Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

'Cancel Culture' Comes to Science?

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–368 of 368 posts

Re: 'Cancel Culture' Comes to Science?

#361

Post by speedplane »

whatthesmack wrote: post #274
speedplane wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> leftists attack them as not only illegitimate to study at all, but to even talk about. Conservatives love raising freedom of speech issues, if it aligns with their viewpoint. Where were the conservatives when extreme leftists were getting jailed for burning the american flag? Where were they when in the middle of the century when a bunch of music was considered being banned? Conservatives don't care about free spee…

s/conservatives/leftists/ and you get the same thing. It’s another non-argument. The point GP seems to be making is that it is only conservative thought that is assailed as illegitimate to study or even discuss. As a conservative-turned-libertarian, I was frightened to even speak my conservative thoughts in college 15 years ago lest my grade be impacted. I can’t imagine what modern conservatives must endure in colleg…

> My leftist friends seem to have a self-righteousness about them that I can only conclude they gain from their empowerment on a campus lacking intellectual diversity.

Conservatives are plenty self-righteous, you only hear ad-hominems like "anti-American", "hates freedom", and "naive" from the right.

Re: 'Cancel Culture' Comes to Science?

#362

Post by speedplane »

makomk wrote: post #285
speedplane wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To me it's obvious there are areas that are under-researched by academia. ... Climate change skepticism. Why would anyone research "climate change skepticism" and not just "climate"? The very idea of a discipline with "skepticism" in it's name suggests that there is an existing answer that someone is looking for, whereas the whole point of science is to keep an open mind. Nobody researches "physics skepticism", the…

That's sort of the trouble - mainstream climate change research seems to be lacking skepticism when it comes to claims that we're all doomed. For example, there was a paper in Nature which claimed the oceans were soaking up 60% more heat than previously thought, which implied CO2 caused much more warming than previously estimated. This made it onto most of the world's news and HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id…

> mainstream climate change research seems to be lacking skepticism when it comes to claims that we're all doomed.

That isn't enough. Mainstream physics research lacks skepticism about the laws of thermodynamics. Mainstream biology lacks skepticism about cell division.

When evidence for a proposition is strong, skepticism is weak.

If you want to argue for climate change skepticism, you have to provide evidence for to raise that skepticism. Yet every time someone does so, it gets shot down.

Re: 'Cancel Culture' Comes to Science?

#363

Post by tomhoward »

gwern wrote: post #359
tomhoward wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I accept that it's not a great study, but Gwern's refutation seems focused on mental illness/autistic disorders, and doesn't include the other conditions mentioned in the Mensa study - i.e., "environmental allergies, asthma and autoimmune disorders", which is more common in my observations of myself and others. (Notably, these conditions do not necessarily lead to reduced lifespan, particularly with modern medical in…

> I accept that it's not a great study, but Gwern's refutation seems focused on mental illness/autistic disorders, and doesn't include the other conditions mentioned in the Mensa study - i.e., "environmental allergies, asthma and autoimmune disorders", which is more common in my observations of myself and others. The asthma one may be correct (and probably due to the hygiene hypothesis, and for the same reason as myo…

I'll start by appealing to you to engage in this discussion in good faith, and without the snark contained in the above comment.

I may not have read all the same papers as you (just as you haven't read everything I've read), but I have read a wide range of material, and have been undertaking a several-years-long self-experiment on the links between physiology, cognition, and other factors including nutrition, toxicity and trauma. I am interested in the role of genetics too, and I'm open-minded about all of it.

In no sense do I claim my knowledge to be exhaustive, but I don't think I can be accused of approaching the topic without sincerity or dedication.

> The asthma one may be correct (and probably due to the hygiene hypothesis, and for the same reason as myopia)

Can you provide links elaborating on that topic so I can learn more about the basis of those assumptions?

> They are changed in narrow specific ways, often at the cost of other things.

I'm not sure how that contradicts anything I've said. The notion that such trade-offs exist is fairly central to my understanding of these things.

To be clear, the claim I'm questioning is that IQ-measured intelligence is genetically determined and immutable (and correlated with race), and I'm pointing out one example of evidence that factors other than genetics also seem relevant, sometimes in surprising ways.

There are of course plenty of other factors, including but not limited to nutrition, toxicity and trauma.

If you don't have any significant disagreement with the last two paragraphs then we don't have any quarrel.

If you do, I'd welcome links providing opposing evidence.

Re: 'Cancel Culture' Comes to Science?

#364

Post by gwern »

tomhoward wrote: post #363
gwern wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I accept that it's not a great study, but Gwern's refutation seems focused on mental illness/autistic disorders, and doesn't include the other conditions mentioned in the Mensa study - i.e., "environmental allergies, asthma and autoimmune disorders", which is more common in my observations of myself and others. The asthma one may be correct (and probably due to the hygiene hypothesis, and for the same reason as myo…

I'll start by appealing to you to engage in this discussion in good faith, and without the snark contained in the above comment. I may not have read all the same papers as you (just as you haven't read everything I've read), but I have read a wide range of material, and have been undertaking a several-years-long self-experiment on the links between physiology, cognition, and other factors including nutrition, toxicit…

Give me a break. You're very interested in physiology etc and yet you don't know what the hygiene hypothesis is and have to ask?

Look: all of these things, like high IQ correlating positively (and not negatively) with health are well established in the field, starting over a century ago with Terman. If you really had investigated these things as extensively and diligently as you claim, you would not need to ask me for links, and you would not respond to my mention of specific very well-known paradigms by asking for links. You need links on the hygiene hypothesis or on the standard light-based theories of myopia...? Assuming you had somehow never heard of these, you are unable to search for it yourself? Really?

No, I'm not going to waste my time digging up 101-level references for you; if you want to debate on these topics, get yourself up to speed so you understand the basics like why Karspinski et al do not dare to attempt to claim ill-health in the normal range and claim it's only at the extremes, and you know all the things that they leave out but everyone in the field knows perfectly well which is why they regard Karpinksi as steaming bullshit.

> To be clear, the claim I'm questioning is that IQ-measured intelligence is genetically determined and immutable (and correlated with race), and I'm pointing out one example of evidence that factors other than genetics also seem relevant, sometimes in surprising ways.

If savantism does not boost intelligence as opposed to narrow skills, then it does not serve as a counterexample and is simply a non sequitur. Obviously.

Re: 'Cancel Culture' Comes to Science?

#365

Post by tomhoward »

gwern wrote: post #364
tomhoward wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll start by appealing to you to engage in this discussion in good faith, and without the snark contained in the above comment. I may not have read all the same papers as you (just as you haven't read everything I've read), but I have read a wide range of material, and have been undertaking a several-years-long self-experiment on the links between physiology, cognition, and other factors including nutrition, toxicit…

Give me a break. You're very interested in physiology etc and yet you don't know what the hygiene hypothesis is and have to ask? Look: all of these things, like high IQ correlating positively (and not negatively) with health are well established in the field, starting over a century ago with Terman. If you really had investigated these things as extensively and diligently as you claim, you would not need to ask me fo…

First up, it'll help me to verify your position regarding a correlation between high-IQ and autism symptoms.

In my searching I found this 2018 tweet that indicates you accept it: https://twitter.com/gwern/status/1011605899469783042

Do you still stand by that position?

That aside, to correct the record:

- Yes, of course I know about the hygiene hypothesis and have done for decades, since well before I developed an interest in the field. And yes, I've heard about these kinds of theories about myopia. But, setting aside that plausible alternative hypotheses are easily found, what I was asking for something less hand-wavy than "probably" to explain away the finding.

- I haven't claimed, and have never believed, that there is a negative correlation between IQ/cognitive ability and physiological health. A positive correlation within the normal range of both is to be expected, and is central to my understanding and experimentation.

- I find the study and other article I shared moderately useful, not because of anything they prove - of course they don't conclusively prove anything - but for what they suggest, and for they way they align with what we see in nature: that extreme specialisation on one dimension is generally related to or co-existent with weaknesses or impairments in other dimensions.

Such a specialisation is unlikely to enhance overall life outcomes or evolutionary fitness, which is exactly what we see in society, where other aptitudes like social skills, leadership abilities and physical/physiological qualities are vitally important.

For what it's worth, I note in your writings, your mentions of the effects on IQ of lead and iodine, both of which are very much part of my understanding of the topic, so it seems we're not completely out of sync.

Re: 'Cancel Culture' Comes to Science?

#366

Post by neekleer »

dragonwriter wrote: post #174
allovernow wrote: post #19

While this explicit cancel culture has been slow to arrive, this is exactly the kind of traditionally left leaning activism which has gradually come to infest almost all of academia (and to a lesser but growing extent, industry). The result is an extremely strong, emergent cultural pressure against certain results and certain questions, which has been holding back a wide range of fields and ensuring pursuit of severe…

> Our understandings of intelligence, social dynamics, genetic influences on behavior, sexually dimorphic psychology and performance, climate change, et al. are mired by unspoken taboos Perhaps, but all the spoken taboos—that is, the concrete examples of things which are cited as being supposedly taboo to address in research—are, it turns out, actually quite well covered in the literature (sometimes, they are things…

It sounds like you are sending the all clear even as science is being polluted by toxic politics and some chilling effects spread.

Re: 'Cancel Culture' Comes to Science?

#367

Post by gwern »

tomhoward wrote: post #365
gwern wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Give me a break. You're very interested in physiology etc and yet you don't know what the hygiene hypothesis is and have to ask? Look: all of these things, like high IQ correlating positively (and not negatively) with health are well established in the field, starting over a century ago with Terman. If you really had investigated these things as extensively and diligently as you claim, you would not need to ask me fo…

First up, it'll help me to verify your position regarding a correlation between high-IQ and autism symptoms. In my searching I found this 2018 tweet that indicates you accept it: https://twitter.com/gwern/status/1011605899469783042 Do you still stand by that position? That aside, to correct the record: - Yes, of course I know about the hygiene hypothesis and have done for decades, since well before I developed an int…

> Do you still stand by that position?

I stand by that and what I say in my next tweet about why I don't believe those rgs mean what people think they mean, which you apparently did not bother to read while trawling through my tweets.

> But, setting aside that plausible alternative hypotheses are easily found, what I was asking for something less hand-wavy than "probably" to explain away the finding.

There is lots of good evidence for both hygiene and myopia. They do not require dismissing an entire century of research based on a single completely wacky sample which is internally insane and has guaranteed bias due to double self-selection effects. One man's modus ponens... https://www.gwern.net/Modus

Post reply on HN