3 ms·

Come on, I don't see why the original authors were "blurting out" their hypothesis. From the article, it sounded like a normal, legitimate way to come up with s

by HSO 18y ago

Come on, I don't see why the original authors were "blurting out" their hypothesis. From the article, it sounded like a normal, legitimate way to come up with something in the scientific research process. Science needs communication and as they themselves put it, they expect other researchers to examine the evidence more closely. Just to clarify this: I don't actually have an opinion on this issue; my problem is with the argument that somehow there is legitimate "overhead" to science in terms of social or political consequences or even people's personal pride. We are not in the middle ages anymore.

Tichy 18y ago
Sorry, didn't refer specifically to the research from that article, just to the general research surrounding race/IQ. I read the Bell Curve years ago (didn't find it as shocking as expected), and even bothered to dig up some of the articles on twin studies in the libraries (most not being that convincing after all, it is hard to find a lot of twins that were separated as kids). As for the article linked here it is hard to judge it based on the facts given in the article alone. Just wanted to say that it doesn't become more likely just because people are opposed to it out of political motivation. Don't get your middle age reference: are you claiming that people don't have prejudices anymore? What about your "everyone can see" statement? People still have prejudices, and they affect peoples lives, often in a bad way. You think something like "recognising criminals by their skulls" could not happen anymore today? I think it could - just think of the immunisation/autism debate. Edit Re "blurting out": there are so many silly claims with respect to genetics, it is so easy to claim things must be so and so because of genetics. Hence my "blurting out" blurt.
- HSO 18y ago
  The middle age thing was just a reference to the general struggle between the church representation of the world and the emerging scientific approach. I agree with you on the racial prejudices. They are definitely not dead; many people seem to need them somehow. I suspect, though, that genetic profiling will become a more potent issue in the future.

by HSO 18y ago

Tichy 18y ago

Sorry, didn't refer specifically to the research from that article, just to the general research surrounding race/IQ. I read the Bell Curve years ago (didn't find it as shocking as expected), and even bothered to dig up some of the articles on twin studies in the libraries (most not being that convincing after all, it is hard to find a lot of twins that were separated as kids). As for the article linked here it is hard to judge it based on the facts given in the article alone. Just wanted to say that it doesn't become more likely just because people are opposed to it out of political motivation. Don't get your middle age reference: are you claiming that people don't have prejudices anymore? What about your "everyone can see" statement? People still have prejudices, and they affect peoples lives, often in a bad way. You think something like "recognising criminals by their skulls" could not happen anymore today? I think it could - just think of the immunisation/autism debate. Edit Re "blurting out": there are so many silly claims with respect to genetics, it is so easy to claim things must be so and so because of genetics. Hence my "blurting out" blurt.

HSO 18y ago
The middle age thing was just a reference to the general struggle between the church representation of the world and the emerging scientific approach. I agree with you on the racial prejudices. They are definitely not dead; many people seem to need them somehow. I suspect, though, that genetic profiling will become a more potent issue in the future.