7 ms·

To those saying the data should be open in the pursuit of truth, damn the consequences, please consider this scenario: Researchers come to your community and t

To those saying the data should be open in the pursuit of truth, damn the consequences, please consider this scenario: Researchers come to your community and tell everybody they're studying genetic diseases. Their research will provide comfort to those who suffer. Sounds great, so you all hand over your DNA/ec to these researchers. Then a few years later, using that same data, researchers publish studies saying that your people are genetically stupid. That you're a bunch of subhumans generally unqualified for anything but menial labor. How does that make you feel the next time researchers come around asking for more data? You'll tell them to fuck off, that's what you'd do. Why would you consent to research that demeans and degrades you and your people? And because your community now has an adversarial relationship with scientific research, that initial promise of research helping people goes out the window too. If using this sort of data as a weapon against others is permitted, you harm not only the people you collected the data from, but your own ability to collect data from them again in the future.

rafaelero 4y ago
> That you're a bunch of subhumans generally unqualified for anything but menial labor That seems more like a moral conclusion than a scientific one. Sure, maybe scientific evidence can fuel discrimination, but at least it gives us something over which we can have an intelligent conversation. It bounds a discussion that nowadays encounters no resistance or counterarguments in certain groups. And there will always be a group of people genetically smarter, more athletic, good looking than yours. So it doesn't take much thinking to reach the conclusion that we are all in this together.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  > That seems more like a moral conclusion than a scientific one. That distinction doesn't change anything. Even if you can keep that sort of language out of even the preprints, you'll have politicians citing the studies and making those statements themselves. It boils down to this: if you tell people you're collecting data to help them, then you can't allow that data to harm them.
  - rafaelero 4y ago
    > It boils down to this: if you tell people you're collecting data to help them, then you can't allow that data to harm them. Scientists collect data to discover the truth, not to "do good", whatever that may be.
    - bccdee 4y ago
      No, I'm sorry, you haven't thought that through. Scientists don't research cancer simply because they're curious about "the truth about cancer"; they do it to cure cancer patients, because they think that's good. And despite how much "truth" they could discover by performing unethical experiments, ethics boards and the Hippocratic oath subordinate that goal to the broader ideas of medical ethics and what is "good."
      - Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
        Scientists may do research for any reason. In your own example, plenty are doing cancer research simply to get paid. >And despite how much "truth" they could discover by performing unethical experiments Why have you put the word "truth" in quotation marks here? (I'm doing it because I'm quoting it as word, rather than using the word itself.) >ethics boards and the Hippocratic oath subordinate that goal to the broader ideas of medical ethics and what is "good." The issue would be ths experiment, not the truth that comes out of it. The truth is always good in my view.
        bccdee 4y ago
        > plenty are doing cancer research simply to get paid. Presumably because they think being paid is good. Pure truth-seeking is fairly marginal. > Why have you put the word "truth" in quotation marks here? "Truth" and "good" weren't really the best words to use in either of the contexts I used them above ("knowledge" and "right" would have been more correct), but I wanted to specifically use those words because they were the ones you had originally framed the discussion with, so I put them in quotation marks to draw attention to the fact that I was reusing your words. It was kind of cumbersome, looking back on it. > The truth is always good in my view. Suppose a physicist in Nazi Germany runs away rather than help the German nuclear program to invent the atom bomb because he knows Nazi leadership would do terrible things with it. This is an example of a scientist choosing not to pursue knowledge because that knowledge would, in that context, be harmful. I don't think any truths are inherently harmful, but some are contextually harmful when known by certain people (e.g. Nazis), and I think it's ethically justifiable for even a scientist to prevent those people from learning those truths.
- onos 4y ago
  My interpretation of the point here: the people running this data set work for a scientific org but they don’t consider science to be their sole or top priority. Rather modern progressive mores sometimes take precedence. I suppose it’s ok to consider the trade offs between these concerns. But at times this comes off as pure censorship in support of dogma, and that fails to convince anyone except those who already want to be convinced. Ie it’s not improving our discourse it’s just making science worse.
- DoctorOW 4y ago
  Would you invite the allegedly subhuman human races to this intelligent discussion? Would you really want to start a dialogue with whether or not you deserve equal treatment? If you'd like to talk to someone who discriminates against your people, you're welcome to do so now without distracting the broader scientific community from better pursuits.
- melagonster 4y ago
  last time this offer a reason people to do their racism behaviour, biologist had learned this and don't want to do it again soon.
- hanselot 4y ago
  For physical excellence, we have a literal competition around the world comparing our most physically fit specimens against each other to determine how they rank against each other. I could draw some interesting conclusions based on simply analyzing that data alone. For intellectual excellence we could look towards chess tournaments and Olympiads as some of the forms of data available for analysis, drawing similar conclusions as we do from the physical excellence observations. One could say that those are both secondary sources of information, where direct genetic sequencing could be seen as a primary source of information. It would of course be wonderful to be able to say with certainty, our most advanced intellectuals have concluded that our findings based on secondary sources correlate with our findings from primary sources, and additionally have made their findings public to allow for scrutiny - but of course, who would want to do that, when its much easier to handwave away any attempt to draw conclusions as racist or biased. Somewhere out there is a person with the genes to unlock biological immortality, but sure, lets block access for researchers because their public (scrutinizable) results are biased, or based on biased data. Btw, there is no unbiased data in the world, should we cancel all science?
Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
>You'll tell them to fuck off, that's what you'd do. Wouldn't I simply demonstate that their claim is invalid?
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  The people who collected that data from you and the people who weaponized it against you are probably not the same people, but it makes no difference if the former permitted the latter. As for correcting misinformation, I'm sure you've heard that misinformation travels further and faster than the truth. By the time you figure out where their statistical errors were, the study has already been spread around the world by those that wish you harm. Furthermore, most of the people from whom the data is collected are not scientific researchers. They are members of the general public. How can a firefighter, real estate agent or aerospace engineer refute a jargon-heavy genetic research paper with subtle statistical errors? Go back to university first? You don't have the time or expertise to refute every bad paper written about you.
  - Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
    Your implicit claim that the only thing standing between two groups and genocide is scientific authority is wrong. The white-black iq gap has been public for decades. Those who build racist theories from this already exist. A few research papers will not create the explosion you are imagining.
    - socialismisok 4y ago
      "A new research study says..." Would absolutely make headlines on racist networks. Sure, old studies say vile garbage, but a new study feels more authoritative. Humans have a temporal bias, and will absolutely look at things in the recent past more strongly.
      - Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
        You're overestimating this point. Flase racist research papers come out all the time. There is a known "scientist" who shows up in google scholar all the time. Nobody pays attention to him because he has been debunked by multiple people multiple times. (Not by snopes but by the scientific community.) No major news site would publish his claims. Even if they did, it wouldn't measurably change anything, as there would be appropriate backlash. We see already preemptive inappropriate backlash — imagine how hard justified backlash will be..
pseudo0 4y ago
Or maybe they will use that data to discover that IQ scores are noticably lower in the community and surrounding areas where an open-pit mining operation is leaching toxins into the water? Or maybe the data is used to determine the most effective public policy interventions to assist communities where scores are lower? The first step in addressing a problem is to recognize than in issue exists in the first place. Whether we measure them or not, differences in intelligence will continue to exist, and that will lead to disparate socioeconomic outcomes.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  > Or maybe they will use that data to discover that IQ scores are noticably lower in the community and surrounding areas where an open-pit mining operation is leaching toxins into the water? One research group may do that, while another weaponizes the data instead. One doesn't cancel out the other.
  - hanselot 4y ago
    Good point, we should ban all jogging because of the Boston Marathon. We should ban all cars because terrorists might use them. Damn, you would hate to find out how they use sonar today. You are literally proposing that we just halt science altogether?
    - pseudo0 4y ago
      FYI you seem to have gotten stuck in the HN spam filter. Maybe email dang to sort that out? All your comments are showing up as "dead" and requiring someone to manually vouch them.
      - hanselot 4y ago
        I thought that I was just universally hated by all... xD
remarkEon 4y ago
This is an absurd strawman. The reality is researching these kinds of things is frowned upon (in the west, at least) because it makes people uncomfortable. And it makes people uncomfortable because we don’t like the idea[1] that certain traits are more common in others, and certain things society values (intelligence, athleticism, beauty) obviously have at least some genetic component. Consider another hypothetical where this research is de facto banned in the west because everyone feels yucky about it, but it isn’t in e.g. China where novel technologies in the future allow selection or even manipulation of genetics for intelligence/beauty/whatever. Not a position I’d like to be in. [1] we don’t like this idea because it runs against a lot of philosophy that I’m quite sure you have read for how we want our developed society to treat its members - as equals.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  > This is an absurd strawman. It's the history of anthropology.
  - remarkEon 4y ago
    No it isn't. It's a projection. One does not need to think that others with less desirable characteristics are less worthy of their own existence just because those characteristics have an identifiable genetic cause. That people are mean to each other - because some are dumber than others, or less pretty than others, or can't run a mile in under 6 minutes - is not a reason to restrict research into what makes those things possible, it's a reason to be more vigilant about virtuous behavior.
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
moviewatcher333 4y ago
Alternatively, “We’ve found certain genetic markers correlate with these specific quality of life issues, and now we can investigate ways to overcome it.” We know certain people have genetic dispositions towards sickle cell, skin cancer, Tay Sachs, and so on. If it turns out some group is genetically predisposed to struggle a little more with math, then as a society, we can find a way to help them better overcome that. Burying our heads in the sand won’t benefit anybody. You’re not going to find a race or subgroup that’s all around better at everything, if that’s the worry. Every animal on earth that’s good at something is not good at something else.
Dylan16807 4y ago
Considering the flynn effect alone, even a 10 point difference in IQ wouldn't really matter like that. And if your threshold is 10+, I strongly doubt a single such group exists. I'm not very worried about the risks of upsetting a sufficiently unlikely group. I'd probably be worried about people mishandling news of some tiny bias, but that's a different problem entirely.
- concordDance 4y ago
  Ashkenazi Jews are a good 10+ points above average last I checked.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    That's a raw number without considering other factors, right? Also not the direction the comment was worried about.
skim_milk 4y ago
That's kind of assuming a lot. What if instead, in a hypothetical future, we all collectively discovered that one's efficacy in today's society depends on their ability to match their brain type to their job and certain types of jobs that certain types of brains depend on are going away, we might be able to structure society with the correct share of jobs between all people and shift into a state where everyone can be efficacious! Hypothetically, it wouldn't even be the first time humanity decided to map brain types with social roles in order for everyone to get their fair share and be efficacious! What a shame, because that would require all the good people of the world to overcome their malignant shame and actually do research into the issue. Although, I have to agree with you in that the people currently leading the charge don't seem to have everyone's best interests in mind.
- socialismisok 4y ago
  It's happened. On multiple occasions. It's not at all a stretch to believe it will continue to happen. And why do we care about optimizing the efficient of certain types of brains? At best it's a notional win for business owners. At worst it leads to eugenics, discrimination, etc. Even if we find anything in the data, there's simply no upside. Not everything needs to be optimized for efficiency.
  - skim_milk 4y ago
    No, it hasn't happened on multiple occasions. It happened one time thousands of years ago in one region of the Earth. I must remind you that the industrial revolution and the social ills it brought happened more recently. We aren't talking about the same thing.
    - socialismisok 4y ago
      What? Researchers have absolutely used data (or consent for one procedure) specifically to excuse eugenics, nonconsensual experimentation, and policy decisions that keep "undesirable" folks out. Science has a long and continued history of this. I'm not sure what you are even suggesting ... Examples of things like the Tuskegee Experiments, the North Carolina Eugenics Board, hell, we're less than a decade past when hundreds of women were sterilized because they were thought to be "unfit" because of their prison sentences and race.
s1artibartfast 4y ago
your entire hypothetical is based on the idea that there are genetically stupid people suited for nothing but menial labor. Reality is, this has been obvious for hundreds of years for anyone with two eyes to see. Stupid people exist. Very stupid people exist. Intelligence has a genetic component.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  To expand on the point, stupid, ugly, short, and disabled people exist. We know that exist. Learning why they exist doesn't change this fact. Our belief that humans should be treated with dignity and respect should not and is not contingent on our ignorance of the reason. Knowing why Bob and his children are stupid should have no bearing on how Bob and his children should be treated.
rasse 4y ago
If a community declines the possibility for future science and discovery, because they don't like the results, then maybe they are, in fact, a little bit stupid.
fleddr 4y ago
Your imaginary deeply pessimistic scenario only highlights the issue: if you have an adversial relationship with science because you don't like the outcomes, then we're stuck on major issues in our society. Climate science is widely rejected not for its science, rather for its outcomes. Nobody rejects science that improves quality of life though. You seek truth or you do not. You can't cherry pick the truth or make it go away. So let's say your scenario plays out. Researchers objectively established that "my people" are cognitively underdeveloped compared to another group. Well, so what, if that's the truth? If it really is the truth, I'd likely already know that, as I would have experienced it myself. If I were to be a woman (I'm not) I would have experienced that I'm physically weaker than the typical male. The truth is not degrading, just the way you packaged it. Differences in capabilities are plain to see at every single level. It shouldn't be this controversial. The only controversial part is what you do with it, but if you constantly overcorrect into the utmost cynical scenario, you're blocking all potential progress. Further, it only invites speculation, conspiracy theories and misinformation. Insights in genetics could drive better health outcomes, investment in education, socio-economic investments, the like.

rafaelero 4y ago

> That you're a bunch of subhumans generally unqualified for anything but menial labor That seems more like a moral conclusion than a scientific one. Sure, maybe scientific evidence can fuel discrimination, but at least it gives us something over which we can have an intelligent conversation. It bounds a discussion that nowadays encounters no resistance or counterarguments in certain groups. And there will always be a group of people genetically smarter, more athletic, good looking than yours. So it doesn't take much thinking to reach the conclusion that we are all in this together.

MichaelCollins 4y ago
> That seems more like a moral conclusion than a scientific one. That distinction doesn't change anything. Even if you can keep that sort of language out of even the preprints, you'll have politicians citing the studies and making those statements themselves. It boils down to this: if you tell people you're collecting data to help them, then you can't allow that data to harm them.
- rafaelero 4y ago
  > It boils down to this: if you tell people you're collecting data to help them, then you can't allow that data to harm them. Scientists collect data to discover the truth, not to "do good", whatever that may be.
  - bccdee 4y ago
    No, I'm sorry, you haven't thought that through. Scientists don't research cancer simply because they're curious about "the truth about cancer"; they do it to cure cancer patients, because they think that's good. And despite how much "truth" they could discover by performing unethical experiments, ethics boards and the Hippocratic oath subordinate that goal to the broader ideas of medical ethics and what is "good."
    - Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
      Scientists may do research for any reason. In your own example, plenty are doing cancer research simply to get paid. >And despite how much "truth" they could discover by performing unethical experiments Why have you put the word "truth" in quotation marks here? (I'm doing it because I'm quoting it as word, rather than using the word itself.) >ethics boards and the Hippocratic oath subordinate that goal to the broader ideas of medical ethics and what is "good." The issue would be ths experiment, not the truth that comes out of it. The truth is always good in my view.
      - bccdee 4y ago
        > plenty are doing cancer research simply to get paid. Presumably because they think being paid is good. Pure truth-seeking is fairly marginal. > Why have you put the word "truth" in quotation marks here? "Truth" and "good" weren't really the best words to use in either of the contexts I used them above ("knowledge" and "right" would have been more correct), but I wanted to specifically use those words because they were the ones you had originally framed the discussion with, so I put them in quotation marks to draw attention to the fact that I was reusing your words. It was kind of cumbersome, looking back on it. > The truth is always good in my view. Suppose a physicist in Nazi Germany runs away rather than help the German nuclear program to invent the atom bomb because he knows Nazi leadership would do terrible things with it. This is an example of a scientist choosing not to pursue knowledge because that knowledge would, in that context, be harmful. I don't think any truths are inherently harmful, but some are contextually harmful when known by certain people (e.g. Nazis), and I think it's ethically justifiable for even a scientist to prevent those people from learning those truths.
onos 4y ago
My interpretation of the point here: the people running this data set work for a scientific org but they don’t consider science to be their sole or top priority. Rather modern progressive mores sometimes take precedence. I suppose it’s ok to consider the trade offs between these concerns. But at times this comes off as pure censorship in support of dogma, and that fails to convince anyone except those who already want to be convinced. Ie it’s not improving our discourse it’s just making science worse.
DoctorOW 4y ago
Would you invite the allegedly subhuman human races to this intelligent discussion? Would you really want to start a dialogue with whether or not you deserve equal treatment? If you'd like to talk to someone who discriminates against your people, you're welcome to do so now without distracting the broader scientific community from better pursuits.
melagonster 4y ago
last time this offer a reason people to do their racism behaviour, biologist had learned this and don't want to do it again soon.
hanselot 4y ago
For physical excellence, we have a literal competition around the world comparing our most physically fit specimens against each other to determine how they rank against each other. I could draw some interesting conclusions based on simply analyzing that data alone. For intellectual excellence we could look towards chess tournaments and Olympiads as some of the forms of data available for analysis, drawing similar conclusions as we do from the physical excellence observations. One could say that those are both secondary sources of information, where direct genetic sequencing could be seen as a primary source of information. It would of course be wonderful to be able to say with certainty, our most advanced intellectuals have concluded that our findings based on secondary sources correlate with our findings from primary sources, and additionally have made their findings public to allow for scrutiny - but of course, who would want to do that, when its much easier to handwave away any attempt to draw conclusions as racist or biased. Somewhere out there is a person with the genes to unlock biological immortality, but sure, lets block access for researchers because their public (scrutinizable) results are biased, or based on biased data. Btw, there is no unbiased data in the world, should we cancel all science?

Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago

>You'll tell them to fuck off, that's what you'd do. Wouldn't I simply demonstate that their claim is invalid?

MichaelCollins 4y ago
The people who collected that data from you and the people who weaponized it against you are probably not the same people, but it makes no difference if the former permitted the latter. As for correcting misinformation, I'm sure you've heard that misinformation travels further and faster than the truth. By the time you figure out where their statistical errors were, the study has already been spread around the world by those that wish you harm. Furthermore, most of the people from whom the data is collected are not scientific researchers. They are members of the general public. How can a firefighter, real estate agent or aerospace engineer refute a jargon-heavy genetic research paper with subtle statistical errors? Go back to university first? You don't have the time or expertise to refute every bad paper written about you.
- Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
  Your implicit claim that the only thing standing between two groups and genocide is scientific authority is wrong. The white-black iq gap has been public for decades. Those who build racist theories from this already exist. A few research papers will not create the explosion you are imagining.
  - socialismisok 4y ago
    "A new research study says..." Would absolutely make headlines on racist networks. Sure, old studies say vile garbage, but a new study feels more authoritative. Humans have a temporal bias, and will absolutely look at things in the recent past more strongly.
    - Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
      You're overestimating this point. Flase racist research papers come out all the time. There is a known "scientist" who shows up in google scholar all the time. Nobody pays attention to him because he has been debunked by multiple people multiple times. (Not by snopes but by the scientific community.) No major news site would publish his claims. Even if they did, it wouldn't measurably change anything, as there would be appropriate backlash. We see already preemptive inappropriate backlash — imagine how hard justified backlash will be..

pseudo0 4y ago

Or maybe they will use that data to discover that IQ scores are noticably lower in the community and surrounding areas where an open-pit mining operation is leaching toxins into the water? Or maybe the data is used to determine the most effective public policy interventions to assist communities where scores are lower? The first step in addressing a problem is to recognize than in issue exists in the first place. Whether we measure them or not, differences in intelligence will continue to exist, and that will lead to disparate socioeconomic outcomes.

MichaelCollins 4y ago
> Or maybe they will use that data to discover that IQ scores are noticably lower in the community and surrounding areas where an open-pit mining operation is leaching toxins into the water? One research group may do that, while another weaponizes the data instead. One doesn't cancel out the other.
- hanselot 4y ago
  Good point, we should ban all jogging because of the Boston Marathon. We should ban all cars because terrorists might use them. Damn, you would hate to find out how they use sonar today. You are literally proposing that we just halt science altogether?
  - pseudo0 4y ago
    FYI you seem to have gotten stuck in the HN spam filter. Maybe email dang to sort that out? All your comments are showing up as "dead" and requiring someone to manually vouch them.
    - hanselot 4y ago
      I thought that I was just universally hated by all... xD

remarkEon 4y ago

This is an absurd strawman. The reality is researching these kinds of things is frowned upon (in the west, at least) because it makes people uncomfortable. And it makes people uncomfortable because we don’t like the idea[1] that certain traits are more common in others, and certain things society values (intelligence, athleticism, beauty) obviously have at least some genetic component. Consider another hypothetical where this research is de facto banned in the west because everyone feels yucky about it, but it isn’t in e.g. China where novel technologies in the future allow selection or even manipulation of genetics for intelligence/beauty/whatever. Not a position I’d like to be in. [1] we don’t like this idea because it runs against a lot of philosophy that I’m quite sure you have read for how we want our developed society to treat its members - as equals.

MichaelCollins 4y ago
> This is an absurd strawman. It's the history of anthropology.
- remarkEon 4y ago
  No it isn't. It's a projection. One does not need to think that others with less desirable characteristics are less worthy of their own existence just because those characteristics have an identifiable genetic cause. That people are mean to each other - because some are dumber than others, or less pretty than others, or can't run a mile in under 6 minutes - is not a reason to restrict research into what makes those things possible, it's a reason to be more vigilant about virtuous behavior.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago

moviewatcher333 4y ago

Alternatively, “We’ve found certain genetic markers correlate with these specific quality of life issues, and now we can investigate ways to overcome it.” We know certain people have genetic dispositions towards sickle cell, skin cancer, Tay Sachs, and so on. If it turns out some group is genetically predisposed to struggle a little more with math, then as a society, we can find a way to help them better overcome that. Burying our heads in the sand won’t benefit anybody. You’re not going to find a race or subgroup that’s all around better at everything, if that’s the worry. Every animal on earth that’s good at something is not good at something else.

Dylan16807 4y ago

Considering the flynn effect alone, even a 10 point difference in IQ wouldn't really matter like that. And if your threshold is 10+, I strongly doubt a single such group exists. I'm not very worried about the risks of upsetting a sufficiently unlikely group. I'd probably be worried about people mishandling news of some tiny bias, but that's a different problem entirely.

concordDance 4y ago
Ashkenazi Jews are a good 10+ points above average last I checked.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  That's a raw number without considering other factors, right? Also not the direction the comment was worried about.

skim_milk 4y ago

That's kind of assuming a lot. What if instead, in a hypothetical future, we all collectively discovered that one's efficacy in today's society depends on their ability to match their brain type to their job and certain types of jobs that certain types of brains depend on are going away, we might be able to structure society with the correct share of jobs between all people and shift into a state where everyone can be efficacious! Hypothetically, it wouldn't even be the first time humanity decided to map brain types with social roles in order for everyone to get their fair share and be efficacious! What a shame, because that would require all the good people of the world to overcome their malignant shame and actually do research into the issue. Although, I have to agree with you in that the people currently leading the charge don't seem to have everyone's best interests in mind.

socialismisok 4y ago
It's happened. On multiple occasions. It's not at all a stretch to believe it will continue to happen. And why do we care about optimizing the efficient of certain types of brains? At best it's a notional win for business owners. At worst it leads to eugenics, discrimination, etc. Even if we find anything in the data, there's simply no upside. Not everything needs to be optimized for efficiency.
- skim_milk 4y ago
  No, it hasn't happened on multiple occasions. It happened one time thousands of years ago in one region of the Earth. I must remind you that the industrial revolution and the social ills it brought happened more recently. We aren't talking about the same thing.
  - socialismisok 4y ago
    What? Researchers have absolutely used data (or consent for one procedure) specifically to excuse eugenics, nonconsensual experimentation, and policy decisions that keep "undesirable" folks out. Science has a long and continued history of this. I'm not sure what you are even suggesting ... Examples of things like the Tuskegee Experiments, the North Carolina Eugenics Board, hell, we're less than a decade past when hundreds of women were sterilized because they were thought to be "unfit" because of their prison sentences and race.

s1artibartfast 4y ago

your entire hypothetical is based on the idea that there are genetically stupid people suited for nothing but menial labor. Reality is, this has been obvious for hundreds of years for anyone with two eyes to see. Stupid people exist. Very stupid people exist. Intelligence has a genetic component.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
To expand on the point, stupid, ugly, short, and disabled people exist. We know that exist. Learning why they exist doesn't change this fact. Our belief that humans should be treated with dignity and respect should not and is not contingent on our ignorance of the reason. Knowing why Bob and his children are stupid should have no bearing on how Bob and his children should be treated.

rasse 4y ago

If a community declines the possibility for future science and discovery, because they don't like the results, then maybe they are, in fact, a little bit stupid.

fleddr 4y ago

Your imaginary deeply pessimistic scenario only highlights the issue: if you have an adversial relationship with science because you don't like the outcomes, then we're stuck on major issues in our society. Climate science is widely rejected not for its science, rather for its outcomes. Nobody rejects science that improves quality of life though. You seek truth or you do not. You can't cherry pick the truth or make it go away. So let's say your scenario plays out. Researchers objectively established that "my people" are cognitively underdeveloped compared to another group. Well, so what, if that's the truth? If it really is the truth, I'd likely already know that, as I would have experienced it myself. If I were to be a woman (I'm not) I would have experienced that I'm physically weaker than the typical male. The truth is not degrading, just the way you packaged it. Differences in capabilities are plain to see at every single level. It shouldn't be this controversial. The only controversial part is what you do with it, but if you constantly overcorrect into the utmost cynical scenario, you're blocking all potential progress. Further, it only invites speculation, conspiracy theories and misinformation. Insights in genetics could drive better health outcomes, investment in education, socio-economic investments, the like.