4 ms·

Sure, that's a good point generally but doesn't seem at all the problem the article is addressing. Skimming it, it's about progressives denying group difference

by Tenoke 5y ago

Sure, that's a good point generally but doesn't seem at all the problem the article is addressing. Skimming it, it's about progressives denying group differences at all and calling those who research them 'equivalent to Holocaust Deniers'. From following genetics research and researchers, I've seen plenty of that, and I don't see the relevance of your point here.

simonh 5y ago
The research isn't specifically about group differences, or differences between populations anyway. That issue inevitably gets all the attention, but it's just one dimension. The vast majority of genetic differences between any two individuals have nothing to do with whatever arbitrary groups society categorises them with, and most genetic differences that do correlate with anything like race are basically cosmetic. Nevertheless genetic differences can make a huge difference to individuals. Many factors we uncontroversially categorise as disabilities have a genetic basis. In UK schools children categorised as on the Autism spectrum, or dyslexic receive additional support and consideration with regard to exam rules. I don't want to sideline into an argument about to what extent these specifically have a genetic basis, but broadly if we are going to agree that such factors are taken into account, it's flat out incoherent to then ignore or deny research into the origins, characteristics and influence of these factors.
- Tenoke 5y ago
  The backlash by progressives is usually specifically centered around the group differences part. And I don't buy that's the one that gets all the attention - all the negative one maybe, but most accepted and talked about genetic research isn't about that at all.
  - Retric 5y ago
    Different ethnic groups have meaningful difference in various allergies and disease risks, but that doesn’t get attention from the general public. That stuff is basically all interesting but largely meaningless because it’s so binary. It doesn’t matter if your part of a group that’s 10x as likely to be lactose intolerant, you are either lactose intolerant or your not. Sure the dairy industry might care, but the only impact on individuals is what they can bring to very large family gatherings. Even where it is actually meaningful to an ethnic group, people rarely from a single ethnic group. A large chunk of African Americans are whiter genetically than their black.
    - Tenoke 5y ago
      For lactose intolerance maybe it doesn't matter. There are a lot of diesesases for which screening is not worth it if your risk is too low due to a high false negative compared to your risk (which is part of why we screen young people for a lot less).
    - esyir 5y ago
      If you might remember a somewhat recent controversy when they tried to remove race in the eGFR (kidney effectiveness, sorta) calculations. This was not done for performance reasons, or to find a better measure. The impetus was the idea that it was racist, never mind the performance or benefit to black patients.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  "most genetic differences that do correlate with anything like race are basically cosmetic." But those that aren't cosmetic can matter a lot. For a noncontroversial example, sickle cell anemia. It absolutely makes sense to screen people of West African descent for sickle cell anemia.
ethbr0 5y ago
To fine tune what you said, the article (to leave the actual scientific work in question aside for now) focuses on progressives denying genetic differences between groups, but modern behavioral genetics focusing on differences within groups, between individuals. (Between groups being entirely too muddled by confounding factors) And the stridently progressive crowd (read: Twitter) rage-cruising right past the distinction, and using arguments against the former to dismiss the latter as anathema. And then, as these things typically go, coming to their senses and being somewhat embarrassed by where they end up, but unwilling to concede their obviously righteous point and so making increasingly intellectually ridiculous justifications.
tsimionescu 5y ago
Well, a major problem is that the groups being studied are often either very poorly defined - things like 'black people' or 'Ashkenazi jews', which are entirely social categories, with little to no effort in most IQ studies to actually establish genetic group markers. Other times, studies look at groups with much more proeminent socio-economic differences than genetic ones (countries, neighborhoods). Here the genetic factor is impossible to isolate from the other factors, making genetic claims dubious.
throwaway972021 5y ago
> progressives denying group differences at all In my experience, it depends on the group. It seems conservatives are more likely to defend the idea of IQ differences among racial groups, but also more likely to reject the studies showing that liberals tend to have higher IQ's than conservatives[1]. Fundamentally, though, I'm not sure what the use of highlighting group differences is. I tend to skeptical of such studies (in my own experience datasets can be very misleading if sliced the wrong way), but if the studies about political alignment are true, then what? Should I start separating people based on what group they belong to? As the above poster said, when you're measuring an individuals aptitude then the group aptitude is basically meaningless. [1] https://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex....
- Tenoke 5y ago
  Comparing a single study to a whole subfield is just odd. Also again, no. You generally don't make individual judgements based on group differences. You can make population-level decisions based on them or allocate funds more effectively or reach a deeper understanding on group differences with such research so socially outlawing it is counter-productive even if you personally won't use the results in your day to day life.
- everdrive 5y ago
  >In my experience, it depends on the group. It seems conservatives are more likely to defend the idea of IQ differences among racial groups, but also more likely to reject the studies showing that liberals tend to have higher IQ's than conservatives[1]. This may be true, and a perfectly fair point ... but it does not actually prove the argument wrong, it simply points out that groups are susceptible to motivated reasoning. ie, there are some measurable IQ differences among groups which may be related to genetics, and this point is not invalidated because different people supporting it or criticizing it are hypocrites.
armchairhacker 5y ago
The point is that progressives should stop being so afraid of accepting genetic differences, because they don't go against the type of policies most progressives are after. And because genetic differences are probably real, when progressives argue against racism etc. because "genetic differences don't exist" they actually hurt their position. Policies that discriminate based on genetics are bad, not because genetic differences aren't real, but because they're a) inaccurate, especially compared to measuring the differences themselves, and b) usually immoral, because having good genetics is luck and doesn't make you deserve a better life. Chomsky (see above comment) probably does a better job explaining this.

by Tenoke 5y ago

simonh 5y ago

The research isn't specifically about group differences, or differences between populations anyway. That issue inevitably gets all the attention, but it's just one dimension. The vast majority of genetic differences between any two individuals have nothing to do with whatever arbitrary groups society categorises them with, and most genetic differences that do correlate with anything like race are basically cosmetic. Nevertheless genetic differences can make a huge difference to individuals. Many factors we uncontroversially categorise as disabilities have a genetic basis. In UK schools children categorised as on the Autism spectrum, or dyslexic receive additional support and consideration with regard to exam rules. I don't want to sideline into an argument about to what extent these specifically have a genetic basis, but broadly if we are going to agree that such factors are taken into account, it's flat out incoherent to then ignore or deny research into the origins, characteristics and influence of these factors.

Tenoke 5y ago
The backlash by progressives is usually specifically centered around the group differences part. And I don't buy that's the one that gets all the attention - all the negative one maybe, but most accepted and talked about genetic research isn't about that at all.
- Retric 5y ago
  Different ethnic groups have meaningful difference in various allergies and disease risks, but that doesn’t get attention from the general public. That stuff is basically all interesting but largely meaningless because it’s so binary. It doesn’t matter if your part of a group that’s 10x as likely to be lactose intolerant, you are either lactose intolerant or your not. Sure the dairy industry might care, but the only impact on individuals is what they can bring to very large family gatherings. Even where it is actually meaningful to an ethnic group, people rarely from a single ethnic group. A large chunk of African Americans are whiter genetically than their black.
  - Tenoke 5y ago
    For lactose intolerance maybe it doesn't matter. There are a lot of diesesases for which screening is not worth it if your risk is too low due to a high false negative compared to your risk (which is part of why we screen young people for a lot less).
  - esyir 5y ago
    If you might remember a somewhat recent controversy when they tried to remove race in the eGFR (kidney effectiveness, sorta) calculations. This was not done for performance reasons, or to find a better measure. The impetus was the idea that it was racist, never mind the performance or benefit to black patients.
inglor_cz 5y ago
"most genetic differences that do correlate with anything like race are basically cosmetic." But those that aren't cosmetic can matter a lot. For a noncontroversial example, sickle cell anemia. It absolutely makes sense to screen people of West African descent for sickle cell anemia.

ethbr0 5y ago

To fine tune what you said, the article (to leave the actual scientific work in question aside for now) focuses on progressives denying genetic differences between groups, but modern behavioral genetics focusing on differences within groups, between individuals. (Between groups being entirely too muddled by confounding factors) And the stridently progressive crowd (read: Twitter) rage-cruising right past the distinction, and using arguments against the former to dismiss the latter as anathema. And then, as these things typically go, coming to their senses and being somewhat embarrassed by where they end up, but unwilling to concede their obviously righteous point and so making increasingly intellectually ridiculous justifications.

tsimionescu 5y ago

Well, a major problem is that the groups being studied are often either very poorly defined - things like 'black people' or 'Ashkenazi jews', which are entirely social categories, with little to no effort in most IQ studies to actually establish genetic group markers. Other times, studies look at groups with much more proeminent socio-economic differences than genetic ones (countries, neighborhoods). Here the genetic factor is impossible to isolate from the other factors, making genetic claims dubious.

throwaway972021 5y ago

> progressives denying group differences at all In my experience, it depends on the group. It seems conservatives are more likely to defend the idea of IQ differences among racial groups, but also more likely to reject the studies showing that liberals tend to have higher IQ's than conservatives[1]. Fundamentally, though, I'm not sure what the use of highlighting group differences is. I tend to skeptical of such studies (in my own experience datasets can be very misleading if sliced the wrong way), but if the studies about political alignment are true, then what? Should I start separating people based on what group they belong to? As the above poster said, when you're measuring an individuals aptitude then the group aptitude is basically meaningless. [1] https://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex....

Tenoke 5y ago
Comparing a single study to a whole subfield is just odd. Also again, no. You generally don't make individual judgements based on group differences. You can make population-level decisions based on them or allocate funds more effectively or reach a deeper understanding on group differences with such research so socially outlawing it is counter-productive even if you personally won't use the results in your day to day life.
everdrive 5y ago
>In my experience, it depends on the group. It seems conservatives are more likely to defend the idea of IQ differences among racial groups, but also more likely to reject the studies showing that liberals tend to have higher IQ's than conservatives[1]. This may be true, and a perfectly fair point ... but it does not actually prove the argument wrong, it simply points out that groups are susceptible to motivated reasoning. ie, there are some measurable IQ differences among groups which may be related to genetics, and this point is not invalidated because different people supporting it or criticizing it are hypocrites.

armchairhacker 5y ago

The point is that progressives should stop being so afraid of accepting genetic differences, because they don't go against the type of policies most progressives are after. And because genetic differences are probably real, when progressives argue against racism etc. because "genetic differences don't exist" they actually hurt their position. Policies that discriminate based on genetics are bad, not because genetic differences aren't real, but because they're a) inaccurate, especially compared to measuring the differences themselves, and b) usually immoral, because having good genetics is luck and doesn't make you deserve a better life. Chomsky (see above comment) probably does a better job explaining this.