The standard "we are not implying causation" doesn't cut it.

"We don't mean to imply Hitler had Autism or, even if he did, that it had anything to do with what he did".

Okay... then you are telling us nothing useful, but in a vague enough way for this to be weaponized for harm.

At least this will show the implied determinism inherent in every unenumerated genetic association claim. You can't say "Hitler had some alleles associated with Autism" without someone correctly asking "what are you getting at?", "How many alleles?", or "How strongly associated?"

You capture it well. 🫡

Oklahoma is more beautiful than I realized. Wow.

Great for the very small number of people with monogenic lipid disorders. Although, for the overwhelming majority of patients with high cholesterol, this isn't a viable approach.

The man started as an unknown, at <1% in the polls, and built a campaign that defeated a political dynasty AND the sitting mayor in under a year! The idea that he would have done better if he had totally different messaging is something only someone as corrupt/inept as Chait could conclude.

Keep up the good work sir. I consider you as someone that forces us to keep an open mind, and keeps his open as well. Thanks for being open to criticism and for clarifying.

I do appreciate the clarification though and never thought you were defending bigotry. But hope you re-considering why someone may not have been an obvious bigot while in their English white male bubble, but became so as they had more chances to show their character.

I agree scientific racists are made and not born, but I think the sense of legitimacy Watson and his ilk provide are a major part of how scientific racists are made.

disagree".

Watson, like so many, teaches that we should celebrate achievements and not the achiever. Rather than wondering why his rancidity was only evident later, we could instead wonder how much more he could have accomplished if he had been open to others' ideas, esp from perceived outgroups.

Like Dawkins, Harris, Pinker, even Harden all give a veneer of credibility. That allows the "moderates" to entertain otherwise toxic ideas by framing the debate with an appeal to authority. Watson was useful to say "this Nobel winner agrees Balcks and women are naturally inferior, who are you to...

of his thinking and the Bell Curve (and the mainstream proclivity to frame it as a "debate") gave him top cover. Which is exactly why he is *more* dangerous than "standard" racists. An outright Nazi isn't subtle, so their audience has to decide to agree with overt bigotry. Watson and his ilk...

This is all good, but you should consider the fact that the Bell Curve lacked any serious scientific rigor. It's one thing for a general audience to read it and be swayed to racism, it's another for a self-proclaimed greatest scientist ever. More likely is that scientific racism was always a part...

Agree, what a remarkably sheltered and tone deaf stance from the otherwise good @nccomfort.bsky.social
Oh, "he didn't hate Black people, he just routinely stated they were genetically inferior and elevated others using genetics to advance racist policies". How do you define hate exactly?

Or Scumblebragging could also work?

Cell once emailed, 3.5 weeks after submission, saying "Congratulations! We are sending your paper for review". 6 months (!) later, it was rejected. Amazing if they believe we should celebrate a nearly month-long desk decision foreshadowing having our paper sequestered for over half a year.

If the argument is that, on the whole, any combination of microbes will have the same overall functions for humans, then🤷‍♂️... I hope you're right. Loss of keystone species obviously means more for wolves since squirrels can't take on a "deer eater" plasmid. Again, feel like it should be 'los dos' 😀

Maybe when defined by each singular function. Certainly losing one protein K producing microbe species wouldnt cause everyone to bleed to death since others will play that role. But no assurance the one that steps in for a given function will have the same overall risk/benefit balance.

Obligatory:

But if *specific* microbes are needed for health, simply changing the environment is not assured to work. Akin to banning the hunting of wolves in Yellowstone; certainly helpful, but was 'necessary but insufficient'. Not sure I'd assume lifestyle changes alone will be enough 🤷‍♂️. Maybe, but a gamble.