Highlights from the comments: @wjpmitchell3 writes,
Actual psychology researcher: the problem with IQ is A) We don't really know what it's measuring, B.) We don't really know how it's useful, C.) We don't really know how context-specific it is, D.) When people make arguments about IQ, it's often couched around prejudiced ulterior motives. No one actually cares about IQ; they care about what it's a proxy measure of and we don't have good evidence yet to say "This is a reliable and broadly-encompassing representation of intelligence." or whatever else, so if you are trying to use IQ differences to say that there are race differences in intelligence, you have no grounds. The best you can say is there are race differences in this proxy measure that we're still trying to understand. It's dangerous to use an unreliable and possibly inaccurate representation of a phenomena to make policy changes or inform decisions around race. The evidence threshold has to be extremely high because we're entering sensitive ethical spaces, which is something that rationalist don't do well in because their utilitarian calculus has difficulty capturing the intangibles.
@arnoldkotlyarevsky383 says,
Nothing wrong with being self educated but she comes across as being not as far along as you would want someone to be in their self-education before being given a platform.
@User123456767 observes,
You can kind of tell she grew up as a Calvinist because she still seems to think she's part of the elect she's just replaced an actual big G God with some sort of AI God.
@jaredsarnie3712 begins,
I feel like so much of what she says boils down to finding bizarre hypothetical situations where child sexual abuse is morally acceptable.
And from @Fruuuuuuuuuck:
Doomscroll gooner arc
Scandinavian fathers and sons are famously not close.