10 ms·

Bizarre that the second to top comment (on the linked page) immediately turned the conversation into one about the commenter's view on racial/sexual supremacy a

by badRNG 5y ago

Bizarre that the second to top comment (on the linked page) immediately turned the conversation into one about the commenter's view on racial/sexual supremacy and goes on to say "correspondingly, there are also ethnicities that are less intelligent" (I'm assuming they are implying supremacy of their own group.) It's quite jarring the frequency one comes across white supremacist/misogynist talking points when one tries to engage with programming/computer science communities online. It makes me appreciate the largely positive and safe experience HN provides, despite the occasional user that insists the opposite. Edit: some of the comments appear to have been removed/deleted or otherwise fallen off, though the comment about "ethnicities that are less intelligent" is still up near the top.

tuesdayrain 5y ago
All he said is that some ethnicities are less intelligent than others. What is the statistical likelihood that 100% of ethnicities, which have evolved in drastically different environments across the world, have all developed perfectly identical intelligence on average? It's just not how evolution realistically works. People shouldn't close their eyes to how the world actually is whenever it doesn't match up with how they think it should be.
- 29athrowaway 5y ago
  Yeah but some comparisons suck. If you measure the IQ for the same ethnicity you will notice that the IQ changes over time. Having proper levels of iodine is responsible for about 15 points of IQ. Removing lead from fuel, some extra increase. Pollution, nutrition, water purity, all the accrued knowledge about fetal and child development that is applied in modern economies, etc. plays a role. Also, there are negative factors like exposure to violence and trauma, substance abuse, which is correlated with poverty and inequality... which is a legacy of slavery, racial segregation, etc.
- badRNG 5y ago
  All you've done is restate the original claim without providing evidence that intelligence "doesn't match up" (as you claim) across ethnicities. Generally when pressed, folks who dress up their racism in pseudoscientific language rely on the same small handful of talking points which largely haven't changed since "scientific racism" was mainstream in the 19th century. This started with phrenology, a widespread mainstream pseudoscience not only focused on dehumanizing black people, but also explicitly targeting natives as an apparent attempt to justify otherwise unconscionable public policies of the day. [1] It's bad enough to hold pseudoscientific beliefs; it's worse if those beliefs originate in a blantant attempt to dehumanize others. [1] https://pages.vassar.edu/realarchaeology/2017/03/05/phrenology-and-scientific-racism-in-the-19th-century/ https://pages.vassar.edu/realarchaeology/2017/03/05/phrenolo...
  - tuesdayrain 5y ago
    James Watson had evidence on the subject, he was stripped of his titles and harassed by ideologues who are convinced everyone should be exactly equal. Scientists have realized it's not worth it to sacrifice their career when the general public simply isn't interested in knowing things that might be considered racist.
    - badRNG 5y ago
      James Watson made many unfounded racist claims that have been completely discredited. The rhetoric surrounding racist pseudoscience mirrors that of the anti-vaccine and climate change denial movements. They point to a discredited "anti-vaxx" doctor or a discredited "climate change denying" researcher and view the criticism of their work as censorship, rather than as a sign they might not be a credible source.
      - telesilla 5y ago
        In addition to sexism. I read his book Double Helix as a young woman and will never forget passages criticizing Rosalind Franklin's "choice" not to “emphasize her feminine qualities” and her lack of “even a mild interest in clothes.”
      - watson_truth 5y ago
        http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconvenient-truth_296.php http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconven... The claims were true in the past, and the evidence has continued to accumulate. Denial of the evidence at this point is just silly.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
screye 5y ago
The unfortunate reality is that group level differences in characteristics associated with intelligence are measurable. It is pretty much an open secret in genomics. Additionally, given how regression to the mean works, a small enough endogamous minority will display larger deviations from the mean (positive or negative) than larger ethnic groups that usually constitute the majority. I agree that it is a really tricky line to walk. The brazen pursuit of truth or tabooing of prospectively society uprooting revelations. Both are a result of the same observation, just different moral systems. I'm sure many grapple with this struggle in their own way. However, ostrasizing those who find themselves on the other side of that fence by shouting various 'X-isms', is neither productive nor effective.
- badRNG 5y ago
  >The unfortunate reality is that group level differences in characteristics associated with intelligence are measurable. It is pretty much an open secret in genomics. Do you have any evidence to support these assertions? We don't even have a reliable way to measure intelligence (a concept that is troublesome enough to even define), much less conclude that there are so-called "group level differences."
  - solveit 5y ago
    They were very careful to say characteristics associated with intelligence for exactly this reason, I presume.
    - screye 5y ago
      Yes. Afaik, they are looking at measurable traits that we think are associated with intelligence. Intelligence itself is a much much harder problem to unravel.
- huetius 5y ago
  Group level differences in IQ and its components are measurable. As someone not remotely progressive and who simply does not care about their values, I don’t believe any of these things actually amount to a workable definition of intelligence. I base this on my experiences with the very well-sifted meritocrats I encounter daily.
vishho 5y ago
I think it is ironically relevant. People complain about the target selection and first-mover advantage of Von Neumann, in the same thread which seems to be taken over by collateral damage of polarizing identity politics propaganda, set to target social cohesion of American civilians (which leaks into Western culture) done by the very same adversaries targeted decades back by Von Neumann.

by badRNG 5y ago

tuesdayrain 5y ago

All he said is that some ethnicities are less intelligent than others. What is the statistical likelihood that 100% of ethnicities, which have evolved in drastically different environments across the world, have all developed perfectly identical intelligence on average? It's just not how evolution realistically works. People shouldn't close their eyes to how the world actually is whenever it doesn't match up with how they think it should be.

29athrowaway 5y ago
Yeah but some comparisons suck. If you measure the IQ for the same ethnicity you will notice that the IQ changes over time. Having proper levels of iodine is responsible for about 15 points of IQ. Removing lead from fuel, some extra increase. Pollution, nutrition, water purity, all the accrued knowledge about fetal and child development that is applied in modern economies, etc. plays a role. Also, there are negative factors like exposure to violence and trauma, substance abuse, which is correlated with poverty and inequality... which is a legacy of slavery, racial segregation, etc.
badRNG 5y ago
All you've done is restate the original claim without providing evidence that intelligence "doesn't match up" (as you claim) across ethnicities. Generally when pressed, folks who dress up their racism in pseudoscientific language rely on the same small handful of talking points which largely haven't changed since "scientific racism" was mainstream in the 19th century. This started with phrenology, a widespread mainstream pseudoscience not only focused on dehumanizing black people, but also explicitly targeting natives as an apparent attempt to justify otherwise unconscionable public policies of the day. [1] It's bad enough to hold pseudoscientific beliefs; it's worse if those beliefs originate in a blantant attempt to dehumanize others. [1] https://pages.vassar.edu/realarchaeology/2017/03/05/phrenology-and-scientific-racism-in-the-19th-century/ https://pages.vassar.edu/realarchaeology/2017/03/05/phrenolo...
- tuesdayrain 5y ago
  James Watson had evidence on the subject, he was stripped of his titles and harassed by ideologues who are convinced everyone should be exactly equal. Scientists have realized it's not worth it to sacrifice their career when the general public simply isn't interested in knowing things that might be considered racist.
  - badRNG 5y ago
    James Watson made many unfounded racist claims that have been completely discredited. The rhetoric surrounding racist pseudoscience mirrors that of the anti-vaccine and climate change denial movements. They point to a discredited "anti-vaxx" doctor or a discredited "climate change denying" researcher and view the criticism of their work as censorship, rather than as a sign they might not be a credible source.
    - telesilla 5y ago
      In addition to sexism. I read his book Double Helix as a young woman and will never forget passages criticizing Rosalind Franklin's "choice" not to “emphasize her feminine qualities” and her lack of “even a mild interest in clothes.”
    - watson_truth 5y ago
      http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconvenient-truth_296.php http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconven... The claims were true in the past, and the evidence has continued to accumulate. Denial of the evidence at this point is just silly.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

screye 5y ago

The unfortunate reality is that group level differences in characteristics associated with intelligence are measurable. It is pretty much an open secret in genomics. Additionally, given how regression to the mean works, a small enough endogamous minority will display larger deviations from the mean (positive or negative) than larger ethnic groups that usually constitute the majority. I agree that it is a really tricky line to walk. The brazen pursuit of truth or tabooing of prospectively society uprooting revelations. Both are a result of the same observation, just different moral systems. I'm sure many grapple with this struggle in their own way. However, ostrasizing those who find themselves on the other side of that fence by shouting various 'X-isms', is neither productive nor effective.

badRNG 5y ago
>The unfortunate reality is that group level differences in characteristics associated with intelligence are measurable. It is pretty much an open secret in genomics. Do you have any evidence to support these assertions? We don't even have a reliable way to measure intelligence (a concept that is troublesome enough to even define), much less conclude that there are so-called "group level differences."
- solveit 5y ago
  They were very careful to say characteristics associated with intelligence for exactly this reason, I presume.
  - screye 5y ago
    Yes. Afaik, they are looking at measurable traits that we think are associated with intelligence. Intelligence itself is a much much harder problem to unravel.
huetius 5y ago
Group level differences in IQ and its components are measurable. As someone not remotely progressive and who simply does not care about their values, I don’t believe any of these things actually amount to a workable definition of intelligence. I base this on my experiences with the very well-sifted meritocrats I encounter daily.

vishho 5y ago

I think it is ironically relevant. People complain about the target selection and first-mover advantage of Von Neumann, in the same thread which seems to be taken over by collateral damage of polarizing identity politics propaganda, set to target social cohesion of American civilians (which leaks into Western culture) done by the very same adversaries targeted decades back by Von Neumann.