Should Research on Race and IQ Be Banned?

[joesixpack]

Some IQ tests are based entirely on abstract drawings of patterns and pattern recognition. I don't see how that would measure cultural assimilation.

1) I have yet to see one based entirely on abstract drawings and pattern recognition

2) How can you be certain (or even moderately confident) that these are reliable indicators of general intelligence?

3) What makes you think that these are any less culturally biased?

 

[lomiller]

Not arguing with the rest of this, but it doesn't have to be "people who self-report as..." whichever race. There are other methods of placing people into whatever categories the researchers are choosing to use for the purposes of a study (like genetic markers and so forth).

The methods for placing humans into "races" involves data mining the human genome for groups of markers that occur in all humans but tend to occur in certain combinations more often in one groups than another.

Even with the near infinite degrees of freedom that arise from such techniques they still can't make it work quite right. Typically people descending from India and surrounding area get randomly "identified" as either Asian or European.

The markers and grouping themselves of course serve no other function than to identify "race" so they would serve no function in any other type of genetic study.

In short such techniques are invalid mathematically, don't really work and produce outputs that are not useful for anything scientifically.

 

[lomiller]

There is evidence to indicate correlation between IQ scores and the capacity to learn.

I already linked a paper showing the genetic contribution to variations in humans ability to learn (education attainment) is small and that the contribution from individual alleles is VERY small. These are so small in fact that it takes studies with > 100K people to even identify any differences.

Given the minimum genetic variation that exists between humans is MUCH greater than what exists between supposed "races" I find it very unlikely IQ correlations have their basis in peoples genetics.

 

[Dinwar]

Mainly because, as I already said, said there is only one living subspecies of human.

Honestly, that's never been a restriction for me. Lack of in-depth study of ancient humans is more an issue. I can name several types of bison that haven't existed for 10,000 years.

Yet you keep insisting on incorrectly using race as a different term for subspecies.

Did I do something to upset you? Because you being upset with me is the only justification I can see for you considering saying it ONCE as me "insisting on incorrectly using..." anything.

TBH you seem to be staking out a position that can only be described as racist

Believe what you want. If discussions of taxonomic structures annoy you to the point where you can't discuss them without attacking the other side as racist, you really need to stay out of them.

Since I've never said that anyone's worth is determined by race, I have not said anything racist. I'm an Objectivist--it would be against everything I believe to be racist. That doesn't prevent me from discussing the possibility of humans having biologically-defined races, nor does it prevent me from discussing the validity of the term.

If you're going to insinuate that I'm a racist I expect you to provide proof.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Banning research is always wrong. Science requires freedom to explore wherever the data leads. The instant you put up a barrier like this you're saying that politics controls science, which makes you no better than the worst versions of the Church in the Middle Ages/Renaissance. It's cowardly, it will NOT stop at the questions you consider too icky to ask,

Exactly. So I'm sure you will agree that nobody should be trying to ban my research into how to tell if a person is a witch, right?

It it unfortunate that valuable research in this area has been suppressed since the Middle Ages, with denialists of nature calling it an act of heresy which must be purged. Some even insist that witches don't exist!

Thank you for pointing out that research which involves dunking, pricking, crushing or drowning test subjects* might be icky, but that doesn't mean it should be banned. Any findings will be used purely to further scientific understanding of witchcraft, and will never be subverted by politicians or hate groups to justify unacceptable behavior such as profiling, segregating or burning witches.


*My subjects aren't actual people of course - that would be both immoral and illegal. I use clones, born and raised in the laboratory.

 

[Quinn]

Exactly. So I'm sure you will agree that nobody should be trying to ban my research into how to tell if a person is a witch, right?

Assuming you can find someone willing to fund it, research away. I may think it's silly and worthless, and I may tell you so, and I may publicly point and laugh derisively at you for it, but I certainly wouldn't tell you you weren't allowed to do it. (That is, assuming you could do it without harming the people involved, which I realize is contradictory to the rest of your post, but you get the point.)

The main reason I'm against this type of ban is that I think declaring any area of honest inquiry off limits is admitting that We Can't Handle The Truth™ -- or more specifically, that there are certain theoretically conceivable truths which, if they turned out to be actual truths, we would not be able to handle. And I flatly reject that proposal. I believe that not only can we handle the truth, but that in fact learning the truth -- the actual, unvarnished truth, even if it turns out to be bleak or messy or "socially disruptive" -- is our best shot at maximizing our happiness and quality of life.

 

[Craig B]

... I'm an Objectivist--it would be against everything I believe to be racist.

Do you mean, a follower of the philosophy of Ayn Rand?

 

[psionl0]

Thank you for pointing out that research which involves dunking, pricking, crushing or drowning test subjects* might be icky, but that doesn't mean it should be banned. Any findings will be used purely to further scientific understanding of witchcraft, and will never be subverted by politicians or hate groups to justify unacceptable behavior such as profiling, segregating or burning witches.

Good point. Obviously, some practices such as those that would put a person at risk of death or permanent injury are a no no.

It is when you say that certain topics are beyond scientific research through any means that you cross the threshold of evil.

 

[Dinwar]

Exactly. So I'm sure you will agree that nobody should be trying to ban my research into how to tell if a person is a witch, right?

Ban? No, of course not. You get volunteers to undergo this research and propose a research program that actually gets funding, and have fun.

Of course, science doesn't trump the law. Abuse, murder, etc. are still wrong and will still land you in jail, if not a grave.

There are a number of ways to conduct this research in an ethical manner. We have innumerable documents on the topic outlining a series of (admittedly uncontrolled) experiments. A scientist truly interested in this sort of research could relatively easily get their hands on them--and in fact would be obligated to do so, as the first step in the scientific method is to do your background research. If you refuse to do that, you're not actually doing science and the prohibition on banning research doesn't apply to your actions. There are also people who self-identify as witches today, and one could take a survey or do genetic tests to determine if there's any difference between them and the general population. It's not completely outlandish to think there might be; after all, in the USA at least Paganism and Wicca aren't exactly well-thought-of, and certain related aspects of human behavior (such as the fight-or-flight response) have genetic components.

Using old methodology isn't entirely out of the question, either--for example, leaches and maggots are used in medicine right now. Maggots clean wounds remarkably well, and leaches have anticoagulants that we're still researching. That said, you must demonstrate the efficacy of these methods before you construct a research program using them. And given the research into witch trials that I've done (I sort of accidentally fell into Medieval/Renaissance torture methods research--for a few years EVERYONE, from my SCA friends to my mother, sent me papers and books on the topic, for no reason I can figure out), these methods are simply torture, not substantively different from any other torture methods. Which is to say, they'll say anything to make the pain stop.

So yes, you CAN research the efficacy of Medieval methods to determine who's a witch. I've done it. What you don't get to do is abandon the rules of scientific research and then say "But I'm doing science, you can't stop me!!!!"

Do you mean, a follower of the philosophy of Ayn Rand?

I wouldn't put it that way (Objectivism is a philosophy; no one says that pragmatics are "followers of Charles Sanders Peirce"). I agree with that philosophy. When I read "Atlas Shrugged" my reaction was "Finally, someone else gets it!"

 

[Roger Ramjets]

It is when you say that certain topics are beyond scientific research through any means that you cross the threshold of evil.

I agree, but you need to weigh up the potential benefits of researching a topic against the possible harm it may cause.

We know that a 'scientific' study of witches won't get us anywhere, but it might cause a resurgence of belief in witchcraft. Perhaps you think that's not very likely, but have you considered what effect it might have in say - Uganda?

Similarly, we know that research purporting to find a correlation between race and intelligence is based on unscientific notions - but what if white supremacists used it to spread their hate and influence government policy?

I'm not saying that all such studies should be banned, but not strongly criticizing the results of dodgy research will make it look like the scientific community approves, and of course the 'news' media will pick up on it because controversy sells (plus there are a few racist 'journalists' out there).

If research is to continue in this field, it needs to be conducted in a proper manner. Perhaps we could start by deprecating usage of the the word 'race' in studies that are actually about something else.

 

[Dinwar]

We know that a 'scientific' study of witches won't get us anywhere,

This is only true if you consider archaeology, anthropology, and sociology to not be sciences. If you consider them sciences, there are numerous ways in which witchcraft can be studied. And it's rather important in some cases--people are dying because of belief in witchcraft in some parts of the world, and a scientific study of that belief may help us combat it.

Similarly, we know that research purporting to find a correlation between race and intelligence is based on unscientific notions

Do we? Some people (I'd go so far as most, if we include non-scientists) arguing for different IQs among different races, and some people advocating IQ testing, certainly do so for unscientific reasons; however, I don't believe all of them are. That's something you'll need to provide evidence for.

I'm not saying that all such studies should be banned, but not strongly criticizing the results of dodgy research will make it look like the scientific community approves,

Where did anyone in this thread ever say that the research shouldn't be strongly criticized? That's just part of the scientific process. I, for one, do not advocate allowing poor research to be published, and every paper that's published is certainly open to harsh analysis and criticism. We can't abandon our standards--but not banning research doesn't imply we abandon our standards. It simply means that we accept that IF the research can be conducted while following the rules of scientific investigation, THEN we shouldn't discard it simply because we don't like the topic.

If research is to continue in this field, it needs to be conducted in a proper manner. Perhaps we could start by deprecating usage of the the word 'race' in studies that are actually about something else.

To a certain extent, I agree. IQ testing is almost entirely about social class and economics, rather than intelligence. Research into IQ in the USA, at least, is very tricky, because they need to differentiate between any racial signals that might be present and the socio-economic signals that we KNOW are present. It's tough to do that.

That said, simply put there are real genetic differences between various populations of humans. It's perfectly valid to ask if these might include differences in how our brains function, and it's perfectly valid to use visual genetic markers to differentiate groups of any animal (the research question being tested is, at that point, whether these markers are tied to any genetic difference in how the brain functions). We know there's Neanderthal DNA in Europeans, for example, and how this impacts our physiology, including our nervous system, is a perfectly valid question (it's also precisely the reverse of what most racists believe, which is kinda funny). How you go about testing these questions is an exercise I leave to those better trained in dealing with humans; I'm just saying that questions about race and genetics aren't always irrational.

 

[lomiller]

I can name several types of bison that haven't existed for 10,000 years.

And?

Did I do something to upset you? Because you being upset with me is the only justification I can see for you considering saying it ONCE as me "insisting on incorrectly using..." anything.

What makes you think I'm upset? All I did was point out you were directly contradicting yourself.

First you insist on trying to substitute "race" for subspecies then you say you don't like it when people not a huge fan of having different terms for things that are not different.

Believe what you want. If discussions of taxonomic structures annoy you to the point where you can't discuss them without attacking the other side as racist, you really need to stay out of them.

Again you seem to be the one getting upset, and what seems to be getting you upset is that the scientific community doesn't agree with the divisions within humans you want to exist.

I've never said that anyone's worth is determined by race

No, just their intelligence

That doesn't prevent me from discussing the possibility of humans having biologically-defined races

At one point it was worth discussing the possibility AIDS isn't caused by HIV. This point has long since passed.

"Race" as a concept and the definitions of what these so called "races" are predates modern biological classification and genetics and doesn't fit with either. It's an idea that has been sweat aside and replaced by more useful and accurate categories. There is no need to hang onto it other than the misguided notion that arbitrary uninformed classifications set down hundreds of years ago have some form of relevance.

 

[Dinwar]

lomiller, it's clear that you're not even attempting to understant my statements. I see no point in continuing this discussion.

 

[Craig B]

I wouldn't put it that way (Objectivism is a philosophy; no one says that pragmatics are "followers of Charles Sanders Peirce"). I agree with that philosophy. When I read "Atlas Shrugged" my reaction was "Finally, someone else gets it!"

Quite. Follower of Rand. The expression has other meanings.

 

[lomiller]

Assuming you can find someone willing to fund it, research away.

A University to say that isn't willing to fund the research or pay you while you conduct the research, is this ok?

No one has suggested making research illegal, this is about how big a place pseudo-science and bad science have in Universities. Academic freedom says that have to tolerate some ideas that are pretty far out there, but should there be limits and what should those limits be.

 

[psionl0]

We know that a 'scientific' study of witches won't get us anywhere, but it might cause a resurgence of belief in witchcraft. Perhaps you think that's not very likely, but have you considered what effect it might have in say - Uganda?

Similarly, we know that research purporting to find a correlation between race and intelligence is based on unscientific notions - but what if white supremacists used it to spread their hate and influence government policy?

Just because we assume that there is no such thing as witchcraft or that there is no correlation between race and intelligence doesn't mean that a proper scientific study into these things wouldn't reveal some useful information.

Any scientific research can be misused or misinterpreted. Just about every advance in scientific knowledge has proved to be a mixed blessing to some extent. If we were to prevent scientific research on these grounds then we would still be lynching any cave men who mucked around with fire.

It is also worth noting that if any field of scientific research has the potential to be profitable then stopping it would be virtually impossible. It is far better to have such research in the open and subject to full public scrutiny than to drive it underground and into the hands of those whose motives might be anything but benign.

 

[marting]

Arguably, research into the placebo effect is not all that removed from research into witchcraft. It is not all that improbable that research into witchcraft could yield "positive" results.

 

[Quinn]

A University to say that isn't willing to fund the research or pay you while you conduct the research, is this ok?

I support the right of any university (or research institute, etc.) to decide which research it does and doesn't want to fund. Does that somehow contradict my previous statement?

No one has suggested making research illegal, this is about how big a place pseudo-science and bad science have in Universities.

It seems to be about getting universities to all agree in advance that they will reject research into certain topics of inquiry. I find that concept silly, paranoid, and contrary to what academia is supposed to be about.

Academic freedom says that have to tolerate some ideas that are pretty far out there, but should there be limits and what should those limits be.

While that's a complex issue, I can tell you what one of those limits should not be. One of those limits should not be, "Oh, we can't look into whether or not this hypothesis is true, because we as a society couldn't handle it if it did turn out to be true, and because talking about it makes people uncomfortable."

 

[lomiller]

I support the right of any university (or research institute, etc.) to decide which research it does and doesn't want to fund. Does that somehow contradict my previous statement?

The bans being discussed in the OP are precisely this, universities setting up review boards with the power to prohibit it's staff from engaging in questionable research on university time.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Just because we assume that there is no such thing as witchcraft or that there is no correlation between race and intelligence doesn't mean that a proper scientific study into these things wouldn't reveal some useful information.

You are right, of course. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. It may be wasteful and counterproductive most of the time, but that doesn't mean we should shoot all blind squirrels - we just shouldn't be letting them breed indiscriminately.

Any scientific research can be misused or misinterpreted. Just about every advance in scientific knowledge has proved to be a mixed blessing to some extent.

Once again, you are right. Scientists sometimes regret giving us knowledge which is used for evil purposes, but if we use it wisely then the good should outweigh the bad. I am just concerned that perhaps we won't use it wisely.

We don't know whether the knowledge we gain will be on balance good or evil, but that doesn't mean we should stop all research. However, where the science is known, it doesn't pay to rehash discredited theories which have no hope of redemption. Please note that I do not advocate banning any line of research, unless there is a clear moral hazard with no tangible benefit.

It is also worth noting that if any field of scientific research has the potential to be profitable then stopping it would be virtually impossible.

Yes. Which is why I find it curious that governments around the world have attempted to ban human cloning. Don't they realize that the opportunities for profit are boundless? Once the science advances to the point where commercial clone production is feasible, and machines are developed which enable us to 'print' copies of ourselves at home, the genie will be out of the bottle. It's virtually impossible to stop progress, so why are they trying?