
MSU Vice President of research & innovation Steve Hsu has been forced to resign - ggreer
https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2020/06/resignation.html
======
tuna-piano
Relevant quote from him:

"I've always said that I'm agnostic on whether... so there are observed test
score differences between groups, I think that's clear, you can't deny that.

The causality of that, whether it's partially due to genetics, I've always
been agnostic on. Not because I think it's impossible, but because it's such a
charged thing we should really make sure the science is solid before we
speculate. We shouldn't randomly speculate on something that sensitive.

But even just not being willing to categorically rule out that God could have
created us with average group differences has gotten me into trouble. And I
think that's just absurd. So for someone to attack me for saying 'We don't
know the answer to this question, let's do the science first and then talk
about it.' Even that position is actually not tenable in the current social
justice warrior political climate."

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=58&v=XHUSl9FLAmE...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=58&v=XHUSl9FLAmE&feature=emb_title)

[https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2020/06/twitter-attacks-and-
de...](https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2020/06/twitter-attacks-and-defense-
of.html?m=1)

~~~
bloaf
>Not because I think it's impossible, but because it's such a charged thing we
should really make sure the science is solid before we speculate. We shouldn't
randomly speculate on something that sensitive.

I think he doesn't go far enough. Its not enough to just "not speculate," you
have to also be responsible with how you use your reputation as a researcher
in the field. As an analogy, it doesn't matter how principled or academic a
political philosopher's belief in state's rights is, he'll lose his
credibility if he agrees to speak at a bunch of racist confederate
organizations. Even if he sticks to a boring non-racist script.

There is a movement out there seeking to drape their racist ideas in the
trappings of science and reason. This researcher knows this. He ought to view
it as his responsibility to make sure his good name is not attached to that
movement. He could stay completely inside his ivory tower until he has the
solid science, or he could heavily screen the media he speaks to. He has very
clearly failed in that responsibility by going on Mr. "Humanity is not a
single species[1]" Molyneux's show and saying that he thinks appealing to the
environment as an explanation for group differences in IQ is a-scientific.

[1] [https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-
files/indi...](https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-
files/individual/stefan-molyneux)

~~~
threatofrain
Noam Chomsky also interviewed the same man. Should Noam Chomsky have known
better?

~~~
bloaf
Yes. To be fair to Noam Chomsky, he very directly attacked Stefan's ideas, so
I don't think there can be quite as much perception of support.

------
anchpop
I'm currently a student of Michigan State. While I don't like Dr. Hsu very
much (and I see more merit to the criticisms of him than I suspect many here)
I see this as grievous damage to my university. This will be proof that
researchers should be scared what they say will incite a twitter mob against
them and get them fired. Instead, they should be insulated from public
backlash and not be afraid to say what they believe no matter how
controversial. Lacking that, the entire purpose of research universities (and
with it our ability to speak of a consensus among experts) is corrupted.

~~~
ylem
Maybe I missed something. Did anyone threaten his tenure? I would distinguish
say an admin appointment from a research appointment.

------
tuna-piano
We all look at history and view the Church as both stupid and evil for
arresting Galileo when he published evidence that Earth revolved around the
sun. Why do we look at history that way and how is Steve Hsu different from
Galileo?

Don't like his facts/scientific methods/conclusions? Fight them with other
facts and methods and conclusions!

When you try and suppress the scientific method (especially in the age of the
internet), you give the conspiracy theorists and white supremacists ammunition
for a new generation of recruits. "Here are the facts they are hiding from
you!"\- they'll say. Fight ideas with better ideas, not by firings.

~~~
pseudalopex
Hsu remains a professor with tenure at MSU. Faculty and students only called
for him to be removed from an administrative position.

~~~
lostmsu
It is naturally great progress they did not burn him on spot then, heh.

------
ciarannolan
From the campus group calling for his firing [1]:

>However, these categories overlap & are all rooted in Hsu’s beliefs in innate
biological differences between human populations, especially regarding
intelligence --an unscientific position which makes him unsuited to direct a
research institution’s funding or its graduate studies

Humans are, biologically, extremely diverse. Visible attributes, disease risk,
geometry of the physical body, etc. Some groups are more prone to certain
genetic disease risk factors, for example.

Doesn't it follow that the brains of different groups of humans might group
into certain traits, including intelligence?

I'm asking in all sincerity. I'd love to hear if there's some evidence that my
thinking is wrong.

[1]
[https://twitter.com/GradEmpUnion/status/1270829006439485441](https://twitter.com/GradEmpUnion/status/1270829006439485441)

~~~
Tarq0n
It's complicated. One thing we do know is that the variance in intelligence is
larger than any group differences. People therefore often assume that anyone
that insists on emphasizing the average difference is using it as a dog-
whistle for some kind of bias. Whether the principle of charity should be
applied or not is up to you.

------
andrewem
Moderators: Can we please have a different link which attempts to provide more
context?

Maybe a news article like [https://www.wilx.com/content/news/MSU-Vice-
President-of-rese...](https://www.wilx.com/content/news/MSU-Vice-President-of-
research-and-innovation-Stephen-Hsu-resigns-571381341.html) or
[https://statenews.com/article/2020/06/asmsu-advocates-
call-t...](https://statenews.com/article/2020/06/asmsu-advocates-call-to-
remove-stephen-hsu-as-vp-of-research) or
[https://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/news/2020/06/15/mi...](https://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/news/2020/06/15/michigan-
state-msu-stephen-hsu-research-removal-petition-graduate-employees-
union/5345120002/)

~~~
lsb
> Hsu sparked outrage again when he cited a 2019 study in a blog post
> concluding, "there is no widespread racial bias in police shootings."

(from link 1)

~~~
DuskStar
"no racial bias in police shootings" is something I've seen from a few
studies. It all depends on how you define "racial bias", of course. (In other
words, in a given situation police shootings seem to be even across races -
but those situations are less common for non-hispanic whites and far less
common for asians than for african americans)

------
epistasis
I'm surprised how one sided the conversation is here.

This isn't "mob rule," this is the reasoned opinions of skilled scientists
saying that Hsu's political opinions are 1) not backed by the science, and 2)
establish strong ground to believe that he will not use his position of power
fairly.

People have a right to be judged fairly in their careers, and those in
leadership positions should not be unfairly prejudiced by bad beliefs. It
might be fine for a tenured physics professor, but it's not OK for somebody
making hiring and promotion decisions.

~~~
natalyarostova
1\. The idea that someone’s political views are not backed by science is a
pretty bold claim. Who decides what political views are acceptably scientific?
2\. Strong grounds? Is it possible to quickly present strong grounds in a
twitter thread? Up until today he has done well in his job, and no one seemed
to have a problem with him for 8 years. His boss or colleagues. Now, suddenly,
we have deep concerns about how he hires people... why exactly? Because his
political views aren’t scientific?

This is tribal mob rule under the guise of a sophisticated intellectual
rationalization.

~~~
skosuri
Up until today? You have no idea what you are talking about. I have colleagues
at the university that have been trying to have him removed for years; several
have left in part because of him.

~~~
threatofrain
Can you elaborate on the details that your colleagues conveyed to you?

------
skellera
Anyone looking for context.

[https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2020/06/twitter-attacks-and-
de...](https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2020/06/twitter-attacks-and-defense-
of.html?m=1)

Does anyone have more information for the opposing side?

Seems pretty terrible that people can take things you said over the years out
of context and destroy your reputation.

~~~
daeken
I mean, have you looked at the resources linked on the Twitter thread he links
to in that post? To call it "damning" is an understatement.

It would be different if he came out now and said "here are the things I said
then, here's why I said them, and here are the reasons those were problematic
and wrong; I no longer align myself with those views." But instead, he dug in
his heels saying that this comes down to suppressing scientific inquiry for
... not buying into eugenics.

~~~
natalyarostova
He’s doing research using newer high dimensional ML methods on the human
genome to understand potential correlations with genetic information and other
attributes, like general intelligence
[https://arxiv.org/abs/1310.2264](https://arxiv.org/abs/1310.2264)

It’s a valid research subject, and like all research subjects, it could be
wrong.

If people think some questions are too dangerous to ask, just admit that and
be honest. Instead of just calling it problematic because it’s a potentially
uncomfortable subject.

~~~
kick
Personally I don't think any of this is particularly related to "dangerous
questions," but you do you I guess.

In which he downplays racial bias in police shootings:
[https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2020/06/re-post-joe-cesario-
on...](https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2020/06/re-post-joe-cesario-on-police-
decision.html)

In which he says lack of segregation is the reason for racial
underperformance: [https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2020/03/claude-steele-on-
chall...](https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2020/03/claude-steele-on-challenges-
of-multi.html)

Interview with an open white supremacist, check:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux)

~~~
natalyarostova
Part of the scientific process is being skeptical and considering cases and
asking probing questions. He didn’t make a blog post that said “lol racial
bias is fake.” He discusses it with respect to research on the matter.

It seems you don’t feel that’s an acceptable question to ask: is racial bias
in police shooting real?

I’d call that a dangerous question to ask, and try to answer honestly, because
it could get a person fired.

~~~
kick
First objection: He has tenure. Getting fired is very hard when you have
tenure. As a tenured professor you can scream for years that the sky is neon
green and you'll be fine.

Secondly, he doesn't particularly discuss it with respect nor realism.
However, let's assume for the sake of discussion that we have the same view on
that.

What about the second and third ones?

------
jtchang
One of the tweets:

 _> Hsu’s beliefs in innate biological differences between human populations,
especially regarding intelligence --an unscientific position which makes him
unsuited to direct a research institution’s funding or its graduate studies _

I can see why this belief is controversial and in an ideal world I wish
everyone was born exactly the same. However I don't think applying strong
scientific research and methods to try and answer this hypothesis is
necessarily wrong. Unless it has already been proven otherwise in which case I
am unaware of the research.

~~~
542458
It has been studied pretty extensively. For example, see this survey
[https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1997-30052-009](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1997-30052-009)

In pretty much every study within group differences are far and away more
massive that between group differences. Unlike other things like height, eye
colour, or facial hair growth, intelligence is highly variable even between
identical twins. The genetic link seems weak at best.

It’s also more or less impossible to study with great accuracy - you’re trying
to study how race affects intelligence, but how do you correct for non-
biological factors? Race is deeply intertwined with economics, education,
nutrition, healthcare, and every other aspect of society and culture. Any
study you do, regardless of results, will have a mountain or potentially over
corrected or under corrected factors.

Finally, what are we even studying? Defining intelligence is a nightmare, and
a quick glance at history shows how the definition of intelligence has changed
over time and between cultures. Trying to look at how race’s biological
factors affect intelligence irrespective of sociological factors is in many
ways a fool’s errand - the very definition of intelligence is wrapped right up
in those sociological factors!

~~~
centimeter
> In pretty much every study within group differences are far and away more
> massive that between group differences.

You are perpetuating what’s known as Lewontin’s fallacy.

This claim is extremely narrowly true: clustering on a 1-dimensional fixation
index is insufficient to reliably mechanically classify race. If you don’t
know what that means, stop trying to use this claim in your arguments.

Here’s what it doesn’t mean: it doesn’t mean that there aren’t significant
population-level phenotypic differences between ethnic groups. These
differences can include intelligence (and 30 years of twin studies suggests
they probably do).

~~~
joshuamorton
> Here’s what it doesn’t mean: it doesn’t mean that there aren’t significant
> population-level phenotypic differences between ethnic group

But it does mean that we don't have any evidence for this claim.

> (and 30 years of twin studies suggests they probably do).

This would be a great place for a citation. I'm wondering how a twin study is
going to show the effects of genetics on intelligence. As GP suggests, twin
studies show differences in intelligence between even identical twins raised
in the same household, so Amy conclusions from whatever study you're
referencing would need to show statistically significant variation controlling
for the noise.

~~~
centimeter
> This would be a great place for a citation.

If you actually care, just google it. There are dozens of great large-n
metastudies. Chances are you don’t care (mostly based on the fact that you
clearly haven’t googled it already), so I have to be jealous of my time -
sorry.

> would need to show statistically significant variation controlling for the
> noise.

Obviously g-factor researchers have thought of this. Current best estimates
place 60-80% of human intelligence variance as being _genetically_ heritable.

~~~
joshuamorton
I've been able to find evidence that disagrees with you, but not evidence that
agrees with you. Since you've made very specific claims that most contrary
evidence is invalid because it is not multvariate.

It would have taken you less time to post a single link than to write your
response, so I don't buy the time excuse.

> Obviously g-factor researchers have thought of this. Current best estimates
> place 60-80%

I'm aware. You claimed that twin studies (which control for race by comparing
between people of the same race and are usually limited to small sample sizes)
have revealed racial ethnic differences in g controlling for the environmental
factors.

This claim is questionable on its face. Your heritability claim is much less
contentious, but heritability of g and race correlation of g, controlling for
environmental factors, are very different claims.

~~~
centimeter
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/)

This took me literally 10 seconds to find.

Adult intelligence is ~80% heritable. There is >1stddev difference in mean
intelligence between many ethnic groups. (Do you need me to provide a citation
for this as well, or can you google it this time?) Do the math. What should
your bayes factor be on this being environmental?

You can also find studies that specifically try to find environmental causal
factors on intelligence - the effect sizes for identifiable factors (like
poverty, or other common scapegoats) are laughably small. Once again, feel
free to google this.

I’m sorry if I come across as hostile by asking you to look things up, but
usually when people demand citations for things that A) they should already
know if they’re debating about this and B) are easy to find, I have to assume
they’re trying to waste my time and/or arguing from bad faith.

~~~
joshuamorton
I never asked you to cite intelligence heritability. Like I said, I agree that
intelligence is at least partially heritable.

I asked specifically for you to justify the original claim, that there are
phenotypic differences between ethnic groups that include intelligence, as
supported by twin studies. That's a very specific and as far as I know very
unfounded claim.

~~~
centimeter
As I explained - look at the percent of variance that’s heritable. Now look at
the measured difference in population intelligence. Now tell me - what’s the
probability of that being environmental, based on the fraction of intelligence
variability that can’t be attributed to genetics? A fermi estimate is fine -
you’ll end up close to zero anyway. You shouldn’t need a document to spell
this out for you in excruciating detail.

Edit: to humor the question:
[https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-
Jense...](https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-
Jensen30years.pdf)

The conclusions in this paper should have been expected give the explanation I
already gave.

~~~
joshuamorton
Rushton is perhaps not the person you want to cite if you want to disassociate
yourself from scientific racism.

And that paper, which I'm familiar with, doesn't address many of the modern
criticisms of such theories that are based on the idea of "g" being socially
constructed/influenced in the first place. (nor does it actually do much, if
anything, to support the original claim you made: not all of their conclusions
are phenotypic in nature, at a minimum, sections 3, 7, 8, 9, and 11 can be
explained culturally despite what the paper says).

I'd suggest "Reconciling IQ Gains and Heritability", or "Race, IQ, and the
search for statistical signals associated with so-called “X”-factors", which
notes as a semi-conclusion that we know of environmental factors that have
clear and demonstrable causal effect on IQ. We know of no specific genes that
have this effect. So concluding that a bunch of individual genes have small
effects is actually less supported than the similar claim that a bunch of
individual societal/environmental factors have impact. Both of these are more
recent than the paper you cite, and could be seen as academic responses to
perceived flaws.

~~~
centimeter
> So concluding that a bunch of individual genes have small effects is
> actually less supported than the similar claim that a bunch of individual
> societal/environmental factors have impact.

What an absurd claim! This is specifically the hypothesis that the last
several decades of twin studies is designed to test. You are either ignorant
of this body of research or you are being disingenuous. We can distinguish
between these two cases because adopted twins and siblings have highly
correlated genetic factors and weakly correlated environmental factors.

I notice that you keep avoiding the absurd improbability of environmental
factors mediating bulk racial differences given the magnitude of population-
level differences and the relatively small fraction of variance attributable
to environment - but you seem desperate not to acknowledge the latter.

~~~
joshuamorton
> We can distinguish between these two cases because adopted twins and
> siblings have highly correlated genetic factors and weakly correlated
> environmental factors.

We can't, and the papers I cite give a highly coherent explanation for this, a
phenomena called cultural filtering.

Like I said, I suggest you go and actually read recent papers instead of
relying on a survey paper from fifteen years ago that relies on actual
research older than many of the professors publishing this stuff today.

It's not worth having this conversation is you're unrolling to engage with
modern research, and it'll just devolve into an ideological flamewar, which
dang prefers us not to have. So again please read some modern research. Or
don't, but don't claim this stuff is settled when your are a decade out of
date.

~~~
centimeter
I looked at the things you "cited" (i.e. name dropped without linking).

"Race, IQ, and the search for statistical signals associated with so-called
“X”-factors":

A) no non-paywalled sources, so I'm suspicious if you even read it

B) written by a philosophy professor, not a scientist, with no scientific
background

C) the argument of this paper, as far as I can tell from the abstract, is "the
pure-environmental hypothesis is nonfalsifiable", i.e. completely useless

I would critique it more if I could actually read it.

"Reconciling IQ Gains and Heritability" \- this isn't actually a paper, it's
just a section in some article. Where did you even find this? It barely shows
up on the internet - your comment is the third result. In any case, it A)
doesn't seem to support your claim, and B) doesn't strike me as especially
compelling research - they're just summarizing some thoughts about the Flynn
effect.

This further increases my confidence that you are arguing in bad faith.

> the papers I cite give a highly coherent explanation for this, a phenomena
> called cultural filtering.

I can't find this term anywhere in these papers (or elsewhere).

~~~
joshuamorton
> no non-paywalled sources, so I'm suspicious if you even read it

I have access to many paywalled articles.

> "Reconciling IQ Gains and Heritability" \- this isn't actually a paper, it's
> just a section in some article.

Ah you're right, I meant to cite that section of the larger article, but the
wider article is rather well cited.

> phenomena called cultural filtering

tl;dr: The idea is that culture magnifies any underlying genetics. The example
given is two siblings/twins separated at birth, both are taller than average.
As a result, they both end up playing basketball and being better than average
as children, and as a result attend basketball camps. They both get good
training and end up as college basketball players.

The question is to what extent culture serves to magnify any underlying
differences. And whether different culture(s) can magnify these differences in
different ways.

~~~
centimeter
> The question is to what extent culture serves to magnify any underlying
> differences.

This sounds like irrelevant bikeshedding between genotypes and phenotypes. It
also doesn't have any bearing against my claims, c.f. my original comment
about "significant population-level phenotypic differences between ethnic
groups".

~~~
joshuamorton
> This sounds like irrelevant bikeshedding between genotypes and phenotypes.
> It also doesn't have any bearing against my claims, c.f. my original comment
> about "significant population-level phenotypic differences between ethnic
> groups".

Of course it does: if the only concrete support for phenotypic differences is
based on twin data (or similar), and that data is subject to magnification due
to cultural factors, the underlying phenotypic impact is smaller.

~~~
centimeter
That's not what "phenotypic" means. Phenotypic environment includes any
"cultural amplification" or similar factors. Almost all genetic competitions
are subject to some sort of king effect, e.g. hypergamy and concomitant GMV in
non-monogamous species. We still consider the results of these effects to be
phenotypic.

~~~
joshuamorton
Ok then I'm really unclear what you're point is. Yes, there are observable
performance differences that align across observable ethnic boundaries.

No one in this thread questioned this (keep in mind stereotype threat is a
phenotypic difference). If that's the only claim you're making, I'm not sure
why you felt the need to cite Rushton of all people, who was specifically
arguing that these differences were genotypic in nature.

------
hsuthrownaway
Throwaway because with headlines like this, you can't be too careful. It's
getting scary seeing people keeping quiet in predominantly progressive sectors
like media, academia, and tech, out of fear that what they say today will get
them fired tomorrow, fear that something they say will draw attention to
something from five years ago, or that something they say today will cost them
in five years.

There's a class of under-researched things that we know too little about, but
for political reasons, no one can research. Anything around genetic traits of
races, differences between men and women, research around causes of LGBT
orientations and identities that could lead to preventing people from being
LGBT.

These aren't even the ethically hard ones like genetic modifications in
humans. These are just political suicide.

------
mikedilger
"It is not within the power of practitioners of demonstrative sciences to
change opinion at will, chooing now this and now that one; there is a great
difference between giving orders to a mathematician or a philosopher and given
them to a merchant or a lawyer; as demonstrated conclusions about natural and
celestial phenomena cannot be changed with the same ease as opinions about
what is or is not legitimate in a contract, in a rental, or in commerce."
-Galileo

------
blisterpeanuts
A couple of clarifications, from the links:

1\. He wasn't forced to resign. He was requested to resign by the president of
MSU.

2\. He's still a tenured professor, and he will be returning to that role.

3\. The group trying to oust him is the GEU (Graduate Employees Union,
affiliated with the AFL-CIO), which represents 1200 graduate assistants at the
University.

Apparently Dr. Hsu has made some controversial statements about genetics. The
GEU's accusations appear to be about perceived racism.

One of Dr. Hsu's sins was appearing on a program with Stephane Molyneux, a
conservative commentator whom they call "a white supremacist". I've watched
several of Molyneux's programs and he is hardly a racist. Conservative and
white, yes. I guess that's bad enough these days.

~~~
markdown
> I've watched several of Molyneux's programs and he is hardly a racist.
> Conservative and white, yes.

From his Wikipedia page:

Stefan Basil Molyneux (/stəˈfæn ˈmɒlɪnjuː/; born September 24, 1966) is a
Canadian far-right, white nationalist[2] podcaster and YouTuber who is known
for his promotion of scientific racism and white supremacist views.

Molyneux is described as a leading figure of the alt-right movement by
Politico and The Washington Post, and as a far-right activist.[8][9][10][11]
Tom Clements in The Independent described Molyneux as having "a perverse
fixation on race and IQ".[12]

The Freedomain internet community which Molyneux leads has been described as a
cult, and Molyneux has been described as a cult leader, using cult
indoctrination techniques on his followers.

Molyneux is a proponent of the
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_genocide_conspiracy_theo...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_genocide_conspiracy_theory)

~~~
mistermann
Be careful to distinguish between rhetoric, opinions, and facts.

~~~
markdown
How about from the horse's mouth:
[https://i.redd.it/cc8wtw97vo931.jpg](https://i.redd.it/cc8wtw97vo931.jpg)

~~~
blisterpeanuts
I couldn't find that tweet -- is it fabricated?

I did find this, from Molyneux:

"It’s interesting that if you don’t have a uterus, you can’t have an opinion
on women’s issues, but you can compete in women’s sports."

Apparently this is offensive to SPLC?

~~~
joshuamorton
It was eventually deleted. He said the quiet part too loud.

------
kthxbye123
There are an incredible number of people on HN and in Silicon Valley who
clearly believe that black people are on average genetically inferior to
whites and Asians and also think they're being incredibly clever when they
tap-dance around that core belief. Maybe now some of them will at least do the
rest of us the courtesy of saying it outright.

------
stallmanite
I’ve got a CS degree from MSU and haven’t heard anything about this at all.
Anyone have more background information?

~~~
bJGVygG7MQVF8c
Decent starting point:

[https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2020/06/twitter-attacks-and-
de...](https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2020/06/twitter-attacks-and-defense-
of.html)

~~~
altcognito
> One of the video clips is taken from an interview I did with YouTuber Stefan
> Molyneux in 2017. Molyneux was not a controversial figure in 2017, although
> he has since become one.

I’m going with he is in way over his head, and didn’t know who this guy was
who interviewed him, or is lying. 10 minutes of research in 2017 easily would
have shown this.

~~~
amznthrowaway5
He wasn't nearly as controversial as today. Your standard for controversial
and Steve's are different.

------
skosuri
I am very glad this happened and this decision was very supported by the
faculty of MSU. He is still a full professor at MSU making hundreds of
thousands of dollars a year. He’s just no longer in charge of the research
agenda. His own research on quantitative genetics is terrible and widely
ridiculed. It’s great that he’s tenured and is allowed to have his poor
scholarship justify his racist and sexist conclusions; but it doesn’t mean he
gets to automatically lead a research agenda for a whole university.

------
maximilianroos
Relevant post by Scott Alexander earlier this week is support of Steve Hsu:
[https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/16/open-
thread-156-25/](https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/16/open-thread-156-25/)

~~~
justinpombrio
And Scott Aaronson:
[https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4859](https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4859)

~~~
ylem
He raises a good point that appearing on a podcast is a red herring. Suppose
he actually just discussed say physics on the podcast? It would be more a
question of what he said. Or, if he just said, "whoops, I had no idea who this
guy was". Who he chooses to host on his own podcast is a different story.

------
afastow
People keep assuming that asking the question "what relationship (if any) is
there between race and intelligence from a biological standpoint?" is the
racist part. The question by itself isn't really the problem.

The racist part is pretending that it's still an open question. It isn't.
There is no measurable biological relationship between race and intelligence.

There has been a massive amount of research into what influences
"intelligence", and the sum of it makes it clear that environmental factors
easily have a significant enough effect to explain differences in scores
between racial groups on different metrics.

Someone might bring up the fact that often even when controlling for factors
like education and family income, the racial gap narrows but might not
disappear completely. The response is that it is fundamentally impossible to
fully control for the effect of race on the environment someone grows up in.
Even when absolutely every other factor is identical, a white person and a
black person are not going to have the same environment because their race
constantly affects how the rest of the world interacts with them.

Essentially: We know environmental factors can affect any given metric of
intelligence on a magnitude consistent with racial performance gaps on those
metrics. Proof of this can be found in things like the fact that average IQ
scores have increased over time, and the average IQ of black people in the
1990s was equivalent to the average white IQ in the 1940s. Biology does not
change in 50 years so the improvement must be entirely from changes in
environmental factors.

In addition, race itself intrinsically has a significant effect on one's
environment. Those two facts alone are enough to make it clear that any
hypothetical biological component is too insignificant to be measured.

~~~
therealdrag0
I’m no expert. But how can this be a settled question when people are still
arguing what intelligence even is?

------
xiaolingxiao
For those who are unaware or operate under certain assumptions of how
Universities work, they tend to be _highly_ politically charged places, and
the value of "the brand" is more important than any individual. Regardless of
what you think of Steve Hsu's statement ( measured vs tone-deaf, informed vs
ignorant/racist), the mistake he made was taking a position to begin with. I
was a the University where Trump went to undergrad when he was running for
election, Not a single faculty/staff made comment about it because there was a
directive from top down to say nothing. This is just how it is.

------
ykevinator
What is this about?

------
troughway
Exact same playbook used to try to discredit Jordan Peterson, except he told
them to shove it and fought back against the mob in public space with a
megaphone, while the crowd was hurling insults and jeering at him.

I know HN has a bit of an issue with JBP, but look at the this here yet again
and think for yourselves.

~~~
ylem
Who?

------
unwoundmouse
Sometimes, when a cancer gets bad enough, all you can do is enjoy the time you
have left

------
jtdev
So if you believe something to be a fact and supported by scientific research,
and that fact is offensive to someone or a group if people, then you can be
“cancelled”? American academia is in trouble.

~~~
skosuri
He’s still a fully tenured professor at MSU; free to research whatever he
wants.

~~~
jtdev
So it’s okay that a Twitter mob had him removed from his previous more senior
position?

~~~
skosuri
Do you mean the hundreds of faculty at his university and the grad student
union that called for his resignation from a position of power over them?
Yeah, I think it’s reasonable. He’s still payed quite well and welcome to his
crappy research ideas.

~~~
jtdev
Yeah, all of those people. What makes an idea “crappy”?

You know you can disagree with ideas that offend you, right?

~~~
skosuri
His genetics ideas are bad science. They are poorly thought out papers and
overstate conclusions based on data that don’t properly account for the
population and environmental effects. Hsu has been doing this for many many
years. Then he goes around alt-right circles and acts like there is
controversy; and starts companies offering embryo selection based on polygenic
scores; again terrible science and he didn’t even state his conflict of
interests on that. I disagree with all of those ideas and actions... and he
still should be a professor. He just shouldn’t be a VP of research at MSU.
He’s had several bad ethical lapses. The COI alone is grounds for firing...
see the similar types of controversies surrounding the Harvard chemist who
failed to disclose Chinese funding; that guy wasn’t even vp of research.
Finally, all of this controversy makes it nearly impossible to do the work of
vp of research effectively. He gets to go back now to maybe making his
research and papers better (in a fully tenured job).

------
acjohnson55
People really get their backs up about someone having to step down from a
position of great power to a position of somewhat less, but still
considerable, power. I suspect it speaks to people's feeling that there may be
things they can't achieve if they don't behave or present a certain way.

But even if there was an injustice here, there are far greater injustices in
the world, done to people who don't wield any power, who are just trying to
get by. People who are denied even a modicum of self-determination, let alone
power.

~~~
Trill-I-Am
A lot of the readers of HN identify more with people at the top of society
than at the bottom

------
jtdev
The Larry Nassar case exposed major cultural issues within the MSU
administration. Is this treatment of Steve Hsu the pendulum swinging in the
extreme opposite direction, or out of control woke-ism?

~~~
milesdyson_phd
I think ultimately a university cares about its image more than anything.
Nuking a tenured professor from a VP position is small potatoes for better
optics (no matter the merit of allegations). I think the allegations do have
merit at least for someone in an administrative position, not a purely
academic one.

------
AbrahamParangi
We're likely to see a certain reorientation of academia. The old business
model was inherently unsustainable and even if it looks like it's under
assault by the culture war it's probably a more systemic issue.

The Visigoths didn't bring down Rome. By the time they were on the scene Rome
was a house of cards.

------
TheSpiceIsLife
I predict that what _will_ happen as a result of this type of activity is:

At some point an organised advanced threat, or a disorganised mob, will
attempt to take down a truly bad individual or group, who will retaliate in a
truly disastrous way.

Of course, this is inevitable given enough time.

My concern _now_ is that we are on a collision course with history, we can see
that, and we appear to have no idea how to course-correct.

