Feels like the author writes way too much without saying anything, then ends the article without a real conclusion.
I guess maybe "Black scientists are in the best position to understand what is so broken about the ideas of Watson and his army." was what he was working towards, but that seems like an extraordinarily weak point to make.
The strong point was embedded in the text... that "science" becomes a cover for plain old prejudice. And even a bright mind like James Watson can fall for it.
edit: If you're one of the downvoters who think my argument is weak, google "phrenology". In the 19th century, it was widely believed that intelligence and character could be measured by the size and shape of the skull - with Europeans on top, of course, and non-white races showing "deformities" that reduce their intelligence and morality. It's totally debunked now, but that's what "scientific racism" sounded like not that long ago. So when I see DNA "science" used to justify racism, I think of phrenology, and think of the possibility that otherwise smart and well-meaning people are using "science" as a shield for their own prejudice.
It feels prejudiced to me that only black scientists are supposedly able to recognize and defend us all against racism. It's patently absurd. Yes, science, as with any other faith-based belief system, has its proponents who will use it to further their own agenda and gather like-minded people. Yes, this subverts science and its principles. No, this doesn't mean the only people capable of seeing it are black. No, science isn't bad and scientists as a whole aren't bad. He didn't need to write pages of fluff to make a point that he barely ever got around to mentioning.
And that's not what the article says, either. Black scientists are in a peculiar place to recognize it, because it actually happens to them. One of the reasons whites don't see so much racism in society is because it's something that happens to someone else.
I saw this same article from a different direction, through an old friend of mine who happens to be black (and a large, dark-skinned man) and was a doctor. He was totally bonding on the article, and quite upset about the situation it describes, something he's experienced himself. And it reminded me of when he was in med school, back in the early '90s. He was in his dorm, doing his laundry, and someone assumed he was stealing laundry and called the cops. He was beaten by the cops enough to break ribs, and of course arrested. For doing laundry in his own dorm while black.
Because the topic of genes and race is too sensitive for many reasons, both right and wrong.
However, we should really be talking about this.
- We know that genes affect our physical appearance (hence races are distinguishable between each other).
- We know that different races have genetic predisposition to certain diseases (sickle cell disease and people of African ancestry, for example).
- We know that genetic studies reveal fascinating history of how people migrated across the globe and how nations are mostly a fictional invention.
- We know how genes affect anything from eye color to horrible conditions like Roberts syndrome
But we are too afraid to talk about anything beyond these few topics, and how genetic differences between races affect (negatively, neutrally, or positively) people of these races.
Obviously topics on race need to be covered carefully and sensitively given the destructive history of race, science and politics. However, it still should be covered, investigated and the facts accepted.
Sadly, in today's environment, science that conflicts with certain agenda have become blasphemy. It's reminiscent of the anti-science and anti-intellectual days of geocentrism and the catholic church. It's amazing how one of the great scientists of our time has been "excommunicated" and attacked mercilessly for his blashphemy.
The strange thing is that the media is using racism themselves to attack the guy.
> But we are too afraid to talk about anything beyond these few topics[...]
I’ll grant that serious scientists are cautious about this, but what’s your evidence that the caution has gone too far?
We know that traits like intelligence are affected by hundreds or thousands of distinct genetic loci. We know that traits like measured intelligence are hugely dependent on non-genetic factors like diet, environmental exposures, and poverty (and that these factors aren’t orthogonal to each other). And we also know that scientists in the past have made too-sweeping claims that in the light of modern data are considered not just wrong, but embarrassingly so, and that these claims have been weaponized by overzealous lay people. Given all that, I think it’s quite reasonable to be very cautious about making claims that there’s not great evidence to support.
I agree. Any attempt to talk about genes outside of a narrow band is automatically considered racist or sexist. Productive, interesting discussion is killed off before it can begin, which is such an intellectually stifling and medieval way to handle these topics.
We don't really know how DNA affects cognitive ability in general, much less what if any affect ethnicity or gender has.
We don't know the basics because we can't even define the independent variable. What exactly is "cognitive ability" anyway? The definition of "cognition" is far more social and cultural than physical, so how do you measure it without social and cultural bias?
After we understand cognition, then we can examine how nutrition, education, social interactions, early childhood experiences, and other environmental factors affect it.
That's what we really should be talking about. But it's dangerous and counterproductive to leapfrog our current knowledge by measuring all groups against a socially and culturally biased standard with environmental factors we can't control and that we don't truly understand.
> We don't really know how DNA affects cognitive ability in general, much less what if any affect ethnicity or gender has.
That's why we need to study, come up with theories, disprove them, and find better theories. When it comes to race and gender, there's too much stigma attach to even try and come up with incorrect theories.
Reading the article I felt confident about general direction of comments on the HN page. HN proved as reliable as ever. Not only is it flagged as most articles about Blacks seem to be (meanwhile something about age discrimination, Asian victimization at the nefarious hands of affirmative action, or poor old James Damore are karma goldmines) but it's the same old ill-considered nonsense that doesn't stand up to the slightest bit of critical reasoning.
Hey, while we're researching why those people are stupid, let's also research why inhabitants and descendants of Northern climes seem so predisposed to be and do evil. The race/IQ obsessives being a relatively minor example among countless others.
While I am certainly not going to endorse any racism, I am a little uncomfortable with what's going on here.
As a bit of background, let's look at Lysenko (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko). To summarise briefly, soviet collectivist political doctrine was fundamentally opposed to Mendelian genetics and Darwinian evolution as concepts, as I understand primarily because individuals are not identical parts of a collective, but are genetically unique and competing and succeeding or failing upon that basis. So they adopted practices which were politically acceptable, but without a shred of scientific evidence. 30 million people starved to death as a result. And soviet science, while generally advanced, was many decades behind when it came to biological and genetic research as a consequence.
Science is fundamentally about asking questions by formulating and disproving hypotheses. Sometimes, the questions and hypotheses in question can be uncomfortable. However, just because a question is not politically correct does not mean that question isn't a valid question to ask or to obtain an answer for.
I'm not going to address whether Watson himself is simply asking controversial questions, or actually racist. I don't know, or care especially. But I'm going to pose the following:
If we take the entire human population, and consider if specific genes have a contribution to intelligence (however we might choose to quantify it), the answer is almost certainly "yes". Genes affect every part of our development, and it would be extremely unlikely for there not to be any genetic contribution for this single factor when we know it has profound effects upon everything else. The real questions are which genes, to what extent they have an effect, and the mechanisms by which they exert that effect. That shouldn't be particularly controversial.
If you take that a step further, and decide to look at not at the whole population, but the spread between and within different groups, that also shouldn't be too controversial. We already know there are significant differences between the variants of individual genes between groups. It would not be surprising or controversial if some of those genes had some effect on intelligence.
It only becomes truly controversial when you make those groups specific. For example, grouping by sex, or race, or age, or occupation, or whatever classifier you might choose. These aren't controversial scientifically, they are controversial socially and politically. And going back to the original point about Lysenko, when politics decides what is or is not acceptable to question, we stop dealing with the facts of reality, and start dealing in wishful thinking. The wishful thinking here is that we are all the same and that there are no differences between races. But it's obvious that we aren't all the same. Basic genetics and observation tells us that. But there probably are differences, even if those differences are small. Or not so small. The problem is that people are afraid they might not like the answer, so they try to suppress the question.
But, from a scientific point of view, we can't deal with the problem except from a position of knowledge. We can't tackle it without understanding and quantifying it. Suppose that there is a big difference. Maybe that would give us a basis of doing something about it, to ensure we all have equal prospects, such as changing education to help people who don't learn as fast. The alternative is to bury our heads in the sand and pretend that we are all the same, despite any inequalities that might result by that inaction.
This. There's nothing scientific about Watson's views, and even social scientists who stress the relevance of cognitive skills in development and express concern about this relevance (such as, IIRC, economist Garett Jones) do not share or endorse a view nearly as extreme as Watson's. Even journalist and pundit Steve Sailer, who is very often ridiculed as a believer in scientific racism, has actually stated many times and with great clarity that even "raw" cognitive ability (to say nothing of things like educational attainment or productivity) is extremely likely to be highly affected by environmental factors such as severe disease, malnutrition and the lack of a range of important micronutrients-- such factors being very common in Africa and in low-income countries more generally, but also obviously amenable to change. This whole Watson kerfuffle is just a cranky old guy sharing his deeply misguided opinions-- it's not science and it's not even "scientific" in any real sense.
We are only a few years away until GWAS studies finish identifying the genes linked to intelligence, and that scientists confirm what sociologists have known for the past 100 years. It's high time for society to maturely start discussing this topic.
Strange article. Why give Watson, who most people forgot about anyway, publicity in this way? Seems to me that this kind of articles fuels racism by introducing bigots to a great bigot they can look up to, more than it actually fights racism. The fact that it mixes emotions, ideology, and science in the same pot is also problematic.
Then comes the "Black scientists are" part. This is a ridiculous and dangerous construction. Again it fuels racism more than it fights it. What's special about black scientists? Nothing. If we don't see race. A better phrasing is to express culture/feeling/history "Black people are"
"I don't see race" is a luxury for those who aren't seen by their race.
Two days ago, a well-known black actor was attacked in Chicago. His attackers put a noose around his neck and poured bleach on him, while shouting racist and homophobic slurs. Do you think he gets to "not see race"?
What's special about black scientists? It's in the article. Until recently, they didn't exist, by and large. They weren't granted the opportunity, talent be damned. So there's a relevance to their experience, whether it makes you feel good or not.
Ok. I brought it up because "I don't see race" is a popular rebuttal to any attempt to discuss racism - as if sticking our heads in the sand will protect us from predators. I'm sure you've seen this, too. So when I see it, there's some reflex involved.
Science itself is, of course, not influenced by the race of the scientist. However, racism has been rationalized by "science" for centuries, which is what Watson was doing. That's what the article is about. I kind of wish the author had reached back to debunked nonsense like phrenology to show the history of how "scientific racism" works, but it is what it is.
I thought the author's point that using exceptionalism to reinforce "scientific racism" was really interesting and important. I think there's a lot of valuable ground to discover if we analyze racism itself through the lens of science, to figure out why so many people will make irrational excuses to justify a morally repugnant belief system.
>Ok. I brought it up because "I don't see race" is a popular rebuttal to any attempt to discuss racism
Yes, I got the good intention behind your message. No worries.
> I think there's a lot of valuable ground to discover if we analyze racism itself through the lens of science, to figure out why so many people will make irrational excuses to justify a morally repugnant belief system.
Of course. But black scientists are not better suited to do that. Not more than Asians or Arabs for instance. That's the core of my comment. Science is just a method.
Of course it was a hoax because the story was so ridiculous on its face and now Smollett needs a defense attorney[1]. Not quite as outrageous as 2017 Jewish Community Center bomb threats [2] which were also blamed on "the rise of white nationalism in Trump's America." yet serving the same political purpose: demonizing republicans, conservatives, whites and unifying groups on the left as they feel they are under attack.
I guess maybe "Black scientists are in the best position to understand what is so broken about the ideas of Watson and his army." was what he was working towards, but that seems like an extraordinarily weak point to make.