3 ms·

The opinion piece in question (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-complicated-legacy-of-e-o-wilson/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-c

The opinion piece in question (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-complicated-legacy-of-e-o-wilson/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-complicated-l...) strikes me as a restrained and sober attempt to explore the possibility that Wilson and others did bad science by presuming differences between races were due to genetics. Maybe you think the piece is wrong but it's just someone expressing some ideas, it's not intended to incite the woke mob or whatever. If anything, the OP seems to be trying to whip up a moral panic to suppress speech (i.e. to teach publishers that writing about race is toxic and dissuade them from publishing further opinion pieces examining race as a structural issue)

twofornone 5y ago
>presuming differences between races were due to genetics Its not a farfetched presumption that natural selection continued after the emergence of the homo sapien species. What is less likely is the notion that evolution magically stopped above the shoulders while geographically distinct human groups spent thousands of generations adapting physically, culturally, and likely cognitively to drastically different environments. >OP seems to be trying to whip up a moral panic to suppress speech These accusations of racism are the moral panic. This is pushback.
- john_moscow 5y ago
  >What is less likely is the notion that evolution magically stopped Well, the problem is that the science stopped being about "what is more likely" and turned into "what is more pleasant to hear to an average person". Back in the times of physical magazines and written letters, reading a scientific article required non-trivial effort, that worked as a sort of a selection bias, ensuring that the reader would be sufficiently educated, professional and open-minded [1]. These days, finding racism everywhere has become the claim for fame and meaning of life for too many people, so we all now have to take it into account. The funny part is that genetically were are very similar to the cave people some 50K years ago, and the huge difference in life quality is caused purely by what we learn, what values we teach to our kids, and where we pick our role models. Any genetic differences between races would pale in comparison to something you can learn in your lifetime. But this baby has somehow been thrown out with the water - one side is now convinced that all problems of certain demographics are unfixable and are caused by genetics, the other side attributes 100% of them to an unquantifiable oppressor and thinks that burning books and renaming formulas will somehow solve them, but nobody actually wants to put effort developing personality traits and habits that actually help a person achieve success in life. [1] as in "willing to examine weird-looking ideas from a rational standpoint, even if they personally don't like them" as opposed to "supporting the politically expected ideas even if they contradict the rational approach"
- weeblewobble 5y ago
  where is the panic though? this is just an op-ed. there's not even any strong language in it. the panic you are seeing is a projection, because you are the one who is panicking.
maxlybbert 5y ago
Every discussion about race seems to include a statement that “race” isn’t a scientific term and has no well-defined meaning. Race seems to be one group saying “those other people are different from us, and we don’t mingle with them.” I don’t consider it surprising for genetics researchers to compare distinct populations that have a long history of staying separate. I certainly don’t believe it’s evidence that the researchers think it’s right for the groups to stay separate; I assume they’re simply interested in the outcome of staying separate. I’m not even sure that the researchers assume any differences are caused by genetics. I think that’s an important part of the research: what differences exist? what are the causes? can we show some are genetic? can we show some definitely aren’t genetic? what are the outcomes?
- weeblewobble 5y ago
  perhaps! I'm not an expert on this topic, just pointing out that the article everyone is freaking out about is pretty mild and seems to me firmly within the boundaries of acceptable speech
mb7733 5y ago
The article called someone a racist, days after they passed away, without presenting any evidence of that fact. (The original article does not cite or refer to any of Wilson's work.) When asked on Twitter to provide some evidence of Wilson's racist views, the author of the article declined to provide any. She said that readers should look it up themselves. That isn't sober critique, it's slander.
- VictorPath 5y ago
  > called someone a racist, days after they passed away Wilson was being called racist by many back in 1975. I agree with them. He was a racist who tried to dress his racist political views up in scientific jargon. Like William Shockley. If you don't want people knocking you after your death, don't write books saying whites are genetically superior to oppressed races in the US and that slavery is natural.
  - mb7733 5y ago
    Can you provide a reference or at least a quotation or something? Which book are you referring to? This is the same thing the author of the article did -- dragged Wilson through the mud without actually quoting him or referring to any specific work. I found a reference [0] where Wilson discusses slavery, but he's talking about slavery in ants. The only actual quotation [1] I've found anyone bring up in this discussion shows Wilson had views the exact opposite of what you imply. [0] https://www.jstor.org/stable/2407145 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2407145 [1] https://twitter.com/LSMitchell/status/1476447156118638594?s=20 https://twitter.com/LSMitchell/status/1476447156118638594?s=...
TulliusCicero 5y ago
Here's a thought: if the author wants to make an argument, perhaps they should provide evidence for their point. "Look it up yourself" is the battle cry of a lazy redditor, not someone who's supposedly an academic. Other people don't have to make your argument for you. It's on you to do that.

twofornone 5y ago

>presuming differences between races were due to genetics Its not a farfetched presumption that natural selection continued after the emergence of the homo sapien species. What is less likely is the notion that evolution magically stopped above the shoulders while geographically distinct human groups spent thousands of generations adapting physically, culturally, and likely cognitively to drastically different environments. >OP seems to be trying to whip up a moral panic to suppress speech These accusations of racism are the moral panic. This is pushback.

john_moscow 5y ago
>What is less likely is the notion that evolution magically stopped Well, the problem is that the science stopped being about "what is more likely" and turned into "what is more pleasant to hear to an average person". Back in the times of physical magazines and written letters, reading a scientific article required non-trivial effort, that worked as a sort of a selection bias, ensuring that the reader would be sufficiently educated, professional and open-minded [1]. These days, finding racism everywhere has become the claim for fame and meaning of life for too many people, so we all now have to take it into account. The funny part is that genetically were are very similar to the cave people some 50K years ago, and the huge difference in life quality is caused purely by what we learn, what values we teach to our kids, and where we pick our role models. Any genetic differences between races would pale in comparison to something you can learn in your lifetime. But this baby has somehow been thrown out with the water - one side is now convinced that all problems of certain demographics are unfixable and are caused by genetics, the other side attributes 100% of them to an unquantifiable oppressor and thinks that burning books and renaming formulas will somehow solve them, but nobody actually wants to put effort developing personality traits and habits that actually help a person achieve success in life. [1] as in "willing to examine weird-looking ideas from a rational standpoint, even if they personally don't like them" as opposed to "supporting the politically expected ideas even if they contradict the rational approach"
weeblewobble 5y ago
where is the panic though? this is just an op-ed. there's not even any strong language in it. the panic you are seeing is a projection, because you are the one who is panicking.

maxlybbert 5y ago

Every discussion about race seems to include a statement that “race” isn’t a scientific term and has no well-defined meaning. Race seems to be one group saying “those other people are different from us, and we don’t mingle with them.” I don’t consider it surprising for genetics researchers to compare distinct populations that have a long history of staying separate. I certainly don’t believe it’s evidence that the researchers think it’s right for the groups to stay separate; I assume they’re simply interested in the outcome of staying separate. I’m not even sure that the researchers assume any differences are caused by genetics. I think that’s an important part of the research: what differences exist? what are the causes? can we show some are genetic? can we show some definitely aren’t genetic? what are the outcomes?

weeblewobble 5y ago
perhaps! I'm not an expert on this topic, just pointing out that the article everyone is freaking out about is pretty mild and seems to me firmly within the boundaries of acceptable speech

mb7733 5y ago

The article called someone a racist, days after they passed away, without presenting any evidence of that fact. (The original article does not cite or refer to any of Wilson's work.) When asked on Twitter to provide some evidence of Wilson's racist views, the author of the article declined to provide any. She said that readers should look it up themselves. That isn't sober critique, it's slander.

VictorPath 5y ago
> called someone a racist, days after they passed away Wilson was being called racist by many back in 1975. I agree with them. He was a racist who tried to dress his racist political views up in scientific jargon. Like William Shockley. If you don't want people knocking you after your death, don't write books saying whites are genetically superior to oppressed races in the US and that slavery is natural.
- mb7733 5y ago
  Can you provide a reference or at least a quotation or something? Which book are you referring to? This is the same thing the author of the article did -- dragged Wilson through the mud without actually quoting him or referring to any specific work. I found a reference [0] where Wilson discusses slavery, but he's talking about slavery in ants. The only actual quotation [1] I've found anyone bring up in this discussion shows Wilson had views the exact opposite of what you imply. [0] https://www.jstor.org/stable/2407145 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2407145 [1] https://twitter.com/LSMitchell/status/1476447156118638594?s=20 https://twitter.com/LSMitchell/status/1476447156118638594?s=...

TulliusCicero 5y ago

Here's a thought: if the author wants to make an argument, perhaps they should provide evidence for their point. "Look it up yourself" is the battle cry of a lazy redditor, not someone who's supposedly an academic. Other people don't have to make your argument for you. It's on you to do that.