
Interview with Nina Jablonski about Skin - dnetesn
http://nautil.us/issue/26/color/about-your-skin
======
oldmanjay
> In other words, we are all born basically with equal potential and what
> happens after birth is what really determines our so-called intelligence.

That's pretty bold. I'm aware at least of some nutrition studies but I've
never seen any sort of scientific claim that everyone is born with basically
equal potential. Does anyone have links or information about this?

I'm not interested in "proving" that some races are naturally inferior, so
please refrain from that. I'm just curious about the "basically...equal
potential" bit. It seems highly unlikely based on my personal experience - all
things being equal, intelligence levels have definite family clusters which
parsimoniously would be genetic.

edit: removing a mistaken word. meanings have not changed

~~~
markdog12
It is incredibly obvious that we are not born with equal potential. Genetics
do play a large part. To think otherwise is absurd.

However, this century, many social scientists disliked these facts, and have
done everything they could to disprove them. If you're interested, I highly
recommend The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker

Note: I'm not speaking of genetic differences across populations, just between
all people.

~~~
pron
> However, this century, many social scientists disliked these facts, and have
> done everything they could to disprove them.

No, you are misunderstanding what they say to strengthen your negative opinion
about them. They _are_ talking about populations, not individuals. Everybody
acknowledges that some individuals are born smarter than others.

However, even on the personal level, there are many things that influence
future accumulation of power (and hence can be called potential) much more
than genetics. A genius born in Uganda has much lower potential than an idiot
born on the Upper East Side. And even intelligence is greatly affected by
social forces. At the end of the day, you'll find that genetics has relatively
little influence on "success" (accumulation of power). Always look at the
effect size. There are many effects at play, and each -- while significant --
does not have the same effect size as the others.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Suppose genetics and/or intelligence did have a large influence on success. In
what observable ways would the world be different?

~~~
Uhhrrr
Interesting question. Would this mean that more genetically homogeneous
countries like Japan and Iceland would have lower GINI coefficients?

~~~
yummyfajitas
All else held equal, probably yes. Unfortunately all else is NOT held equal -
genetic homogeneity is inversely correlated with population, and more people
usually means more inequality.

~~~
Uhhrrr
Yeah, and now that I think about it, culture/techlevel is going to cause huge
variance in GINI anyway.

------
beloch
Based on the title, I was hoping for more details on the structure, function,
and possibly even care for our skin. There was a little bit on evolution, but
the interviewer in this article was predominantly preoccupied with race. The
article is a bit of a missed opportunity in this respect.

------
JesperRavn
The problem with intelligence and race is that scientists are required, ex
ante, to believe that if there _was_ a link between intelligence and race,
then this would not be something we should want to investigate, but if there
_was not_ a link, then this would be something that we should want to
investigate and publicize.

But Bayesian reasoning doesn't work like that. You can only say "I want to
know if X is true", not "I want to know that X is not true".

~~~
pekk
The problem with this line of argument is that books like "The Bell Curve"
have been debunked on _scientific_ grounds, leaving no reason for scientists
to believe in them except that someone wants them, ex ante, to believe that
black people are genetically determined by their race to be stupid (and so
forth).

~~~
JesperRavn
Trying to determine the cause of racial differences in IQ is extremely
complicated, since we cannot simply assign a person Black genes and a White
environment while growing up (since having black skin in itself will mean a
person's environment while growing up is different).

I'd be very interested in seeing a specific study, but to my knowledge there
is no compelling evidence for either nature or nurture when it comes to racial
IQ differences.

There have been a lot of studies with varying results. But the narratives that
"people went looking for differences because of their racial biases, but then
their studies were debunked" is not accurate. The fact that people believe
this narrative is due to politics. For example, Steven J Gould "debunked"
craniometry in "The Mismeasure of Man". But his debunking was criticized by
peer reviewed work that upheld the original craniometry work[0].

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man#Craniome...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man#Craniometry)

------
curiousgeorgio
>So race is strictly a social construction?

>Yes

Alright, so race _is_ a matter of social identity, whereas sex (biologically
"set in stone") is less important than a person's "gender identity"?

I'm sure I'll be criticized for expressing a political viewpoint here, but our
now-popular social norms seem to have these two ideas reversed. I guess
popular opinion and what a person feels is (and always will be) more important
than what science says.

Edit to add: my point isn't so much about either of these issues individually
as it is about (a lack of) consistency in popular views. If gender is just
about identity, then why isn't race? Recently, I've been hearing the same
people argue for one and against the other. Similarly confusing is the notion
that sexual orientation is _not_ an issue of identity (it's somehow deeper
than that), even though there's no concrete scientific evidence to suggest
it's not a matter of identity or preference as well.

~~~
sp332
Your genes are like the least interesting thing about you. If you want purple
hair, cool patterns on your skin, different-colored eyes, a stronger heart, a
straighter nose etc etc than your "genes" say you should have, you can change
it. Same with gender. Whatever you want, you can get it. Your genes don't
really define what kind of person you are.

~~~
brighteyes
Exactly. It's unfair to judge people on their genetics or more generally on
how they were born.

It might surprise us if someone identifies as something that seems "at odds"
with how they were born, but if they honestly identify that way, I see no
reason not to tolerate and accept them. It's a matter of basic decency.

~~~
Nadya
If someone identifies themselves as an 'Otherkin' then I feel the most humane
thing to do would be to help treat them. Playing pretend only worsens their
condition and reinforces the behavior. Regardless of the size of the
population ("other people believe they are dragons too!") doesn't make it
"right" anymore than a majority of a population being bipolar means we should
stop treating bipolar disorder. Same goes for gender dysphoria.

To me, "basic decency" would be helping to treat their gender dysphoria and
not _encourage it_. Gender reassignment surgery (encouraging gender dysphoria
by helping them "become" the other gender) leads to an increased risk of
suicide and depression, with regret of the surgery itself not being uncommon
[0]. Even in areas where the social stigma of being transexual isn't anything
near what is in the US (ie. Sweden).

That isn't _helping_ these people, it's hurting them. _Basic decency_ tells me
I shouldn't hurt people - I should help them. Even if they don't "feel like
I'm helping them" (eg. intervening for a drug addict). Sometimes what is in
someone's best interest isn't necessarily what they think they _want_ as
sometimes what people think they want or say they want isn't _really_ what
they want; as UX research alone shows [1].

"They are judging the evidence presented to them based on a model of reality,
a map that they’ve used their entire lives, and you can’t just tell someone
that his or her map is of a fantasy realm that doesn’t exist and expect them
to respond positively. You can’t just ask a person like that to throw away
that map and start over, especially if they’ve yet to realize it is just a
map, and their beliefs are only models." \- [2]

Links are to blogs - as the blogs link to a multitude of studies/sources
themselves:

[0] [http://waltheyer.typepad.com/blog/2013/11/20-regret-
changing...](http://waltheyer.typepad.com/blog/2013/11/20-regret-changing-
genders-over-40attempt-suicide-and-even-after-surgery-a-large-number-remain-
traum.html)

[1] [http://uxmyths.com/post/746610684/myth-21-people-can-tell-
yo...](http://uxmyths.com/post/746610684/myth-21-people-can-tell-you-what-
they-want)

[2] [http://youarenotsosmart.com/2014/09/30/yanss-
podcast-033-the...](http://youarenotsosmart.com/2014/09/30/yanss-
podcast-033-the-psychology-of-forming-keeping-and-sometimes-changing-our-
beliefs/)

~~~
DanBC
> Gender reassignment surgery (encouraging gender dysphoria by helping them
> "become" the other gender) leads to an increased risk of suicide and
> depression,

This is a lie. It's a particularly vicious lie because you want to:

1: prevent people getting rapid access to gender reassignment treatment (and
that delay increases risk of suicide)

2: "treat" gender dysphoria (and your style of treatment also increases risk
of suicide).

Those links you provide are not sources. Do you have any actual sources?

~~~
Nadya
No it isn't - and it's even more annoying that you make assumptions on my
behalf. You should make a better effort not to make assumptions about people
or their motives.

1: I'm someone who suffers from gender dysphoria

2: I considered and researched gender reassignment for 6 years before deciding
that the evidence largely shows it is not beneficial and often leads to regret
and depression that is _worse_ than pre-op. Given I won't know how I'd react
to it until _after_ the fact and it isn't easily reversible, I decided against
it.

Here is the Sweden-based study I hinted at:
[http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885)

~~~
brighteyes
As the summary of that study says,

> Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender
> dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should
> inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for
> this patient group.

In other words, they agree it helps with dysphoria. However, it may have other
downsides - which is perhaps not surprising, as it is major surgery in some
cases; and it is troubling that there is an increased risk of suicide.
However, it should be an informed choice for people to make: this can help
with their dysphoria, with some significant risks. Many treatments have such
cost-benefit tradeoffs.

In the end, it should be a personal decision for the relevant people. It is
unfair to say that these treatments "do not help". And risk of mortality is
not the sole determining factor, there is also quality of life and so forth
(e.g., some powerful anti-acne medication has an increased risk of mortality).

~~~
Nadya
Aspirin alleviates headaches but is not a treatment for headaches. Be very
careful with terminology like _alleviating_ and _treating_ and what they
imply.

"In other words" they are saying it's a temporary fix to a broader problem and
does not suffice as _treatment_. Crossdressing can also alleviate gender
dysphoria, but it isn't a treatment.

I'm curious, what are you viewpoints of people who suffer from BIID?

~~~
brighteyes
And yet, one has the right to alleviate their pain. It's their body. And
sometimes things like aspirin are useful.

Yes, they say it doesn't suffice. It is a good start, but we need more. People
are still hurting.

My thoughts on BIID are the same as for anything else: if

1\. The major healthcare organizations believe that there isn't a better
treatment for BIID, and

2\. A person is shown to be mentally competent in every way except for having
BIID, and

3\. They want surgery to remove their foot, then

why should I deny them the right to modify their body as they see fit? It's
their choice.

I have not heard that there is a good consensus on BIID. It is far more rare
than being transgender, and far less well understood.

But consider anorexia - they fail the first criterion, because medical science
does have better ways to treat anorexia than to let people starve themselves
to death. Many people with anorexia with proper treatment get over it, and
thank the people that helped them get over it. I would therefore make a rare
exception and agree we should not let anorexia suffers starve themselves to
death.

But that is simply not the case for transgender people, hence the medical
establishment does support gender reassignment surgery, hormone therapy, etc.

~~~
Nadya
I asked the question about BIID to see if we'd ever be able to see eye to eye.
I'll save us from further discourse over the matter: we won't.

I see benefits in identifying the source or cause of [__] rather than merely
treating the symptoms of [__]. I find it more beneficial to see if low sodium
intake is the root cause of a persons continual headaches rather than have
them take Aspirin every day they have a headache. This is something we differ
in ideologically and thus we will not see eye to eye.

Your (1) only holds true when we can research alternative methods openly and
decide there are no better alternatives. Loud and threatening advocacy groups,
social pressures, and current popular political standings _do not allow_ such
research to be done. It also requires there to be a medical consensus and
currently, there isn't one.

There is a lot of criticism over the more 'positive' results of TS studies.
They are often poorly conducted, lose track of many participants, or are not
set up in meaningful ways [0]. To me, that says we can do better. But we can't
look into better solutions because advocate groups and TS activists shut
attempts down with threats and public backlash.

This is something that _personally affects me_. So I feel very strongly about
supporting research that goes against advocate groups and what people _want_
others to believe.

I'm in a particularly shitty situation: I'm a minority among a minority group.
I'm forced to live in their world view, even if I disagree with it. Doubly so
because in the current "PC Era" I can't even oppose the popular opinion of a
minority group _even if I belong to the same group_. I'm still trying to
fathom how I can be a transexual transphobe, but many people have asserted
that I am. Or worse: I'm a fraud!

I ask that you see my viewpoint: I don't think SRS is beneficial. I'm not
alone in these beliefs as someone with gender dysphoria. I want alternative
methods researched, _for my benefit_. TS activist groups actively threaten,
riot, condemn, ridicule, etc. any attempts at doing so and squash them. All
because this research goes against their world view and hurts their feelings.
To even suggest to these people that they _could_ be wrong is blasphemy to the
highest degree. This leaves me in the dust. It leaves me and others like me
behind. We aren't allowed a voice - and are increasingly silenced. It's
actively harming me, and I won't stand for that.

[0]
[http://library.transgenderzone.com/?page_id=1895](http://library.transgenderzone.com/?page_id=1895)

~~~
brighteyes
I think you make a bunch of valid points. I agree for example that politics
make it hard to study this area. And I agree it is sad that there is
silencing.

But I just don't see how you can say that SRS is bad for other people. Let
them decide for themselves, given the evidence, much of which supports that it
does help.

I agree that some people might be led by hurt feelings to jump to conclusions
on this topic, as you say. But I don't think that explains the APA's position
as mentioned earlier. There is substantial medical establishment support for
SRS being helpful.

~~~
Nadya
I don't trust the APA's position on anything with strong political standpoints
since homosexual lobbyists/activists pressured them for several years leading
to their 1973 decision. Being disrupted and threatened for years and knowing a
single statement with no immediate consequences to _them_ could make it all
stop - the decision seems easy.

Regardless if that decision might prevent further research into the area and
_might_ be justified: it was pre-emptively killed off due to activists and
social pressures.

Which makes the APA's position on a related, but different and still
politically-charged issue utterly meaningless in my eyes.

There's also substantial evidence _against_ SRS being helpful. So we'll have
to agree to disagree based on our sources (which could easily be confirmation
bias or simply politically-slanted studies, hard to tell with the lack of
research in the area).

It's very difficult to assume that a person who is "certain it will help" will
actually be helped by the treatment. It is not a decision someone can make
beforehand, but rather a result that happens _after_. Believing it will have a
beneficial outcome and it having a beneficial outcome are not the same thing.
Even if someone believed it would be beneficial had a beneficial outcome, that
has little to do with their beliefs on the matter.

That's why so many people who _believed_ it would help them _regret it after_.
Their beliefs of what would happen didn't match with the reality of what
happened after.

