@NoahCarl90

Who Is This Person?

Noah Carl is a British researcher and writer known for his work on topics including intelligence, human differences, immigration, and free speech. He gained prominence as a junior research fellow at St Edmund’s College, Cambridge, from 2018 until his resignation in 2019 amid controversies over his research collaborations and publications on sensitive subjects like race and IQ. Describing himself as an 'exiled researcher,' he has since operated independently, contributing articles to outlets like Quillette, The Critic, and Areo Magazine. He maintains an active presence on Substack, where he publishes essays on politics, psychology, and culture. Recent activities (as of 2025) include tweeting on issues like Muslim immigration, crime rates, AI implications, and critiques of cancel culture, with posts engaging in ongoing debates about academic freedom and societal taboos.

Noah Carl is a credible voice in niche academic and intellectual circles for his data-driven explorations of taboo topics, supported by a background in sociology from Oxford and early publications. However, his credibility is undermined by controversies, including his 2019 Cambridge dismissal over perceived 'disrepute' from collaborations with figures accused of racism, and criticisms from critical race theorists. While he maintains factual integrity and advocates for open inquiry, his moderate conservative bias and emphasis on politically charged subjects like immigration and IQ differences lead to polarized reception—praised by free speech advocates, dismissed by mainstream academics as edging toward far-right ideas. Overall, reliable for quantitative insights but approach with caution on interpretive claims due to ideological leanings.

Assessment by Grok AI

What's Their Track Record?

Carl's work has been factually rigorous in data presentation but polarizing due to topics like human biodiversity and group differences, leading to accusations of promoting pseudoscience. No major fact-checks or corrections identified in mainstream sources, but he faced a 2018 open letter from over 500 academics criticizing his associations (e.g., with Steve Sailer). He has defended his research as evidence-based, with publications in peer-reviewed journals pre-controversy. Historical accuracy appears solid in quantitative analysis, though interpretations are contested; no evidence of deliberate misinformation, but selective framing on controversial issues.