6 ms·

I mean, have you looked at the resources linked on the Twitter thread he links to in that post? To call it "damning" is an understatement. It would be differen

• natalyarostova 6y ago
  He’s doing research using newer high dimensional ML methods on the human genome to understand potential correlations with genetic information and other attributes, like general intelligence https://arxiv.org/abs/1310.2264 https://arxiv.org/abs/1310.2264 It’s a valid research subject, and like all research subjects, it could be wrong. If people think some questions are too dangerous to ask, just admit that and be honest. Instead of just calling it problematic because it’s a potentially uncomfortable subject.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • kick 6y ago
    Personally I don't think any of this is particularly related to "dangerous questions," but you do you I guess. In which he downplays racial bias in police shootings: https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2020/06/re-post-joe-cesario-on-police-decision.html https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2020/06/re-post-joe-cesario-on... In which he says lack of segregation is the reason for racial underperformance: https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2020/03/claude-steele-on-challenges-of-multi.html https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2020/03/claude-steele-on-chall... Interview with an open white supremacist, check: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux
    • natalyarostova 6y ago
      Part of the scientific process is being skeptical and considering cases and asking probing questions. He didn’t make a blog post that said “lol racial bias is fake.” He discusses it with respect to research on the matter. It seems you don’t feel that’s an acceptable question to ask: is racial bias in police shooting real? I’d call that a dangerous question to ask, and try to answer honestly, because it could get a person fired.
      • kick 6y ago
        First objection: He has tenure. Getting fired is very hard when you have tenure. As a tenured professor you can scream for years that the sky is neon green and you'll be fine. Secondly, he doesn't particularly discuss it with respect nor realism. However, let's assume for the sake of discussion that we have the same view on that. What about the second and third ones?
    • amznthrowaway5 6y ago
      > racial bias in police shootings The science clearly shows there is not much bias, he did not downplay anything. > lack of segregation is the reason for racial underperformance Where? > Interview with an open white supremacist Lots of people interviewed with Molyneux, this doesn't prove anything.
      • villahousut 6y ago
        > The science clearly shows there is not much bias, he did not downplay anything. I think this is pretty much corroborated by this scientific review in Slate star codex: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/25/race-and-justice-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/25/race-and-justice-much-...
    • giantDinosaur 6y ago
      To be totally clear, being interviewed by someone implies absolutely nothing about agreement. For example, here's Noam Chomsky being interviewed by Molyneux: https://youtu.be/MautscPF5wE https://youtu.be/MautscPF5wE Even more shockingly, you can interview with someone because they actually share some interest in what you research or do, and still not be in agreement with the interviewer's platform, as is the case in the linked interview. Edit: removed section on 'misleading narratives' as, truthfully, I don't know enough about this specific case to comment much on it other than it has the hallmarks of a political hit job.
      • ylem 6y ago
        I agree with you on being interviewed. Bringing someone onto your podcast is more of an implicit endorsement unless you actively push back on their other views. If you don't know about those views, you should have done your research. But, if that was the case, he could have stated it. Imagine that he invited on a vocal flat earther, but discussed gardening with him. In his position, it raises doubts about judgement. If he says, "I didn't realize he was a flat earther--the earth is not flat", he probably keeps his job. But if he threatens to sue people who talk about his appearance on the show, it's a different story.
        • giantDinosaur 6y ago
          What concerns me primarily is the guilt by association. You also will see criticism about 'normalising' deviant perspectives merely with the act of engaging in debate (which has some merit, but is applied too generally), which would likely condemn many more. There's no way that can end without people with legitimate points being terrified of speaking.
    • bJGVygG7MQVF8c 6y ago
      I can't tell if it's ignorance or cynicism at work here. Let me fix your summaries: > In which he downplays racial bias in police shootings In which a guest on Hsu's podcast, psychologist Joe Cesario, presents in detail his research, some of which is experimental, demonstrating no racial bias in police shootings (not the case in police interactions in general though). > In which he says lack of segregation is the reason for racial underperformance In which a guest on Hsu's podcast, Claude Steele, a[n African American] social psychologist, discusses his research in detail and his [African American] co-host, Corey Washington, discusses his daughter's educational experience. (And in which no one suggests that racial segregation in education would be desirable.) > Interview with an open white supremacist Interview with a YouTube personality who's also had Noam Chomsky and Peter Boghossian on his show, e.g.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MautscPF5wE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MautscPF5wE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukeCmR2S5Vg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukeCmR2S5Vg
  • skosuri 6y ago
    He’s a hack. Most people in quantitative genetics think he’s a hack. He’s still a fully tenured professor making a lot of money & free to choose his research agenda. It’s just that he shouldn’t be head of research and really amazing faculty have left at least in part because of him.
    • blisterpeanuts 6y ago
      Are you a grad student at MSU?
      • skosuri 6y ago
        No. I’m faculty though and some of my best friends and colleagues are or were faculty there. I also research quantitative genetics. Been hearing the back story for years; many fear him and he threatened retaliation against some of my friends who were junior faculty.
        • ylem 6y ago
          Sorry to hear that. How much power did he actually have to damage someone's research career?
        • amznthrowaway5 6y ago
          > many fear him and he threatened retaliation against some of my friends who were junior faculty Do you have real examples? These types of accusations are meaningless without real data. If they are real, I'd like to know the actual threats.
    • bJGVygG7MQVF8c 6y ago
      > He's a hack In the same sense of "hack" used in "Hacker News", sure, perhaps. A pattern that's repeated itself multiple times in the history of science is mathematicians and theoretical physicists showing up in other fields and making groundbreaking discoveries that end up re-orienting the field. It's not at all surprising that incumbents would object to the competition, fault the 'interlopers' for not working within accepted paradigms, or just not have the background to fully understand their projects in the first place.
  • joshuamorton 6y ago
    Few, if any, of the concerns are directly about his research, but about the other things he does. In general I'd say that anyone doing research like Hsu's should be extra vigilant and careful, because their research will be used by "race realists" to push forth their theories. And legitimizing those views is bad. If you want to ask these kinds of questions, you need to be sure that you can't be accused of a conflict of interest, Hsu's done, basically the exact opposite of that, and intentionally associated himself with some really uncomfortable people. That context has the consequence of throwing Hsu's motives into question as well.
    • bJGVygG7MQVF8c 6y ago
      Race realism is less of an extremist view than you seem to think it is (in that it's not an extremist view). Whether one infers extremist views from that position is another matter entirely. There are multiple ways of operationalizing the notion of race. Some are prima facie invalid (usually these are used as straw men), some (as in the idpol/'woke' ideology's case) are incoherent and shallow but have political currency, and the rest are all valid within some range, conditional on context. This is a great resource if you're interested: https://www.amazon.com/What-Race-Four-Philosophical-Views/dp/0190610182 https://www.amazon.com/What-Race-Four-Philosophical-Views/dp...
      • joshuamorton 6y ago
        Race realism is, by definition an extremist view. It isn't the view that "race exists", as you seem to be implying, but that race and race science can be used to justify racism. That is, race realism isn't "race exists", but that "black people have lower average IQs due mainly to genetics and so the status quo today is explained perfectly by genetic, and not environmental causes". Such views are contradicted by most available evidence.
        • bJGVygG7MQVF8c 6y ago
          > that race and race science can be used to justify racism You are incorrect. If 'race realism' has taken on that meaning in some discursive communities, understand that there are other understandings of the term. Race realism is a descriptive claim that race has some basis in reality. There are no inherent normative implications to race realism. Again, see the link in the preceding. In particular I recommend Chapter 3: "How to be a biological racial realist", by Quayshawn Spencer
  • oefrha 6y ago
    When there's a theory X you want to stamp out, it's way more effective to maintain a false sense of freedom of inquiry, while setting high profile examples of theory X supporters/sympathizers/researchers being destroyed (here, "researchers" stand for people who merely want to explore the possibility). This way you can have a "manufactured consensus" which can be used to take down theory X supporters/sympathizers/researchers: "there's already a scientific consensus that X is outrageous", despite no opposition research being allowed (outspoken people taken down and discredited, other people too afraid to even explore the possibility); and each takedown only strengthens the "consensus" and makes future takedowns easier. Not picking a side on this particular issue, but we're definitely seeing this kind of tactics unfold on multiple fronts.
    • bJGVygG7MQVF8c 6y ago
      Yes, the state of the art is to use social agitation to delegitimize an inconvenient argument altogether. It's as true in the academy as in politics — indeed the former is an extension of the latter.
• amznthrowaway5 6y ago
  > To call it "damning" is an understatement It is? I still don't see one meaningful example, and you didn't give any either.
• therealdrag0 6y ago
  Sorry but either why is eugenics a bad word or what type of his eugenics is bad? I don’t see anything wrong with trying to understanding genes enough to make embryo selections to improve offspring for example.
  • bJGVygG7MQVF8c 6y ago
    > why is eugenics a bad word It's not. It's purely media manipulation over the past few years that has some people conditioned to reflexively associate "eugenic" with creeping Nazism. Consider this, from 2005: https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2005/06/02/natural-genius https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2005/06/02/... Herman and Chomsky describe this dynamic well in Manufacturing Consent.