There are always double standards for evidence on extremely politically incorrect conclusions. Rather than having a 50-50 prior on questions, you must demonstrate beyond doubt and if your evidence is lacking, they go back to being confident of their PC conclusion. If you lack adequate evidence, it's evidence that you are biased. If you have overwhelming evidence, they will accuse you of being obsessive and having unsavory goals that motivate the obsession. As Cofnas said, they will say that the evidence doesn't support the un-PC conclusion because it's still logically possible.
Cofnas is a slow talker, like me. When I started listening to the interview I wished he would pick up the pace. But by the end of it I was glad for that pace. I can fully and easily understand everything he said, whereas the fast talkers are liable to slip a few things past me. I read some of the past articles written by Cofnas, such as the one in which he accidentally reinvented the argument of Arthur Jensen, that between-group heritability is partly a function of within-group heritability, and so I knew that each plodding word of his carries precision and firepower.
There are always double standards for evidence on extremely politically incorrect conclusions. Rather than having a 50-50 prior on questions, you must demonstrate beyond doubt and if your evidence is lacking, they go back to being confident of their PC conclusion. If you lack adequate evidence, it's evidence that you are biased. If you have overwhelming evidence, they will accuse you of being obsessive and having unsavory goals that motivate the obsession. As Cofnas said, they will say that the evidence doesn't support the un-PC conclusion because it's still logically possible.
Cofnas is a slow talker, like me. When I started listening to the interview I wished he would pick up the pace. But by the end of it I was glad for that pace. I can fully and easily understand everything he said, whereas the fast talkers are liable to slip a few things past me. I read some of the past articles written by Cofnas, such as the one in which he accidentally reinvented the argument of Arthur Jensen, that between-group heritability is partly a function of within-group heritability, and so I knew that each plodding word of his carries precision and firepower.
Cofnas has a quiet and measured demeanor, but he really does an effective job taking the HxA leadership to the woodshed for their duplicity.