3 ms·

What's that research going to be used for? Will it become of the basis of policy that says 'only asians are allowed to enter the power lifting club', 'only east

What's that research going to be used for? Will it become of the basis of policy that says 'only asians are allowed to enter the power lifting club', 'only east africans on the running team', 'only white land owning men are allowed to vote'.

Stupulous 4y ago
Setting aside the question of whether the truth should be suppressed because of consequences, this kind of research could very easily be beneficial. Suppose you find out that the green people from East Arbitria are less productive. The immediate effect is that an innocent objective employer who being tried for discrimination or hated by a community no longer has to suffer- the cruelty of the universe is no longer being made anyone's fault. The secondary effect is that we now have grounds to investigate why Arbitrarians have that disadvantage. Maybe green people have a harder time metabolizing a nutrient; a non-issue with the diet/climate/lifestyle of Arbitria. An update to health recommendations later and millions of people's lives are improved.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
  It would also mean that people could use this to say "All East Arbitaria people are less productive than all other ethnicities, therefore I shall ban them from my workplace. I am not anti-Arbitrian, I am just using the latest science". And of course these things are always statistical and so high performing East Arbitarians are going to be shut out of work because of this study. The point is, there is a history of race-based discrimination in the world and researchers can't just pretend that it doesn't still exist when constructing these kinds of studies and how their outcomes could be used negatively by both benevolent and malevolent actors. It isn't just 'truth or not truth', also because lots of sociological studies aren't repeatable and many others suffer all sorts of issues with methods, populations, etc. Measuring people is crazy hard to do reliably. Anyway, my hot take is that its not a simple question and does not have a simple answer.
collegeburner 4y ago
1. we don't know how a piece of research will be used because we don't even know what the outcome will be. 2. rarely is a piece of research only used for 1 thing, and even if someone uses it wrongly, maybe someone else uses it for good purpose or builds on it for an important discovery. 3. the correct answer is to address the person attempting to abuse the data when that person does it not to attempt to suppress that information by preventing the research or limiting how it's done. 4. are you saying we shouldn't do research on e.g. whether certain groups are better at lifting because it could be abused?
- Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
  The question of whether certain research should be banned because of the potential outcomes is one with deep philosophical roots and the basis of much science fiction. The 'just because we could do something, doesn't mean we should' question. I don't think there is a single absolute answer to this, as context matters. What I do see is a long history of race-based 'science' being used to justify some pretty terrible policies and laws.

Stupulous 4y ago

Setting aside the question of whether the truth should be suppressed because of consequences, this kind of research could very easily be beneficial. Suppose you find out that the green people from East Arbitria are less productive. The immediate effect is that an innocent objective employer who being tried for discrimination or hated by a community no longer has to suffer- the cruelty of the universe is no longer being made anyone's fault. The secondary effect is that we now have grounds to investigate why Arbitrarians have that disadvantage. Maybe green people have a harder time metabolizing a nutrient; a non-issue with the diet/climate/lifestyle of Arbitria. An update to health recommendations later and millions of people's lives are improved.

Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
It would also mean that people could use this to say "All East Arbitaria people are less productive than all other ethnicities, therefore I shall ban them from my workplace. I am not anti-Arbitrian, I am just using the latest science". And of course these things are always statistical and so high performing East Arbitarians are going to be shut out of work because of this study. The point is, there is a history of race-based discrimination in the world and researchers can't just pretend that it doesn't still exist when constructing these kinds of studies and how their outcomes could be used negatively by both benevolent and malevolent actors. It isn't just 'truth or not truth', also because lots of sociological studies aren't repeatable and many others suffer all sorts of issues with methods, populations, etc. Measuring people is crazy hard to do reliably. Anyway, my hot take is that its not a simple question and does not have a simple answer.

collegeburner 4y ago

1. we don't know how a piece of research will be used because we don't even know what the outcome will be. 2. rarely is a piece of research only used for 1 thing, and even if someone uses it wrongly, maybe someone else uses it for good purpose or builds on it for an important discovery. 3. the correct answer is to address the person attempting to abuse the data when that person does it not to attempt to suppress that information by preventing the research or limiting how it's done. 4. are you saying we shouldn't do research on e.g. whether certain groups are better at lifting because it could be abused?

Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
The question of whether certain research should be banned because of the potential outcomes is one with deep philosophical roots and the basis of much science fiction. The 'just because we could do something, doesn't mean we should' question. I don't think there is a single absolute answer to this, as context matters. What I do see is a long history of race-based 'science' being used to justify some pretty terrible policies and laws.