Is "The Scientific Fundamentalist" Satoshi Kanazawa wrong?

in politics •  7 years ago  (edited)

Most of his controversial articles have been censored off of the Internet. He posted these articles before there was an Alt-Right and before SJWs were in full force. In fact his articles were the first I saw get censored. The main question is what is the opinion of Steemit on the validity of his articles? Is it all BS or is it censored because it's true?

References

  1. http://personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/
  2. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-data-are-in-regarding-satoshi-kanazawa/
  3. http://newatlas.com/ai-detects-gay-faces-criticisms-study/51278/
  4. http://mashable.com/2017/09/11/artificial-intelligence-ai-lgbtq-gay-straight/
Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

It is possible to be in the know all the by the community steemit

It's hard to understand what do you mean. IMHO.

I believe that it’s not all BS but a lot of this is him making very false conclusions based on evolutionary science. Just look at this example from 0:33 in the video: “It’s a mayor goal to all males, including all men, to find and attract mates” later disproving himself by saying that most redirect their focus to parenting once having children. Might seem picky but it’s not a very scientific statement.

I also think he confuses what our evolutionary goals should be and our actual goals are. What we want is obviously much more diverse and comes from a higher consciousness influenced by the diverse natures we we’re raised in.

He’s completely disregarding this whilst stating his first conclusions but then, kind of switches over when talking about intelligent people doing everything unnatural. In conclusion I think he’s really struggling to see the bigger picture. From the perspective of all life, or even just all mammals, all humans are in our definition REALLY intelligent. Making evolutionary psychology still a part of us, but less and less relevant compared to social and environmental factors.