3 ms·

The reason no one wants to talk is that these discussions are always co-opted by racists wanting to affirm their beliefs, regardless of the underlying science.

The reason no one wants to talk is that these discussions are always co-opted by racists wanting to affirm their beliefs, regardless of the underlying science. Reich in particular is borderline deliberate about attracting those sorts with his lab's research, because of how badly he chooses to handle the topic and terminology of race.

nostromo 6mo ago
Science is about truth not social outcomes. People keep wondering why trust in scientific findings is in free fall. A big part of it is because many scientists have become comfortable lying when they feel it’s for a noble cause.
- orsorna 6mo ago
  I really don't care if the people around me have physiological differences from me. It would be wonderful to explore that and such differences. But as OP pointed out the discussion gets co-opted by people who would kill others over physiological differences. How is such a viewpoint conducive to a peaceful society where millions of people with physiological differences exist? For good reason, the wider community isn't able to have a productive conversation about it. I wouldn't even call that a noble reason, but a necessary one, unless you would be okay with inviting people that want you dead into discussion on scientific consensus.
  - like_any_other 6mo ago
    > people who would kill others over physiological differences Most of them just want to enforce borders. And then the dogma that we are all the same is co-opted by people who would see their ethnic group wiped out, as they are told that they don't even exist except as a meaningless social construct, and their desire for ethnic self-preservation is therefore illegitimate - there is nothing to preserve! The same rhetoric targeting Palestinians: https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/perpetuating-the-myth-of-a-palestinian-people/ https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/perpetuating-the-myth-of-a-p...
    - orsorna 6mo ago
      >And then the dogma that we are all the same is co-opted by people who would see their ethnic group wiped out Are you referring to certain people? People sympathetic to Palestinians? I mean yeah obviously it's wrong to preach equity for me but not for thee, but I'm not really going to get into a pissing match about Israel/Palestine, sorry, because that's deflection from my point. So there are two choices here: 1) Allow scientific discussion on physiological differences or avoid it. Particulary, physiological differences that don't necessarily effect health outcomes but also performance metrics. 2) Do not allow such discussion, and declare an axiom: normalize physiological differences across homo sapiens. You're right to call the latter dogma, although not in the pejorative sense. You brought this infamous conflict up to propose that because option two can be used by bad actors, then we should not normalize option two, and freely discuss physiological differences between people. If you are of a group that has physiological differences scientifically proven to be inferior, you are immediately in an outgroup. You will experience discrimination. Because few (and I'm being generous, perhaps no one truly) can talk about physiological differences without building and holding prejudice. Pragmatically that is just not the case. It's why endless ethnic conflicts exist. I simply cannot formulate an argument for why this should ever be allowed. It sounds like a horror show if you're on the receiving end. A horror show minorities of many types live through every day. To lay "ground rules" so that we do not scrutinize our fellow brothers and sisters on unalienable traits is an ethical imperative to prevent us tearing each other apart. This then leaves only one line, the line where people are more than happy to discriminate based on these unalienable traits, and I think it's perfectly acceptable to ostracize them since they encourage ripping each other's throats out, willingly or as a useful peon.
      - like_any_other 6mo ago
        Nobody talks about "performance metrics" when distinguishing between Sumatran and Siberian tigers. What happens instead is humans try to preserve their populations and distinctions. "It's all the same" is corrosive to preservation.
        orsorna 6mo ago
  - coderenegade 6mo ago
    The problem is that if you don't stick to truth and make an attempt at objectivity, others will step in to fill the void. This is how you sow division and undermine trust in science.
    - orsorna 6mo ago
      I'm having a very hard time understanding a society where research is openly conducted on innate physiological differences between people, and bad actors don't use this official research to practice open discrimination. The lesser of the two evils is to draw a line and tell people to just accept these differences.
- teamonkey 6mo ago
  Scientists are not lying. Reich is notable in his field and no-one is disputing his genetic research. What scientists are wary of is how any discussion in the field gets jumped on and twisted into ammunition to reinforce racist beliefs, whether the science actually supports this or not.
  - Nesco 6mo ago
    “What scientists are wary of is how any discussion in the field gets jumped on and twisted into ammunition to reinforce racist beliefs” Yet nothing ruined the reputation of the scientific establishment more in recent time than their tendency to change their behaviours and adapt their beliefs for political motives
    - teamonkey 6mo ago
      There are always those trying to discredit scientists who do not reinforce their personal beliefs.
MontyCarloHall 6mo ago
>Reich in particular is borderline deliberate about attracting those sorts with his lab's research, because of how badly he chooses to handle the topic and terminology of race. Sorry, do you have any examples? His views that I've read [0, 1] are scientifically rigorous and terminologically precise, deftly navigating the politics that some consider extremely controversial. To wit, one of my favorite passages from [1], which deals specifically with terminology: But “ancestry” is not a euphemism, nor is it synonymous with “race.” Instead, the term is born of an urgent need to come up with a precise language to discuss genetic differences among people at a time when scientific developments have finally provided the tools to detect them. It is now undeniable that there are nontrivial average genetic differences across populations in multiple traits, and the race vocabulary is too ill-defined and too loaded with historical baggage to be helpful. If we continue to use it we will not be able to escape the current debate, which is mired in an argument between two indefensible positions. On the one side there are beliefs about the nature of the differences that are grounded in bigotry and have little basis in reality. On the other side there is the idea that any biological differences among populations are so modest that as a matter of social policy they can be ignored and papered over. It is time to move on from this paralyzing false dichotomy and to figure out what the genome is actually telling us. This particular passage is on p. 253 of [1], but everything in Chapter 11 ("The Genomics of Race and Identity," pp. 247-273) is well worth the read. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-r... [1] https://sackett.net/reich_who_we_are_and_how_we_got_here.pdf https://sackett.net/reich_who_we_are_and_how_we_got_here.pdf
- AlotOfReading 6mo ago
  It's unfortunate that the URL happens to be buzzfeed, but there was an open letter to Reich by other academics about his terminology in the book you're quoting [0]. The short of it is that social categorizations we believe in like race intersect with genetics in a very complicated way. Reich is a world-class expert in genetics. He simply commits the same error as many other other experts in discounting the complexity of subjects he's adjacent to, but not directly an expert in. I get that this is a high standard to hold him to (and I sure as heck don't meet it myself), but he should do better given his visibility in public discourse. [0] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/bfopinion/race-genetics-david-reich https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/bfopinion/race-genetics...
naasking 6mo ago
> The reason no one wants to talk is that these discussions are always co-opted by racists wanting to affirm their beliefs So? People need to stop undermining science and openly sharing information because some people have bad ideas.

nostromo 6mo ago

Science is about truth not social outcomes. People keep wondering why trust in scientific findings is in free fall. A big part of it is because many scientists have become comfortable lying when they feel it’s for a noble cause.

orsorna 6mo ago
I really don't care if the people around me have physiological differences from me. It would be wonderful to explore that and such differences. But as OP pointed out the discussion gets co-opted by people who would kill others over physiological differences. How is such a viewpoint conducive to a peaceful society where millions of people with physiological differences exist? For good reason, the wider community isn't able to have a productive conversation about it. I wouldn't even call that a noble reason, but a necessary one, unless you would be okay with inviting people that want you dead into discussion on scientific consensus.
- like_any_other 6mo ago
  > people who would kill others over physiological differences Most of them just want to enforce borders. And then the dogma that we are all the same is co-opted by people who would see their ethnic group wiped out, as they are told that they don't even exist except as a meaningless social construct, and their desire for ethnic self-preservation is therefore illegitimate - there is nothing to preserve! The same rhetoric targeting Palestinians: https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/perpetuating-the-myth-of-a-palestinian-people/ https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/perpetuating-the-myth-of-a-p...
  - orsorna 6mo ago
    >And then the dogma that we are all the same is co-opted by people who would see their ethnic group wiped out Are you referring to certain people? People sympathetic to Palestinians? I mean yeah obviously it's wrong to preach equity for me but not for thee, but I'm not really going to get into a pissing match about Israel/Palestine, sorry, because that's deflection from my point. So there are two choices here: 1) Allow scientific discussion on physiological differences or avoid it. Particulary, physiological differences that don't necessarily effect health outcomes but also performance metrics. 2) Do not allow such discussion, and declare an axiom: normalize physiological differences across homo sapiens. You're right to call the latter dogma, although not in the pejorative sense. You brought this infamous conflict up to propose that because option two can be used by bad actors, then we should not normalize option two, and freely discuss physiological differences between people. If you are of a group that has physiological differences scientifically proven to be inferior, you are immediately in an outgroup. You will experience discrimination. Because few (and I'm being generous, perhaps no one truly) can talk about physiological differences without building and holding prejudice. Pragmatically that is just not the case. It's why endless ethnic conflicts exist. I simply cannot formulate an argument for why this should ever be allowed. It sounds like a horror show if you're on the receiving end. A horror show minorities of many types live through every day. To lay "ground rules" so that we do not scrutinize our fellow brothers and sisters on unalienable traits is an ethical imperative to prevent us tearing each other apart. This then leaves only one line, the line where people are more than happy to discriminate based on these unalienable traits, and I think it's perfectly acceptable to ostracize them since they encourage ripping each other's throats out, willingly or as a useful peon.
    - like_any_other 6mo ago
      Nobody talks about "performance metrics" when distinguishing between Sumatran and Siberian tigers. What happens instead is humans try to preserve their populations and distinctions. "It's all the same" is corrosive to preservation.
      - orsorna 6mo ago
- coderenegade 6mo ago
  The problem is that if you don't stick to truth and make an attempt at objectivity, others will step in to fill the void. This is how you sow division and undermine trust in science.
  - orsorna 6mo ago
    I'm having a very hard time understanding a society where research is openly conducted on innate physiological differences between people, and bad actors don't use this official research to practice open discrimination. The lesser of the two evils is to draw a line and tell people to just accept these differences.
teamonkey 6mo ago
Scientists are not lying. Reich is notable in his field and no-one is disputing his genetic research. What scientists are wary of is how any discussion in the field gets jumped on and twisted into ammunition to reinforce racist beliefs, whether the science actually supports this or not.
- Nesco 6mo ago
  “What scientists are wary of is how any discussion in the field gets jumped on and twisted into ammunition to reinforce racist beliefs” Yet nothing ruined the reputation of the scientific establishment more in recent time than their tendency to change their behaviours and adapt their beliefs for political motives
  - teamonkey 6mo ago
    There are always those trying to discredit scientists who do not reinforce their personal beliefs.

MontyCarloHall 6mo ago

>Reich in particular is borderline deliberate about attracting those sorts with his lab's research, because of how badly he chooses to handle the topic and terminology of race. Sorry, do you have any examples? His views that I've read [0, 1] are scientifically rigorous and terminologically precise, deftly navigating the politics that some consider extremely controversial. To wit, one of my favorite passages from [1], which deals specifically with terminology: But “ancestry” is not a euphemism, nor is it synonymous with “race.” Instead, the term is born of an urgent need to come up with a precise language to discuss genetic differences among people at a time when scientific developments have finally provided the tools to detect them. It is now undeniable that there are nontrivial average genetic differences across populations in multiple traits, and the race vocabulary is too ill-defined and too loaded with historical baggage to be helpful. If we continue to use it we will not be able to escape the current debate, which is mired in an argument between two indefensible positions. On the one side there are beliefs about the nature of the differences that are grounded in bigotry and have little basis in reality. On the other side there is the idea that any biological differences among populations are so modest that as a matter of social policy they can be ignored and papered over. It is time to move on from this paralyzing false dichotomy and to figure out what the genome is actually telling us. This particular passage is on p. 253 of [1], but everything in Chapter 11 ("The Genomics of Race and Identity," pp. 247-273) is well worth the read. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-r... [1] https://sackett.net/reich_who_we_are_and_how_we_got_here.pdf https://sackett.net/reich_who_we_are_and_how_we_got_here.pdf

AlotOfReading 6mo ago
It's unfortunate that the URL happens to be buzzfeed, but there was an open letter to Reich by other academics about his terminology in the book you're quoting [0]. The short of it is that social categorizations we believe in like race intersect with genetics in a very complicated way. Reich is a world-class expert in genetics. He simply commits the same error as many other other experts in discounting the complexity of subjects he's adjacent to, but not directly an expert in. I get that this is a high standard to hold him to (and I sure as heck don't meet it myself), but he should do better given his visibility in public discourse. [0] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/bfopinion/race-genetics-david-reich https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/bfopinion/race-genetics...

naasking 6mo ago

> The reason no one wants to talk is that these discussions are always co-opted by racists wanting to affirm their beliefs So? People need to stop undermining science and openly sharing information because some people have bad ideas.