An intelligent approach?
Feedback always falls on deaf ears when I see publications with self-aggrandizing titles. We were intrigued by a social media post from Rebecca Shear, a demographer at Brunel University in London. He noted that publisher Elsevier has “selected a new editor.” intelligence”.
intelligenceAs you know, this is a scientific journal that publishes research that makes “significant contributions to our understanding of the nature and function of intelligence.” Feedback cannot confirm whether the editor has changed, as the journal’s ‘About’ page has not been updated, but it did advertise a new editor-in-chief in January 2024. There are reports that most members of the editorial board have changed. resigned in protest against the appointment of a new editor, but since the report was published on a far-right website, Feedback is reluctant to believe it without further evidence.
Wait a minute, you might be thinking that. How did a scientific journal change editors and transition into a far-right website?The question is, especially in the eugenics movement of the early 20th century, intelligence research justified claims of racial superiority. This means that it was sometimes exploited for this purpose. and intelligence You published a study that your racist uncle might cite favorably.
Looks like someone at Elsevier has noticed. guardian The publisher reported that it was reviewing a paper by the late Richard Lin, who claimed to have discovered variations in IQ between countries. intelligence.
Now that things are getting a little dark, let’s move on to another issue quickly. intelligence: Defining characteristics are clearly missing. Shear highlighted a paper with the seemingly innocuous title, “Temperature and evolutionary novelty as forces underpinning the evolution of general intelligence.”
The driving force is when homo sapiens The first people to migrate outside Africa encountered all sorts of new conditions, including different climates. This allowed them to evolve higher levels of intelligence. What this means for the people of Africa is left to the reader’s guess.
If this all sounds like something from the good old days of Victorian science, Feedback regrets to inform you that this paper was actually first published online in 2007. But when you swallow your nausea and take a closer look, the real joy appears.
The first problem is that the authors are calculating the distance that the population has traveled “as if by flying.” Even as a first approximation to the history of great human migrations, straight-line distances cannot be used. The history of the Great Human Migration involves people traveling to the far northeast of Asia, into North America, and on to the southern tip of South America.
But it gets better. In the same sentence, the paper’s authors say they calculated the distance “using the Pythagorean theorem.” The reader will be reminded that the Pythagorean theorem only applies to planes and not to curved surfaces. Yes, this study of the racial origins of intelligence is built on the premise that the Earth is flat.
The academic limitations are so great that a 2009 rebuttal suggested that the study could be “questionable.” Other psychologists also raised the issue with the magazine, only to be told that their criticism was “completely negative and harsh.” Paper remains alive.
Therefore, feedback would like to recommend the journal intelligence Winner of the 2025 Reverse Nomination Determinism Award.
40 eyelashes
new scientist Reporter Carmela Padavich Callahan takes up a paper about why eyelashes curl, calling it “stupid enough to warrant feedback.” Excuse me: This is a very serious column about serious things.
The study is mainly about the physics of eyelashes, explaining how they move water away from our eyes and allow us to see even when it’s raining. The process relies on “hydrophobic curved flexible fiber arrays with surface microratchets and macrocurvature.” Much has been written about the importance of eyelash curvature for adhesion and water drainage.
Then proceed to the discussion section. There, as Carmela coolly notes, “authors delve into aesthetic advice.” Modern beauty standards encourage women to use mascara “to lengthen and condition eyelashes,” which “compromises the eyelash’s protective function.” But don’t worry. The solution is just around the corner. “As a hint, for those with sparse eyelashes, hydrophobic curved false eyelashes may be a practical solution to enhance your appearance while maintaining eye protection.” Probably patent pending Shall we?
Feedback wonders if the author has any advice for middle-aged writers whose eyebrows grow so long that they end up looking like macaroni penguins if they aren’t trimmed regularly. For a friend.
Worst reading material ever
Some form of feedback has reached the mailing list of Spines, a technology company aiming to revolutionize the publishing industry through the power of artificial intelligence.
By using AI to perform editing and other tasks traditionally performed by skilled, paid humans, Spines aims to publish 8,000 books by 2025. To this, the feedback is “Yes, please.” When we look at the publishing industry’s structural problems, including its abysmal fact-checking standards for non-fiction works, we can only conclude that what we really need is an even larger volume of even lower-quality books.
Have a story for feedback?
You can email your article to Feedback at feedback@newscientist.com. Please enter your home address. This week’s and past feedback can be found on our website.
