3 ms·

It's one sided because one side is right and the other side is wrong. Studies showing "innate" differences (whatever "innate" means) are dismissed on methodolgy

It's one sided because one side is right and the other side is wrong. Studies showing "innate" differences (whatever "innate" means) are dismissed on methodolgy grounds because they do have methodology flaws. The overwhelming majority of population geneticists and evolutionary biologists dissmiss race science because it is flawed and has been repeatedly shown to be flawed since the 1920s. Techy people seem to trust the scientific consensus for plenty of issues, I don't see why suddenly an argument about "being fair to both sides" should be made just when it comes to the IQ of black people.

allovernow 7y ago
>The overwhelming majority of population geneticists and evolutionary biologists dissmiss race science because it is flawed and has been repeatedly shown to be flawed since the 1920s This is not the ideologically tainted race research of the 1920s. And this has consequences far beyond the somewhat arbitrary black/white divide. We have 100 years of scientific progress in evolutionary biology, genetics, psychology, and more to consider now. Dismissing any attempt to evaluate genetic influence on behavior as having racist motivations is dangerously myopic. You don't think it strange that there has been a dearth of research in this direction for some 3 decades now? Where is the definitive proof that humans are 100% products of their environment? The issue is far from settled and it is dishonest to pretend that it is. The potential for misuse of such data by racists is one very small part of the positive and negative consequences of inquiry into this area. And, again, the puzzle pieces are all around us and not controversial in part, they beg an investigation which objectively considers them in sum.
- throwawaytkgIl 7y ago
  No one is ever arguing that everyone is 100% the product of the environment. I mean it doesn't even make sense, unless you count very base-level DNA interactions (DNA is in fact a physical molecule and not one's soul, as a reminder) such as transcription factors and chromosome architecture dynamics etc. in which case we are 100% the product of that environment. Of course no one ever really settles down on a clear definition of "environment" (just like "intelligence" btw). But even saying a number between 0 and 100 doesn't make sense. It's not additive. Interactions are incredibly complicated, even when it comes to organic diseases. Complex social traits are just way beyond our reach of understanding. (No, doing a bunch of GWASes to draw correlations isn't understanding, not to a biologist at least. Maybe to a psychologist) The reason there's been a dearth of research is because science is hard, boring and the few people who are very willing to jump to conclusions tend to be shady individuals funded by no less shady organizations that no one serious wants to be associated with. Scientists aren't afraid at all of inconvenient truths - see global warming, cigarettes/asbestos causing cancer, lead poisoning, nuclear research, various environmental research, etc. They aren't specifically holding out on some sort of terrible secret about the IQ of black people.
  - allovernow 7y ago
    > They aren't specifically holding out on some sort of terrible secret about the IQ of black people. You continue to miss the point because you are unable to divorce your perspective from the stereotype that you think you are arguing with. >But even saying a number between 0 and 100 doesn't make sense. It's not additive. Interactions are incredibly complicated, even when it comes to organic diseases. Complex social traits are just way beyond our reach of understanding. Once again, this is not about explaining individual behaviors with precision. This is about distribution statistics. Explaining consistent differences in populations which undeniably exist. This kind of research is absolutely critical to understanding and correcting social inequities that, ironically, people fear will be exacerbated by such inconvenient truths, as you put it. Classical notions of racism are incidental to the science and their mention serves no purpose but to turn this discussion into a flame war. >Scientists aren't afraid at all of inconvenient truths - see global warming, cigarettes/asbestos causing cancer, lead poisoning, nuclear research, various environmental research None of these topics have such significant potentially negative consequences for social inequity. They all fit neatly within socially acceptable bounds.
    - throwawaytkgIl 7y ago
      >Once again, this is not about explaining individual behaviors with precision. This is about distribution statistics. Explaining consistent differences in populations which undeniably exist. This kind of research is absolutely critical to understanding and correcting social inequities that, ironically, people fear will be exacerbated by such inconvenient truths, as you put it. But we already do this kind of research. We know why Polynesians tend to be good wrestlers and so on. We have actual genetic causal mechanisms. But when it comes to personality traits and complex behaviors - the field of psychology is just not up to par. For instance, neither does g nor the big five have any real physical existence beyond statistical artifacts from test taking. To attempt to draw conclusions based on them is like drawing social pol based on one's choice of cooking oil/butter - and yes, there are GWASses about that: twitter.com/SbotGwa/status/1134916742629744641 Genetics isn't wizardy. Your genes are not your soul. If you want to prove something has a genetic basis you need to show what it is - what genes code for what protein, which pathways it is involved in, how it interacts with the environment, and how eventually down the line that may affect behavior. That's what "genetically caused" means. Otherwise it's just blackbox magic - maybe fine for psychologists but absolutely not for geneticists. >None of these topics have such significant potentially negative consequences for social inequity. They all fit neatly within socially acceptable bounds. Global warming, fitting in socially acceptable bounds? You mean the one phenomenon that castastrophically threatens our way of living and whose only way of fixing would require a total upheaval of social structures? Do you think things like the Green New Deal are socially acceptable to most people? Have you seen what governments do for oil? Seriously now.

allovernow 7y ago

>The overwhelming majority of population geneticists and evolutionary biologists dissmiss race science because it is flawed and has been repeatedly shown to be flawed since the 1920s This is not the ideologically tainted race research of the 1920s. And this has consequences far beyond the somewhat arbitrary black/white divide. We have 100 years of scientific progress in evolutionary biology, genetics, psychology, and more to consider now. Dismissing any attempt to evaluate genetic influence on behavior as having racist motivations is dangerously myopic. You don't think it strange that there has been a dearth of research in this direction for some 3 decades now? Where is the definitive proof that humans are 100% products of their environment? The issue is far from settled and it is dishonest to pretend that it is. The potential for misuse of such data by racists is one very small part of the positive and negative consequences of inquiry into this area. And, again, the puzzle pieces are all around us and not controversial in part, they beg an investigation which objectively considers them in sum.

throwawaytkgIl 7y ago
No one is ever arguing that everyone is 100% the product of the environment. I mean it doesn't even make sense, unless you count very base-level DNA interactions (DNA is in fact a physical molecule and not one's soul, as a reminder) such as transcription factors and chromosome architecture dynamics etc. in which case we are 100% the product of that environment. Of course no one ever really settles down on a clear definition of "environment" (just like "intelligence" btw). But even saying a number between 0 and 100 doesn't make sense. It's not additive. Interactions are incredibly complicated, even when it comes to organic diseases. Complex social traits are just way beyond our reach of understanding. (No, doing a bunch of GWASes to draw correlations isn't understanding, not to a biologist at least. Maybe to a psychologist) The reason there's been a dearth of research is because science is hard, boring and the few people who are very willing to jump to conclusions tend to be shady individuals funded by no less shady organizations that no one serious wants to be associated with. Scientists aren't afraid at all of inconvenient truths - see global warming, cigarettes/asbestos causing cancer, lead poisoning, nuclear research, various environmental research, etc. They aren't specifically holding out on some sort of terrible secret about the IQ of black people.
- allovernow 7y ago
  > They aren't specifically holding out on some sort of terrible secret about the IQ of black people. You continue to miss the point because you are unable to divorce your perspective from the stereotype that you think you are arguing with. >But even saying a number between 0 and 100 doesn't make sense. It's not additive. Interactions are incredibly complicated, even when it comes to organic diseases. Complex social traits are just way beyond our reach of understanding. Once again, this is not about explaining individual behaviors with precision. This is about distribution statistics. Explaining consistent differences in populations which undeniably exist. This kind of research is absolutely critical to understanding and correcting social inequities that, ironically, people fear will be exacerbated by such inconvenient truths, as you put it. Classical notions of racism are incidental to the science and their mention serves no purpose but to turn this discussion into a flame war. >Scientists aren't afraid at all of inconvenient truths - see global warming, cigarettes/asbestos causing cancer, lead poisoning, nuclear research, various environmental research None of these topics have such significant potentially negative consequences for social inequity. They all fit neatly within socially acceptable bounds.
  - throwawaytkgIl 7y ago
    >Once again, this is not about explaining individual behaviors with precision. This is about distribution statistics. Explaining consistent differences in populations which undeniably exist. This kind of research is absolutely critical to understanding and correcting social inequities that, ironically, people fear will be exacerbated by such inconvenient truths, as you put it. But we already do this kind of research. We know why Polynesians tend to be good wrestlers and so on. We have actual genetic causal mechanisms. But when it comes to personality traits and complex behaviors - the field of psychology is just not up to par. For instance, neither does g nor the big five have any real physical existence beyond statistical artifacts from test taking. To attempt to draw conclusions based on them is like drawing social pol based on one's choice of cooking oil/butter - and yes, there are GWASses about that: twitter.com/SbotGwa/status/1134916742629744641 Genetics isn't wizardy. Your genes are not your soul. If you want to prove something has a genetic basis you need to show what it is - what genes code for what protein, which pathways it is involved in, how it interacts with the environment, and how eventually down the line that may affect behavior. That's what "genetically caused" means. Otherwise it's just blackbox magic - maybe fine for psychologists but absolutely not for geneticists. >None of these topics have such significant potentially negative consequences for social inequity. They all fit neatly within socially acceptable bounds. Global warming, fitting in socially acceptable bounds? You mean the one phenomenon that castastrophically threatens our way of living and whose only way of fixing would require a total upheaval of social structures? Do you think things like the Green New Deal are socially acceptable to most people? Have you seen what governments do for oil? Seriously now.