6 ms·

On one hand, we have Darwin, who straight up wrote a book about why some races are superior [0], and on the other hand we have extremists who take offense even

On one hand, we have Darwin, who straight up wrote a book about why some races are superior [0], and on the other hand we have extremists who take offense even at assessments like "Men are on average stronger than women." For a modern-day Darwin, we have James Watson, the father of genetics, who has some interesting things to say [1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson#Controversial_comments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson#Controversial_com... James Watson definitely has a masculine, biased perspective, but I mostly consider him to be somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. Yet, his career has suffered greatly for his remarks dealing with race and genetics. Personally, I think it is patronizing if not downright deceitful to pretend differences don't exist between isolated demographics, but it will remain a touchy subject for a long time and most scientists will see what happened to Watson and pursue other areas of research.

EthanHeilman 9y ago
>Personally, I think it is patronizing if not downright deceitful to pretend differences don't exist between isolated demographics, We don't have many isolated demographics (although there are some) both because pre-modern humans were capable of traveling over extremely long distances (i.e. isolation is unlikely) and because humans haven't been around for a particularly long time. Unlike many species humans are surprisingly genetically similar to each other[0]. Some of this also results from the fact that humans may have passed through a very small genetic bottleneck 100,000 years ago in which the human population was reduced to around 3,000-10,000 people other studies dispute this but arrive at similar genetic conclusions [1]. >but it will remain a touchy subject for a long time and most scientists will see what happened to Watson and pursue other areas of research. This isn't fair to scientists that legitimately engage in controversial topics. Watson is a bit of a crank, for example: >'In a lecture hall jammed with more than 200 Berkeley students and faculty members, Watson showed a slide of sad-faced model Kate Moss to support his contention that thin people are unhappy and therefore more ambitious. "Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you're not going to hire them," Watson said."' [3] That isn't a scientific conclusion. Much of the anger against Watson is that he says stupid unscientific things to support his own biases and then hides behind his discovery. This follows a pattern, which occurs across the political spectrum, in which a scientist who makes an important discovery thinks that discovery means everything they say is correct. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation [1]: Population Bottlenecks and Pleistocene Human Evolution https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/17/1/2/975516 https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/17/1/2/975516 [2]: http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Nobel-Winner-s-Theories-Raise-Uproar-in-Berkeley-3236584.php http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Nobel-Winner-s-Theorie...
- kakarot 9y ago
  I said Watson had a biased perspective. I'm not trying to lay down any sort of narrative, I'm just presenting facts in a neutral light. The quote you selected is found in the link I provided.
wycs 9y ago
It is something we will have to grapple with. Cognitive genomics is already starting to confirm very politically incorrect things, such as the the confirmation of a dysgenic trend in Iceland, which has been implied from phenotypic data but career ending to acknowledge: https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/selection/2017-kong.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/selection/2017-kong.pdf This is the tip of the iceberg. Once we have a million genomes tagged with cognitive measures, a huge swath of politically-incorrect but factually true descriptive statements will be confirmed. We need to work now to avoid confusing the descriptive with the normative and be willing to consider technological fixes for unfair distributions of economically valuable allies, such as embryo selection and direct genetic modification. Our society is so in denial of biological realities, this may not happen in time. But there will be competitive pressure from Asian (and perhaps Islamic) societies that do not share our tabbos.
- kakarot 9y ago
  > willing to consider technological fixes for unfair distributions of economically valuable allies, such as embryo selection and direct genetic modification A short story about the consequences of normalized post-birth genetic alteration: http://compellingsciencefiction.com/stories/thelittlegods.html http://compellingsciencefiction.com/stories/thelittlegods.ht... A short description of the pre-birth and post-birth conditioning present in Aldous Huxley's famous Brave New World: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World#Fordism_and_society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World#Fordism_and_so... The Last Book In The Universe takes a different approach to the issue. A cataclysmic event called The Big Shake destroys society, and only a small group of surviving scientists hidden underground were able to genetically modify their offspring to be superior to the rest of the world. This creates an immensely divisive class system, and the genetically altered humans live and govern separately from the rest of the planet. This will not be an easy problem to solve, and there is no telling what the future effects will be. But it seems precise genetic alteration is the inevitable holy grail, doesn't it?
betenoire 9y ago
I've never actually met someone who was offended by a statement like "on average, men are stronger than women". If you are saying things like that, and people are getting offended, perhaps record yourself and see what other shit you say and how you say it, and maybe you'll see what they are really offended at.
- kakarot 9y ago
  I'm not walking around saying that because I'm not trying to provoke people, but thanks for the unwarranted judgment.
  - betenoire 9y ago
    You just did on here, what does "walking around" have to do with it? And if you want me to take you by your words, take me by mine. I also said "If you say...". If you don't say those things, and the judgement doesn't apply, then don't get offended.
    - kakarot 9y ago
      I'm not offended, even though you're trying to offend me. Just a suggestion, consider dropping the snarky, aggressive attitude and actually contribute to the discussion I initiated, or move on.
      - betenoire 9y ago
        I think I did contribute, but you don't see my point, or you don't think it's important enough to comment on. Consider me "moved on" :)
        kakarot 9y ago
        > record yourself and see what other shit you say and how you say it, and maybe you'll see what they are really offended at That's not a point, it's an Ad Hominem. From Wikipedia: A fallacious argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself And no, I didn't think it was worth commenting on because it's one of my most-encountered fallacies and it just gets tiring.

EthanHeilman 9y ago

>Personally, I think it is patronizing if not downright deceitful to pretend differences don't exist between isolated demographics, We don't have many isolated demographics (although there are some) both because pre-modern humans were capable of traveling over extremely long distances (i.e. isolation is unlikely) and because humans haven't been around for a particularly long time. Unlike many species humans are surprisingly genetically similar to each other[0]. Some of this also results from the fact that humans may have passed through a very small genetic bottleneck 100,000 years ago in which the human population was reduced to around 3,000-10,000 people other studies dispute this but arrive at similar genetic conclusions [1]. >but it will remain a touchy subject for a long time and most scientists will see what happened to Watson and pursue other areas of research. This isn't fair to scientists that legitimately engage in controversial topics. Watson is a bit of a crank, for example: >'In a lecture hall jammed with more than 200 Berkeley students and faculty members, Watson showed a slide of sad-faced model Kate Moss to support his contention that thin people are unhappy and therefore more ambitious. "Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you're not going to hire them," Watson said."' [3] That isn't a scientific conclusion. Much of the anger against Watson is that he says stupid unscientific things to support his own biases and then hides behind his discovery. This follows a pattern, which occurs across the political spectrum, in which a scientist who makes an important discovery thinks that discovery means everything they say is correct. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation [1]: Population Bottlenecks and Pleistocene Human Evolution https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/17/1/2/975516 https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/17/1/2/975516 [2]: http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Nobel-Winner-s-Theories-Raise-Uproar-in-Berkeley-3236584.php http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Nobel-Winner-s-Theorie...

kakarot 9y ago
I said Watson had a biased perspective. I'm not trying to lay down any sort of narrative, I'm just presenting facts in a neutral light. The quote you selected is found in the link I provided.

wycs 9y ago

It is something we will have to grapple with. Cognitive genomics is already starting to confirm very politically incorrect things, such as the the confirmation of a dysgenic trend in Iceland, which has been implied from phenotypic data but career ending to acknowledge: https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/selection/2017-kong.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/selection/2017-kong.pdf This is the tip of the iceberg. Once we have a million genomes tagged with cognitive measures, a huge swath of politically-incorrect but factually true descriptive statements will be confirmed. We need to work now to avoid confusing the descriptive with the normative and be willing to consider technological fixes for unfair distributions of economically valuable allies, such as embryo selection and direct genetic modification. Our society is so in denial of biological realities, this may not happen in time. But there will be competitive pressure from Asian (and perhaps Islamic) societies that do not share our tabbos.

kakarot 9y ago
> willing to consider technological fixes for unfair distributions of economically valuable allies, such as embryo selection and direct genetic modification A short story about the consequences of normalized post-birth genetic alteration: http://compellingsciencefiction.com/stories/thelittlegods.html http://compellingsciencefiction.com/stories/thelittlegods.ht... A short description of the pre-birth and post-birth conditioning present in Aldous Huxley's famous Brave New World: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World#Fordism_and_society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World#Fordism_and_so... The Last Book In The Universe takes a different approach to the issue. A cataclysmic event called The Big Shake destroys society, and only a small group of surviving scientists hidden underground were able to genetically modify their offspring to be superior to the rest of the world. This creates an immensely divisive class system, and the genetically altered humans live and govern separately from the rest of the planet. This will not be an easy problem to solve, and there is no telling what the future effects will be. But it seems precise genetic alteration is the inevitable holy grail, doesn't it?

betenoire 9y ago

I've never actually met someone who was offended by a statement like "on average, men are stronger than women". If you are saying things like that, and people are getting offended, perhaps record yourself and see what other shit you say and how you say it, and maybe you'll see what they are really offended at.

kakarot 9y ago
I'm not walking around saying that because I'm not trying to provoke people, but thanks for the unwarranted judgment.
- betenoire 9y ago
  You just did on here, what does "walking around" have to do with it? And if you want me to take you by your words, take me by mine. I also said "If you say...". If you don't say those things, and the judgement doesn't apply, then don't get offended.
  - kakarot 9y ago
    I'm not offended, even though you're trying to offend me. Just a suggestion, consider dropping the snarky, aggressive attitude and actually contribute to the discussion I initiated, or move on.
    - betenoire 9y ago
      I think I did contribute, but you don't see my point, or you don't think it's important enough to comment on. Consider me "moved on" :)
      - kakarot 9y ago
        > record yourself and see what other shit you say and how you say it, and maybe you'll see what they are really offended at That's not a point, it's an Ad Hominem. From Wikipedia: A fallacious argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself And no, I didn't think it was worth commenting on because it's one of my most-encountered fallacies and it just gets tiring.