7 ms·

Why is this a taboo topic?

defen 9y ago
Because people are afraid of what they might find. Because people are afraid it will be used to justify scientific racism. Because people are afraid of being cast out of polite society. Basically everything that Charles Murray predicted 20 years ago has come true or is coming true, but he literally gets physically assaulted if he tries to speak on college campuses.
douche 9y ago
Good question... unfortunately it tends to conflict with various socio-religious-philosophic categories.
brobinson 9y ago
It would completely upend the belief that "all men are created equal"
- backpropaganda 9y ago
  Is it okay to ask if people in certain geography are better athletes than others?
  - metaphorm 9y ago
    the taboo seems to be primarily centered around psychological traits rather than bodily ones.
  - snowwrestler 9y ago
    Geographic effects on athleticism: most people get out of breath speed-walking in Tibet because the air is thinner. It's hard to run in Antarctica because of all the clothes you have to wear to stay alive in extreme cold. Most people can only do a few push-ups before drowning when placed on the floor of the continental shelf off Cape Cod.
  - aedron 9y ago
    All I know is never bet on the white guy.
- throwanem 9y ago
  Only in the most shallow possible reading. Here's the context: > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Equal, in other words, not in innate capacities - a patently foolish notion, to anyone who's known enough people to count on two hands - but rather in worth in the eyes of God, and thus, deriving from that ultimate source of morality, in the eyes of men as well - and further, that deriving from this radical equality, all men possess in the same degree those rights which enable the construction of a worthy and satisfactory life, each man by his own lights. Yes, Jefferson was a slaveowner, and yes, for all the protestations of 'man' meaning the species, he did somewhat forget about women. The Declaration is in every sense aspirational, and we need not discard its astonishing and rather lovely idealism because its author had feet of clay. Nor need we discard it because of genetic determination of intelligence, to whatever extent that occurs. To do so requires that we take as axiomatic, or self-evident, that intelligence is the only meaningful measure of human worth. I don't think that accurately describes the world in which we live. I don't think that such a world is one that any of us wants to see built, and if we find ourselves having done so nonetheless, I confide that history will judge us most harshly for it - and deservedly so, as I can imagine few regimes more chilly to optimism and hope, more destructive of ambition and achievement, than that in which a particular combination of abstract reasoning and symbol-manipulation skills holds perfect hegemony over the conception of human value, and all else is treated as fungible and ultimately meaningless.
  - andai 9y ago
    Do you have a blog or something?
    - throwanem 9y ago
      I probably should, but I find I'm a much more effective writer in discourse. Not having anyone to talk to feels unnatural. ETA: Speaking vaguely of, did you know that the domain mentioned in your profile redirects to http://www.akashaviametatron.com http://www.akashaviametatron.com ?
gnrlist 9y ago
As far as I understand it, it's taboo because the results will be misused, and any results that do exist will not necessarily apply to the genetics 100 years from now but the consequences of their misuse would. And unless we're going to go full Gattaca, then I'm not sure what good the results would be.
aidenn0 9y ago
Because imagine this[1] applied to a topic that can be used to encourage eugenics and institutionalized racism. 1: http://phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174 http://phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174

Because people are afraid of what they might find. Because people are afraid it will be used to justify scientific racism. Because people are afraid of being cast out of polite society. Basically everything that Charles Murray predicted 20 years ago has come true or is coming true, but he literally gets physically assaulted if he tries to speak on college campuses.

douche 9y ago

Good question... unfortunately it tends to conflict with various socio-religious-philosophic categories.

brobinson 9y ago

It would completely upend the belief that "all men are created equal"

backpropaganda 9y ago
Is it okay to ask if people in certain geography are better athletes than others?
- metaphorm 9y ago
  the taboo seems to be primarily centered around psychological traits rather than bodily ones.
- snowwrestler 9y ago
  Geographic effects on athleticism: most people get out of breath speed-walking in Tibet because the air is thinner. It's hard to run in Antarctica because of all the clothes you have to wear to stay alive in extreme cold. Most people can only do a few push-ups before drowning when placed on the floor of the continental shelf off Cape Cod.
- aedron 9y ago
  All I know is never bet on the white guy.
throwanem 9y ago
Only in the most shallow possible reading. Here's the context: > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Equal, in other words, not in innate capacities - a patently foolish notion, to anyone who's known enough people to count on two hands - but rather in worth in the eyes of God, and thus, deriving from that ultimate source of morality, in the eyes of men as well - and further, that deriving from this radical equality, all men possess in the same degree those rights which enable the construction of a worthy and satisfactory life, each man by his own lights. Yes, Jefferson was a slaveowner, and yes, for all the protestations of 'man' meaning the species, he did somewhat forget about women. The Declaration is in every sense aspirational, and we need not discard its astonishing and rather lovely idealism because its author had feet of clay. Nor need we discard it because of genetic determination of intelligence, to whatever extent that occurs. To do so requires that we take as axiomatic, or self-evident, that intelligence is the only meaningful measure of human worth. I don't think that accurately describes the world in which we live. I don't think that such a world is one that any of us wants to see built, and if we find ourselves having done so nonetheless, I confide that history will judge us most harshly for it - and deservedly so, as I can imagine few regimes more chilly to optimism and hope, more destructive of ambition and achievement, than that in which a particular combination of abstract reasoning and symbol-manipulation skills holds perfect hegemony over the conception of human value, and all else is treated as fungible and ultimately meaningless.
- andai 9y ago
  Do you have a blog or something?
  - throwanem 9y ago
    I probably should, but I find I'm a much more effective writer in discourse. Not having anyone to talk to feels unnatural. ETA: Speaking vaguely of, did you know that the domain mentioned in your profile redirects to http://www.akashaviametatron.com http://www.akashaviametatron.com ?

gnrlist 9y ago

As far as I understand it, it's taboo because the results will be misused, and any results that do exist will not necessarily apply to the genetics 100 years from now but the consequences of their misuse would. And unless we're going to go full Gattaca, then I'm not sure what good the results would be.

aidenn0 9y ago

Because imagine this[1] applied to a topic that can be used to encourage eugenics and institutionalized racism. 1: http://phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174 http://phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174