DNA scientist James Watson stripped of honors over views on race(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
DNA scientist James Watson stripped of honors over views on race
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/13/james-watson-scientist-honors-stripped-reprehensible-race-comments
26 comments
Would he have had his honors stripped if he had claimed that women have better verbal skills than men?
This sounds like axe grinding rather than any serious commentary.
I mean, I can think many other things you could have mentioned: would he have had his honors stripped if he had a long record of drunk-driving? If he were a pedophile? If his secret espionage for the Soviets was finally revealed? And so on.
Addressing your topic point on, Watson has a decades long history of making racist, sexist, misogynist, and similar comments - and often justified by pseudo-science. When it was mostly white men who dominated the field, it was regarded as "that's just Jim being Jim."
In 2007 he apologized for his behavior and retracted his statements like 'He also said that while he wished the races were equal, “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.”' His recent statements on PBS effectively cancel that retraction.
By comparison, if his only comment along these lines had been that men have better verbal skills than women, then it's extremely unlikely he would have had his honors stripped. Which means I also think that if he had claimed the opposite - that women have better verbal skills than men - then I also doubt that he would have had his honors stripped.
Do you know of any similar case where a man was stripped of honors solely because he said that he thought men have better verbal skills than women? Or that he thought men had better physical perception than women? Off-hand I can't think of any, so I can't see why the reverse would be any different.
I mean, I can think many other things you could have mentioned: would he have had his honors stripped if he had a long record of drunk-driving? If he were a pedophile? If his secret espionage for the Soviets was finally revealed? And so on.
Addressing your topic point on, Watson has a decades long history of making racist, sexist, misogynist, and similar comments - and often justified by pseudo-science. When it was mostly white men who dominated the field, it was regarded as "that's just Jim being Jim."
In 2007 he apologized for his behavior and retracted his statements like 'He also said that while he wished the races were equal, “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.”' His recent statements on PBS effectively cancel that retraction.
By comparison, if his only comment along these lines had been that men have better verbal skills than women, then it's extremely unlikely he would have had his honors stripped. Which means I also think that if he had claimed the opposite - that women have better verbal skills than men - then I also doubt that he would have had his honors stripped.
Do you know of any similar case where a man was stripped of honors solely because he said that he thought men have better verbal skills than women? Or that he thought men had better physical perception than women? Off-hand I can't think of any, so I can't see why the reverse would be any different.
Well, I don't think that anyone believes that men, in general, have better verbal skills than women. But there was a guy at Google who got in trouble for saying that men, in general, have better STEM skills than women.
Axe grinding? I suppose. But I too hold Watson's views to be highly distasteful. But I think it is important to balance that sense of repugnance with two principles: 1) Free speech; and 2) the idea that if something is actually true -- and I'm not asserting that Watson has captured the truth here -- then there must not be a penalty for saying it, if it is said in a non-inflammatory way.
And you do raise an excellent question: Would Watson's honors have been stripped if it were proved that he had been a Soviet spy?
Axe grinding? I suppose. But I too hold Watson's views to be highly distasteful. But I think it is important to balance that sense of repugnance with two principles: 1) Free speech; and 2) the idea that if something is actually true -- and I'm not asserting that Watson has captured the truth here -- then there must not be a penalty for saying it, if it is said in a non-inflammatory way.
And you do raise an excellent question: Would Watson's honors have been stripped if it were proved that he had been a Soviet spy?
The "guy at Google" 1) didn't have any honors stripped, and 2) said far more than simply "men, in general, have better STEM skills than women". Surely to a degree far more than you posited in your original statement.
How is this a free speech issue? Watson continues to have his full free speech rights, yes? How is he being censored?
This looks much more like it's a right of free association issue. Cold Spring Harbor Labs has broad rights to associate - or disassociate - with whomever they wish.
Since so many people want to place free speech on some sort of pedestal, and claim that it's of overriding importance, I'll quote John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty", chapter IV, "Of the Limits to the Authority of Society Over the Individual", which seems appropriate here:
> We have a right, also, in various ways, to act upon our unfavourable opinion of any one, not to the oppression of his individuality, but in the exercise of ours. We are not bound, for example, to seek his society; we have a right to avoid it (though not to parade the avoidance), for we have a right to choose the society most acceptable to us. We have a right, and it may be our duty, to caution others against him, if we think his example or conversation likely to have a pernicious effect on those with whom he associates. We may give others a preference over him in optional good offices, except those which tend to his improvement. In these various modes a person may suffer very severe penalties at the hands of others, for faults which directly concern only himself; but he suffers these penalties only in so far as they are the natural, and, as it were, the spontaneous consequences of the faults themselves, not because they are purposely inflicted on him for the sake of punishment.
The people of CSHL are exercising their liberty by choosing the society most acceptable to them.
I don't understand the relevancy of your point 2. All research points out that Watson is in the wrong.
I also caution that "non-inflammatory speech" is tricky. Who gets to decide? In general, those in power are those who want to maintain status quo and are also those who get to decide what 'inflammatory' means. On topic, we see that 100 years ago CSHL was one of many organizations in the American Eugenics movement, which tended to favor the "Nordic, Germanic and Anglo-Saxon peoples". Somehow their calls for sterilization and even eradicatation of large numbers of the poor and powerless wasn't seen as inflammatory, while the speech of black people who called for equal treatment was seen as inflammatory, and could even be grounds for lynching.
How is this a free speech issue? Watson continues to have his full free speech rights, yes? How is he being censored?
This looks much more like it's a right of free association issue. Cold Spring Harbor Labs has broad rights to associate - or disassociate - with whomever they wish.
Since so many people want to place free speech on some sort of pedestal, and claim that it's of overriding importance, I'll quote John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty", chapter IV, "Of the Limits to the Authority of Society Over the Individual", which seems appropriate here:
> We have a right, also, in various ways, to act upon our unfavourable opinion of any one, not to the oppression of his individuality, but in the exercise of ours. We are not bound, for example, to seek his society; we have a right to avoid it (though not to parade the avoidance), for we have a right to choose the society most acceptable to us. We have a right, and it may be our duty, to caution others against him, if we think his example or conversation likely to have a pernicious effect on those with whom he associates. We may give others a preference over him in optional good offices, except those which tend to his improvement. In these various modes a person may suffer very severe penalties at the hands of others, for faults which directly concern only himself; but he suffers these penalties only in so far as they are the natural, and, as it were, the spontaneous consequences of the faults themselves, not because they are purposely inflicted on him for the sake of punishment.
The people of CSHL are exercising their liberty by choosing the society most acceptable to them.
I don't understand the relevancy of your point 2. All research points out that Watson is in the wrong.
I also caution that "non-inflammatory speech" is tricky. Who gets to decide? In general, those in power are those who want to maintain status quo and are also those who get to decide what 'inflammatory' means. On topic, we see that 100 years ago CSHL was one of many organizations in the American Eugenics movement, which tended to favor the "Nordic, Germanic and Anglo-Saxon peoples". Somehow their calls for sterilization and even eradicatation of large numbers of the poor and powerless wasn't seen as inflammatory, while the speech of black people who called for equal treatment was seen as inflammatory, and could even be grounds for lynching.
Is there a reason, in principle, why it is unlikely or impossible for average IQ to be related to “race” (however that concept is defined)?
Maybe because IQ is the result of a huge number of interacting genetic factors, and is thus unlikely to experience substantial drift over the existence of the human species? That would differentiate it from e.g. melanin production or lactose tolerance, which are heavily determined by only a few genes, and thus more likely to respond to selective pressure.
Maybe because IQ is the result of a huge number of interacting genetic factors, and is thus unlikely to experience substantial drift over the existence of the human species? That would differentiate it from e.g. melanin production or lactose tolerance, which are heavily determined by only a few genes, and thus more likely to respond to selective pressure.
[deleted]
> Is there a reason, in principle, why it is unlikely or impossible for average IQ to be unrelated to “race” (however that concept is defined)?
Certainly not, but AFAIK phenotypical "race" - like the one when you distinguish between "black" and "white" "races" - plays no role in modern genetics.
Certainly not, but AFAIK phenotypical "race" - like the one when you distinguish between "black" and "white" "races" - plays no role in modern genetics.
We know that intelligence has a strong genetic component, though. [0]
It seems strange to me to suppose a strongly heritable trait would be uncorrelated by “race” — while numerous other traits are. It’s certainly possible, but I haven’t seen anything to support that conjecture, which certainly isn’t the minimal assumption. The minimal assumption would be heritable traits have a racial correlation — since that’s generally what we find to be the case.
Further, there seems to be an incredibly strong resistance to studying the topic, likely because it conflicts with ideological (rather than scientific) positions.
(As an aside, “race” isn’t necessarily well defined — but we have a good enough idea to, eg, discuss lactose tolerance or certain disease prevalence.)
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
It seems strange to me to suppose a strongly heritable trait would be uncorrelated by “race” — while numerous other traits are. It’s certainly possible, but I haven’t seen anything to support that conjecture, which certainly isn’t the minimal assumption. The minimal assumption would be heritable traits have a racial correlation — since that’s generally what we find to be the case.
Further, there seems to be an incredibly strong resistance to studying the topic, likely because it conflicts with ideological (rather than scientific) positions.
(As an aside, “race” isn’t necessarily well defined — but we have a good enough idea to, eg, discuss lactose tolerance or certain disease prevalence.)
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
The assumption for more than a century was that intelligence has a racial correlation.
This research failed to show that a correlation between those two. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization) :
> By the 1970s, it had become clear that (1) most human differences were cultural; (2) what was not cultural was principally polymorphic – that is to say, found in diverse groups of people at different frequencies; (3) what was not cultural or polymorphic was principally clinal – that is to say, gradually variable over geography; and (4) what was left – the component of human diversity that was not cultural, polymorphic, or clinal -was very small.
> A consensus consequently developed among anthropologists and geneticists that race as the previous generation had known it – as largely discrete, geographically distinct, gene pools – did not exist.
That is, not only was no correlation found, but the environmental effects (at the presumed racial level) were found to be much stronger than any genetic effects - eg, see the Flynn effect -, and it was found that there is no genetic basis for the racial classifications that have long dominated both culture and (culturally influenced) research.
Hence, the reason why there is "incredibly strong resistance to studying" your hypothesis is that scientific research has long since shown that it isn't valid.
This research failed to show that a correlation between those two. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization) :
> By the 1970s, it had become clear that (1) most human differences were cultural; (2) what was not cultural was principally polymorphic – that is to say, found in diverse groups of people at different frequencies; (3) what was not cultural or polymorphic was principally clinal – that is to say, gradually variable over geography; and (4) what was left – the component of human diversity that was not cultural, polymorphic, or clinal -was very small.
> A consensus consequently developed among anthropologists and geneticists that race as the previous generation had known it – as largely discrete, geographically distinct, gene pools – did not exist.
That is, not only was no correlation found, but the environmental effects (at the presumed racial level) were found to be much stronger than any genetic effects - eg, see the Flynn effect -, and it was found that there is no genetic basis for the racial classifications that have long dominated both culture and (culturally influenced) research.
Hence, the reason why there is "incredibly strong resistance to studying" your hypothesis is that scientific research has long since shown that it isn't valid.
From the same Wiki:
> In his 2003 paper, "Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy", A. W. F. Edwards argued that rather than using a locus-by-locus analysis of variation to derive taxonomy, it is possible to construct a human classification system based on characteristic genetic patterns, or clusters inferred from multilocus genetic data.[97][98] Geographically based human studies since have shown that such genetic clusters can be derived from analyzing of a large number of loci which can assort individuals sampled into groups analogous to traditional continental racial groups.[99] Joanna Mountain and Neil Risch cautioned that while genetic clusters may one day be shown to correspond to phenotypic variations between groups, such assumptions were premature as the relationship between genes and complex traits remains poorly understood.[100] However, Risch denied such limitations render the analysis useless: "Perhaps just using someone's actual birth year is not a very good way of measuring age. Does that mean we should throw it out? ... Any category you come up with is going to be imperfect, but that doesn't preclude you from using it or the fact that it has utility."[101]
Race is a fuzzy concept, not inherently related to skin color, not highly predictive for an individual, and perhaps disappearing with increased migration and interbreeding.
However, there are clusters of human genetic trends, and there’s every reason to believe that these clusters can be associated with things like intelligence in addition to, say, thigh bone length or melanin production or muscle density.
> In his 2003 paper, "Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy", A. W. F. Edwards argued that rather than using a locus-by-locus analysis of variation to derive taxonomy, it is possible to construct a human classification system based on characteristic genetic patterns, or clusters inferred from multilocus genetic data.[97][98] Geographically based human studies since have shown that such genetic clusters can be derived from analyzing of a large number of loci which can assort individuals sampled into groups analogous to traditional continental racial groups.[99] Joanna Mountain and Neil Risch cautioned that while genetic clusters may one day be shown to correspond to phenotypic variations between groups, such assumptions were premature as the relationship between genes and complex traits remains poorly understood.[100] However, Risch denied such limitations render the analysis useless: "Perhaps just using someone's actual birth year is not a very good way of measuring age. Does that mean we should throw it out? ... Any category you come up with is going to be imperfect, but that doesn't preclude you from using it or the fact that it has utility."[101]
Race is a fuzzy concept, not inherently related to skin color, not highly predictive for an individual, and perhaps disappearing with increased migration and interbreeding.
However, there are clusters of human genetic trends, and there’s every reason to believe that these clusters can be associated with things like intelligence in addition to, say, thigh bone length or melanin production or muscle density.
How are "characteristic genetic patterns" related to race, in the way that people like Watson talk about race?
The only mention of race in your quoted text is "into groups analogous to traditional continental racial groups", citing reference 99. So I looked at the four publications for [99]. (Italics mine.)
The first, to Cavalli-Sforza et al., is a book I cannot easily access. The "lay summary" at the NYT says "[Cavalli-Sforza] says more about the related question of human races. One misinterpretation of a human evolutionary tree would be that it shows the branching off of distinct races, with separate histories. A major achievement of human genetics has been exploding the theory that races are genetically distinct. They are genetically only skin-deep: races do differ in a small number of genes that influence superficial features like skin color. But the great majority of our genes are a mish-mash and do not fall into any discrete subcategories of human being. Cavalli-Sforza shows that the European population is the most genetically mixed-up on earth, being a mix of genes from Asia and Africa. He uses this to poke fun at Arthur de Gobineau, the 19th-century French author of the ''Essay on the Inequality of Human Races,'' which helped inspire German racism. De Gobineau, he says, ''would die of rage and shame at this suggestion since he believed that Europeans . . . were the most genetically pure race, the most intellectually gifted and the least weakened by racial mixing.''
The second, Bamstad et al., is pay-walled at https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg1401 . Note that Bamstad and Olson wrote an article titled "Does Race Exist?" for Scientific American, available at http://www.ucd.ie/artspgs/langevo/race.pdf . The intro answers the question: "If races are defined as genetically discrete groups, no. But researchers can use some genetic information to group individuals into clusters with medical relevance."
The 'clusters with medical relevance' is no big surprise, eg, sickle cell mutation and malaria.
The third, Tang et al. (2004), does not link to a full citation. I assume it's for the 2005 publication at https://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(07)62578-6 . This is the one which mentions "Numerous recent studies using a variety of genetic markers have shown that, for example, individuals sampled worldwide fall into clusters that roughly correspond to continental lines, as well as to the commonly used self-identifying racial groups: Africans, European/West Asians, East Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans (Bowcock et al. 1994; Calafell et al. 1998; Rosenberg et al. 2002)." I don't follow what the point of the paper is.
The last is to Rosenberg et al. (the same Rosenberg that Tang just cited) at https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/jo...
> Our evidence for clustering should not be taken as evidence of our support of any particular concept of “biological race.” In general, representations of human genetic diversity are evaluated based on their ability to facilitate further research into such topics as human evolutionary history and the identification of medically important genotypes that vary in frequency across populations. Both clines and clusters are among the constructs that meet this standard of usefulness: for example, clines of allele frequency variation have proven important for inference about the genetic history of Europe [15], and clusters have been shown to be valuable for avoidance of the false positive associations that result from population structure in genetic association studies [16]. The arguments about the existence or nonexistence of “biological races” in the absence of a specific context are largely orthogonal to the question of scientific utility, and they should not obscure the fact that, ultimately, the primary goals for studies of genetic variation in humans are to make inferences about human evolutionary history, human biology, and the genetic causes of disease.
Of the three papers I understood, all concur that biological race - the topic at issue here - does not have a genetic basis. Which is what I wrote earlier.
If we reject "(biological) race" and instead use "clusters of human genetic trends", then there are a few problems: 1) most clustering algorithms let you choose cut-offs for what defines a "cluster", which is a problem since - as the Rosenberg paper discusses - both clines and clusters are important, 2) if there are hundreds or thousands of clusters then there's a high chance of false correlations (see "p-hacking")
Finally, as I quoted before, multiple lines of research concluded that if there are genetic differences in intelligence, those differences are "very small". Thus, the base position is that there are no large differences. Your statement "there’s every reason to believe that these clusters can be associated with things like intelligence" may be therefore true, but effectively irrelevant. For example, the average intelligence between groups X and Y may differ by 1 unit, and that value is robust, but the standard deviation is 100 units, making it a useless predictor of individual performance.
The only mention of race in your quoted text is "into groups analogous to traditional continental racial groups", citing reference 99. So I looked at the four publications for [99]. (Italics mine.)
The first, to Cavalli-Sforza et al., is a book I cannot easily access. The "lay summary" at the NYT says "[Cavalli-Sforza] says more about the related question of human races. One misinterpretation of a human evolutionary tree would be that it shows the branching off of distinct races, with separate histories. A major achievement of human genetics has been exploding the theory that races are genetically distinct. They are genetically only skin-deep: races do differ in a small number of genes that influence superficial features like skin color. But the great majority of our genes are a mish-mash and do not fall into any discrete subcategories of human being. Cavalli-Sforza shows that the European population is the most genetically mixed-up on earth, being a mix of genes from Asia and Africa. He uses this to poke fun at Arthur de Gobineau, the 19th-century French author of the ''Essay on the Inequality of Human Races,'' which helped inspire German racism. De Gobineau, he says, ''would die of rage and shame at this suggestion since he believed that Europeans . . . were the most genetically pure race, the most intellectually gifted and the least weakened by racial mixing.''
The second, Bamstad et al., is pay-walled at https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg1401 . Note that Bamstad and Olson wrote an article titled "Does Race Exist?" for Scientific American, available at http://www.ucd.ie/artspgs/langevo/race.pdf . The intro answers the question: "If races are defined as genetically discrete groups, no. But researchers can use some genetic information to group individuals into clusters with medical relevance."
The 'clusters with medical relevance' is no big surprise, eg, sickle cell mutation and malaria.
The third, Tang et al. (2004), does not link to a full citation. I assume it's for the 2005 publication at https://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(07)62578-6 . This is the one which mentions "Numerous recent studies using a variety of genetic markers have shown that, for example, individuals sampled worldwide fall into clusters that roughly correspond to continental lines, as well as to the commonly used self-identifying racial groups: Africans, European/West Asians, East Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans (Bowcock et al. 1994; Calafell et al. 1998; Rosenberg et al. 2002)." I don't follow what the point of the paper is.
The last is to Rosenberg et al. (the same Rosenberg that Tang just cited) at https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/jo...
> Our evidence for clustering should not be taken as evidence of our support of any particular concept of “biological race.” In general, representations of human genetic diversity are evaluated based on their ability to facilitate further research into such topics as human evolutionary history and the identification of medically important genotypes that vary in frequency across populations. Both clines and clusters are among the constructs that meet this standard of usefulness: for example, clines of allele frequency variation have proven important for inference about the genetic history of Europe [15], and clusters have been shown to be valuable for avoidance of the false positive associations that result from population structure in genetic association studies [16]. The arguments about the existence or nonexistence of “biological races” in the absence of a specific context are largely orthogonal to the question of scientific utility, and they should not obscure the fact that, ultimately, the primary goals for studies of genetic variation in humans are to make inferences about human evolutionary history, human biology, and the genetic causes of disease.
Of the three papers I understood, all concur that biological race - the topic at issue here - does not have a genetic basis. Which is what I wrote earlier.
If we reject "(biological) race" and instead use "clusters of human genetic trends", then there are a few problems: 1) most clustering algorithms let you choose cut-offs for what defines a "cluster", which is a problem since - as the Rosenberg paper discusses - both clines and clusters are important, 2) if there are hundreds or thousands of clusters then there's a high chance of false correlations (see "p-hacking")
Finally, as I quoted before, multiple lines of research concluded that if there are genetic differences in intelligence, those differences are "very small". Thus, the base position is that there are no large differences. Your statement "there’s every reason to believe that these clusters can be associated with things like intelligence" may be therefore true, but effectively irrelevant. For example, the average intelligence between groups X and Y may differ by 1 unit, and that value is robust, but the standard deviation is 100 units, making it a useless predictor of individual performance.
You appear to be making an ideological argument — I have no interest in engaging with that.
It seems deeply hung up on one particular and erroneous conception of race, while ignoring that there is an extant broad scale trend into clusters that roughly correspond to the groupings people had naively assumed. Historical conceptions of race were completely incorrect about the mechanics — but that’s different from there being no underlying phenomenon.
So the conclusion seems to be that racial essentialism is dumb (and I’ve said as much in every post), but that there are real biological trends and groupings that correlate to sets of features.
Absolutely none of your replies have addressed the question of if traits like intelligence are correlated to clusters that roughly correspond to the traditional conception.
Instead you’ve picked semantic nits with strawmen.
It seems deeply hung up on one particular and erroneous conception of race, while ignoring that there is an extant broad scale trend into clusters that roughly correspond to the groupings people had naively assumed. Historical conceptions of race were completely incorrect about the mechanics — but that’s different from there being no underlying phenomenon.
So the conclusion seems to be that racial essentialism is dumb (and I’ve said as much in every post), but that there are real biological trends and groupings that correlate to sets of features.
Absolutely none of your replies have addressed the question of if traits like intelligence are correlated to clusters that roughly correspond to the traditional conception.
Instead you’ve picked semantic nits with strawmen.
You write: "Absolutely none of your replies have addressed the question of if traits like intelligence are correlated to clusters that roughly correspond to the traditional conception."
Since the last paragraph of my previous comment addressed that question, I will assume that you didn't read what I wrote.
As I pointed out, researchers have long established that there is no meaningful correlation of "intelligence" with the "clusters that roughly correspond to the groupings people had naively assumed". That is, they started with exactly the assumption you thought they should, then found that it was not supported by the evidence.
Hence, why I wrote that the reason why there is "incredibly strong resistance to studying the topic" is because scientific research has long since shown that it isn't valid.
Where is the strawman?
Since the last paragraph of my previous comment addressed that question, I will assume that you didn't read what I wrote.
As I pointed out, researchers have long established that there is no meaningful correlation of "intelligence" with the "clusters that roughly correspond to the groupings people had naively assumed". That is, they started with exactly the assumption you thought they should, then found that it was not supported by the evidence.
Hence, why I wrote that the reason why there is "incredibly strong resistance to studying the topic" is because scientific research has long since shown that it isn't valid.
Where is the strawman?
Just a couple thoughts on this.
No, it's not impossible.
The position of the American Anthropological Association is that there is far, far greater variation within races (however that concept is defined) than between races. I think this is a sensible position to take, and one supported by evidence, even though it does not directly answer your question.
For me, the real question is: Do we really want to pursue this research goal? As psychology is very far from a complete science there's a lot of room for ambiguity and interpretation in the cutting edge of the evidence. Given human history, and up to and including the present state of our politics, I really do not trust our society to see the nuance and contingency in emerging data. The risk of studying such a topic would be gargantuan, and for what practical benefits? There are certainly many other worthy topics which deserve our scientific attention without carrying all the risk of this one.
On top of that: defining and measuring a concept as nebulous as "intelligence" is a nightmare. To reduce it to a 1-dimensional scale I think is your first sign that things are not quite right.
No, it's not impossible.
The position of the American Anthropological Association is that there is far, far greater variation within races (however that concept is defined) than between races. I think this is a sensible position to take, and one supported by evidence, even though it does not directly answer your question.
For me, the real question is: Do we really want to pursue this research goal? As psychology is very far from a complete science there's a lot of room for ambiguity and interpretation in the cutting edge of the evidence. Given human history, and up to and including the present state of our politics, I really do not trust our society to see the nuance and contingency in emerging data. The risk of studying such a topic would be gargantuan, and for what practical benefits? There are certainly many other worthy topics which deserve our scientific attention without carrying all the risk of this one.
On top of that: defining and measuring a concept as nebulous as "intelligence" is a nightmare. To reduce it to a 1-dimensional scale I think is your first sign that things are not quite right.
[deleted]
He relies on IQ tests for the basis of his beliefs and I have to side with Taleb on that one: https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-...
That essay argues that IQ isn’t a measure because it doesn’t predict life success, only lack of success.
That is nonsense equivalent to arguing height isn’t a measure because it doesn’t predict NBA success, only lack of success.
IQ seems to be one of the best psychological measures we have, and Mr Taleb himself verifies that — if it weren’t, it wouldn’t exclude so strongly at the low end.
That is nonsense equivalent to arguing height isn’t a measure because it doesn’t predict NBA success, only lack of success.
IQ seems to be one of the best psychological measures we have, and Mr Taleb himself verifies that — if it weren’t, it wouldn’t exclude so strongly at the low end.
I think he's got a point, actually.
If someone is short, they are very, very unlikely to join an NBA team. But if they're tall, you don't know much.
All this is saying is that if someone is missing a necessary ingredient to do something, they can't do it. If they have it, some other ingredient becomes limiting. Or noise drowns out any predictive signal.
It connects nicely with the threshold theory of IQ, basically if you're above some baseline, that's opens up certain possibilities for you. But having loads and loads of IQ doesn't help much.
This is probably a mechanic that works in many areas. Some test will exclude people very well, but not choose "the good ones" well at all.
If someone is short, they are very, very unlikely to join an NBA team. But if they're tall, you don't know much.
All this is saying is that if someone is missing a necessary ingredient to do something, they can't do it. If they have it, some other ingredient becomes limiting. Or noise drowns out any predictive signal.
It connects nicely with the threshold theory of IQ, basically if you're above some baseline, that's opens up certain possibilities for you. But having loads and loads of IQ doesn't help much.
This is probably a mechanic that works in many areas. Some test will exclude people very well, but not choose "the good ones" well at all.
That has nothing to do with a measure: whether or not IQ accurately measures intelligence is independent of whether it’s predictive of success.
We all know NBA success requires more than height, however, height is still a measurement — not of total value in a person (even in regards to just basketball), but still of a real and objective difference between people.
Similarly, IQ doesn’t predict success, but is measuring a real and objective difference between people. Mr Taleb seems to confuse “cant predict a multi-factor outcome alone” with “isn’t measuring anything objective”. Again, IQ isn’t a measure of a persons value (or success) — just of a genuine variance in people’s mental abilities.
Mr Taleb unfortunately tries to extend the point that there’s more to success than raw intelligence to some kind of misplaced attack on the notion of measuring intelligence. That argument is as nonsense as insisting I can’t measure height, because not every tall person plays in the NBA.
We all know NBA success requires more than height, however, height is still a measurement — not of total value in a person (even in regards to just basketball), but still of a real and objective difference between people.
Similarly, IQ doesn’t predict success, but is measuring a real and objective difference between people. Mr Taleb seems to confuse “cant predict a multi-factor outcome alone” with “isn’t measuring anything objective”. Again, IQ isn’t a measure of a persons value (or success) — just of a genuine variance in people’s mental abilities.
Mr Taleb unfortunately tries to extend the point that there’s more to success than raw intelligence to some kind of misplaced attack on the notion of measuring intelligence. That argument is as nonsense as insisting I can’t measure height, because not every tall person plays in the NBA.
Prove him wrong, doing it this way only proves that people are irrational in the face of criticism
“Dr Watson’s statements are reprehensible, unsupported by science, and in no way represent the views of CSHL, its trustees, faculty, staff, or students. The laboratory condemns the misuse of science to justify prejudice.”
Basically, the whole faculty thinks he's wrong, and Watson has presented no evidence for his claims. He's not even an expert on the subject matter.
Basically, the whole faculty thinks he's wrong, and Watson has presented no evidence for his claims. He's not even an expert on the subject matter.
Well he falsified his data, so he kind of proved himself wrong
"the abominable snow man is real"
Prove me wrong.
Prove me wrong.