Hacker News Reader

Comment by 21 | Hacker News Reader

It goes further, a Twitter verified PhD in molecular biology calls it "deeply disturbing and unacceptable":

> This study is so deeply disturbing and unacceptable. Studies that link genetics to intelligence/achievement are so deeply dangerous. Yet scientists jump into them without taking into account the social context in which they're doing their work.

https://twitter.com/webmz_/status/1053353974764634112

View on HN

Yeah, I was referring to that thread. Without explicitly stating what's wrong with the study (in which many factors could go wrong), Or stating how/why environmental factors could still derail the study despite twin control, the twitter thread derails into "social responsibility" etc.

I have a political bias towards the left (equality, more democratic control etc), but I would never say scientific truth should be subservient to my ideology. That kind of a view has a huge stench of the postmodernist ideology on how even science is subjective like literary criticism.

Any ethical axiom is cannot be contingent on facts due to the is-ought problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem). But the moment some the moral axioms are used to make decisions in the real world, the decisions have to be consistent with the axioms. The effect of decisions is contingent on facts aka Science. So given a belief in induction, science can help inform what you "ought" to do with respect to your axioms.

Contrary to the subset of people in the left who blindly believe the Blank Slate hypothesis, or fear that genetic studies will change their ethical assumptions, I argue that more knowledge (genetic, sociological etc ) through science would only help you to be more committed to you ethics by allowing you to exercise it properly. I think Steven Pinker's argument against (part of) left's obsession with blank slate rings true https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_chalks_it_up_to_the_...

I think Peter Singer (of Animal Liberation fame) alludes to the same point in the Darwinian Left https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Darwinian_Left (haven't read it yet)

Without a more in-depth analysis of where the study goes wrong, I'm afraid I can't simply take someone's word for it merely because they have a PhD next to their name.

Not that I necessarily agree with what she's saying, her comment isn't on where "the study goes wrong", but rather about the fact of the study itself.

In the same way that, for instance, an evil genius can be said to have created a "good" bomb, the "good" here refers to its efficiency, the number of people it can kill, the speed at which it can be activated etc. but these qualities speak nothing of whether the bomb is a good thing - for that question you need to consult the context in which it was made, and the question is of course different and mostly irrelevant to the technical parameters of the bomb. The ethics of killing have nothing to do with how long the blade of your knife is.

Fair point, although I feel that your interpretation may be a bit too charitable. If she had said that the paper should take into account the possible interpretations/implications of the research, then I can understand that. However, she said that the paper itself was unacceptable. I can only conclude that she would prefer no research be done if there could be negative ethical implications.

Actually she says the paper is bad science, and says why in her Twitter feed. She's actually calling for more research, supporting more complex narratives.

Meanwhile here, we're seeing that correlation does not imply causation except when it supports common prejudices and simplistic narratives. Then it absolutely does.

She states simply that it didn't look for proper controls or caveats. As I said in my original comment, I would need an in-depth analysis of why the study is bad. Merely mentioning controls is not enough to convince me, even if the person has a PhD.

And as for her "calling for more research", that is simply not true:

    This is one open access article the world does not need right now.

She is literally saying here that it should not have been published.

I don't know what she could possibly mean by 'proper controls'. They're twins. They are better controls for each other (full siblings raised simultaneously of exactly the same age) than you see in 99.9% of sociology or education studies; in some respects they are the best controls that are possible, since you can't run a person through school multiple times to see if they get into college or not. And this study also came with polygenic scores so you can check the genetics directly if you've fallen for handwavy criticisms like of the EEA.

(Heck, she's not even right when she mouths 'correlation != causation', because if you used the PGS to compare siblings, their PGS differences are randomized at conception and the correlation = causation! As far as I can tell, OP didn't do this, just scoring unrelated individuals, but they could have, many other studies have, and she doesn't seem to've checked herself.)

I think blank slate is the common prejudice and simplistic narrative. Calling out the paper as bad science without giving any valid reason is stupid. If the argument had been that a single study is not enough to conclude the author's conclusions (which are not too broad). But one can say that to any study in a new/nascent topic.

But what is in the thread is that such a study should not have been published because it violates ethics, without pointing out the scientific flaws in such a study.

As my advisor used to say when I hit low motivation phases, “stupid people get PhDs all the time. What’s taking you 5 years?”

It's her maternal instinct kicking in.

I know some female scientists who wouldn't want to hear anything about attributing differences to IQ or genes and become very emotional if the topic is ever mentioned. "I don't want to think of my friends from X as N".

Why not 'her social responsibility' kicking in? Because there it is, attributing 'weak' motivations to women, because of course women are all the same.

This would be funny, a comment that exhibits precisely why the argument it 'refutes' is true. If it wasn't sexist and demeaning as well.

This is not social responsibility. It's an emotional reaction to a scientific study. There is nothing irresponsible about the study.

Science doesn't have to care for the emotions of specific groups. Then we're doomed.

And yes, neurotypical women are close to identical at the meta level I'm talking about. Same for men.

>Science doesn't have to care for the emotions of specific groups. Then we're doomed.

What's your opinion on the idea of scientific ethics?

> What's your opinion on the idea of scientific ethics?

Neither harm to the subjects of the research nor the ones conducting it is occurring, so it's unclear how scientific ethics comes into play.

Are you genuinely attempting to suggests that there some truths about the universe which are so inimical to the human spirit that we dare not reveal them? If so, the quote which springs immediately to mind is PKD's "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

Most people regard ethics as rooted in emotion; we don't want to live in a society in which harm is done to people, because that contradicts our emotions about what is just. As such, the statement that science shouldn't care about emotions seems to imply that science shouldn't care about ethics, either - and this is especially important for those who believe that ethics are statements of emotion rather than appeals to objective morality. I wasn't speaking of this case in particular, but of scientific ethics in general.

I think by calling someone's error out as "maternal instinct" instead of arguing against it rationally, you have become the very caricature that makes their argument more valid.

Amazing. E pur si muove.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com