3 ms·

On the specific topic of IQ and scientific racism, the "centrist" position of "just asking questions" has been a cloak for agendas and not caring about the trut

On the specific topic of IQ and scientific racism, the "centrist" position of "just asking questions" has been a cloak for agendas and not caring about the truth for a while now. Exhibit A: https://mobile.twitter.com/Simon_Whitten/status/1173319663322841088 https://mobile.twitter.com/Simon_Whitten/status/117331966332... Exhibit B, what happens when you actually dig into the science behind the most well known peddler of the IQ is real and important, therefore racism is actually not a problem meme https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UBc7qBS1Ujo https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UBc7qBS1Ujo Note that I'm not saying there aren't good faith inquiries to be had, but it is really hard to have these with racist agendas being pushed whole claiming "neutral" questions. A few observations that I would like people to keep in mind when looking at these fields: - the people who complain about being "silenced" continue to find funding, public platforms to push their research and in some cases, tenure - the "hard questions not being raised" seem to cluster around the question of differences between "races" and less around whether the concept of race actually makes sense in humans (AFAIK geneticists generally think no), whether these differences might be socially constructed (yes, that's possible. If there are systemic social biases against groups with genetic genes the impacts of these will be 100% explained by the presence of these genes in data, but 0% genetically determined as in biologically determined). And often they are then raised to dismiss concerns about the systematic problems which might have caused the measured problems - scientific racism and shoddy science in this field has a long history, and people carry their misconceptions around. Famous examples are "objective" written IQ tests given to barely literal test subjects, or asking trigonometry questions, Both of which test the schooling of the subjects more than the IQ In an inherently political field of science, denying the political nature and implications of questions being raised and the manner in which they are raised and trying ot claim "objectiveness" is in and of itself a political tactic.

arethuza 7y ago
Great comment - sometimes I wish that HN would allow you to "spend" karma by upvoting multiple times (mind you - I can see the disadvantages of this as well). You've managed to capture a lot of my own unease about discussions of IQ - not being from the US (and most definitely not being a fan of IQ tests as a concept) I've often felt I was missing out on some other underlying aspect when IQ is discussed.
sillysaurusx 7y ago
A lot of your points are addressed explicitly by that twitter account. I would encourage you to spend some time reading through and examining the extensive studies being presented. Believe me, I would love to dismiss it as a biased person and be done with it. But the truth seems to be nuanced. Suppose tomorrow someone had concrete scientific evidence that climate change wasn't man-made. (It's a thought experiment, so humor me for a moment.) Do you think society at large would accept the evidence? Or would it be more along the lines of society tearing down whoever tried to present it? EDIT: Excellent link, by the way. Thank you for pointing out https://twitter.com/Simon_Whitten/status/1173319663322841088 https://twitter.com/Simon_Whitten/status/1173319663322841088.
- Frondo 7y ago
  Humoring your thought experiment: yes, I think society would accept the evidence. Lots and lots of people already dismiss the science, claim it's a hoax, or don't want to contend with the inconvenience climate change demands. But...I think you'd continue to see pushback on pollution in general, because living in polluted environments is just terrible. Remember LA in the 80s? Been to any of the SE Asian megacities now? Even if it had zero impact on the future of the planet, reducing emissions is still a laudable goal for the myriad other human costs. Moving away from car-centric lifestyles has a lot of benefits aside from the impact on carbon pollution, like reducing the time spent sitting in cars on gridlocked freeways and city streets. People would still push for the societal changes that reduce auto dependence for those reasons, even if there was zero human cost to carbon-producing transportation there.
- pjc50 7y ago
  > Suppose tomorrow someone had concrete scientific evidence that climate change wasn't man-made. This depends entirely on what the alleged mechanism is instead, who is publishing the paper, the extent to which it depends on statistics, and which existing research it contradicts exactly? How difficult is it to reproduce the relevant experiments, or does this rely on analytical interpretation of evidence? How difficult is is to gather more evidence on the same topic? (Also, are we though-experimenting that it's not happening, or that it is happening but the radiative forcings are much smaller than expected and something else is causing the warming? Because the latter is still a huge problem!)
RobertRoberts 7y ago
>"On the specific topic of IQ and scientific racism, the "centrist" position of "just asking questions" has been a cloak for agendas and not caring about the truth for a while now" That is the price for _having_ a truth. All sides must be allowed to argue, because sometimes _you_ are the one on the wrong side and just don't know it.
- Retric 7y ago
  You can’t simply join scientific debate while ignoring the existing findings. Genetics and race are almost completely unrelated with black in America including people that 7 out of 8 white great grand parents. So, arguing your measurements are of genetic differences needs to account for such non biological social constructs. Good faith research can follow the social construct of race, but it needs to address that elephant in the room.
  - RobertRoberts 7y ago
    I wasn't addressing a specific instance or issue. I was just pointing out that we must all be willing to both prove others wrong and be proven wrong or we can never correct anything. And, we must all be willing to accept and work with the difficulty this causes for many people. But we must never, ever stifle speech because it's upsetting or we disagree with it. At the very least because the pendulum swings and any oppression we support today _will_ be turned against us or others in the future.
    - Retric 7y ago
      That’s the point I was addressing. It’s not the responsibility of the scientific community to pay attention to everyone. The threshold of communication is an awareness of the fields existing models and results. Getting published in a reputable journal is generally a low bar and probably a good yardstick for joining the conversation. That might seem excessive, but it drastically improves the signal to noise ratio and frankly works. Now, complaints after that point are reasonable, even Einstein disliked QM. However, eventually the old guard dies and new people are willing to consider new idea at which point science marches on.
zozbot234 7y ago
There's definitely a lot of agendas being pushed. But I'm not sure why we're being expected to trust numbers like 100% and 0% - what makes these numbers inherently more "objective" than other possibilities such as, let's say 90% and 10%?
- igorkraw 7y ago
  Well in this case, because they are numbers in an example given and you are nitpicking. In the general case, it's more complicated, but (controversial statement ahead) truth exists,some ideas are wrong either by data or by definition
jffhn 7y ago
>If there are systemic social biases against groups with genetic genes the impacts of these will be 100% explained by the presence of these genes That makes sense, but according to Plomin there's also an opposite (and counterintuitive to most people) effect, which over time increases the influence of genetics over the influence of the environment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lev8dGnxvdw&t=4m43s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lev8dGnxvdw&t=4m43s
- jffhn 7y ago
  Recursing on my post: Plomin might make sense as well, but according to Nassim N. Taleb not always: "Plomin who studies heredity doesn’t seem aware of the intransitivity of correlation." (he made a whole paper about these correlation issues: https://www.academia.edu/39797871/Common_Misapplications_and_Misinterpretations_of_Correlation_in_Social_Science_ https://www.academia.edu/39797871/Common_Misapplications_and...)
rjsw 7y ago
What if the evidence is valid but there are non-racist reasons for it happening ? Currently the whole subject is off-limits. I would start with the presumption that slavery would cause differences in a population whatever their skin colour.

arethuza 7y ago

Great comment - sometimes I wish that HN would allow you to "spend" karma by upvoting multiple times (mind you - I can see the disadvantages of this as well). You've managed to capture a lot of my own unease about discussions of IQ - not being from the US (and most definitely not being a fan of IQ tests as a concept) I've often felt I was missing out on some other underlying aspect when IQ is discussed.

sillysaurusx 7y ago

A lot of your points are addressed explicitly by that twitter account. I would encourage you to spend some time reading through and examining the extensive studies being presented. Believe me, I would love to dismiss it as a biased person and be done with it. But the truth seems to be nuanced. Suppose tomorrow someone had concrete scientific evidence that climate change wasn't man-made. (It's a thought experiment, so humor me for a moment.) Do you think society at large would accept the evidence? Or would it be more along the lines of society tearing down whoever tried to present it? EDIT: Excellent link, by the way. Thank you for pointing out https://twitter.com/Simon_Whitten/status/1173319663322841088 https://twitter.com/Simon_Whitten/status/1173319663322841088.

Frondo 7y ago
Humoring your thought experiment: yes, I think society would accept the evidence. Lots and lots of people already dismiss the science, claim it's a hoax, or don't want to contend with the inconvenience climate change demands. But...I think you'd continue to see pushback on pollution in general, because living in polluted environments is just terrible. Remember LA in the 80s? Been to any of the SE Asian megacities now? Even if it had zero impact on the future of the planet, reducing emissions is still a laudable goal for the myriad other human costs. Moving away from car-centric lifestyles has a lot of benefits aside from the impact on carbon pollution, like reducing the time spent sitting in cars on gridlocked freeways and city streets. People would still push for the societal changes that reduce auto dependence for those reasons, even if there was zero human cost to carbon-producing transportation there.
pjc50 7y ago
> Suppose tomorrow someone had concrete scientific evidence that climate change wasn't man-made. This depends entirely on what the alleged mechanism is instead, who is publishing the paper, the extent to which it depends on statistics, and which existing research it contradicts exactly? How difficult is it to reproduce the relevant experiments, or does this rely on analytical interpretation of evidence? How difficult is is to gather more evidence on the same topic? (Also, are we though-experimenting that it's not happening, or that it is happening but the radiative forcings are much smaller than expected and something else is causing the warming? Because the latter is still a huge problem!)

RobertRoberts 7y ago

>"On the specific topic of IQ and scientific racism, the "centrist" position of "just asking questions" has been a cloak for agendas and not caring about the truth for a while now" That is the price for _having_ a truth. All sides must be allowed to argue, because sometimes _you_ are the one on the wrong side and just don't know it.

Retric 7y ago
You can’t simply join scientific debate while ignoring the existing findings. Genetics and race are almost completely unrelated with black in America including people that 7 out of 8 white great grand parents. So, arguing your measurements are of genetic differences needs to account for such non biological social constructs. Good faith research can follow the social construct of race, but it needs to address that elephant in the room.
- RobertRoberts 7y ago
  I wasn't addressing a specific instance or issue. I was just pointing out that we must all be willing to both prove others wrong and be proven wrong or we can never correct anything. And, we must all be willing to accept and work with the difficulty this causes for many people. But we must never, ever stifle speech because it's upsetting or we disagree with it. At the very least because the pendulum swings and any oppression we support today _will_ be turned against us or others in the future.
  - Retric 7y ago
    That’s the point I was addressing. It’s not the responsibility of the scientific community to pay attention to everyone. The threshold of communication is an awareness of the fields existing models and results. Getting published in a reputable journal is generally a low bar and probably a good yardstick for joining the conversation. That might seem excessive, but it drastically improves the signal to noise ratio and frankly works. Now, complaints after that point are reasonable, even Einstein disliked QM. However, eventually the old guard dies and new people are willing to consider new idea at which point science marches on.

zozbot234 7y ago

There's definitely a lot of agendas being pushed. But I'm not sure why we're being expected to trust numbers like 100% and 0% - what makes these numbers inherently more "objective" than other possibilities such as, let's say 90% and 10%?

igorkraw 7y ago
Well in this case, because they are numbers in an example given and you are nitpicking. In the general case, it's more complicated, but (controversial statement ahead) truth exists,some ideas are wrong either by data or by definition

jffhn 7y ago

>If there are systemic social biases against groups with genetic genes the impacts of these will be 100% explained by the presence of these genes That makes sense, but according to Plomin there's also an opposite (and counterintuitive to most people) effect, which over time increases the influence of genetics over the influence of the environment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lev8dGnxvdw&t=4m43s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lev8dGnxvdw&t=4m43s

jffhn 7y ago
Recursing on my post: Plomin might make sense as well, but according to Nassim N. Taleb not always: "Plomin who studies heredity doesn’t seem aware of the intransitivity of correlation." (he made a whole paper about these correlation issues: https://www.academia.edu/39797871/Common_Misapplications_and_Misinterpretations_of_Correlation_in_Social_Science_ https://www.academia.edu/39797871/Common_Misapplications_and...)

rjsw 7y ago

What if the evidence is valid but there are non-racist reasons for it happening ? Currently the whole subject is off-limits. I would start with the presumption that slavery would cause differences in a population whatever their skin colour.