No the whole book is controversial. It's a political argument for dismantling the welfare state disguised as a review of science. They laundered a bunch of work by racial eugenicists along with a bunch of other junk science methodology.

https://youtu.be/UBc7qBS1Ujo?si=bzVMwGU4XjPrk4sr

▲

nialse 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

I hear you are invested in this line of thought, and that is okay. I just don’t agree with the analysis, and not with the labeling.

▲

breakyerself 3 days ago | parent [-]

It doesn't rely on work by Eugenicists?

▲

nialse 3 days ago | parent [-]

Fortunately, science does not rely on the character of its purveyors but on the quality of the evidence.

	▲	breakyerself 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		The quality of the evidence wasn't any better than the character of the purveyors. You're an apologist for bullshit.

▲

machomaster 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Calling something "controversial" is a total non-argument. The book's science about IQ is solid.

In actuality, the content of the book was simply a collection of mainstream scientific consensus ideas at that time, without specific controversial add-ons. It's only after the book was published, the book unexpectedly was attacked by proto-woke people.

▲

breakyerself 2 days ago | parent [-]

Yeah Nazi aligned eugenicist science is totally mainstream.

	▲	machomaster 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Inventing strawman out of thin air in order to drown discussion, to attack individuals and paint them evil, that's literally what Nazis did. How ironic.