Genetic data from over 20k U.S. children misused for 'race science' • Hacker News Board

Re: Genetic data from over 20k U.S. children misused for 'race science'

#21

Post by yed » Sun, Jan 25, 2026, 5:13 PM UTC

terminalshort wrote: post #16

bryanlarsen wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Race is not a genetic concept, it's social. Or more accurately, if it were genetic the races would look very different. The genetic diversity of "black" alone exceeds the rest of the world combined. So you have two choices: 1. Everybody is black. 2. The other races roughly stand, but there are dozens of different black races. Or you can be more accurate and say race is cultural.

OK, then let's do it right. But I think you know that isn't really the issue here. Nobody is putting out studies on correctly defined races by genetic groupings and intelligence either because the topic is still considered heresy. Your point that the commonly used definition of race is inaccurate is simply deflecting from this fact.

The point is there is no such thing as a “correct” grouping. The choice of what constitutes a group is completely subjective, it all depends on how far you choose to zoom in or out.

Re: Genetic data from over 20k U.S. children misused for 'race science'

#22

Post by jyscao » Sun, Jan 25, 2026, 5:19 PM UTC

bryanlarsen wrote: post #11

terminalshort wrote: post #3

I can't take any of this seriously so long as any research on race and intelligence continues to be banned as heresy rather than being discussed scientifically.

Race is not a genetic concept, it's social. Or more accurately, if it were genetic the races would look very different. The genetic diversity of "black" alone exceeds the rest of the world combined. So you have two choices: 1. Everybody is black. 2. The other races roughly stand, but there are dozens of different black races. Or you can be more accurate and say race is cultural.

Genetic diversity within continental races, including that of Sub-Saharan Africans, are mostly a consequence of genetic drift.

While genetic diversity between races are from selection. Thus the inter-racial genetic differences are more likely to manifest in trait differences that humans find more meaningful (which I use purely in a descriptive manner, not prescriptive), such as physiological (medical, metabolic), psychological & behavioral (personality), cognitive (intelligence), and of course physical (appearance, athletic).

The intra-racial differences that arise from genetic drift result in things that are still tangible genetic differences, e.g. ABO blood group frequencies, but don't map well onto characteristics that human societies place emphasis on as much.

And to address your point that:

>The genetic diversity of "black" alone exceeds the rest of the world combined.

This is because the level of genetic diversity as influenced by genetic drift is primarily a function of population size, and Africa being the origin of the Homo sapien species, and probably the Homo genus as a whole, has always had the highest level of effective population size. Thus genetic drift in Africans is least likely to be able to cause allele fixation on particular genes, and so such diversity is better preserved. But as already mentioned, these forms of genetic diversity is less likely to impact the observed traits that most humans, both academics/social scientists and your average joe, find "meaningful".

Re: Genetic data from over 20k U.S. children misused for 'race science'

#23

Post by amanaplanacanal » Sun, Jan 25, 2026, 5:21 PM UTC

terminalshort wrote: post #12

conception wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For one the idea of race is a social, not scientific, construct. It doesn’t mean anything scientifically.

You are a perfect example of what I am talking about. That is an obvious lie. Of course it means something scientifically because it refers to a genetic grouping. e.g. black people are much more likely to have the genetic disease sickle cell anemia. Nobody seems to have much of a problem with that statement but if it were a gene related to intelligence you people would lose your minds. If it isn't a scientifically va…

The problem here is that "black" can mean anybody with dark skin from anywhere in the world.

The sickle cell stuff is likely related to the fact that most "black" people in the US are descended from slaves that pretty much all came from the same small region in West Africa.

Re: Genetic data from over 20k U.S. children misused for 'race science'

#24

Post by cyanydeez » Sun, Jan 25, 2026, 5:26 PM UTC

rahimnathwani wrote: post #9

It seems weird for the government to collect data useful for research, but then to gate access based on the viewpoints of potential users. This restriction doesn't support the search for truth. Whatever people think of Lasker (Cremieux) and his views, isn't data being available to all interested parties the best way to find the truth? The article mentions this towards the very end: Adam Candeub, the top lawyer at the…

Paradox of intolerance answers your dilemma.

Other answers: if placebos work, why would we restrict peoples choice and their dissemination?

Because placebos rarely are innocent in often they become avoidant measures away from empirical science.

Your view point is a local minimum in that you want to ignore societal impact. One of those impacts is using valid data to tout pseudoscientific methods.

We know GIGO but the general populace does not

You should use the samw logic ans find yourself arguing against vaccinea and herd immunity.

Re: Genetic data from over 20k U.S. children misused for 'race science'

#25

Post by amarcheschi » Sun, Jan 25, 2026, 5:27 PM UTC

inshard wrote: post #10

amarcheschi wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The person in question in the article is kirkegaard, you should not take seriously what he does anyway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Diversity_Foundation edit since i was feeling really daring today i found an old archived page of a wiki holding a lot of interesting thoughts from him, such as eugenics to prevent the loss of western civilization, and other points that at this point you should imagine. link: http…

Interesting comparing these two entries: https://grokipedia.com/page/OpenPsych https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenPsych

the entire microuniverse of some rationalist/pseudoscience groups feeling really "rational" and then having racist, sexist, (insert -ist or -ism here) views is a bit of a joke at this point

Re: Genetic data from over 20k U.S. children misused for 'race science'

#26

Post by DeathArrow » Sun, Jan 25, 2026, 5:30 PM UTC

The White House already committed to open-sourcing all such datasets:

"(a) all federally funded health research should empower Americans through transparency and open-source data, and should avoid or eliminate conflicts of interest that skew outcomes and perpetuate distrust;"

Re: Genetic data from over 20k U.S. children misused for 'race science'

#27

Post by terminalshort » Sun, Jan 25, 2026, 5:34 PM UTC

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #23

terminalshort wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are a perfect example of what I am talking about. That is an obvious lie. Of course it means something scientifically because it refers to a genetic grouping. e.g. black people are much more likely to have the genetic disease sickle cell anemia. Nobody seems to have much of a problem with that statement but if it were a gene related to intelligence you people would lose your minds. If it isn't a scientifically va…

The problem here is that "black" can mean anybody with dark skin from anywhere in the world. The sickle cell stuff is likely related to the fact that most "black" people in the US are descended from slaves that pretty much all came from the same small region in West Africa.

My point here is that this problem only seems to be brought up when the research has to do with intelligence. If you talk about genetic differences between "black," "white," or any other racial grouping on any other metric nobody ever brings it up as in my example above. So, while I acknowledge the fundamental weaknesses of the category, I have to conclude that the real objection here isn't the categories, but the topic of the research.

Re: Genetic data from over 20k U.S. children misused for 'race science'

#28

Post by DeathArrow » Sun, Jan 25, 2026, 5:34 PM UTC

bryanlarsen wrote: post #11

terminalshort wrote: post #3

I can't take any of this seriously so long as any research on race and intelligence continues to be banned as heresy rather than being discussed scientifically.

Race is not a genetic concept, it's social. Or more accurately, if it were genetic the races would look very different. The genetic diversity of "black" alone exceeds the rest of the world combined. So you have two choices: 1. Everybody is black. 2. The other races roughly stand, but there are dozens of different black races. Or you can be more accurate and say race is cultural.

>Race is not a genetic concept, it's social.

Is this also true for other mammals such as cats, dogs, pigs, cows, horses?

Re: Genetic data from over 20k U.S. children misused for 'race science'

#29

Post by rahimnathwani » Sun, Jan 25, 2026, 5:36 PM UTC

cyanydeez wrote: post #24

rahimnathwani wrote: post #9

It seems weird for the government to collect data useful for research, but then to gate access based on the viewpoints of potential users. This restriction doesn't support the search for truth. Whatever people think of Lasker (Cremieux) and his views, isn't data being available to all interested parties the best way to find the truth? The article mentions this towards the very end: Adam Candeub, the top lawyer at the…

Paradox of intolerance answers your dilemma. Other answers: if placebos work, why would we restrict peoples choice and their dissemination? Because placebos rarely are innocent in often they become avoidant measures away from empirical science. Your view point is a local minimum in that you want to ignore societal impact. One of those impacts is using valid data to tout pseudoscientific methods. We know GIGO but the…

The paradox of intolerance suggests we should (if all else fails) suppress those whose seek to suppress others.

How is that relevant? Is Lasker seeking to (let alone succeeding at) suppressing voices that disagree with his own?

He might not engage with his critics (e.g. David Bessis) but AFAICT he's not doing anything to suppress them.

Re: Genetic data from over 20k U.S. children misused for 'race science'

#30

Post by dragonwriter » Sun, Jan 25, 2026, 5:37 PM UTC

terminalshort wrote: post #12

conception wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For one the idea of race is a social, not scientific, construct. It doesn’t mean anything scientifically.

You are a perfect example of what I am talking about. That is an obvious lie. Of course it means something scientifically because it refers to a genetic grouping. e.g. black people are much more likely to have the genetic disease sickle cell anemia. Nobody seems to have much of a problem with that statement but if it were a gene related to intelligence you people would lose your minds. If it isn't a scientifically va…

Races are not genetic groupings, they are social constructs whose boundaries evolve over time, which is particularly clear when they are formalized in a way which resista change and that formalization drifts increasingly far from the current common usage, such as the way the White racial category in common usage in America currently roughly corresponds to the the subset of the White racial category that excludes the Hispanic ethnicity in the US Census categorization.

The construction of race at any given time and place will tend to have non-zero correlation with genetic frequencies, in part by chance and in part because it is usually largely (but not entirely) drivn by appearance which is to some degree associated with some aspects of underlying genetics.

> e.g. black people are much more likely to have the genetic disease sickle cell anemia.

People with ancestry in sub-Saharan Africa (and within that, even more West Africa), India, the Middle East, and Mediterranean are more likely to have the gene that provides malaria resistance with one copy and sickle cell disease with two than other populations.

While the highest incidence group is also commonly “Black” in most constructions of race, a lot of the American perception of it as a nearly exclusively Black disease is because the population perceived as Black in the US is heavily drawn from West Africa, and the US population also underrepresents other populations in which it is more common than average AND does not include, and may not construct as Black, populations constructed as Black elsewhere in the world where it is not common.