4 ms·

The controversial part is specifically the policy recommendations that we avoid investing resources in certain racial groups because problems in their communiti

The controversial part is specifically the policy recommendations that we avoid investing resources in certain racial groups because problems in their communities can be explained by genetics.

laichzeit0 1y ago
So were their claims falsified?
- root_axis 1y ago
  You can't determine someone's IQ based on their race, you need to give them an IQ test to do that, thus the suggestion that we prejudge people based on their race is seen as racist. You might feel that the racism is scientifically justified, but that belief is controversial.
  - antegamisou 1y ago
    > You might feel that the racism is scientifically justified, but that belief is controversial. Sir, this is HN, we love junk science and Sam Altman.
  - machomaster 1y ago
    This is a clear example of people confusing explanation ("how things are") with recommendation/support ("ought to be").
    - root_axis 1y ago
      The controversy is with respect to "what ought to be". The fact that there are measurable IQ differences between groups is not in dispute.
      - machomaster 1y ago
        All the controversy I have seen come from people, who think that even talking about possible differences between groups of people is racist, sexist, whathaveyou.
        root_axis 1y ago
        Is it really? I'm sure those people exist, but obviously that's not the case in this thread, so I don't know what to tell you. It's also true that genuine racists and sexists are definitionally motivated by prejudice based on group differences, so a discussion without paying nuance to that reality is begging for controversy.
        laichzeit0 1y ago
        I read the book Bell Curve years ago, but I remember the analysis being that the found statistically significant differences between race and IQ. The authors argued that individual differences in IQ within a population are strongly influenced by genetics (heritability estimates around 40–80%). They emphasized that this doesn’t mean IQ is fixed, but that genes play a large role in explaining why individuals differ. Their ultimate policy argument was less about race per se, and more about what society can realistically do. They argued that large-scale social programs (e.g., Head Start, income redistribution, affirmative action) had limited power to reduce cognitive inequality or close gaps, because much of IQ variation was resistant to environmental manipulation. On the genetic vs. environmental debate about group differences, their ultimate claim was: we don’t know, but genetics might contribute, and pretending otherwise could be harmful to honest policy discussion. But really, if you can't go about doing more studies on race and IQ, we'll never really know. It's a valid and legitimate scientific question
        tptacek 1y ago
        This is an extremely studied question, and The Bell Curve operates in the phlogiston era of this science. The idea that this is a forbidden topic only whispered about in the academy is an Internet myth. Most of the reason you don't hear about current research into behavioral genetics is that a, uh, very particular excitable subset of Internet commenters are actually interested in this research, and the research results aren't coming out the way they want them to. (You can get an isomorphic answer substituting psychometrics for behavioral genetics; this is the "twin studies" line of research that Richard Herrnstein relied on in the book, and it too is actively studied, but not talked about because the answers don't come out the way --- let's call them "Herrnstein fans" --- want them to).

The controversial part is specifically the policy recommendations that we avoid investing resources in certain racial groups because problems in their communities can be explained by genetics.

laichzeit0 1y ago

So were their claims falsified?

root_axis 1y ago
You can't determine someone's IQ based on their race, you need to give them an IQ test to do that, thus the suggestion that we prejudge people based on their race is seen as racist. You might feel that the racism is scientifically justified, but that belief is controversial.
- antegamisou 1y ago
  > You might feel that the racism is scientifically justified, but that belief is controversial. Sir, this is HN, we love junk science and Sam Altman.
- machomaster 1y ago
  This is a clear example of people confusing explanation ("how things are") with recommendation/support ("ought to be").
  - root_axis 1y ago
    The controversy is with respect to "what ought to be". The fact that there are measurable IQ differences between groups is not in dispute.
    - machomaster 1y ago
      All the controversy I have seen come from people, who think that even talking about possible differences between groups of people is racist, sexist, whathaveyou.
      - root_axis 1y ago
        Is it really? I'm sure those people exist, but obviously that's not the case in this thread, so I don't know what to tell you. It's also true that genuine racists and sexists are definitionally motivated by prejudice based on group differences, so a discussion without paying nuance to that reality is begging for controversy.
        laichzeit0 1y ago
        I read the book Bell Curve years ago, but I remember the analysis being that the found statistically significant differences between race and IQ. The authors argued that individual differences in IQ within a population are strongly influenced by genetics (heritability estimates around 40–80%). They emphasized that this doesn’t mean IQ is fixed, but that genes play a large role in explaining why individuals differ. Their ultimate policy argument was less about race per se, and more about what society can realistically do. They argued that large-scale social programs (e.g., Head Start, income redistribution, affirmative action) had limited power to reduce cognitive inequality or close gaps, because much of IQ variation was resistant to environmental manipulation. On the genetic vs. environmental debate about group differences, their ultimate claim was: we don’t know, but genetics might contribute, and pretending otherwise could be harmful to honest policy discussion. But really, if you can't go about doing more studies on race and IQ, we'll never really know. It's a valid and legitimate scientific question
        tptacek 1y ago
        This is an extremely studied question, and The Bell Curve operates in the phlogiston era of this science. The idea that this is a forbidden topic only whispered about in the academy is an Internet myth. Most of the reason you don't hear about current research into behavioral genetics is that a, uh, very particular excitable subset of Internet commenters are actually interested in this research, and the research results aren't coming out the way they want them to. (You can get an isomorphic answer substituting psychometrics for behavioral genetics; this is the "twin studies" line of research that Richard Herrnstein relied on in the book, and it too is actively studied, but not talked about because the answers don't come out the way --- let's call them "Herrnstein fans" --- want them to).