The post complains about “scientific racists” at the conference, with there being a minimum of eight:
I would be comfortable putting a total of eight people under the eugenics/HBD label. There might be more, but I am not an expert.
We can debate whether it’s closer to eight or closer to twelve but let’s take eight as the conservative estimate. You say:
we had about sixty such special guests
And:
i think that, on balance, we were like ~5% too edgy or something — but the way that i’d aim to correct this is by having the makeup of speakers more accurately represent my internal set of beliefs and interests (which happens to be like ~5% less edgy)
So 8 out of 60 means that 13.333% of the speakers were “scientific racists” and if we decrease that by 5 percent we end up with five “scientific racists”. So is this correct? Will you invite five “scientific racists” as speakers next time?
The post complains about “scientific racists” at the conference, with there being a minimum of eight:
We can debate whether it’s closer to eight or closer to twelve but let’s take eight as the conservative estimate. You say:
And:
So 8 out of 60 means that 13.333% of the speakers were “scientific racists” and if we decrease that by 5 percent we end up with five “scientific racists”. So is this correct? Will you invite five “scientific racists” as speakers next time?