Original title ‘What we talk about when we talk about risk’. article explains medical risk and why the polygenic embryo selection people think about it the wrong way. Includes a mention of one of our Scotts (you know the one). Non archived link: https://theinfinitesimal.substack.com/p/what-we-talk-about-when-we-talk-about
Yeah, he’s a very non provably non-nefarious well meaning guy who thinks Richard Lynn is on the money, cites Cremieux on the subject and platforms Emil Kirkegaard et al in the comments while giving money to aporia, and who will never shut up about IQ heritability, ever.
And it’s not like he outright admits his article that misrepresents the data this way started out as marketing material for one of those companies, or that he picked this company because he liked the cut of Jonathan Anomaly’s jib.
Edit: also, not taking your basic intuition and running with it is supposed to be the whole entire point of so-called rationalism, so what the shit?
I guess the traffic he gets from being on good enough terms with Scott to be occasionally cited as the opposing viewpoint must be worth it to him.
Scotts niceness filter is a superpower. He could tell people he wants to cannibalize them Hannibal Lector style and people would not instantly recoil and go ‘he doesn’t seem that nefarious’. It is impressive, esp as I always felt I had the opposite power, a reason for me to not go into politics. When I argue for something, people seem to instinctively want to agree with the side I’m arguing against.