4 ms·

After reading this I looked into James Watson (discoverer of DNA) more. He was blacklisted for some statements in an interview, many display his implicit biases

After reading this I looked into James Watson (discoverer of DNA) more. He was blacklisted for some statements in an interview, many display his implicit biases, but one part was: "there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically." That statement kinda embodies the darkest part of this issue. It makes sense, evolutionary differences between peoples extend beyond skin color, eye-shape, etc., but at the same time it is a can of worms that can never be opened (again). It is definitely an issue of science where justice is more important than truth. My personal take is that we will all inevitably be a light brown shade in ~200 years and we should make that transition as enjoyable and smooth as possible. Hopefully this doesn't get down-voted to heck :o

UncleMeat 8y ago
The problem is that this statement presupposes that no research has been done. Yes, if we were starting fresh we wouldn't want to assume that all populations evolved identically. But we aren't starting fresh. There has been decades of quality research on race both from a biological and social setting. What we observe through evidence rather than conjecture is that the hypothesis that people of certain races are genetically less intelligent than other people is not supported by evidence. Justice and truth are aligned here.
- SamReidHughes 8y ago
  What is the evidence that rules out the hypothesis that the population distributions aren't the same? When the Khmer Rouge targeted intellectuals in Cambodia, wiping out 10% of the population, how did they fail to alter the population distribution?
  - Zuider 8y ago
    In their pursuit of 'intellectuals' Khmer Rouge targeted anyone wearing spectacles. Do the Cambodians have better eyesight than comparable populations?
    - manfredo 8y ago
      If the selective pressure was carried out for long enough, it probably would make a difference. Racial variation in eyesight has been observed to exist: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7457480/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7457480/
- mrfredward 8y ago
  >There has been decades of quality research Has there been? If the null hypothesis is that populations show identical traits, and to publish a paper rejecting the null hypothesis is career suicide, what have we learned when no one credibly rejects the null hypothesis?
- opwieurposiu 8y ago
  Unfortunately you have it exactly backwards. Watson's conjecture is indeed supported by studies and evidence. Why don't you start with the Minnesota adoption study: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption... The fact that so many believe such evidence does not exist just further demonstrates the danger of suppressing science due to ideology.
  - octonion 8y ago
    The cited study has an obvious and large flaw - a black child raised by an advantage white family is still black, and society will still treat them as a black child.
Zuider 8y ago
>It is definitely an issue of science where justice is more important than truth. Justice is downstream from truth. Justice cannot be based on feelings or politics, or what Plato called 'the noble lie'. It has to be based on the dispassionate pursuit of truth.
Yetanfou 8y ago
Another approach could be taken by going the exact opposite direction: find out what it actually is which causes differences in intelligence and use this to find a way to raise the intelligence of the species _as a whole_, no matter their phenotype. After all, it is not the amount of melanin in your skin which defines intelligence. That there _is_ a genetic component to intelligence has been proven many times - search ${search_engine} for "genetic intelligence" for a summary of the current science on the subject which seems to indicate a 50% 'nature', 50% 'nurture' contribution to individual intelligence - so it does not make sense to try to put this genie back into its bottle. Someone is likely to do the research in those coming 200 years which you envision it will take for the world population to homogenise, it would be best if that someone did the research in the open and shared the results with the world instead of using it for some nefarious plan - intelligence and morality are not the same thing after all.

UncleMeat 8y ago

The problem is that this statement presupposes that no research has been done. Yes, if we were starting fresh we wouldn't want to assume that all populations evolved identically. But we aren't starting fresh. There has been decades of quality research on race both from a biological and social setting. What we observe through evidence rather than conjecture is that the hypothesis that people of certain races are genetically less intelligent than other people is not supported by evidence. Justice and truth are aligned here.

SamReidHughes 8y ago
What is the evidence that rules out the hypothesis that the population distributions aren't the same? When the Khmer Rouge targeted intellectuals in Cambodia, wiping out 10% of the population, how did they fail to alter the population distribution?
- Zuider 8y ago
  In their pursuit of 'intellectuals' Khmer Rouge targeted anyone wearing spectacles. Do the Cambodians have better eyesight than comparable populations?
  - manfredo 8y ago
    If the selective pressure was carried out for long enough, it probably would make a difference. Racial variation in eyesight has been observed to exist: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7457480/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7457480/
mrfredward 8y ago
>There has been decades of quality research Has there been? If the null hypothesis is that populations show identical traits, and to publish a paper rejecting the null hypothesis is career suicide, what have we learned when no one credibly rejects the null hypothesis?
opwieurposiu 8y ago
Unfortunately you have it exactly backwards. Watson's conjecture is indeed supported by studies and evidence. Why don't you start with the Minnesota adoption study: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption... The fact that so many believe such evidence does not exist just further demonstrates the danger of suppressing science due to ideology.
- octonion 8y ago
  The cited study has an obvious and large flaw - a black child raised by an advantage white family is still black, and society will still treat them as a black child.

Zuider 8y ago

>It is definitely an issue of science where justice is more important than truth. Justice is downstream from truth. Justice cannot be based on feelings or politics, or what Plato called 'the noble lie'. It has to be based on the dispassionate pursuit of truth.

Yetanfou 8y ago

Another approach could be taken by going the exact opposite direction: find out what it actually is which causes differences in intelligence and use this to find a way to raise the intelligence of the species _as a whole_, no matter their phenotype. After all, it is not the amount of melanin in your skin which defines intelligence. That there _is_ a genetic component to intelligence has been proven many times - search ${search_engine} for "genetic intelligence" for a summary of the current science on the subject which seems to indicate a 50% 'nature', 50% 'nurture' contribution to individual intelligence - so it does not make sense to try to put this genie back into its bottle. Someone is likely to do the research in those coming 200 years which you envision it will take for the world population to homogenise, it would be best if that someone did the research in the open and shared the results with the world instead of using it for some nefarious plan - intelligence and morality are not the same thing after all.