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

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

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 88 posts

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

#71

Post by hubber »

tptacek wrote: post #68
hubber wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

This the "cold winters theory", popularized by the academic fraudster Richard Lynn (of "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" fame). It's a just-so story. You could tell the same story about the selective pressure for intelligence and problem-solving in hot climates; try to eat in the Kalahari sometime. Really, the more you think about that theory, the dumber it gets.

>You could tell the same story about the selective pressure for intelligence and problem-solving in hot climates

You sure could! Why wouldn't you? Do you reject the concept of evolution via natural selection in all species or only humans?

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

#72

Post by tptacek »

hubber wrote: post #71
tptacek wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This the "cold winters theory", popularized by the academic fraudster Richard Lynn (of "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" fame). It's a just-so story. You could tell the same story about the selective pressure for intelligence and problem-solving in hot climates; try to eat in the Kalahari sometime. Really, the more you think about that theory, the dumber it gets.

>You could tell the same story about the selective pressure for intelligence and problem-solving in hot climates You sure could! Why wouldn't you? Do you reject the concept of evolution via natural selection in all species or only humans?

Just so long as we're clear that this is storytime and not science, sure.

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

#73

Post by hubber »

tptacek wrote: post #72
hubber wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You could tell the same story about the selective pressure for intelligence and problem-solving in hot climates You sure could! Why wouldn't you? Do you reject the concept of evolution via natural selection in all species or only humans?

Just so long as we're clear that this is storytime and not science, sure.

What does that mean? You reject natural selection as "storytime and not science"?

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

#74

Post by optionalsquid »

hubber wrote: post #73
tptacek wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just so long as we're clear that this is storytime and not science, sure.

What does that mean? You reject natural selection as "storytime and not science"?

What is being rejected is not evolution by natural selection. What is being rejected is untestable, just-so stories invented to explain why certain biological traits evolved. Or, as is the case here, to explain traits that are assumed to have evolved in certain populations

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

#76

Post by hubber »

optionalsquid wrote: post #74
hubber wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does that mean? You reject natural selection as "storytime and not science"?

What is being rejected is not evolution by natural selection. What is being rejected is untestable, just-so stories invented to explain why certain biological traits evolved. Or, as is the case here, to explain traits that are assumed to have evolved in certain populations

The premise was more that we can say with near-certainty that there are non-visible genetic differences between the races without even knowing specifically what these traits are or the extent to which they have diverged. We know this based on our understanding of genetics, natural selection, migration patterns, randomness, and the passage of time.

It would actually be quite the story if the races were somehow identical in all of these traits.

Both of these positions are untestable. One, however, is extremely likely while the other would be a miracle even in the wildest fantasies of the wokest progressive.

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

#77

Post by bryanlarsen »

DeathArrow wrote: post #28
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.

>Race is not a genetic concept, it's social. Is this also true for other mammals such as cats, dogs, pigs, cows, horses?

Most domesticated animal breeds are highly inbred so have much tighter genetic boundaries. It's much more similar to doing genetic research on human families, which is definitely fruitful.

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

#78

Post by cyanydeez »

terminalshort wrote: post #36
cyanydeez wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely this time race science wont be used to make social policies that directly boil down to racism by visual difference.

So if I understand correctly, your argument is: 1. This research may prove that there are significant intelligence differences by race. 2. Public knowledge of this fact could lead to discrimination on an individual level based on group membership. 3. This is bad for society. 4. Therefore we should not conduct research down this path.

No its:

1. Race science has never demonstrated real impacts on Society.

2. Society funds research to find real impacts on Society.

3. Racists want to coninue to do #1 despite never demonstrating real impacts on Society.

I mean, go on king, collect your own data on Phrenology, but don't get mad if the rest of us don't give you our head measurements.

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

#79

Post by tptacek »

hubber wrote: post #76
optionalsquid wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is being rejected is not evolution by natural selection. What is being rejected is untestable, just-so stories invented to explain why certain biological traits evolved. Or, as is the case here, to explain traits that are assumed to have evolved in certain populations

The premise was more that we can say with near-certainty that there are non-visible genetic differences between the races without even knowing specifically what these traits are or the extent to which they have diverged. We know this based on our understanding of genetics, natural selection, migration patterns, randomness, and the passage of time. It would actually be quite the story if the races were somehow identic…

Your "extremely likely" scenario is the "cold winter theory", which is problematic for many reasons including the myriad of historical instances where hot-climate civilizations outpaced cold-climate civilizations.

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

#80

Post by rustyhancock »

TMWNN wrote: post #57
rustyhancock wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scientists, are not quite like explorers, just venturing off in direction and see what they find. They have interests, that align with funding, which aligns with actionable data. And they follow them. So who would even do such research? The best you could find is some meaningless difference in mean scores that is likely swamped by environmental factors. And the fact that "race" is far fuzzier than our intuition leads…

> So who would even do such research? The best you could find is some meaningless difference in mean scores that is likely swamped by environmental factors. Yes, I too find it easy to avoid doing research when I assume what that research is going to find out ahead of the time.

The research has already been done historically without convincing results. That's why they want NIH large dataset (you need large dataset to find a small effect size).

But NIH understably will not share a dataset that the contributors wouldn't want to used in this way.

But if you're a researcher in this domain just go get your own dataset. You'll have to tell the potential contributors you will allow research that might stigmatize them.

Good luck with recruitment.

It you don't think you could recruit for that study because participants would find it objectionable then you can't demand access to NIH dataset.

Ethically it's that simple.

Post reply on HN