONE.

Truth.

[–]jarcalon 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Amazing how blatant the mainstream conspiracy really is.

[–]thefirststoneThat's my purse! I don't know you! 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

I agree to conduct research that strictly adheres to the principles articulated by the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) position statement: “ASHG Denounces Attempts to Link Genetics and Racial Supremacy.”(See also International Genetic Epidemiological Society Statement on Racism and Genetic Epidemiology.) In particular, I will not use these data to make comparisons across ancestral groups. Such comparisons could animate biological conceptualizations of racial superiority. In addition, such comparisons are usually scientifically confounded due to the effects of linkage disequilibrium, gene-environment correlation, gene-environment interactions, and other methodological problems.

The science is settled. 97% of genetic scientists agree that race is a social construct.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Don't you dare compare this obvious fraud with climate change. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists all over the world do in fact accept the reality of anthropocentric climate change. This is not the case with race at all. It's only in the US - and to a lesser extent in other Western countries - that so many scientists deny the existence of race.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

overwhelming majority of climate scientists

Actually, you need to look into this further.

[–]thefirststoneThat's my purse! I don't know you! 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Climate is a social construct.

[–]Noam_Chomsky 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Don't you dare compare this obvious fraud with climate change.

Thirty Years Of Failed Climate Predictions

The overwhelming majority of climate scientists all over the world do in fact accept the reality of anthropocentric climate change.

They keep quiet, so their grant funding doesn't dry up.

Similar to how most doctors are silent on the scamdemic.