I appreciate your writing this essay, but I still disagree with you. Continuing with Sailer. He isn't just being heterodox. He isn't just an apostate. He's arguably become a better scholar than 99.999% of academics. In perhaps the most contentious and important issue of our time–cognitive ability and possible role in group differences–he and James Thompson (both at the uncomfortable site Unz.com) have been incredibly informed resources. Learning a lot on a controversial topic and then speaking (a) controversial but scientifically unassailable truths or (b) controversial but scientifically defensible truths seems to me to be the epitome of admirable public intellectual-ship.
BTW, see this article: Sailer is ranked #1 of all "media outlets" in coverage of intelligence science.
From the article: "Only two media outlets received positive ratings, the blogs of Steve Sailer (M = 7.38, N = 26 ratings) and Anatoly Karlin (6.10, N = 10 ratings). Unfortunately, the survey did not consider James Thompson's blog Psychological Comments, which was just beginning when the survey was administered. "
Above you say “we coauthored Elephant in the Brain”, when I think you mean “he coauthored Elephant in the Brain”
Interesting point of view.
However should you give extra credit to the argument if heterodox (as opposed to the author)?
After all, if someone from Tribe B views thesis A as true seems, that seems to be a stronger symbol than Tribalist A deeming it to be true.
tldr
Pundit != Punditry and Argument != Author.
I appreciate your writing this essay, but I still disagree with you. Continuing with Sailer. He isn't just being heterodox. He isn't just an apostate. He's arguably become a better scholar than 99.999% of academics. In perhaps the most contentious and important issue of our time–cognitive ability and possible role in group differences–he and James Thompson (both at the uncomfortable site Unz.com) have been incredibly informed resources. Learning a lot on a controversial topic and then speaking (a) controversial but scientifically unassailable truths or (b) controversial but scientifically defensible truths seems to me to be the epitome of admirable public intellectual-ship.
BTW, see this article: Sailer is ranked #1 of all "media outlets" in coverage of intelligence science.
From the article: "Only two media outlets received positive ratings, the blogs of Steve Sailer (M = 7.38, N = 26 ratings) and Anatoly Karlin (6.10, N = 10 ratings). Unfortunately, the survey did not consider James Thompson's blog Psychological Comments, which was just beginning when the survey was administered. "