4 ms·

I hate this stuff, but I also understand it. The human race has continuously proven itself too immature to deal rationally with the true nature of human biologi

by api 4y ago

I hate this stuff, but I also understand it. The human race has continuously proven itself too immature to deal rationally with the true nature of human biological diversity. Give us any axis on which we can sort ourselves and pretty soon we're using it to play ape status games or worse. We are not truly intelligent beings yet, just a clever neocortex grafted clumsily onto an animal. That animal happens to have a lot of instincts around tribal in-group/out-group behavior that immediately kick in when differences are discussed. My personal opinion is that things like genetic differences in ability or gender developmental stuff should be studied but it should be discussed in the most obtuse and utterly alien academic jargon possible for an effect bordering on encryption. It should be impossible to quote such research in any way that would be comprehensible to someone outside the field, making it impossible to cite it directly in support of popular political arguments. Or maybe gate it off entirely. Maybe we should not publish openly about human genetic or gender differences for the same reason we do not publish precise schematics for atomic weapons or detailed how-to documents on how to create a doomsday plague with a mail order CRISPR kit. That reason being: some of us will use such knowledge to kill each other. What I really hate is that humanity can't handle understanding itself.

denkmoon 4y ago
Kind of defeats the purpose of studying it doesn't it? Presumably we do research to inform decision, usually about social policy. Social policy is, ostensibly, dictated by voters in democratic societies. Might as well not do the research, and I don't mean that cynically. It might genuinely be for the best.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
Manuel_D 4y ago
This doesn't do anything to dissuade people from belief in racist ideas of genetic intelligence, or whatever else. Why are scientists gating off research and data, if they're so confident that the problematic conclusions are incorrect? Because the problematic conclusions are correct, the racist will say. Scientists wouldn't lock away data that disproved racist theories of intelligence, would they? It's a fallacious argument, but one that will probably work on a lot of people.
- halostatue 4y ago
  Ultimately, it’s almost impossible to disentangle systemic environmental effects from this sort of dataset. That is to say, centuries of systemic oppression and suppression, in addition to things like redlining and ensuring that waste dumps &c. are closest to minority communities tends to result in environmental effects being confused with genetic effects. Will growing up near a supermax site with less money because the industries have moved away reduce one’s chances for improvement and one’s measurable IQ? Yup. Do people of color live close to such sites at much greater rates than whites? Yup.
  - Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
    Actually, studying the genetic aspect will reduce this bias, as research should find the same porportion of genes involved in intelligence (or some equivilant) in both groups.
    - socialismisok 4y ago
      That's true if scientists are all good actors. But unfortunately, some scientists are bad actors.
    - halostatue 4y ago
      The history of science over the last two hundred years—especially that of eugenics—makes your assertion dubious, at best.
      - Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
        The double helix was found in 1953. Modern genetics is very new. You can't compare it to "science" done 200 years ago. Also eugenics is not 200 years old (not that you explicitly said otherwise). Studying genetics directly solves the nature vs nurture debate: not immediately but over time as more and more of the brain will be solved, until you can get tested for your inherent ability with high accuracy.
norwalkbear 4y ago
That's exactly why normal people distrust science now
SamPatt 4y ago
The scientists were the ones leading eugenics the last time around. Stop pretending that there's a better class of people that are the only ones trusted with certain knowledge. I'm not an accredited scientist, and neither are 99% of people in this forum. You think it's best if certain truths about the world are intentionally kept from us by people who chose different career paths? Information will always be distorted and abused but it's much easier to do that when only certain people are allowed to have access to that information. Sure, we're all dumb apes, but putting on a lab coat doesn't change that fact.
- bergenty 4y ago
midoridensha 4y ago
>Maybe we should not publish openly about human genetic or gender differences for the same reason we do not publish precise schematics for atomic weapons or detailed how-to documents on how to create a doomsday plague with a mail order CRISPR kit. That reason being: some of us will use such knowledge to kill each other. I've sometimes wondered if the answer to the Fermi Paradox is that the knowledge to destroy the entire population became available to too many individuals in those societies. For instance, suppose some new physics were discovered and technology developed so that it was possible for an average-intelligence person to build a true earth-destroying doomsday bomb in his basement. It would only take one crazy person to eliminate humanity. Even more likely is the ability to genetically engineer a doomsday virus; just look how bad COVID-19 was. If some angry teenager could make something far worse, we're doomed as a species, or at least as a civilization.
- komadori 4y ago
  Nick Bostrom's paper on the vulnerable world hypothesis explores this idea: https://nickbostrom.com/papers/vulnerable.pdf https://nickbostrom.com/papers/vulnerable.pdf
tomjen3 4y ago
Even if you were to do that, the fact that the research is hidden in the first place is enough alone to say "they are keeping the truth from us" and make our long youtube vids that tell you the Real Truth.

by api 4y ago

denkmoon 4y ago

Kind of defeats the purpose of studying it doesn't it? Presumably we do research to inform decision, usually about social policy. Social policy is, ostensibly, dictated by voters in democratic societies. Might as well not do the research, and I don't mean that cynically. It might genuinely be for the best.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Manuel_D 4y ago

This doesn't do anything to dissuade people from belief in racist ideas of genetic intelligence, or whatever else. Why are scientists gating off research and data, if they're so confident that the problematic conclusions are incorrect? Because the problematic conclusions are correct, the racist will say. Scientists wouldn't lock away data that disproved racist theories of intelligence, would they? It's a fallacious argument, but one that will probably work on a lot of people.

halostatue 4y ago
Ultimately, it’s almost impossible to disentangle systemic environmental effects from this sort of dataset. That is to say, centuries of systemic oppression and suppression, in addition to things like redlining and ensuring that waste dumps &c. are closest to minority communities tends to result in environmental effects being confused with genetic effects. Will growing up near a supermax site with less money because the industries have moved away reduce one’s chances for improvement and one’s measurable IQ? Yup. Do people of color live close to such sites at much greater rates than whites? Yup.
- Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
  Actually, studying the genetic aspect will reduce this bias, as research should find the same porportion of genes involved in intelligence (or some equivilant) in both groups.
  - socialismisok 4y ago
    That's true if scientists are all good actors. But unfortunately, some scientists are bad actors.
  - halostatue 4y ago
    The history of science over the last two hundred years—especially that of eugenics—makes your assertion dubious, at best.
    - Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
      The double helix was found in 1953. Modern genetics is very new. You can't compare it to "science" done 200 years ago. Also eugenics is not 200 years old (not that you explicitly said otherwise). Studying genetics directly solves the nature vs nurture debate: not immediately but over time as more and more of the brain will be solved, until you can get tested for your inherent ability with high accuracy.

norwalkbear 4y ago

That's exactly why normal people distrust science now

SamPatt 4y ago

The scientists were the ones leading eugenics the last time around. Stop pretending that there's a better class of people that are the only ones trusted with certain knowledge. I'm not an accredited scientist, and neither are 99% of people in this forum. You think it's best if certain truths about the world are intentionally kept from us by people who chose different career paths? Information will always be distorted and abused but it's much easier to do that when only certain people are allowed to have access to that information. Sure, we're all dumb apes, but putting on a lab coat doesn't change that fact.

bergenty 4y ago

midoridensha 4y ago

>Maybe we should not publish openly about human genetic or gender differences for the same reason we do not publish precise schematics for atomic weapons or detailed how-to documents on how to create a doomsday plague with a mail order CRISPR kit. That reason being: some of us will use such knowledge to kill each other. I've sometimes wondered if the answer to the Fermi Paradox is that the knowledge to destroy the entire population became available to too many individuals in those societies. For instance, suppose some new physics were discovered and technology developed so that it was possible for an average-intelligence person to build a true earth-destroying doomsday bomb in his basement. It would only take one crazy person to eliminate humanity. Even more likely is the ability to genetically engineer a doomsday virus; just look how bad COVID-19 was. If some angry teenager could make something far worse, we're doomed as a species, or at least as a civilization.

komadori 4y ago
Nick Bostrom's paper on the vulnerable world hypothesis explores this idea: https://nickbostrom.com/papers/vulnerable.pdf https://nickbostrom.com/papers/vulnerable.pdf

tomjen3 4y ago

Even if you were to do that, the fact that the research is hidden in the first place is enough alone to say "they are keeping the truth from us" and make our long youtube vids that tell you the Real Truth.