3 ms·

I think we should be clear that scientific racism is a case of an infohazard that is not, in fact, true (even if one can make a convincing, though ultimately fa

by yterdy 4y ago

I think we should be clear that scientific racism is a case of an infohazard that is not, in fact, true (even if one can make a convincing, though ultimately fallacy-dependent, argument for it, usually by ignoring the falsification of the "sets of facts" which underpin it). The trouble is that admitting that is also a sort of infohazard, for certain people.

strken 4y ago
I have absolutely no idea whether it's actually correct or not, make no claims about it, and don't think the object level question matters compared to whether it's harmful. Discussing its validity in any way is falling into the trap of publicising it.
- yterdy 4y ago
  It matters because the topic refuses to stay buried (say, when brought up as an example of a controversial figure's purported views), and the prospect of it not being a closed question invites bad actors to rationalize social inequity, and their own tainted views and actions, through its lens. This is a topic where a conscientious person should have an idea of its correctness and should stake that claim firmly. Best of all, doing so eliminates one's part in the harm of its nature as an infohazard.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
darawk 4y ago
Why are you so confident that it's not true? The best study I'm aware of on the topic is this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption... This concludes that there is 3-5 point genetic IQ gap between blacks and whites. This study is imperfect in a lot of ways, and fundamentally and irreconcilably confounded by the fact that even though the kids grow up in different environments raised by different families, there is no way to blind their childhood experience from the color of their own skin. So, in no way do I mean to argue that this study is dispositive in favor of scientific racism. However, I do mean to argue that the existing state of the evidence points in that direction, albeit rather weakly.
- woooooo 4y ago
  The Flynn Effect is what we call the phenomenon of IQ rates going up across the board over the last 75 years, it's established as true yet nobody will claim that we all got genetically smarter.
  - tuatoru 4y ago
    It has now come to an end, perhaps. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#Possible_end_of_progression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#Possible_end_of_p...
  - darawk 4y ago
    That is true, and an important criticism of IQ as a measure in general. However, it's not clear that the Flynn effect is relevant to the conclusions of this study. Why do you think it is?
    - woooooo 4y ago
      It was more of a general rebuttal to the idea of "the numbers move so it must be genetic". The study you linked was interesting but adopted kids are an abnormal case to begin with and the effect indicated was tiny compared to societal things IMO.
      - darawk 4y ago
        The effect size was about a third of a standard deviation, which isn't huge, but isn't trivial either. Assuming it's true and genetically determined, that could have significant effects at the aggregate level. However, a ray of hope in the study is that, even if you take its confidence intervals at face value (I don't), then there is quite a bit of room for improvement in the nurture sphere, as the black/white IQ test gap is generally much larger than this when not as carefully controlled as this study.
- yterdy 4y ago
  >Why are you so confident that it's not true? >This study is imperfect in a lot of ways, and fundamentally and irreconcilably confounded by the fact that even though the kids grow up in different environments raised by different families, there is no way to blind their childhood experience from the color of their own skin. That's why. Racism is something that we made up, and then tried to massage circumstances and data to "prove" it. This >However, I do mean to argue that the existing state of the evidence points in that direction, albeit rather weakly. is rationalization seeking to uphold that unscientific exercise. I also put a lie to it with my existence. Sidenote: "The best study I'm aware of on the topic" is not a convincing argument that it is, in fact, even a serviceable study on the topic. However, it is a study that is often cited as such by the aforementioned bad actors. As with much racist rhetoric (spoken by avowed racists and non-racists alike), it says more about the person who brought it up than anyone else. You seem to be encountering the infohazard I mentioned earlier.

by yterdy 4y ago

strken 4y ago

I have absolutely no idea whether it's actually correct or not, make no claims about it, and don't think the object level question matters compared to whether it's harmful. Discussing its validity in any way is falling into the trap of publicising it.

yterdy 4y ago
It matters because the topic refuses to stay buried (say, when brought up as an example of a controversial figure's purported views), and the prospect of it not being a closed question invites bad actors to rationalize social inequity, and their own tainted views and actions, through its lens. This is a topic where a conscientious person should have an idea of its correctness and should stake that claim firmly. Best of all, doing so eliminates one's part in the harm of its nature as an infohazard.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

darawk 4y ago

Why are you so confident that it's not true? The best study I'm aware of on the topic is this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption... This concludes that there is 3-5 point genetic IQ gap between blacks and whites. This study is imperfect in a lot of ways, and fundamentally and irreconcilably confounded by the fact that even though the kids grow up in different environments raised by different families, there is no way to blind their childhood experience from the color of their own skin. So, in no way do I mean to argue that this study is dispositive in favor of scientific racism. However, I do mean to argue that the existing state of the evidence points in that direction, albeit rather weakly.

woooooo 4y ago
The Flynn Effect is what we call the phenomenon of IQ rates going up across the board over the last 75 years, it's established as true yet nobody will claim that we all got genetically smarter.
- tuatoru 4y ago
  It has now come to an end, perhaps. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#Possible_end_of_progression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#Possible_end_of_p...
- darawk 4y ago
  That is true, and an important criticism of IQ as a measure in general. However, it's not clear that the Flynn effect is relevant to the conclusions of this study. Why do you think it is?
  - woooooo 4y ago
    It was more of a general rebuttal to the idea of "the numbers move so it must be genetic". The study you linked was interesting but adopted kids are an abnormal case to begin with and the effect indicated was tiny compared to societal things IMO.
    - darawk 4y ago
      The effect size was about a third of a standard deviation, which isn't huge, but isn't trivial either. Assuming it's true and genetically determined, that could have significant effects at the aggregate level. However, a ray of hope in the study is that, even if you take its confidence intervals at face value (I don't), then there is quite a bit of room for improvement in the nurture sphere, as the black/white IQ test gap is generally much larger than this when not as carefully controlled as this study.
yterdy 4y ago
>Why are you so confident that it's not true? >This study is imperfect in a lot of ways, and fundamentally and irreconcilably confounded by the fact that even though the kids grow up in different environments raised by different families, there is no way to blind their childhood experience from the color of their own skin. That's why. Racism is something that we made up, and then tried to massage circumstances and data to "prove" it. This >However, I do mean to argue that the existing state of the evidence points in that direction, albeit rather weakly. is rationalization seeking to uphold that unscientific exercise. I also put a lie to it with my existence. Sidenote: "The best study I'm aware of on the topic" is not a convincing argument that it is, in fact, even a serviceable study on the topic. However, it is a study that is often cited as such by the aforementioned bad actors. As with much racist rhetoric (spoken by avowed racists and non-racists alike), it says more about the person who brought it up than anyone else. You seem to be encountering the infohazard I mentioned earlier.