
There’s still no good reason to believe black-white IQ differences due to genes - tokenadult
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/6/15/15797120/race-black-white-iq-response-critics
======
safek
They concede that IQ (a) exists, (b) predicts many life outcomes, (c) differs
between groups, and (d) is partly heritable. If an alien at this point were
presented with these premises, does anyone suppose its natural conclusion
would be, "this must be _completely_ due to environmental factors, and not in
the least genetic ones?"

Surely claiming a difference of outcome is entirely due to environmental
factors is as extreme as claiming it's entirely due entirely to genetics. Yet
imagine the uproar if someone had claimed the latter. Contrast that with the
support Vox has gotten for their article.

It is dangerous to require a conclusion to be true rather than being open to
whatever is.

~~~
eevilspock
We should all concede that structural racism (a) exists, (b) predicts many
life outcomes, (c) differs between groups, and (d) is very heritable.

If an alien at this point were presented with these premises, does anyone
suppose its natural conclusion would be, "the observed black-white IQ
differences must be at the very least partially due to genetic factors, it is
not possible that the environment can account for all of it."

\---

The point is not that a genetic factor is not possible, but that the
environmental factors (in our past and current racist world) totally overwhelm
any _possible_ genetic factors, even to such a degree that the genetic
difference could even go the other way (i.e. blacks could be genetically more
intelligent than whites).

I'd personally add this point: Those emphasizing the importance of open-
mindedness about the possibility of genetic factors while failing to
acknowledge the severity of environmental factors are thus contributing to
those very environmental factors. They are self-fulfilling prophets.

\---

I'm pretty sure if you got in a time machine and went back to the 18th or 19th
century, and told people there what blacks, women, and gay people do in the
early 21st century, they'd have more trouble believing that than your time
machine.

~~~
safek
Since it's certainly possible that blacks have genetically higher IQs than
whites but are environmentally made to underperform, isn't that all the more
egregious? Wouldn't that be an important, uplifting thing to know? Why not
find out?

When people are anxious about genetic explanations, it's usually because
they're afraid of one group underperforming. "Look, we know blacks score lower
on IQ tests, but we've got to be careful here—they have bad environments." But
actually we have the tools necessary to model outcomes like this. If it's true
that blacks are underscoring despite a genetic advantage, eventually this
truth will emerge.

So when people are worried a priori that an investigation into genetic
explanations will disfavor blacks, either they fundamentally don't believe
these things can be rigorously studied, or they're worried that even under
fair standards blacks will underperform. The former implies unknowability of
truth, the latter genuine racism.

------
banku_brougham
I listened to the Sam Harris podcast a while ago and found I held some
objections that I couldn't formulate until some time passed. The problem with
Sam's view is not even as complicated as these authors make out. Consider a
similar scenario based on a redfined IQ:

In this world, IQ is measured by proficiency in programming languages. Would
it be surprising to find that the high IQ people are not predominately women,
or black? Or that this new IQ score is highly predictive of positive financial
outcomes, better health, good familiy lives and high life satisfaction scores?
Should this result be interpreted as a discovery of the genetic inheritance of
intelligence?

We commonly understand "IQ" to be synonymous with intelligence, yet its a test
that defines a very narrow range of human capabilities. So these broad studies
of various people's performace on a test will confound numerous other
variables with the score. In my example scenario this would be the recently
surging economic value of pushing electrons around in an orderly way.

I'll try to relisten to Sam Harris's treatment of it, maybe i missed some
circumspection at a later part but I'll state the following:

The heritage of human intelligence stretches back through the eons, before
there were civilizations or even races as we know them. Human intelligence is
primal, in the sense of the primates we descended from and in fact are still.

~~~
safek
The canonical reply here is that while it's true IQ tests a narrow range of
abilities, (a) it's highly predictive of various facets of success in life,
and (b) "specialists" are relatively rare, in that intelligence tends to be
fairly well correlated across disciplines.

~~~
banku_brougham
(a) you are missing the point, this is as much to say that home purchasers
were more likely to be wealthy in 2006. It isnt a valuation that is
independent of time or context, and couldn't be a measure of human
'intelligence', whatever that means. And (b) just leads to a tautology, which
again is my overall point: IQ measures things that are valuable in a specific
context and time period, designed by members of the same group.

------
Cozumel
This is a subject no-one dare broach without getting labelled 'racist' or a
'white supremacist' etc. People need to be free to pursue science free of
political and social ideology.

Are all people equal? No. Should all people be treated equally? Of course.
That's the distinction a lot of these people don't make, the article is all
'yap, yap yap' and very light on facts.

~~~
jwfxpr
Perhaps you would find the original article [https://www.vox.com/the-big-
idea/2017/5/18/15655638/charles-...](https://www.vox.com/the-big-
idea/2017/5/18/15655638/charles-murray-race-iq-sam-harris-science-free-speech)
has the weighty facts that this response-to-criticism lacks.

I strongly disagree with the rationalist fallacy that science must progress
unfettered by social or political 'ideology'. The very notion that science is
ideologically blanched, that it exists in some asocial vacuum, is naive at
best, disingenuous​ at worst, and misguided always.

To paraphrase John Wheeler on spacetime: Society tells science how to move;
science tells society how to curve.

~~~
RcouF1uZ4gsC
If you go this route, then you have no leg to stand on to criticize Trump
if/when he defunds NASA climate science and mandates teaching Creationism in
public schools. After all, he is just guiding science by his idealogy. Are you
also against the "March for science?"

I honestly think that Trump is the application of postmodern concepts to
politics on an unrelated precedented level and many people on the left who
supported these ideas find them horrifying when they are used to bolster
positions that are not theirs.

~~~
jwfxpr
So the only possible positions are the extremes? By acknowledging that science
and society have an unavoidable structural relationship you give yourself a
framework for developing tools to improve that relationship. There are plenty
of problems with anti-science politics and the antidote is not to insist that
they should just leave science alone _just because_.

You want science better represented in society and politics? Get more
scientists involved in society and politics.
[http://www.314action.org/home](http://www.314action.org/home)

