3 ms·

I'll respond by quoting the authors themselves: > "The test performance of the Black/Black adoptees [in the study] was not different from that of ordinary Blac

I'll respond by quoting the authors themselves: > "The test performance of the Black/Black adoptees [in the study] was not different from that of ordinary Black children reared by their own families in the same area of the country. My colleagues and I reported the data accurately and as fully as possible, and then tried to make the results palatable to environmentally committed colleagues. In retrospect, this was a mistake. The results of the transracial adoption study can be used to support either a genetic difference hypothesis or an environmental difference one (because the children have visible African ancestry). We should have been agnostic on the conclusions." --- It gets back to the main issue here. You can't expect an open and good faith discussion on this topic when any one can suffer major career and other consequences for not adopting the politically correct view. And indeed extremely compelling evidence to the contrary of such is immediately met with a mixture of logically flawed arguments (e.g. - various groups have suffered tremendous discrimination with no apparent impact on IQ or later achievement, Jews being the obvious example) and ad hominem. The study results are obviously not what the author's expected to find, which left them in a very difficult place. I think that is also why this was the last effort to try to experimentally prove that genetics don't matter. This is also likely why they continue to insist that the almost exactly ~20% of the mixed race individuals were misclassified by accident. Had they shown an environmentally favorable argument, I suspect it would have been revealed as a rather cleverly concocted control group. As is, it's extremely difficult to explain this (the mixed race individuals believed they were black and appeared as such, yet tested in accordance with their genetics) with a typical environmental argument.

hnhg 1y ago
I know very little about this but just an observer your reply did little to refute any of the points made. You should loosen up a bit and keep an open mind about those points raised because it feels like you’re dismissing them.
- somenameforme 1y ago
  This is one of those many issues that can be approached at a macro level. Don't think about this as an argument on the internet, but about the implications. Imagine there was compelling evidence for a environmental factor that might even possibly be controlled for. Do you realize how huge a deal this would be? Every single parent wants the best for their kids and would do anything for this. We, socially, already spend an obscene amount of money on education and other factors meaning government support to try to turn this viability into a reality would be through the roof - including in endless support on promising research along these lines. And keep in mind this isn't only for black families - there's a significant IQ deficit between whites and East Asians as well, for instance. But where are these exciting studies on the verge of revolutionizing society? They do not exist. It's kind of like cold fusion. The latest science and research on this topic doesn't really matter. People want to find it and have been searching for decades with promising leads that go nowhere. But if one day they do, you'll know, because it will be something that would have dramatic implications for all of humanity.
  - tptacek 1y ago
    This is just handwaving. Behavioral genetics, psychometrics, and molecular genomics are thriving fields of study (often in tension with each other, so you even get fun Twitter arguments between the leading lights). It's not our fault you made the risible claim that the MTAS "once and forever put to rest any question of race and intelligence".
tptacek 1y ago
You brought this up 7 months ago, and when I responded that this is in fact an active field of study with new science being produced constantly, you had no response. I presumed you just conceded the point. If you missed my point last time, well, I've made it for you again: your claim that this research is suppressed is trivially falsifiable.
- EnPissant 1y ago
  You have in the past stated that race and intelligence can be considered a matter of faith to you and there is no evidence that could ever sway you. So are you sincerely debating here or is this just proselytizing?
  - tptacek 1y ago
    I'm having trouble even parsing what your comment is claiming that I believe, but either way, this thread is dealing in falsifiable statements, not psychoanalysis. Is this research being suppressed, so that new new science can be done it, thus justifying the claim that a study last updated over 20 years ago is dispositive of racial/genetic/intelligence causality? No, it is not.
    - EnPissant 1y ago
      From this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9674992 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9674992 Here you said: > If it helps, you can think of my opposition to the notion that blacks are somehow intellectually inferior to whites as religious, and you might just as productively spend your time trying to convert me to Zoroastrianism. Someone even mentioned that this was falsifiable: > His admission really is incredibly revealing, and refreshingly, even depressingly honest. He's literally saying no amount of reason or evidence could change his mind on a matter that is obviously (in principle) falsifiable. I think it's safe to say that, so far as full contact with reality is concerned, he is a lost cause. Anyways, I am just interested if you have changed your mind, and you are now treating this as falsifiable or if it is impossible to convince you with any evidence. I think this is useful information for anyone debating you in good faith.

hnhg 1y ago

I know very little about this but just an observer your reply did little to refute any of the points made. You should loosen up a bit and keep an open mind about those points raised because it feels like you’re dismissing them.

somenameforme 1y ago
This is one of those many issues that can be approached at a macro level. Don't think about this as an argument on the internet, but about the implications. Imagine there was compelling evidence for a environmental factor that might even possibly be controlled for. Do you realize how huge a deal this would be? Every single parent wants the best for their kids and would do anything for this. We, socially, already spend an obscene amount of money on education and other factors meaning government support to try to turn this viability into a reality would be through the roof - including in endless support on promising research along these lines. And keep in mind this isn't only for black families - there's a significant IQ deficit between whites and East Asians as well, for instance. But where are these exciting studies on the verge of revolutionizing society? They do not exist. It's kind of like cold fusion. The latest science and research on this topic doesn't really matter. People want to find it and have been searching for decades with promising leads that go nowhere. But if one day they do, you'll know, because it will be something that would have dramatic implications for all of humanity.
- tptacek 1y ago
  This is just handwaving. Behavioral genetics, psychometrics, and molecular genomics are thriving fields of study (often in tension with each other, so you even get fun Twitter arguments between the leading lights). It's not our fault you made the risible claim that the MTAS "once and forever put to rest any question of race and intelligence".

tptacek 1y ago

You brought this up 7 months ago, and when I responded that this is in fact an active field of study with new science being produced constantly, you had no response. I presumed you just conceded the point. If you missed my point last time, well, I've made it for you again: your claim that this research is suppressed is trivially falsifiable.

EnPissant 1y ago
You have in the past stated that race and intelligence can be considered a matter of faith to you and there is no evidence that could ever sway you. So are you sincerely debating here or is this just proselytizing?
- tptacek 1y ago
  I'm having trouble even parsing what your comment is claiming that I believe, but either way, this thread is dealing in falsifiable statements, not psychoanalysis. Is this research being suppressed, so that new new science can be done it, thus justifying the claim that a study last updated over 20 years ago is dispositive of racial/genetic/intelligence causality? No, it is not.
  - EnPissant 1y ago
    From this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9674992 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9674992 Here you said: > If it helps, you can think of my opposition to the notion that blacks are somehow intellectually inferior to whites as religious, and you might just as productively spend your time trying to convert me to Zoroastrianism. Someone even mentioned that this was falsifiable: > His admission really is incredibly revealing, and refreshingly, even depressingly honest. He's literally saying no amount of reason or evidence could change his mind on a matter that is obviously (in principle) falsifiable. I think it's safe to say that, so far as full contact with reality is concerned, he is a lost cause. Anyways, I am just interested if you have changed your mind, and you are now treating this as falsifiable or if it is impossible to convince you with any evidence. I think this is useful information for anyone debating you in good faith.