3 ms·

> Wow, good genes! Said with irony? I mean, the guy was into eugenics—thought some races are smarter than others.

terminalshort 1y ago
> the guy was into eugenics So are you (probably). Do you think incest should be legalized? > thought some races are smarter than others What other conclusion can you reasonably come to based on the available data?
- efilife 1y ago
  [flagged]
- JKCalhoun 1y ago
  A biologist can correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand "race" in humans to be little different than, say, hair-color. Perhaps there's data showing that brunettes are smarter than blondes? EDIT: Never mind, user krapp's comment is what I was reaching for, "Race isn't biological, it's a social and political construct."
  - dekhn 1y ago
    It's not completely correct, though- "race" as we currently classify it has a strong correlate to genetic background and self-identified race is often used as a proxy for genetic background.
  - terminalshort 1y ago
    But it is biological. You can try to obfuscate and use big words all you want, but it is, in fact, biological.
    - JKCalhoun 1y ago
      No one said it wasn't biological. Hair color is also biological.
      - terminalshort 1y ago
        You: > krapp's comment is what I was reaching for, "Race isn't biological, it's a social and political construct."
  - exoverito 1y ago
    Race is obviously biological.. You can determine someone's ancestry and ethnicity by their DNA... https://www.researchgate.net/figure/PCA-clustering-Principal-Component-Analysis-PCA-plot-of-20-populations-from-1000_fig1_331592466 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/PCA-clustering-Principal...
rafale 1y ago
If you say person X thought Y was true, ask yourself if Y was true would you accept it? If the answer is no you are not ready for this kind of discussion. As for whether it's true or not, let's just say we don't know for sure because scientists either are not allowed or don't want to research this question.
dekhn 1y ago
Even if he was "into eugenics", there is strong evidence that your genetic makeup contributes significantly to your longevity.
flkiwi 1y ago
I mean, he lived to 97. Given what he's known for, it made me chuckle. Anyway, I thought it was Crick who was into eugenics. If it was both of them, I'm afraid I shall have to amend my opinion of both of them from "disturbingly troubling" to "unredeemable so let's just get them out of the textbooks thanks" right away.
- JKCalhoun 1y ago
  By all means they should remain in textbooks. We have a lot of unredeemable people in history that we should not ignore. If anything it's probably a healthy reminder that even "smart" people can have blinders on?
droptablemain 1y ago
And why wouldn't that be plausible given effectively all available cognitive data support this conclusion? Of course I'm being facetious. I know why. No one wants to ponder that because of the stigma, so everyone puts their head in the sand and avoids the uncomfortable.
efilife 1y ago
But isn't this true? Asians are proven to have the highest IQ
- krapp 1y ago
  No. Race isn't biological, it's a social and political construct. The social and political construct known as "Asians" comprises about 60% of the global population. Also, IQ is not a measure of intelligence. There are cultural reasons why some people in some "Asian" countries may do better on average in academics, such as stronger familial bonds, peer pressure and a greater cultural value placed on scholastic achievement, but that's far from proof that "Asians" are genetically and intellectually superior to other races, much less that therefore eugenics (and by extension the white supremacist ideology it was created to normalize, which ironically considered "Asians" to be subhuman) is "proven true."
  - terminalshort 1y ago
    If it was a cultural thing it would be a multi modal distribution.
  - sparkie 1y ago
    It's most likely a combination of both genetics and society - neither are absolutes. There is no concrete evidence that intelligence is purely a social construct, nor that it is genetic. We simply don't know. People get cancelled not for saying that it is genetic, but for questioning whether it may be. Of course, we will never know if we're not allowed to ask. Cancel culture is anti-science. Watson may have been racist, but questioning whether there is a relationship between genetics and intelligence by itself is not racism.
    - krapp 1y ago
      We are allowed to ask this question, and we have asked it, and we've found that the evidence does not validate the premise of inherent racial intelligence or other racial essentialist views[0]. Claims like "Asians have the highest IQ" are not meaningful or scientifically valid. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Research_into_possible_genetic_factors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Research...
JuniperMesos 1y ago
A huge amount of American public school policy is grounded in noticing that there are massive and systemic discrepancies in academic achievement between students of different racial backgrounds, and trying to figure out what to do about that. If you paid any attention to the Algebra I controversy in San Francisco public schools recently, that was largely driven by bureaucrats and activists within the public education system who were concerned by racial discrepancies in the ability to do Algebra I work. "some races are smarter than others" is too reductive a claim, but claims pretty closely related to that are relevant to a lot of things in American life. I don't think anything Watson said about racial differences existing was obviously incorrect, regardless of whether you use the word "eugenics" to describe it or not.

> the guy was into eugenics So are you (probably). Do you think incest should be legalized? > thought some races are smarter than others What other conclusion can you reasonably come to based on the available data?

efilife 1y ago
[flagged]
JKCalhoun 1y ago
A biologist can correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand "race" in humans to be little different than, say, hair-color. Perhaps there's data showing that brunettes are smarter than blondes? EDIT: Never mind, user krapp's comment is what I was reaching for, "Race isn't biological, it's a social and political construct."
- dekhn 1y ago
  It's not completely correct, though- "race" as we currently classify it has a strong correlate to genetic background and self-identified race is often used as a proxy for genetic background.
- terminalshort 1y ago
  But it is biological. You can try to obfuscate and use big words all you want, but it is, in fact, biological.
  - JKCalhoun 1y ago
    No one said it wasn't biological. Hair color is also biological.
    - terminalshort 1y ago
      You: > krapp's comment is what I was reaching for, "Race isn't biological, it's a social and political construct."
- exoverito 1y ago
  Race is obviously biological.. You can determine someone's ancestry and ethnicity by their DNA... https://www.researchgate.net/figure/PCA-clustering-Principal-Component-Analysis-PCA-plot-of-20-populations-from-1000_fig1_331592466 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/PCA-clustering-Principal...

rafale 1y ago

If you say person X thought Y was true, ask yourself if Y was true would you accept it? If the answer is no you are not ready for this kind of discussion. As for whether it's true or not, let's just say we don't know for sure because scientists either are not allowed or don't want to research this question.

dekhn 1y ago

Even if he was "into eugenics", there is strong evidence that your genetic makeup contributes significantly to your longevity.

flkiwi 1y ago

I mean, he lived to 97. Given what he's known for, it made me chuckle. Anyway, I thought it was Crick who was into eugenics. If it was both of them, I'm afraid I shall have to amend my opinion of both of them from "disturbingly troubling" to "unredeemable so let's just get them out of the textbooks thanks" right away.

JKCalhoun 1y ago
By all means they should remain in textbooks. We have a lot of unredeemable people in history that we should not ignore. If anything it's probably a healthy reminder that even "smart" people can have blinders on?

droptablemain 1y ago

And why wouldn't that be plausible given effectively all available cognitive data support this conclusion? Of course I'm being facetious. I know why. No one wants to ponder that because of the stigma, so everyone puts their head in the sand and avoids the uncomfortable.

efilife 1y ago

But isn't this true? Asians are proven to have the highest IQ

krapp 1y ago
No. Race isn't biological, it's a social and political construct. The social and political construct known as "Asians" comprises about 60% of the global population. Also, IQ is not a measure of intelligence. There are cultural reasons why some people in some "Asian" countries may do better on average in academics, such as stronger familial bonds, peer pressure and a greater cultural value placed on scholastic achievement, but that's far from proof that "Asians" are genetically and intellectually superior to other races, much less that therefore eugenics (and by extension the white supremacist ideology it was created to normalize, which ironically considered "Asians" to be subhuman) is "proven true."
- terminalshort 1y ago
  If it was a cultural thing it would be a multi modal distribution.
- sparkie 1y ago
  It's most likely a combination of both genetics and society - neither are absolutes. There is no concrete evidence that intelligence is purely a social construct, nor that it is genetic. We simply don't know. People get cancelled not for saying that it is genetic, but for questioning whether it may be. Of course, we will never know if we're not allowed to ask. Cancel culture is anti-science. Watson may have been racist, but questioning whether there is a relationship between genetics and intelligence by itself is not racism.
  - krapp 1y ago
    We are allowed to ask this question, and we have asked it, and we've found that the evidence does not validate the premise of inherent racial intelligence or other racial essentialist views[0]. Claims like "Asians have the highest IQ" are not meaningful or scientifically valid. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Research_into_possible_genetic_factors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Research...

JuniperMesos 1y ago

A huge amount of American public school policy is grounded in noticing that there are massive and systemic discrepancies in academic achievement between students of different racial backgrounds, and trying to figure out what to do about that. If you paid any attention to the Algebra I controversy in San Francisco public schools recently, that was largely driven by bureaucrats and activists within the public education system who were concerned by racial discrepancies in the ability to do Algebra I work. "some races are smarter than others" is too reductive a claim, but claims pretty closely related to that are relevant to a lot of things in American life. I don't think anything Watson said about racial differences existing was obviously incorrect, regardless of whether you use the word "eugenics" to describe it or not.