INTRODUCING the comparison
In this section we compare the two network; the hyperlink map ot the online controversy and the academic map made from the Scopus.
Since “Scopus” is a database of published and peer-reviewed articles this is considered the more academic and officially legitim of the two networks. Whereas the hyperlink map is more representative of a publicly available discussion of the controversy. Due to these difference there is a big difference in the composition of the two networks based in the essence and content of the actors in the networks.
One difference is the transparency of the authors. That is whether actors officially declare their name and affiliation. Some of our blogs do not declare their name, for instance the “Notpoliticallycorrect” blog does not declare the name of its author. The Abagond blog uses a pen name instead of its formally name. It is quite the opposite with our academic articles. While there have been academic writers that write under a pseudonym, the ease of which anonymity is done online is outmatched. The ability to black box or hide the source of alleged certification is also easier online. For example we find that “Abagond” claims to be an computer scientist, but there is way to confirm this.
A more visible difference between the networks is related to the clustering of the two maps. The hyperlink network is a big hairball like structure of interconnected communication. That stands as an example for the ease of online linking and the hub-like structure of the blogosphere.
The Scopus network is divided into distinct clusters based on their academic subject of study and their opinion on the controversy. Though the Scopus clusters do include articles of differing opinion of their own, as explained with the case of Richard Lynns where he links to articles he disagrees with and are linked by those.
This shows that even though there are different opinions and subject-focus in the Scopus network it displays a more diverse structure, than the big cluster of the Hyphe network.
Since “Scopus” is a database of published and peer-reviewed articles this is considered the more academic and officially legitim of the two networks. Whereas the hyperlink map is more representative of a publicly available discussion of the controversy. Due to these difference there is a big difference in the composition of the two networks based in the essence and content of the actors in the networks.
One difference is the transparency of the authors. That is whether actors officially declare their name and affiliation. Some of our blogs do not declare their name, for instance the “Notpoliticallycorrect” blog does not declare the name of its author. The Abagond blog uses a pen name instead of its formally name. It is quite the opposite with our academic articles. While there have been academic writers that write under a pseudonym, the ease of which anonymity is done online is outmatched. The ability to black box or hide the source of alleged certification is also easier online. For example we find that “Abagond” claims to be an computer scientist, but there is way to confirm this.
A more visible difference between the networks is related to the clustering of the two maps. The hyperlink network is a big hairball like structure of interconnected communication. That stands as an example for the ease of online linking and the hub-like structure of the blogosphere.
The Scopus network is divided into distinct clusters based on their academic subject of study and their opinion on the controversy. Though the Scopus clusters do include articles of differing opinion of their own, as explained with the case of Richard Lynns where he links to articles he disagrees with and are linked by those.
This shows that even though there are different opinions and subject-focus in the Scopus network it displays a more diverse structure, than the big cluster of the Hyphe network.
Scopus actors in Hyphe
An interesting point when comparing the academic and the public controversy is that, is what that is considered authorities in the separate networks does not seem to coincide at all. A major actor of the academic network such as Flynn may be mentioned often by the actors in the hyperlink map, but unlike in the scopus network, he is actually never directly linked to in the hyperlink network.
Another actor Richard Lynn does appear in both networks, he is a very active actor in the Scopus network appearing in several major clusters and generally an inescapable authority, in as far as he is referenced by both genetic determinists and proponents of the environmental explanation.
Now his website does appear in the hyperlink network. This is illustrated on the illustration to the right.
It is however as a tiny actor, referenced far less, than in the Scopus (academic) map.
The observant reader may however have noticed that again, like Flynn he is an actor often discussed by the hyperlink actors, as is documented in our Lippmannian section. This makes it even more interesting that he is not linked to more by actors discussing him.
Another example of referred experts in the hyperlink map is James Thompson, who is to be found in both networks as well. He has a central figure in the hyperlink network, where he has his own blog, here he argues for genetical differences in IQ. as a part of the alternative news blog called UNZ(founded by Ron Unz), which also generally argues for IQ as dependent on genetics.
Another actor Richard Lynn does appear in both networks, he is a very active actor in the Scopus network appearing in several major clusters and generally an inescapable authority, in as far as he is referenced by both genetic determinists and proponents of the environmental explanation.
Now his website does appear in the hyperlink network. This is illustrated on the illustration to the right.
It is however as a tiny actor, referenced far less, than in the Scopus (academic) map.
The observant reader may however have noticed that again, like Flynn he is an actor often discussed by the hyperlink actors, as is documented in our Lippmannian section. This makes it even more interesting that he is not linked to more by actors discussing him.
Another example of referred experts in the hyperlink map is James Thompson, who is to be found in both networks as well. He has a central figure in the hyperlink network, where he has his own blog, here he argues for genetical differences in IQ. as a part of the alternative news blog called UNZ(founded by Ron Unz), which also generally argues for IQ as dependent on genetics.
In our academic map Thompson is not nearly as central as Lynn but he is present in one text, where he appears as a co-author, where Lynn is main author on 19 articles and co-author on two. It is quite interesting that he is referenced more than Lynn, when Lynn is such a fundamental figure on the controversy academically.
While the reason for Thompson being linked more than Lynn in our hyperlink network is perhaps because he makes public political statements. UNZ is an alternative news blog, which provides commentary on social and political topics. Lynn doesn’t comment on social and political topics, he instead publishes scientific journals, that are then linked to. However not in the same degree as Thompson's more layman reflections more accessable people of similar opnion.
The attempts of scientists and scholars to go public, is visible in the hyperlink network in the forms of websites. However as there can be seen on the map to the left, sorted by out degree those who are large in the field of science are inactive in relation to the public. They do not engage or link out a lot, hence they are very small. This is the same for Lynn as well as Thompson here marked with yellow labels.
While the reason for Thompson being linked more than Lynn in our hyperlink network is perhaps because he makes public political statements. UNZ is an alternative news blog, which provides commentary on social and political topics. Lynn doesn’t comment on social and political topics, he instead publishes scientific journals, that are then linked to. However not in the same degree as Thompson's more layman reflections more accessable people of similar opnion.
The attempts of scientists and scholars to go public, is visible in the hyperlink network in the forms of websites. However as there can be seen on the map to the left, sorted by out degree those who are large in the field of science are inactive in relation to the public. They do not engage or link out a lot, hence they are very small. This is the same for Lynn as well as Thompson here marked with yellow labels.
Knowledge between the two networks
The contributors of academic knowledge are often utilized as expressers of experts knowledge claims in public discussions, by the public actors.
This is perhaps most visible by comparing the Lippmannian word count from sites in the hyperlink networks with authors in the Scopus network, as some of the most frequently used words on the websites is the name of authors found in the academic network map. names such as: Lynn, Flynn and Watson this type of referencing allows other actors of the internet to then discuss or refute the claims of an author or website.
In this manner the structure of the web/blog debate, visible in the hyperlink network could be examined through a comparison with the consensus conventions as held in Denmark. Consensus conventions are where public authorities in an attempt to include an informed public, in the scientific creation of knowledge, arrange panel discussions for the affected public. Here it is possible for the people to interact with each other and with authorities, often from the scientific community, in a moderated debate.
The similarity comes in the way an author of a blog first presents an opinion. They present it with references to the experts opinion, intresetingly often being actors from our more academic Scopus network, thus giving academic input to the online discourse.
The making of the public, panel like debate is perhaps best achieved in the blogs including comment sections. As our hyperlink actor Abagond is a good example of. Here a blogpost about race and IQ is followed by a lively debate with over 600 comments.
The online debate(s) is however not unmoderated as the blog author as any webhost can censor posts and comments, or more visibly in the case of Abagond, make a list of words that automatically bans posters from being seen, thus limiting the debate, as a potent moderator.
Finally it bears mention that an exception, to the general finding that information goes from the academic Scopus network and out to the more public hyperlink network, is present in the blog, aside from the case with Thompson above
Humanvarieties.
Through Humanvarities is not directly present in the Scopus network, they are very present in our hyperlink network.
Humanvarieties is in fact a published source, as they are published in the journal “Intelligence” which is itself present in the scopus network, although no article from humanvarieties is present.the fact that they are published but not truly included seems an indicator that their “science” is not part of the common contribution to the sciences in the field surrounding IQ dependency and cause.
However one thing is clear, that the blog's use the expert's knowledge to argue and gain credibility, while the experts doesn’t take the blogs seriously. The stream of knowledge can be illustrated as the picture on the top right side.
In this regard the ideal of the consensus convention comparison doesn’t quite hold up, because the blogs knowledge doesn’t make its way into the scopus network, to the scientific world. The blogs therefore doesn’t help the scientist in solving the issue of the IQ dependency controversy, which would be the goal behind the consensus convention; to take the public seriously in solving scientific problems, or even better to have the public help solve issues too radical and unprecedented for the sciences to solve themselves.
This specific breach in the chain of communication, between the public and sciences have been noted before by other scholars such as Noortje Marres who calls for public engagement with the sciences in general but specifically, on issues where the sciences have trouble reaching a consensus themselves.
This is perhaps most visible by comparing the Lippmannian word count from sites in the hyperlink networks with authors in the Scopus network, as some of the most frequently used words on the websites is the name of authors found in the academic network map. names such as: Lynn, Flynn and Watson this type of referencing allows other actors of the internet to then discuss or refute the claims of an author or website.
In this manner the structure of the web/blog debate, visible in the hyperlink network could be examined through a comparison with the consensus conventions as held in Denmark. Consensus conventions are where public authorities in an attempt to include an informed public, in the scientific creation of knowledge, arrange panel discussions for the affected public. Here it is possible for the people to interact with each other and with authorities, often from the scientific community, in a moderated debate.
The similarity comes in the way an author of a blog first presents an opinion. They present it with references to the experts opinion, intresetingly often being actors from our more academic Scopus network, thus giving academic input to the online discourse.
The making of the public, panel like debate is perhaps best achieved in the blogs including comment sections. As our hyperlink actor Abagond is a good example of. Here a blogpost about race and IQ is followed by a lively debate with over 600 comments.
The online debate(s) is however not unmoderated as the blog author as any webhost can censor posts and comments, or more visibly in the case of Abagond, make a list of words that automatically bans posters from being seen, thus limiting the debate, as a potent moderator.
Finally it bears mention that an exception, to the general finding that information goes from the academic Scopus network and out to the more public hyperlink network, is present in the blog, aside from the case with Thompson above
Humanvarieties.
Through Humanvarities is not directly present in the Scopus network, they are very present in our hyperlink network.
Humanvarieties is in fact a published source, as they are published in the journal “Intelligence” which is itself present in the scopus network, although no article from humanvarieties is present.the fact that they are published but not truly included seems an indicator that their “science” is not part of the common contribution to the sciences in the field surrounding IQ dependency and cause.
However one thing is clear, that the blog's use the expert's knowledge to argue and gain credibility, while the experts doesn’t take the blogs seriously. The stream of knowledge can be illustrated as the picture on the top right side.
In this regard the ideal of the consensus convention comparison doesn’t quite hold up, because the blogs knowledge doesn’t make its way into the scopus network, to the scientific world. The blogs therefore doesn’t help the scientist in solving the issue of the IQ dependency controversy, which would be the goal behind the consensus convention; to take the public seriously in solving scientific problems, or even better to have the public help solve issues too radical and unprecedented for the sciences to solve themselves.
This specific breach in the chain of communication, between the public and sciences have been noted before by other scholars such as Noortje Marres who calls for public engagement with the sciences in general but specifically, on issues where the sciences have trouble reaching a consensus themselves.