Tech journo Milo Yiannopoulos has lost his claim to ethics

When he does an opinion piece on a point of active science. (Minus experts to support his specious claims). I have lost my former high regard for him. He became a sophist. Oh, the things I am sent by infuriated research psychologists. You should see how blue the air turned at this one.

Title: Sorry girls! But the smartest people in the world are all men!

Think of the stereotype of trolling - white straight male aka Patriarchy. Did they appropriate the term?
(patronizing Buzzfeed-esque address)+(claim to scientific authority against presumed naive reader)+(geniuses+polymaths subgroup)
= claim: no women (ever, at present or in future)

Operative absolute highlighted for your scorn.

I won’t link to the troll and the article is a patronizing piece of shit. You can tell he has no critical training in the field of data interpretation even if you took a drunken night class 10 years ago for a semester. It’s that painfully bad. Either he didn’t do the research (his actual job) into the history of females in that group, or he would’ve immediately found this, to look for the negative evidence, the black swan OR he knew, he bloody knew and left it out. The disclaimer required. The distinction to be made. One line:

It is fine to critique performance, but impossible to disprove potential.

Rarity speaks nothing of ability. As we say, to omit this distinction would remove all claim to both internal and external validity. Rendering it totally invalid….?
The ethical obligation (journalists take training courses) must have …slipped his mind. To get the clicks from the fake MGTOWs putting down women (a group) as if that has anything to do with individual variance (themselves), as I’ve stated before in excruciating take-down style detail. I believe someone actually linked to me for it, I see clicks on the traffic.
He’s become the enemy, a clickwhore lying about science for political grievance (his ‘side’ doesn’t make it right). He cherry-picked a study like Anita does with male violence and his foundation of relative morality has evaporated.
It would be as specious, unethical and rampantly dishonest as if I had said that, say, drugged-up Ritalin boys were innately retarded instead of <insert alternative nurtured explanation here>.

I guess you could say, it’s about ethics in psychometrics journalism.

burn gif

After his great and professional work on Gamergate and he pulls this shit.

tyra rooting for you
I feel so betrayed, and I’d been defending him to people, too.

Wikipedia could prove this bitch wrong. WIKIPEDIA. THINK ABOUT THAT.
Here are the actual categories and stratification of IQ scores. Look at the words.

IQcategories1 IQcategories2 IQcategories3

IQcategories4 IQcategories5

I guess the whole research field is fucking wrong, and Milo Yiannopoulos is right.
#GalileoGambit I guess no adult woman is in the Superior Group over IQ130.
Pass Go. Collect your Nobel.

I made a chart too, Milo! About my opinion, of your opinion!


The IFLScientism Crowd will be totes impressed! Because the scientific method is like Mythbusters, anyone can do it! If you do a random thing, like find a thing and write about it, you can throw on a lab coat and call it a day. You earned that degree, that PhD in Internetz. If I write in a diary about an ice cream I just consumed, it’s science! And going by your logic, nobody can claim otherwise! If I claim the ice cream opened a portal to another dimension, and made a moral value judgement that it was, in fact, evil, an evil ice cream, I am under no positive Burden of Proof for this negative opinion, in fact, the burden shifts onto everyone else! Isn’t science fun? You can just make it up, all day! It counts! And I made charts so it’s legit, fam! It has Hindu numerals and shit!
Because dissent isn’t the natural process of scientific progress or anything, it’s a conspiracy theory like Patriarchy!

You would think that a technology journalist, who rely on personal popularity, wouldn’t alienate half the STEM field? How is this a plan for career longevity, exactly? I know people who are now blacklisting him for this, since he clearly doesn’t expect people he works with, in-industry, to have read it.

Milo, if you’re reading this;tyra take responsibility

UPDATE: 48h later, I can see comments defending Milo for the article.
Comments from feminists. I leave you to your conclusions.

12 responses to “Tech journo Milo Yiannopoulos has lost his claim to ethics

  1. I read the article. He doesn’t claim “no adult woman is in the Superior Group over IQ130”. He does claim that about 2.5 times as many men as women have IQs in the range 130-150, and the disparity gets bigger as you go higher. The finding that IQ variance is higher for boys/men than for girls/women is one that has been replicated many times, and is accepted as a fact by many researchers. I used to be a member of Mensa for a while. The threshold for admission is 130 (on a scale where 1 s.d. = 15 points), 130 is not very high, really. About 2.3% of people meet the criterion. There are plenty of female members of Mensa. (Men tended to outnumber women at the meetings I attended, but that doesn’t necessarily mean a thing.)

    • Based on one study. An atypical study in method and data. He makes predictions claims about half the planet, throughout all of time and history, based on a single datapoint (that one female high-scorer) and even mocks the women reading with the dividing by 0 BS.
      I’ve noticed most straight men are absolutely clueless when it comes to interpreting the words of gay men. Unsurprising, given the linguistic similarity to women. There are insults in there the British would pick up on, and we have, but the Americans I’ve spoken to see nothing at all. He’s using science to rib women (most of whom are not, statistically feminists) because using science to rib men is wrong. It’s very twisted and if he were straight he would be crucified for this, he’s using his sexuality as a shield while decrying identity politics.

      • It’s not just one study that has found a higher variance in make iq compared to female. Many studies going back decades have done. What’s unusual about the study Milo cited is that it has scores going up to 175 and higher. The main tests in common use have much lower limits. Plausibly, extremely high scores might come from a transferred practice effect from working in, say, mathematics or physics full time.

      • If he’s going to cherry-pick one study, over a meta, and he’s going to mock a single datapoint, like he is a scientist instead of a jumped-up scribbler, then yes, people in the field are going to take issue. The psychologists I spoke to are especially irritated by the sweeping statements on potential when what is actually being measured was performance. Yes exactly, he cherry-picked a study saying what he wants (no women in the top group) so he could insult women, made a headline that insults half his industry by telling them they don’t exist, and become a huge hypocrite.
        The general trends in the upper data are skewed for the male demo because the information on lowIQm is insufficient, it’s such a clearly biased study that claims to be predictive when anyone who knows their stuff (this is why I checked out with other people who live it) would find it another puff paper like the ones Anita uses. Or recently, the UN. And you can’t make sturdy claims about an exceptional group by studying the norm either but this seems to go over most people’s heads.

  2. You mean this?

    I can understand SOME of the points he was making, if I am going to be a Devil’s Advocate. I think the main point was that female geniuses are rare, but that doesn’t mean they were stupid or ostracized. The article that you linked with the list of female geniuses admits they are rare.

    You know how feminists will use smart and intelligent women to excuse their actions, and pieces like that usually serve to anger them. Milo IS famous as a shitlord, after all, and I do suspect that one day he will become 100% sophist. But I can see his points, as I can see yours.

    I also noticed that in the list you gave that most of the women listed were all white save for the Indian one at the end. But Germaine Greer? Simone de Beauvoir? One of the books listed there has OPRAH WINFREY as a ‘genius’! Ha ha! Michelle Obama is also listed, and some others.


    Oh, and Jane Goodall is a hack. She wouldn’t know the actual deforestation rates even if the trees smacked her in the face.

    Sorry, I’m getting off topic.

    But I do understand how certain MGTOW pull the ‘women can’t do shit’ argument. Similarly, feminists will say women can’t achieve because of sexism. Those books on female geniuses – how many say that they couldn’t do it because of sexism?

    Both are at fault. There are definitely plenty of intelligent women. But I can see Milo’s point that female geniuses are rare, and the lines of thought go like this:

    A) They couldn’t do it because of sexism
    B) They couldn’t do it because they were women.

    Not much to do except roll your eyes, eh?

    BTW – that list didn’t feature Hildegard!

    Or this badass lady:

    I find myself at odds sometimes. If I listen to the feminists, I hear that women had no rights anywhere, but Women’s History says otherwise. If I hear MGTOW, I hear the opposite and sometimes not.

    I guess we just have to keep on keeping on, right?

    • Certainly they are rare, but they do exist. Patronizing jokes don’t go over well. Consider how many geniuses society used to have, and how many we have now? If we got the correct education in place, we could have many more than another time in history, and going by Mensa demos, about 1/3 of those would be women.

      • That’s true. Especially if we factored in eugenics, as the Han Chinese do, to make sure the most intelligent survive.

        I also forgot: Empress WU Zeitang was another smart woman. She was a former prostitute and became one of China’s longest reigning rulers.

1. Be civil. 2. Be logical or fair. 3. Do not bore me.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s