6 ms·

Another quote from him: "My personal opinion about it is: A) I hope it's not true. I would much rather live in a world where there are not big group differenc

Another quote from him: "My personal opinion about it is: A) I hope it's not true. I would much rather live in a world where there are not big group differences. Number 2) I understand why it's a sensitive issue. Because it was used in a way to oppress people for a long time. So I'm not blind to that. Number 3) I am a scientist. So when I say something like 'The results of the studies do not allow us to come to a high confidence conclusion about it.' That's what I'm going to say. So I've been attacked because I haven't been willing to categorically rule something out, which I think is absurd..." "The scores are, as you say, you do the tests, you find differences. However there are differences in average environment that these people experience. So the really difficult statistical question is, is it the difference in average environment these people experience, or is it genes. And it's a very difficult question..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGQdq8mOEd8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGQdq8mOEd8 https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2020/06/twitter-attacks-and-defense-of.html?m=1 https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2020/06/twitter-attacks-and-de...

toomuchtodo 6y ago
> I hope it's not true. I would much rather live in a world where there are not big group differences. This is why these questions are deemed dangerous. They have the possibility of challenging and upsetting deeply held beliefs and narratives. What is there to fear but an observation and the data it’s based on?
- markdown 6y ago
  > What is there to fear but an observation and the data it’s based on? There is everything to fear. This is one issue for which a definitive answer (if not the correct one) could be catastrophically damaging to relations between humans forever. In this matter, ignorance is bliss.
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    I disagree. A group’s lack of emotional fortitude is inhibiting the search for truth and progress as a species. Life is unfair, full stop. I’m unsure how learning it’s genetic changes the situation. If anything, it gives us a better understanding about how to approach the situation. The ignorant may keep the bliss. We are not served by putting our heads in the sand for the sake of political correctness.
    - dx87 6y ago
      One thing to keep in mind, is whether the difference is big enough to matter. I used to think the same as you, then I talked to my wife about a study I'd read that said the top end of male IQ is higher than the top end of female IQ, even if they are the same on average. She pointed out how even though there is a difference at the top end, it's not significant enough to matter (which is true). So there is no upside to publishing the research, but there is a definite downside of sexists/racists using the research to say "See, X is genetically inferior to us, that's why we shouldn't treat them the same". I don't think any particluar research should be banned, but the researchers should have the moral integrity to think about the impact of their research.
      - toomuchtodo 6y ago
        > "See, X is genetically inferior to us, that's why we shouldn't treat them the same". Hiding science is not the way you attack bigots; you attack their immoral views directly. My partner and I used IVF to have our first child. We had several fertilized embryos result. We were given the option of DNA sequencing and implanting embryos that met our genetic criteria. We didn't opt for it, but if we decide to have additional children and the data showed we could select for traits that were important to us (intelligence, height, athletically predisposed), I would absolutely opt for it. You want the best for your children (in my experience), and this is yet another selector in life to give them every advantage. So, I do keep these things in mind. This research is going to occur (if not in the US, likely China), regardless of the uncomfortable feelings of vocal opponents. Get comfortable or get left behind.
        DuskStar 6y ago
        > if we decide to have additional children and the data showed we could select for traits that were important to us (intelligence, height, athletically predisposed), I would absolutely opt for it. You want the best for your children (in my experience), and this is yet another selector in life to give them every advantage. Gwern has a nice article on embryo selection: [0] I think the summary is "it has moderate-to-large effects, and might be worth the money today, and almost certainly will be worth the money in ten years". 0: https://www.gwern.net/Embryo-selection https://www.gwern.net/Embryo-selection
  - ShroudedNight 6y ago
    From what I can tell, ignorance is really only bliss for the privileged. When refusing to study the mechanics underlying a disadvantage, we are condemning those on the wrong side of that disadvantage to suffer indefinitely...
    - markdown 6y ago
      LOL, how do you propose to fix the genes of a group if indeed it is found that their genes are the cause of their circumstances? You have it backwards. The privileged are losing their privileges, and desperately seeking to find ways to justify why they should remain privileged. It is these people who desire to find evidence that proves their existing deeply-held belief that they're special, because "god" made them so and that others are genetically inferior.
  - tomp 6y ago
    Um, what? We don't have enough data to confirm or deny the existence of average group differences between major races, but we have pretty good data to be able to eliminate large differences. Even Ashkenazi Jews, who are supposed to have average IQ 1 standard deviation above the mean, aren't a superrace - sure, they are overrepresented amongst Nobel laureates, but many of them are still stupid. Basically, a small +-5 IQ point difference doesn't change the big picture that much - still most people between 80 and 120, and some outliers below and above that.
- Kednicma 6y ago
  There aren't big population-level differences, aside from basic cosmetic differences due to genetic drift [0]. Humans act as one single species, with one single pedigree [2], lacking any selfish genes which speciate us further. Genes within a single species' gene pool follow a Poisson distribution because they are randomly permuted [1][3][4], assuming the pool is large enough. This means that often, some genes will be popular for no good reason; that is, these popular genes are cosmetic. When, for example, most people in the world follow one of several popular skin-coloration patterns, that does not therefore imply any sort of fitness function is selecting for skin colors, because the null hypothesis that they are randomly permuted has so little problem explaining how they could arise without any effect on fitness. These questions aren't dangerous because they somehow subvert existing institutions, but because they're a direct introduction to ethnofascism via eugenics. We should roundly not just reject them based on empirical observations and data, but also based on theory and modelling; this is because we can then use contraposition to flip around various deductions. For example, people often ask whether "race" affects "intelligence" and point to survey data which shows correlations; using contraposition, and understanding that "race" is a social construction, we can refute the idea that "intelligence" is innate and suggest instead that it is tied to socioeconomic status or quality of education or other confounders. I would end with a question: What observations and data, exactly, are you looking at? What conclusions have you drawn? Can we use contraposition to flip around any of those conclusions and find deeper or simpler truths? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift#Wright.E2.80.93Fisher_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift#Wright.E2.80.93F... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedigree_collapse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedigree_collapse [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_distribution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_distribution [4] https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2019/12/random_permutations_part_7.html https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2019/12/random_permutat...
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    I think you missed the forest for the trees in my comment. > I would end with a question: What observations and data, exactly, are you looking at? What conclusions have you drawn? Can we use contraposition to flip around any of those conclusions and find deeper or simpler truths? None. I'm arguing that if Professor Hsu wants to model an experiment and a thesis, collect data, arrive at a conclusion, and publish a paper, that should be absolutely fine and provoke no outrage, even if some feel "that's a direct introduction to ethnofascism via eugenics". Let the reader of the paper be the judge if it's "ethnofascism". I'm prioritizing the scientific method over hurt feelings.

toomuchtodo 6y ago

> I hope it's not true. I would much rather live in a world where there are not big group differences. This is why these questions are deemed dangerous. They have the possibility of challenging and upsetting deeply held beliefs and narratives. What is there to fear but an observation and the data it’s based on?

markdown 6y ago
> What is there to fear but an observation and the data it’s based on? There is everything to fear. This is one issue for which a definitive answer (if not the correct one) could be catastrophically damaging to relations between humans forever. In this matter, ignorance is bliss.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  I disagree. A group’s lack of emotional fortitude is inhibiting the search for truth and progress as a species. Life is unfair, full stop. I’m unsure how learning it’s genetic changes the situation. If anything, it gives us a better understanding about how to approach the situation. The ignorant may keep the bliss. We are not served by putting our heads in the sand for the sake of political correctness.
  - dx87 6y ago
    One thing to keep in mind, is whether the difference is big enough to matter. I used to think the same as you, then I talked to my wife about a study I'd read that said the top end of male IQ is higher than the top end of female IQ, even if they are the same on average. She pointed out how even though there is a difference at the top end, it's not significant enough to matter (which is true). So there is no upside to publishing the research, but there is a definite downside of sexists/racists using the research to say "See, X is genetically inferior to us, that's why we shouldn't treat them the same". I don't think any particluar research should be banned, but the researchers should have the moral integrity to think about the impact of their research.
    - toomuchtodo 6y ago
      > "See, X is genetically inferior to us, that's why we shouldn't treat them the same". Hiding science is not the way you attack bigots; you attack their immoral views directly. My partner and I used IVF to have our first child. We had several fertilized embryos result. We were given the option of DNA sequencing and implanting embryos that met our genetic criteria. We didn't opt for it, but if we decide to have additional children and the data showed we could select for traits that were important to us (intelligence, height, athletically predisposed), I would absolutely opt for it. You want the best for your children (in my experience), and this is yet another selector in life to give them every advantage. So, I do keep these things in mind. This research is going to occur (if not in the US, likely China), regardless of the uncomfortable feelings of vocal opponents. Get comfortable or get left behind.
      - DuskStar 6y ago
        > if we decide to have additional children and the data showed we could select for traits that were important to us (intelligence, height, athletically predisposed), I would absolutely opt for it. You want the best for your children (in my experience), and this is yet another selector in life to give them every advantage. Gwern has a nice article on embryo selection: [0] I think the summary is "it has moderate-to-large effects, and might be worth the money today, and almost certainly will be worth the money in ten years". 0: https://www.gwern.net/Embryo-selection https://www.gwern.net/Embryo-selection
- ShroudedNight 6y ago
  From what I can tell, ignorance is really only bliss for the privileged. When refusing to study the mechanics underlying a disadvantage, we are condemning those on the wrong side of that disadvantage to suffer indefinitely...
  - markdown 6y ago
    LOL, how do you propose to fix the genes of a group if indeed it is found that their genes are the cause of their circumstances? You have it backwards. The privileged are losing their privileges, and desperately seeking to find ways to justify why they should remain privileged. It is these people who desire to find evidence that proves their existing deeply-held belief that they're special, because "god" made them so and that others are genetically inferior.
- tomp 6y ago
  Um, what? We don't have enough data to confirm or deny the existence of average group differences between major races, but we have pretty good data to be able to eliminate large differences. Even Ashkenazi Jews, who are supposed to have average IQ 1 standard deviation above the mean, aren't a superrace - sure, they are overrepresented amongst Nobel laureates, but many of them are still stupid. Basically, a small +-5 IQ point difference doesn't change the big picture that much - still most people between 80 and 120, and some outliers below and above that.
Kednicma 6y ago
There aren't big population-level differences, aside from basic cosmetic differences due to genetic drift [0]. Humans act as one single species, with one single pedigree [2], lacking any selfish genes which speciate us further. Genes within a single species' gene pool follow a Poisson distribution because they are randomly permuted [1][3][4], assuming the pool is large enough. This means that often, some genes will be popular for no good reason; that is, these popular genes are cosmetic. When, for example, most people in the world follow one of several popular skin-coloration patterns, that does not therefore imply any sort of fitness function is selecting for skin colors, because the null hypothesis that they are randomly permuted has so little problem explaining how they could arise without any effect on fitness. These questions aren't dangerous because they somehow subvert existing institutions, but because they're a direct introduction to ethnofascism via eugenics. We should roundly not just reject them based on empirical observations and data, but also based on theory and modelling; this is because we can then use contraposition to flip around various deductions. For example, people often ask whether "race" affects "intelligence" and point to survey data which shows correlations; using contraposition, and understanding that "race" is a social construction, we can refute the idea that "intelligence" is innate and suggest instead that it is tied to socioeconomic status or quality of education or other confounders. I would end with a question: What observations and data, exactly, are you looking at? What conclusions have you drawn? Can we use contraposition to flip around any of those conclusions and find deeper or simpler truths? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift#Wright.E2.80.93Fisher_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift#Wright.E2.80.93F... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedigree_collapse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedigree_collapse [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_distribution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_distribution [4] https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2019/12/random_permutations_part_7.html https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2019/12/random_permutat...
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  I think you missed the forest for the trees in my comment. > I would end with a question: What observations and data, exactly, are you looking at? What conclusions have you drawn? Can we use contraposition to flip around any of those conclusions and find deeper or simpler truths? None. I'm arguing that if Professor Hsu wants to model an experiment and a thesis, collect data, arrive at a conclusion, and publish a paper, that should be absolutely fine and provoke no outrage, even if some feel "that's a direct introduction to ethnofascism via eugenics". Let the reader of the paper be the judge if it's "ethnofascism". I'm prioritizing the scientific method over hurt feelings.