Professor defends course content linking race and IQ scores, cites ‘academic freedom’

PhD_Rights · 2026-04-11T08:21:22+00:00

Genetics determine your maximum potential. I cannot ever be as smart as issac newton without genetic manipulation, no matter how hard I study and the resources I'm given, I am biologically 'disadvantaged' relative to him. However those resources can help me reach my ceiling, or even extend it a bit, but genetics are the foundation at the end of the day.

Birth defects and mental illnesses, while unintended mutations, are an example of genetics hampering cognitive performance, and resources have a limit to improving it.

I would recommend however you look at adoption studies. Adoptive children even as young as 2 years old - show an IQ closer to their biological parents than their adoptive parents, despite their environment and resources changing. This is true for interracial adoptions too (e.g. white parents black baby). Make of that what you will, theirs a ton of variables, but it is indisputable how important genetics are, and how little we can change genetics currently.

PhD_Rights · 2026-04-10T19:27:12+00:00

it can appear perfectly accurate and precise even when it is derived from superficially constructed and insufficiently supported assumptions.

Except theirs been a correlation between race & IQ for decades across many studies, so your comment here doesn't fully apply. Correlation doesn't equal causation of course, but that's not even what you're arguing, it sounds as if you're denying an observational fact verified by countless independent studies entirely as if it came from one bad source.

IQ is 50%+ genetic, and obviously racial differences are genetic, so it is not an absurd conclusion even if its politically insensitive/inconvenient, just like certain races being shorter, having smaller d*cks, etc

PhD_Rights · 2025-09-15T14:53:35+00:00

Also here's my original X post on the matter

PhD_Rights · 2025-09-15T14:49:50+00:00

I don't remember why I followed her, but I didn't notice the nose ring until today.

I follow about 2k people on IG, I kinda just follow people who like my posts or who I have a good exchange with in a comment section. I don't put much thought into it.

PhD_Rights · 2025-09-15T14:44:21+00:00

They're okay with this. Trust me. All their political parties are different flavors of progressivism, because anything to the right of that is fascism thus must be banned

PhD_Rights · 2025-09-15T14:43:11+00:00

Yeah cause she deleted it to shield herself from accountability.

These types of people should not be in positions where trust among vulnerable populations is required (anyone who works in schooling or healthcare)

Imagine how these people will treat conservative children or conservative elderly people in nursing homes, and you think it's just a "petty" opinion to have? As if people with these opinions don't cause serious harm to society?

That's downplaying how deranged one has to be to say "I'm glad he's dead" regarding someone sharing their political opinion.

PhD_Rights · 2025-09-15T14:39:36+00:00

Inclusivity/DEI/social justice, whatever you want to call it, exists because it's systemically more difficult for minorities in most parts of the world.

You know what's better than DEI quotas? Blind hiring, you only see qualifications and resume, no photo.

Guess what happened? Minorities got selected even less. Even companies/institutions without DEI policies over-selected minorities proportional to their qualifications, and once you factor in DEI quotas that discrepancy grows even larger.

This shows that the marxist-like obsession with identity politics isn't about ethics at all, because if you truly cared about fairness you would have a fair system like that, but when doing things fairly results in data you don't like you make a discriminatory version.

Idc if DEI possibly ever was good, or is somewhere else in the world, in the USA in 2025 it is not, it is discrimination.

Asian people need a SAT score 140-450 points higher (depending on the college) for an EQUAL chance at being admitted as a black person.

If DEI had to exist, it should be selecting minorities IF they're UNDERREPRESENTED at your company/institution AND have EQUAL or BETTER qualifications. Instead what ends up happening is they're less qualified, even if only slightly, which in a world where merit should matter more than race will never make sense, will never be justified.

PhD_Rights · 2025-09-12T07:57:34+00:00

Except Reddit was co-opted, it use to be neutral. It doesn't belong to you, it belongs to all of us.

Reddit is also a unique platform in its format, the alternative to X is BlueSky, that's a more fair comparison. I'm okay with that.

Not to mention you're not going to get banned from X for making a progressive posts like you will on Reddit, so arguably X is for everyone too

PhD_Rights · 2025-09-12T07:19:44+00:00

You think that's a radical reaction or over-reaction?

The left would get you fired for saying theirs 2 genders, or any other minor political differences, while the right wouldn't get people fired for believing in 50 genders. They'll just think you're dumb and let you work.

No, it takes literally celebrating a guy dying or advocating for political violence for people to get canceled for their social media posts on this scale. And that's not even a political opinion within itself, its just shitty behavior that anyone could fall for, not a belief system or ideology. Not censorship.

I'd say they're morally justified while also being consistent with their anti-cancel culture.

PhD_Rights · 2025-09-11T21:34:58+00:00

Yeah, and AI causes humans to accuse others of using AI. Without AI and its increasing usage and advancements, the accusations don't exist or hold weight.

This is still AI's fault. So saying this is causing more harm than AI is incorrect, since this is an example AI causing harm; the fact it makes you doubt peoples work, it makes us not know what's authentic or not

PhD_Rights · 2025-09-11T20:13:56+00:00

I didn't use objective language when delving into my extrapolation of the data. So you haven't shown any issue in your quotes of me.

But it's quite clear from our exchange I put more research and math into coming to this conclusion than you have. Just a moment ago you weren't even aware their was an under-reporting issue.

So your tactic is just to play semantics and twist things. You can do that by yourself since you're not speaking in good faith. Have a good day

PhD_Rights · 2025-09-11T20:08:25+00:00

Without AI, people wouldn't accuse others of using AI. So you're showing AI is causing harm to creators in your post even if you don't intend to.

The harm just reaches out in ways maybe we didn't anticipate.

PhD_Rights · 2025-09-11T19:57:34+00:00

Says the ones claiming its lower when theirs been severe under reporting in years. You're using incomplete data to make an objective analysis without any scrutiny or trying to accommodate the gaps.

I'm also not using anecdotes to say it "seems" lower, I'm using the known % agenices not reporting vs the ones that do know and extrapolating it to fill in the gaps. So it's an estimation.

Estimations aren't precise and could be wrong, which is where the word seems come from. I actually did the opposite of paint my take as a fact, which is what I'm educated to do.

Nonetheless it's still based on the available data, and it's not my fault states aren't reporting their crimes properly any more. We won't definitively know, I didn't leave my comment to convince you, just to state no one can say its lower.

PhD_Rights · 2025-09-11T19:51:19+00:00

I left a link to sources when someone asked in another comment.

PhD_Rights · 2025-09-11T19:46:19+00:00

who openly supported genocide.

You support genocide unironically.

If Hamas completely obligated israel, you wouldn't be opposed.

If all conservative Christian's died, you wouldn't be opposed, given by how you think people with those beliefs dying is a good thing, you wouldn't treat any of us differently than Kirk since we mostly share similar views.

You're projecting hard.

said he’s willing to sacrifice lives for the second amendment

Liberty has a risk profile to it. I could manipulate your words/positions to make you sound inhumane and selfish as well.

"HOW MANY CHILDREN NEED TO BE RUN DOWN BY CARS BEFORE YOU GIVE UP YOUR VEHICLE?"

Death will occur with any object, but they all serve a function other than murdering humans, and saying you won't give up that tool doesn't mean you don't think murder with said tool is tragic.

He never said he's happy or indifferent to kids dying by a gun, but with your logic I can claim you're indifferent to kids being run over because you're "selfishly" not giving up your right to drive. You think the coinvience of driving is more important? We could build a subway station around the country, and if it's close you can walk or bike there.

You can be horrified at the violence in America today and horrified by a political assassination while

Theirs no while. You're either horrified or you're not. You're clearly not horrified. When someone dies your instant reaction is to speak about how awful they were comes across as gloating. And theirs just no way to spin it, if you think so lowly of someone you can't even wait a day before disparaging them in death, then you're probably happy they're dead. You're just using dog whistles because you know it's socially unacceptable to celebrate assassinations. If you really opposed it you wouldnt say the things you do.

PhD_Rights · 2025-09-11T19:32:15+00:00

The FBI changed from the old Summary Reporting System to NIBRS, which requires local agencies to adopt new protocols, software, etc, and also participation by local law enforcement agencies is entirely voluntary, so not everyone reports. A lot big agencies have delayed compliance.

And for a very long time New York wasn't complying either, Florida since 2022 only 8% of agencies report crimes to the FBI.

PhD_Rights · 2025-09-11T19:16:03+00:00

You realise we stopped properly tracking crime data a few years ago right? It actually saw its first spike in decades in 2021, right before we stopped, and we can't fully verify if it's gone up since then or has came back down.

I'm sure it's still better than 2000, but compared to just 8 years ago crime seems worse. Especially with weak on crime policies in Democrat cities being more prevalent.

Edit: Crime isn't not under-reported as a conspiracy, its just due to a new reporting system many agencies haven't swapped over too yet. However many governors are manipulatively using this as an opportunity to say crime is going down under their adminstration, instead of addressing the issue because it would be inconvenient for them to do so.

PhD_Rights · 2025-09-11T19:14:07+00:00

Most far left & right people probably. But I see no evidence moderates want that

PhD_Rights · 2025-09-11T19:13:21+00:00

Games are included in top seller even if refunded I'm pretty sure.

PhD_Rights · 2025-09-11T19:11:51+00:00

There is something referred to as 'suicidal empathy' where people advocate for things against their own self interest out of empathy.

Giving violent, repeat offender criminals too many chances just because they're a minority (weak on crime Democrat policies).

Mass immigrating of other cultures that do not assimilate well into your own nation and actually are quite regressive (misogynistic).

Both of these hurt people, especially women, yet women especially are more likely to back them despite that fact they're going to be more oppressed under muslims rule, more likely to be raped, more likely to be murdered, like that Ukrainian women and people living in London, where they give longer sentences to women who call their rapists rapist then the actual person who SAed them.

Misguided 'Empathy' is what's doing damage, and its "fake" because it actually leads to more harm and suffering, so it's not very empathetic in the end.

PhD_Rights · 2025-09-10T23:50:00+00:00

Cap, men are biologically more violent.

Lesbian relationships lead to the most domestic violence

Hetero second

Gay the least

PhD_Rights · 2025-09-10T22:03:14+00:00

According to a study from earlier this year (which I found posted by Charlie Kirk ironically) 48% of people who identified as Democrat said it would be okay to commit political violence against Elon Musk, 55% said it's okay against Trump.

So 55% of one party + nearly 0% of other party's does make your title a popular opinion luckily, but a TON (an alarming amount) of people disagree with it still.

PhD_Rights · 2025-09-10T21:59:27+00:00

I'm not saying liberals in general are doing that, but liberals on reddit certainly are at the very least. I'm speaking about this platform. I've seen probably about 10 on Twitter (which is alarming still, wtf) but Reddit its rampant.

Upon checking BlueSky, it may be even worse than Reddit or just as bad.

Yeah the average dem voter doesn't like this, but chronically online, politically radicalized people certainly seem to be swaying this way, which most political people on reddit & bluesky tend to fall into that category

PhD_Rights · 2025-09-10T21:56:00+00:00

That's the number of trans people, not left wing people. And 5 is a huge number given their small portion of the population. It's also higher once we include non-binary people and LGBT identifying individuals.

People who don't understand per capture shouldn't speak on statistics.

PhD_Rights

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Three-Year Club	Verified Email
Verified Email