5 ms·

>The article also throws shade at him as a “eugenicist.” I looked it up, and again, the truth is more complex. You didn't look it up very well. >In 1911, Fish

>The article also throws shade at him as a “eugenicist.” I looked it up, and again, the truth is more complex. You didn't look it up very well. >In 1911, Fisher became founding Chairman of the University of Cambridge Eugenics Society, whose other founding members included John Maynard Keynes, R. C. Punnett, and Horace Darwin. After members of the Cambridge Society – including Fisher – stewarded the First International Eugenics Congress in London in summer 1912, a link was forged with the Eugenics Society (UK).[122] He saw eugenics as addressing pressing social and scientific issues that encompassed and drove his interest in both genetics and statistics. During World War I Fisher started writing book reviews for The Eugenics Review and volunteered to undertake all such reviews for the journal, being hired for a part-time position. I think that if you: 1. are the founding chairman of the University of Cambridge Eugenics Society, 2. stewarded the First International Eugenics Congress in London in summer 1912, 3. saw eugenics as addressing pressing social and scientific issues, and 4. started writing book reviews for The Eugenics Review and volunteered to undertake all such reviews for the journal ..you are a eugenicist. My research consisted of clicking on, and reading, the link you yourself posted.

bumby 2y ago
>you are a eugenicist. Is it possible to say “were a eugenicist”? Your info is about him decades before the equal rights quote from the GP. It’s possible he changed his mind over the prevailing four decades (I hope)
- pessimizer 2y ago
  > It’s possible he changed his mind over the prevailing four decades (I hope) There's far less justification for inventing a conversion out of whole cloth.
  - SoftTalker 2y ago
    Obama and Clinton changed their minds on gay marriage.
    - recursive 2y ago
      Do believe that's evidence that Fisher changed his mind on eugenics? Why do you bring that up?
      - SoftTalker 2y ago
        It's evidence that people can hold opinions that while perhaps mainstream at the time, in retrospect decide they are not well founded, and reconsider them. I have no idea about Fisher specifically. I hadn't really heard of him until this was posted. Eugenics was popular among a lot of academics in the early 20th century however.
        recursive 2y ago
        Could be. Maybe it happened! The question here is about whether there is any shred of evidence that it did happen.
        throwaway112996 2y ago
        Or maybe ur weakass comment degrades the forum, dang
        recursive 2y ago
        Again, if you can provide some kind of comprehensible reasoning why that's actually the case, your insightful comment would be more persuasive.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- reverendsteveii 2y ago
  It's possible that he changed his mind but realistically we can only entertain that possibility in the face of some pretty strong evidence given his earlier statements and actions. It's not technically impossible that he grew a horn out of the middle of his forehead either, but much like his views on genetics things we know for sure to be true make it reasonable to assume that this didn't happen unless someone can present a really compelling case that it did.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
gowld 2y ago
More clarity on the slippery slope from eugenics to genocide, despite the existence of a theoretical morally-defensible version of non-genocidal, consensual eugenics: https://nautil.us/how-eugenics-shaped-statistics-238014/ https://nautil.us/how-eugenics-shaped-statistics-238014/
- gunian 2y ago
  anyone that tries to model a multi dimensional search space with a sample + univariate function combo should not be considered great no matter the circumstances the issue is not that stats couldn't be objective there just isn't enough data imo if you told me the NSA was aggregating data about everyone's daily movements, made corrections for wealth, upbringing, network as well as other factors maybe would be a good start but even then there will be coefficients the rich kids running the clusters will be like "wealth isn't paying for tuition it's flying to europe for vacation" or "having two cars did not contribute in any shape way or form to my learning how to drive I did it because I'm inherently chosen" or "your family beating you anytime you socialized couldn't form socially crippling neural pathways so if you can't network it's because you aren't chosen" so they set the coefficient to that now some poor schmuck who couldn't afford any of those things and had the worst upbringing gets euthanized in the name of science eugenics to be even remotely ethical would need so much data we just don't have. maybe in a thousand years but who knows how the rich kids will be like then one thing I've learned the world is not for the poor
baryphonic 2y ago
>>Fisher became founding Chairman of the University of Cambridge Eugenics Society, whose other founding members included John Maynard Keynes Keynes was the leading economist of the 20th century. He has some ideas I think are dubious, and his followers have doubled down (I still can't believe people believe in fiscal multipliers greater than 1). Nevertheless, it would be an incredible cheap shot to label Keynes a "eugenicist" when criticizing his economic theories.
- snakeyjake 2y ago
  [flagged]
- jhanschoo 2y ago
  Just in case, I think the comment you are responding to doesn't doubt the great utility of Fisher's contributions to statistics, but specifically to the suggestion that Fisher wasn't very much of an eugenicist.
sonofhans 2y ago
Oh, I looked him up just fine. I’m not trying to defend the man, or write a full biography. I hoped that providing some background to this awful article would further the discussion. So thank you :)
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
dang 2y ago
Can you please make your substantive points without crossing into the flamewar style? When someone else is mistaken, it's enough to respectfully explain how they are mistaken. Tossing in swipes like "You didn't look it up very well", or snark twisters like "My research consisted of clicking on, and reading, the link you yourself posted", is bad for many reasons, including that (1) it degrades the forum; (2) it evokes worse from others; and (3) it discredits your viewpoint, which is particularly bad if it happens to be true. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- swat535 2y ago
  How else should the parent had framed his comment ? Can you give an example of the correct wording ? I’m genuinely confused because his comment was valuable to me. OP had either made an error or was attempting to mislead the audience by downplaying critical facts in his argument and patent highlighted it, which I appreciate because no one has the time to digest all the references. Cherry picking or skippping over critical context is unhelpful at best or deceptive st worst.
  - dmos62 2y ago
    One can singlehandedly provide valuable information and degrade the quality of the conversation. Best to not, of course.
  - atodorov99 2y ago
    "I believe this is not the case because: XXX" would be a neutral response. And one that most people would give to most other strangers if they are meeting in real life. But on the internet it happens very often that people aren't actually as respectful as they would be in real life. And it happens very naturally too - I have close friends who have had insane arguments over chat apps which they would never have done in an eye to eye situation. In general responding with a statement that assigns a quality to someone's work and effort is not appropriate. You can say "That information is not correct" if you want to be assertive but saying "You have not researched or read the correct information" is doing more then correcting information and becomes personal. I've seen a lot of people, myself included have trouble with this distinction. But I have found it to be an important part of being "considerate" of others and being charismatic to them. People really react differently to the smallest of nuance in tone and wording regardless if they are adults. (I'd actually wager adults react much more strongly to that nuance due to having more experience to tell the nuances apart)
gunian 2y ago
not Keynes :( used to be a fan what is it with rich kids always coming up with the most dysfunctional philosphies Keynes, Malthus, Leibniz, Darwin would be cool to read alternative history fiction where poor people came up with belief systems
DiggyJohnson 2y ago
Why the hostility? We are discussing the history of science in the early 20th century, not a property dispute about your house.

bumby 2y ago

>you are a eugenicist. Is it possible to say “were a eugenicist”? Your info is about him decades before the equal rights quote from the GP. It’s possible he changed his mind over the prevailing four decades (I hope)

pessimizer 2y ago
> It’s possible he changed his mind over the prevailing four decades (I hope) There's far less justification for inventing a conversion out of whole cloth.
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  Obama and Clinton changed their minds on gay marriage.
  - recursive 2y ago
    Do believe that's evidence that Fisher changed his mind on eugenics? Why do you bring that up?
    - SoftTalker 2y ago
      It's evidence that people can hold opinions that while perhaps mainstream at the time, in retrospect decide they are not well founded, and reconsider them. I have no idea about Fisher specifically. I hadn't really heard of him until this was posted. Eugenics was popular among a lot of academics in the early 20th century however.
      - recursive 2y ago
        Could be. Maybe it happened! The question here is about whether there is any shred of evidence that it did happen.
        throwaway112996 2y ago
        Or maybe ur weakass comment degrades the forum, dang
        recursive 2y ago
        Again, if you can provide some kind of comprehensible reasoning why that's actually the case, your insightful comment would be more persuasive.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
reverendsteveii 2y ago
It's possible that he changed his mind but realistically we can only entertain that possibility in the face of some pretty strong evidence given his earlier statements and actions. It's not technically impossible that he grew a horn out of the middle of his forehead either, but much like his views on genetics things we know for sure to be true make it reasonable to assume that this didn't happen unless someone can present a really compelling case that it did.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

gowld 2y ago

More clarity on the slippery slope from eugenics to genocide, despite the existence of a theoretical morally-defensible version of non-genocidal, consensual eugenics: https://nautil.us/how-eugenics-shaped-statistics-238014/ https://nautil.us/how-eugenics-shaped-statistics-238014/

gunian 2y ago
anyone that tries to model a multi dimensional search space with a sample + univariate function combo should not be considered great no matter the circumstances the issue is not that stats couldn't be objective there just isn't enough data imo if you told me the NSA was aggregating data about everyone's daily movements, made corrections for wealth, upbringing, network as well as other factors maybe would be a good start but even then there will be coefficients the rich kids running the clusters will be like "wealth isn't paying for tuition it's flying to europe for vacation" or "having two cars did not contribute in any shape way or form to my learning how to drive I did it because I'm inherently chosen" or "your family beating you anytime you socialized couldn't form socially crippling neural pathways so if you can't network it's because you aren't chosen" so they set the coefficient to that now some poor schmuck who couldn't afford any of those things and had the worst upbringing gets euthanized in the name of science eugenics to be even remotely ethical would need so much data we just don't have. maybe in a thousand years but who knows how the rich kids will be like then one thing I've learned the world is not for the poor

baryphonic 2y ago

>>Fisher became founding Chairman of the University of Cambridge Eugenics Society, whose other founding members included John Maynard Keynes Keynes was the leading economist of the 20th century. He has some ideas I think are dubious, and his followers have doubled down (I still can't believe people believe in fiscal multipliers greater than 1). Nevertheless, it would be an incredible cheap shot to label Keynes a "eugenicist" when criticizing his economic theories.

snakeyjake 2y ago
[flagged]
jhanschoo 2y ago
Just in case, I think the comment you are responding to doesn't doubt the great utility of Fisher's contributions to statistics, but specifically to the suggestion that Fisher wasn't very much of an eugenicist.

sonofhans 2y ago

Oh, I looked him up just fine. I’m not trying to defend the man, or write a full biography. I hoped that providing some background to this awful article would further the discussion. So thank you :)

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

dang 2y ago

Can you please make your substantive points without crossing into the flamewar style? When someone else is mistaken, it's enough to respectfully explain how they are mistaken. Tossing in swipes like "You didn't look it up very well", or snark twisters like "My research consisted of clicking on, and reading, the link you yourself posted", is bad for many reasons, including that (1) it degrades the forum; (2) it evokes worse from others; and (3) it discredits your viewpoint, which is particularly bad if it happens to be true. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

swat535 2y ago
How else should the parent had framed his comment ? Can you give an example of the correct wording ? I’m genuinely confused because his comment was valuable to me. OP had either made an error or was attempting to mislead the audience by downplaying critical facts in his argument and patent highlighted it, which I appreciate because no one has the time to digest all the references. Cherry picking or skippping over critical context is unhelpful at best or deceptive st worst.
- dmos62 2y ago
  One can singlehandedly provide valuable information and degrade the quality of the conversation. Best to not, of course.
- atodorov99 2y ago
  "I believe this is not the case because: XXX" would be a neutral response. And one that most people would give to most other strangers if they are meeting in real life. But on the internet it happens very often that people aren't actually as respectful as they would be in real life. And it happens very naturally too - I have close friends who have had insane arguments over chat apps which they would never have done in an eye to eye situation. In general responding with a statement that assigns a quality to someone's work and effort is not appropriate. You can say "That information is not correct" if you want to be assertive but saying "You have not researched or read the correct information" is doing more then correcting information and becomes personal. I've seen a lot of people, myself included have trouble with this distinction. But I have found it to be an important part of being "considerate" of others and being charismatic to them. People really react differently to the smallest of nuance in tone and wording regardless if they are adults. (I'd actually wager adults react much more strongly to that nuance due to having more experience to tell the nuances apart)

gunian 2y ago

not Keynes :( used to be a fan what is it with rich kids always coming up with the most dysfunctional philosphies Keynes, Malthus, Leibniz, Darwin would be cool to read alternative history fiction where poor people came up with belief systems

DiggyJohnson 2y ago

Why the hostility? We are discussing the history of science in the early 20th century, not a property dispute about your house.