Never heard of any colleague who had issues publishing stuff relating to intelligence, which makes me suspect that the “free of prejudices against this kind of research” bit is maybe a lie. I mean this in the sense that it might be not prejudice but rather just plain old judice, i.e. peer review that prevents edgelords from publishing.
Which views exactly?
Ow you know the ones.
The ones motivated by [Peter Sellers] bold curiosity for the adventure ahead! [/Sellers]?
“In recent years, the journal has come under increasing attack for publishing research that some people consider racist” lol
Ugh, still waking up so multiple comments.
Even the shittier variants of intelligence related research I know of has no big issues finding a journal. How bad must Intelligence be?
Was curious why you didn’t just link directly but then I saw the big Genetics/Human Biodiversity/Fertility Decline/Biotech block on Aporia’s front page. I guess at least they’re not hiding it.
yeah, fuck these guys
you know you’re on a fascist blog when you see so many AI illustrations
I am geniunely shocked that Elsevier had this journal under its imprint.
On one hand giving these people the veneer of science is actively going to undermine public confidence in “science” as a whole and directly make the world a worse place.
On the other hand, money.
Any content is good content as long as it creates payments in the paywall. And that must be what science is all about.
Was just reading about some goings-on at Intelligence earlier today.
Ah yes, the journal of intelligence:
First, Kanazawa’s (2008) computations of geographic distance used Pythagoras’ theorem and so the paper assumed that the earth is flat (Gelade, 2008). Second, these computations imply that ancestors of indigenous populations of, say, South America traveled direct routes across the Atlantic rather than via Eurasia and the Bering Strait.
