4 ms·

This sort of research is incredibly dangerous, as it could lead to the (clearly false) belief that measured differences in cognitive ability between different h

This sort of research is incredibly dangerous, as it could lead to the (clearly false) belief that measured differences in cognitive ability between different human sub-groups is also based in genetic differences. Also, if apes were created with human level intelligence then the lines of "human rights" might be tied inextricably to quantified intelligence. We must outlaw such research and brand it as "racist" immediately (on a cultural level) to prevent going down a scientifically justified social darwinian path toward distopia /s

Neeklo 4y ago
Without arguing on the specifics of this case, I do not think that the answer is "ban all of research that can be read as racist". This -seems to me- would be acting on symptoms and not causes of a deeper issue, and could actually end up in much worst consequences.
- andrewclunn 4y ago
  I think you might benefit from understanding what this means: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=%2FS https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=%2FS
  - Neeklo 4y ago
    ahha terribly terribly sorry!
smolder 4y ago
Why make a straw man just so you can sarcastically mock it? At least wait for someone to express a real opinion you disagree with. This isn't a good basis for discussion nor very relevant.
- andrewclunn 4y ago
  Considering the first comment missed that it was sarcasm, I think I hit a recurring sort of argument right on the head. As far as relevancy, I think the the practice of modifying primate genes, specifically to make them more human like in cognitive ways, and then aborting them to prevent the true impact of the development being studied (and to avoid anyone coming after them for human / animal rights violations) is very relevant with this sort of research.
c3534l 4y ago
You're the only person who brought race into this and that says way more about you than anyone else.
astrange 4y ago
> as it could lead to the (clearly false) belief that measured differences in cognitive ability between different human sub-groups is also based in genetic differences. This is, in fact, false. Hope this helps. If I told you a way it was true - people with phenylketonuria become "less intelligent" if their environment contains Diet Coke - you wouldn't take that as a win, because by "genetic differences" you mean "science says I'm better than this other guy in a way they can never overcome". Or possibly you're getting info from people who think "heritable" means "genetic", which it doesn't.
- pedrosorio 4y ago
  > you wouldn't take that as a win, because by "genetic differences" you mean "science says I'm better than this other guy in a way they can never overcome" Can I say Jakob Ingebrigsten is better than me (at middle distance running) in a way I can never overcome due to genetic differences? I am fairly sure someone with my genetics cannot run a 4 minute mile, and the guy does that for fun. But perhaps I am wrong and given the right environment every human being is capable of running a 4 minute mile?
  - astrange 4y ago
    Doesn't seem like the most obvious explanation, considering you don't have either of your genetics on hand and have existed in different environments since you were zygotes. All the other stuff (environment, diet, mother's diet… even training) is more likely to be it because it happened more recently. Also, you don't become a professional runner because you're the world's best at running. You become a runner because you're not even better at something else. That's called "comparative advantage".
    - pedrosorio 4y ago
      > All the other stuff (environment, diet, mother's diet… even training) is more likely to be it because it happened more recently. And yet, the evidence contradicts you: https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-017-4190-8 https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s1286... Mind you, the (many variables) in the environment certainly have an effect. And without training you just can't reach elite performance. But most humans out of the womb, can't run a 4 minute mile regardless of training regimen over their lives. I pick that number because it's at the edge of human performance. No woman in the world, out of the many impressive athletes who have tried, ever got close - the record is 4:12 by the incredible Sifan Hassan. Only a few hundred men in the US have been able to achieve it. Was it the environment, their mother's diet or the patriarchy that allowed these men - but not the many thousands, (millions?) of other men and women who tried- to run under 4 minutes in the mile? I'm sure you agree physical ability depends on genetics in certain cases. No human being can reach the top speed of the average lion, and that's purely due to genes. The idea that genetic differences cease to matter for peak potential performance when we talk about individuals of the same species, flies in the face of all the sports science evidence. Occam's razor makes genetics the obvious explanation for things everyone who ever did sports in school has observed: certain kids can dunk with minimal training (height, fast-twitch muscle fibers) and others can't touch the rim, certain kids can lap others before they ever do any sort of endurance training, and once they do, even very talented kids run out of breath trying to keep up with the best given equal training, etc. Most environment effects can be extremely detrimental in rare cases (mother's diet impacting embryo/fetus development, poor early childhood nutrition), but once we're out of the womb and healthy, there are massive differences and nothing indicates running a 4 minute mile is about whose mum ate the best breakfast. P.S.: Most of this "genes, evolution theory, speciation, yes all true, but humans are all the same, basically" ideology stems from a good place - don't want to repeat the eugenics and similar bullshit of the last century. You can do both. Defend humans rights and equal treatment for all humans, with the understanding that individuals are different and many of those differences are determined by their genes.

Neeklo 4y ago

Without arguing on the specifics of this case, I do not think that the answer is "ban all of research that can be read as racist". This -seems to me- would be acting on symptoms and not causes of a deeper issue, and could actually end up in much worst consequences.

andrewclunn 4y ago
I think you might benefit from understanding what this means: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=%2FS https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=%2FS
- Neeklo 4y ago
  ahha terribly terribly sorry!

smolder 4y ago

Why make a straw man just so you can sarcastically mock it? At least wait for someone to express a real opinion you disagree with. This isn't a good basis for discussion nor very relevant.

andrewclunn 4y ago
Considering the first comment missed that it was sarcasm, I think I hit a recurring sort of argument right on the head. As far as relevancy, I think the the practice of modifying primate genes, specifically to make them more human like in cognitive ways, and then aborting them to prevent the true impact of the development being studied (and to avoid anyone coming after them for human / animal rights violations) is very relevant with this sort of research.

c3534l 4y ago

You're the only person who brought race into this and that says way more about you than anyone else.

astrange 4y ago

> as it could lead to the (clearly false) belief that measured differences in cognitive ability between different human sub-groups is also based in genetic differences. This is, in fact, false. Hope this helps. If I told you a way it was true - people with phenylketonuria become "less intelligent" if their environment contains Diet Coke - you wouldn't take that as a win, because by "genetic differences" you mean "science says I'm better than this other guy in a way they can never overcome". Or possibly you're getting info from people who think "heritable" means "genetic", which it doesn't.

pedrosorio 4y ago
> you wouldn't take that as a win, because by "genetic differences" you mean "science says I'm better than this other guy in a way they can never overcome" Can I say Jakob Ingebrigsten is better than me (at middle distance running) in a way I can never overcome due to genetic differences? I am fairly sure someone with my genetics cannot run a 4 minute mile, and the guy does that for fun. But perhaps I am wrong and given the right environment every human being is capable of running a 4 minute mile?
- astrange 4y ago
  Doesn't seem like the most obvious explanation, considering you don't have either of your genetics on hand and have existed in different environments since you were zygotes. All the other stuff (environment, diet, mother's diet… even training) is more likely to be it because it happened more recently. Also, you don't become a professional runner because you're the world's best at running. You become a runner because you're not even better at something else. That's called "comparative advantage".
  - pedrosorio 4y ago
    > All the other stuff (environment, diet, mother's diet… even training) is more likely to be it because it happened more recently. And yet, the evidence contradicts you: https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-017-4190-8 https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s1286... Mind you, the (many variables) in the environment certainly have an effect. And without training you just can't reach elite performance. But most humans out of the womb, can't run a 4 minute mile regardless of training regimen over their lives. I pick that number because it's at the edge of human performance. No woman in the world, out of the many impressive athletes who have tried, ever got close - the record is 4:12 by the incredible Sifan Hassan. Only a few hundred men in the US have been able to achieve it. Was it the environment, their mother's diet or the patriarchy that allowed these men - but not the many thousands, (millions?) of other men and women who tried- to run under 4 minutes in the mile? I'm sure you agree physical ability depends on genetics in certain cases. No human being can reach the top speed of the average lion, and that's purely due to genes. The idea that genetic differences cease to matter for peak potential performance when we talk about individuals of the same species, flies in the face of all the sports science evidence. Occam's razor makes genetics the obvious explanation for things everyone who ever did sports in school has observed: certain kids can dunk with minimal training (height, fast-twitch muscle fibers) and others can't touch the rim, certain kids can lap others before they ever do any sort of endurance training, and once they do, even very talented kids run out of breath trying to keep up with the best given equal training, etc. Most environment effects can be extremely detrimental in rare cases (mother's diet impacting embryo/fetus development, poor early childhood nutrition), but once we're out of the womb and healthy, there are massive differences and nothing indicates running a 4 minute mile is about whose mum ate the best breakfast. P.S.: Most of this "genes, evolution theory, speciation, yes all true, but humans are all the same, basically" ideology stems from a good place - don't want to repeat the eugenics and similar bullshit of the last century. You can do both. Defend humans rights and equal treatment for all humans, with the understanding that individuals are different and many of those differences are determined by their genes.