61–70 of 148 posts
Rosalind Franklin wrote an obituary for the helix theory.[1] She thought her image debunked the helix theory, even though when you know the double helix structure of DNA you can very clearly see it in the X-ray image. [1]: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/An-obituary-written-by-R...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
From the article:
>Mackintosh, Nisbett et al. and Flynn have all concluded that the slight correlation between g-loading and the test score gap offers no clue to the cause of the gap.[86][87][88] Further reviews of both adoption studies and racial admixture studies have also found no evidence for a genetic component behind group-level IQ differences.[89][90][91][92]
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.
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 again…
It's not even that. Imagine there is an isolated population on a remote island that is legitimately very low on general intelligence, "nobody can ever learn to count past ten" kinda low, yet undeniably human.
What would be a reasonable policy toward such people?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I'll be the one to sacrifice my Internet Points by bringing up the notion that the question of who discovered DNA's structure is not nearly as important as is the question of why the question of who discovered DNA's structure is significant. It is, of course, primarily and famously the specter of the erasure of women from scientifically and socially significant developments, the thematic subject that this article add…
> erasure of women Is there any reason to believe that they would have been more generous in giving credit had the work been from a man? And are there not dozens of other researchers who Watson and Crick drew inspiration and results from, who are not listed on the Nobel Prize?
The what-ifs of one specific notable instance doesn't really matter. This is merely being used for illustrative purposes.
It is also the case that it is not just women who are denied credit, but until relatively recently it was common practice to not even think to give equal credit to women.
> And are there not dozens of other researchers who Watson and Crick drew inspiration and results from, who are not listed on the Nobel Prize?
This direct? No. Franklin generated the key bit of information from which anyone generally adept in the discipline of the time could verify the double-helical nature of DNA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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]
> 2000: During a guest lecture at the University of California Berkeley, Watson shared his belief that thin people are unhappier than larger people, and therefore harder-working. He also said: “Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you’re not going to hire them,” according to the San Francisco Chronicle.
> In that same lecture, the Chronicle reported, Watson commented on the (nonexistent) link between sun exposure (and darker skin color) and sexual prowess: “That’s why you have Latin Lovers. You’ve never heard of an English lover. Only an English patient.”
> 2007: In an interview with Esquire, Watson said, “some anti-Semitism is justified.” He continued: “Just like some anti-Irish feeling is justified. If you can’t be criticized, that’s very dangerous.”
> In the same interview, he asked, “Why isn’t everyone as intelligent as Ashkenazi Jews?” and suggested that rich people should be paid to have children because “[i]f there is any correlation between success and genes, IQ will fall if the successful people don’t have children.”
> 2012: Of women in science, he said at the EuroScience Open Forum in Dublin, “I think having all these women around makes it more fun for the men but they’re probably less effective.”
Yes, I'm copying quotes from a Vox piece: https://www.vox.com/2019/1/15/18182530/james-watson-racist
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If the contention is that there is a genetic basis for differences in intelligence, a study that doesn't consider genetic evidence is a poor place to start. This is a methodological critique. From the article: >Mackintosh, Nisbett et al. and Flynn have all concluded that the slight correlation between g-loading and the test score gap offers no clue to the cause of the gap.[86][87][88] Further reviews of both adoption…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Would you rather go to a 150 IQ doctor or a 90 one? Why?
How well do they listen to me? Are they willing to give me time, or do they treat their patients as an assembly line? Do they continue to read up on new research, or are they relying on their 30-year-old med school degree? Are they someone that I'd be comfortable talking to about very personal matters?
None of these questions have anything to do with IQ, and I frankly have a hard time thinking of an IQ-related question that would matter to me in selecting a doctor.