Jason Arday dead

[ThisWiseRobin]

Just putting this out there, but just heared.A sad end to a whole sorry mess.

Honestly, as you wish.

We have deviated from Arday’s alleged plagiarism and porkies - a veritable mountain of deceit.

Coupled with Cambridge’s virtue-signalling, and white saviour bollocks.

This is the real story - everything that follows is academic (no pun).

Well the more useful questions are what is Intelligence and how do we define it?

The answers to those questions helps with the rest.

Let’s for now define it as being able to do well on IQ tests. Any definition is going to be arguable but that one gives us a clear definition to work with.

It does, but it is problematic. IQ tests may measure something but it's not necessarily intelligence. But again that depends on how one defines intelligence. Anyway now is not the time, I was getting invested (I'm a psychologist). Work to do.

Getting back to questions about Arday's support network or lack of one, I have just seen that his mother was (is?) a mental health nurse.

Yes I agree. We have some idea of what intelligence is, and try to create tests to get at that thing. The tests aren’t the thing.

But for the purpose of my earlier questions I think just defining intelligence as tested IQ allow us to get to those moral questions without tying up in knots on measurement issues.

Yet didn’t recognise any traits in her son that may have warranted some medical intervention.

Actually, don’t mention his family, even as a rhetorical question or general question about anyone not seeing the fantasists lies.

As they can’t accuse me of racism; they now tried to paint another faux outrage for even daring to suggest something.

so many people will have questions to answer to, even if it’s just questioning themselves. Far too many people seemed to overlook the obvious.

One would imagine that living with all that alleged deceit, would have had a negative impact on one’s MH. Especially when one is then subject to an investigation, and a book deal is at risk.

I am no MH expert - it’s just how I would feel in such circumstances.

a few clarification points:

• academics are not "off" during the summer more than any other professions. We are not school teachers. We have research and PGT students who do not stop, plus our own research.
• academics are not all left wing voters. Many vote righ. A few are at the right of right.
• many academics are critical of EDI, or gender theory
• most academics are not interested in selling an ideology to students (i speak of those in the sciences mostly, which is my background)
• most academics are deeply critical of universities politics and their corporatisation
• some, like me, dislike trials of academic matters by public opinion, when the matters and context are so poorly understood.

then scroll up, and you ll see exactly what i wrote.

As an academic, do you accept that robust scrutiny of the integrity of research is sacrosanct?

(Disclosure: I have a finance background, where, in my case, high professional standards and personal integrity are non-negotiable)

Please don't feel bad🌺

I am a bit confused about why copying and pasting someone else’s work and passing it off as your own isn’t considered plagiarism? From my postgrad work I seem to remember about 10% of your word count can be quotes from other people but you have to reference it as their words and not yours. If people are running the phd and papers through something simple like a text matcher and finding unattributed quotes (and adding a couple of synonyms doesn’t make it your own work), then it’s pretty cut and dried? I am not seeing where the nuance is here

I said work in education, which doesn't just include universities. My sister is head of a department at a rather well known university so actually I do understand how universities work etc. Also quite frankly most you points are a little weird because I have not suggested all any group of people are thinking or what their beliefs are politically or ideology or anything else. Just sympathy started the current concerns regarding universities many people have.

Totally get you are upset I referenced your own reference time not understanding politics regarding this case or politics as a whole whatever it was you meant but no need to make up stuff in your head you think I meant or try to act like you understand any of these points you have just posted now when you clearly have already said you don't confession. That is not saying your points are not correct it is saying you talk about stuff you don't understand then try to act like an expert or whatever. Just wanted to be very clear of my feelings on this and how it reads from your posts etc.

It is not unusual for hcp's to not notice physical or mh issues with family members, he may also have been very good at masking his mh issues

His family will feel enough pain as it is without the questioning how a mh professional missed signs that people are alluding too

OK, you're the expert in that field. If he was asserting black people were less intelligent and exploring that, I'm not concluding he is a racist. Surely he's testing a hypothesis. It would depend on how he acted on his findings for me. I don't know enough about his work to form a sound judgement. At first glance, that was my thinking.

So you knowledge that it’s used as a slur. And that you don’t like it when people use slurs an labels against you.

Why sink to that level then?

Based on your reading of his work and other output or something else?

Yes, absolutely, robust scrutiny of research integrity is essential, provided that the process is thorough, fair and evidence-based.

Fairness also requires that the assessment is conducted by people with the relevant disciplinary knowledge and expertise.

my position is that boundaries of expertise should be clearly defined and respected. I know the limits of my own expertise: I would not presume to assess complex issues in the sociology of education, for example. If appropriately qualified experts in another field conclude that there has been a research-integrity breach, I respect this assessment.

on personal integrity- I generally separate the work from the person. Someone may have produced valuable research while also having breached academic or professional standards (e.g., the Watson and Crick case) - however, with JA, i have no clue about the significance of anythink he may have written, it s miles from my own specialty.

It’s a shame the thread has become about the same old tribal bullshit of left and right and demeaning people based on their jobs (!) Most people are not entirely left or entirely right wing, in my experience, and even more aren’t sure either way so it doesn’t add anything.

It had been quite interesting to read different perspectives on the evidence and information we know, even where I don’t agree, without the same old grievances. But alas. Some of the pp complaining the most about being labelled are those who have been the most insulting - one of you called me ‘it’, one of you said you won’t take me seriously, because I don’t agree with you. These ante fairly personal, not really on topic or jokey comments. And yet you’ve the nerve to complain about others! It’s pretty funny, but also a shame.

You tend to bite back, when it's a regular occurence.

Based on an interview I watched where he talked about measuring different attributes by examining genetic groups. Key words: exam, explore, probe.

I’m so glad you said this. I have always thought this but never seen it articulated before. I believe all humans have the same value. I don’t think more intelligent people are superior or less intelligent people inferior. I don’t think someone cleverer than me is better than me, and vice versa. Why is it so often assumed, by people who claim to believe in human equality, that this is the case?

I am not sure what specific point you are making, because your response moves between your sister’s position and the knowledge it affords you, my comments about politics, my alleged lack of expertise and the upset you wrongly perceive.

Cofnas, himself, has discussed pushback on his work. Should I argue against the notion that white people are more fragile than black or should I welcome research on this?