Talk:Fredrik deBoer

Prod

As of August 16th, this is a recently created page- I can and will defend the notability of this author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajaverett0 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

POV

Please be advised that the tag wasn't for notability, it was for a POV tone. Such as in the "career" section. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

The above was presumably in response to a contested prod, not the POV template.

I have adjusted and expanded the section. I have also removed the mention of the book being a NY Mag "best book" because the source did not support that. (I found the original source, and it was a listicle on Vulture.com) Publisher listings are mostly useless for blurbs anyway. Grayfell (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello Grayfell, thank you for the explanation. Also thanks for the improvements you have made to the Career section, it is in much better shape now IMHO. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of "POV", it's a fair question to ask whether Nathan J. Robinson has such a strong expertise on the subjects FdB writes about that his critique should be treated as the last word on the subject. Robison as an ideologue of the "social justice" left is worthwhile to include as an ideological critic of deBoer, but that presumes we're discussing deBoer's political views, which aren't actually discussed here in much depth. But as to the *reception* of "The Cult of Smart" (and "reception" should not simply be detractors only), I think that should be weighted toward those with some background in education and/or psychology who have reviewed the book. Peter G Werner (talk) 09:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Turkheimer "hereditarian left"?

Among psychologists who study intelligence, Turkheimer is one of the most environment-leaning, seeing environmental effects as the major explanation for IQ variance, especially in non-beneficial environments/low IQ social strata. I know of no academic psychologist or geneticist who actually studies intelligence who would deny that intelligence is to some degree genetically heritable, especially in relatively uniform beneficial environments, via direct effects and indirect effects (indirect effects via self-selected environment and parentally provided environment). Among his peers, Turkheimer is among the least hereditarian; so designating him as "hereditarian" makes little sense to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.4.211.69 (talk) 09:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Academic

Doesn’t an “academic” work in academia, as in a university or similar? The sources here for this designation are either promotional or the Business Insider - should this be removed if there’s no independent reliable source? BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

From the horse's mouth: "I live close to Yale University and sometimes I take my morning walks around there."

To earn the title of "academic", one should pay one's dues. Having taught at MIT for ten years and at Stanford for twenty years before going emeritus in order to conduct my research more independently of academia, I'd be embarrassed to be called an academic merely because I'd sometimes walked around MIT and Stanford.

Deboer's notability seems to stem more from his writing style, namely that of a reasonably well-informed but somewhat pompous pundit, rather than from the sort of insight into next week's or next year's news that we look forward to from clairvoyants like Paul Krugman. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)