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

What Rosalind Franklin contributed to the discovery of DNA’s structure

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 148 posts

Re: What Rosalind Franklin contributed to the discovery of DNA’s structure

#51

Post by notsosec »

phs318u wrote: post #28
jyscao wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>how can the father of genetic science be wrong about the influence of genetics on society? - while the truth dashes that credibility That's your own biased judgment. Others may perceive what happened as Watson speaking truth to power, and paying the price for it.

If you’re referring to Watson’s 2007 claim that Africa is unlikely to succeed n part because of the inhabitants’ inferior intelligence, as the “truth” he is speaking to “power” perhaps it is you who are biased.

Power in the sense he got completely cancelled in the west for saying things that are not considered taboo in other parts of the world.

Re: What Rosalind Franklin contributed to the discovery of DNA’s structure

#52

Post by underlipton »

mightyham wrote: post #48
phs318u wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please then provide some references to the e literature you’ve read supporting your claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof as the saying goes.

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/doc/10.1.1.372.6092 Meta-analysis of the results of over six million participants tested for cognitive ability or aptitude that found a difference in average scores between Black and White individuals of 1.1 standard deviations. And if you are curious about the relationship between IQ and genetics this Wikipedia page has a ton of cited research: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritabili…

That's not a genetic study. The authors specialize in organizational/management science. For the Wikipedia article, you should read it yourself. A ctrl-f for "no evidence" would do you well.

Re: What Rosalind Franklin contributed to the discovery of DNA’s structure

#53

Post by notsosec »

underlipton wrote: post #44
mjfl wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine if it was true. Would you be able to publish it? Would you be able to write a grant to get funds investigating it?

Would you be able to prove it? Which is more likely?: >A less-intelligent population has conspired to control the activities of an institution in which they are famously underrepresented (even when considering their status as a numerical minority). >Investigations have been funded and actually taken place in the past, with the results being inconclusive, or unremarkable, or having falsified the hypothesis. >Suggestin…

This is a false dichotomy.

The taboos about races / genetics are largely held and enforced by white people, not (just) by minorities.

Re: What Rosalind Franklin contributed to the discovery of DNA’s structure

#54

Post by lolinder »

phs318u wrote: post #41
mightyham wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Please then provide some references to the e literature you’ve read supporting your claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof as the saying goes.

Claiming that the skills tested by IQ tests are in part heritable—like height, strength, weight, eye color and every other physical characteristic—is not an extraordinary claim. Indeed, the opposite claim would be more extraordinary. Why should this be the exception to the rule?

It would be far more beneficial to equity to push back on the purported implications of this fact than to try to fight a losing battle against reality. The value we place on the skills that IQ tests measure is highly suspect and should be questioned, not the idea that IQ varies between populations.

Re: What Rosalind Franklin contributed to the discovery of DNA’s structure

#55

Post by pazimzadeh »

mightyham wrote: post #39
phs318u wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t wait long. Please educate yourself. His claim that “Africans” have inferior intelligence due to their genetics has precisely zero basis in scientific evidence.

[flagged]

That only matters if IQ is a measure of something that matters. There are several arguments which suggest it's not.

1. How good someone is at taking a test ≠ intelligence.

https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-...

2. The IQ test may have been specifically designed to be difficult for certain populations, which were comparatively less educated. And those populations are still less educated today. So it's a circular argument.

https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/racis...

Re: What Rosalind Franklin contributed to the discovery of DNA’s structure

#56

Post by lolinder »

underlipton wrote: post #47
mightyham wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

No, it's the people who insist that IQ must be the sole example of a physiological characteristic that has no genetic component who feel threatened by the science.

To be clear, I fiercely oppose racism in all forms, but the battle should be up against the idea that there's some inherent value in IQ scores, not against the idea that genes play a role in the scores.

Re: What Rosalind Franklin contributed to the discovery of DNA’s structure

#57

Post by jojobas »

underlipton wrote: post #50
jojobas wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was not judging based on race, he was asserting that other attributes are correlated with race.

He was making a prediction of capability, based on attributes which he chose to couch in terms of race, and which have inconclusive applicability to the capability in question. Notably, those attributes are known to be affected by, as opposed to the cause of, the outcomes which that capability is supposed to effectuate.

[flagged]

Re: What Rosalind Franklin contributed to the discovery of DNA’s structure

#58

Post by notsosec »

underlipton wrote: post #52
mightyham wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/doc/10.1.1.372.6092 Meta-analysis of the results of over six million participants tested for cognitive ability or aptitude that found a difference in average scores between Black and White individuals of 1.1 standard deviations. And if you are curious about the relationship between IQ and genetics this Wikipedia page has a ton of cited research: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritabili…

That's not a genetic study. The authors specialize in organizational/management science. For the Wikipedia article, you should read it yourself. A ctrl-f for "no evidence" would do you well.

It appears to be a meta-analysis of literature in the field of psychology.

Re: What Rosalind Franklin contributed to the discovery of DNA’s structure

#59

Post by mightyham »

underlipton wrote: post #52
mightyham wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/doc/10.1.1.372.6092 Meta-analysis of the results of over six million participants tested for cognitive ability or aptitude that found a difference in average scores between Black and White individuals of 1.1 standard deviations. And if you are curious about the relationship between IQ and genetics this Wikipedia page has a ton of cited research: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritabili…

That's not a genetic study. The authors specialize in organizational/management science. For the Wikipedia article, you should read it yourself. A ctrl-f for "no evidence" would do you well.

I fail to see how insulting the authors academic credentials brings more to this discussion than critiquing the methodology or providing a study to the contrary.

I also have read the Wikipedia article and have no idea what you are talking about. Claiming there is "no evidence" to any of the sides of this very complex issue is utterly ridiculous.

Post reply on HN