It would be different if he came out now and said "here are the things I said then, here's why I said them, and here are the reasons those were problematic and wrong; I no longer align myself with those views." But instead, he dug in his heels saying that this comes down to suppressing scientific inquiry for ... not buying into eugenics.
It’s a valid research subject, and like all research subjects, it could be wrong.
If people think some questions are too dangerous to ask, just admit that and be honest. Instead of just calling it problematic because it’s a potentially uncomfortable subject.
Not picking a side on this particular issue, but we're definitely seeing this kind of tactics unfold on multiple fronts.
If you want to ask these kinds of questions, you need to be sure that you can't be accused of a conflict of interest, Hsu's done, basically the exact opposite of that, and intentionally associated himself with some really uncomfortable people. That context has the consequence of throwing Hsu's motives into question as well.
There are multiple ways of operationalizing the notion of race. Some are prima facie invalid (usually these are used as straw men), some (as in the idpol/'woke' ideology's case) are incoherent and shallow but have political currency, and the rest are all valid within some range, conditional on context.
This is a great resource if you're interested:
https://www.amazon.com/What-Race-Four-Philosophical-Views/dp...
That is, race realism isn't "race exists", but that "black people have lower average IQs due mainly to genetics and so the status quo today is explained perfectly by genetic, and not environmental causes".
Such views are contradicted by most available evidence.
You are incorrect. If 'race realism' has taken on that meaning in some discursive communities, understand that there are other understandings of the term.
Race realism is a descriptive claim that race has some basis in reality. There are no inherent normative implications to race realism.
Again, see the link in the preceding. In particular I recommend Chapter 3: "How to be a biological racial realist", by Quayshawn Spencer
Id refer you to the order of the definitions. Race realism as used in the scientific community may have a different connotation and definition, and is perhaps the reason why racists adopted the term, but no I'm not at all incorrect here about how the term is understood when used in a layperson context by people who are informed about race discussion.
> If 'race realism' has taken on that meaning in some discursive communities, understand that there are other understandings of the term.
Please remember that I said "race realism" and not race realism. And understand that I'm not uninformed here.
To reiterate, I'm not saying that scientists who research race are racist, I'm saying that if you research race and aren't a racist, you need to be extra careful to make that clear. Otherwise, as a pragmatic point, you'll end up like Dr. Hsu even if you are simply naive, and as a moral point, your naiveté will be used by actual racists to help legitimize their standpoint. That's why they self describe as "race realists", so they can say "look we're just like these other scientists who are studying race".
If you don't want your work and your authority to be coopted by racists, you need to proactively prevent them from doing so. Hsu did exactly the opposite and gifted actual racists his position and legitimacy. That's a problem no matter what his personal beliefs are.
The first:
> Please remember that I said "race realism" and not race realism.
Here is what you said:
>> Race realism is, by definition an extremist view.
The second:
> And understand that I'm not uninformed here
That you have to assert that, and actually go the trouble of asserting it at all, suggests you're willingly choosing to be incompletely informed.
Between the both of these, you don't seem to be engaging in good faith — you're attempting to manipulate. You are justly ignored.
> because their research will be used by "race realists" to push forth their theories.
> suggests you're willingly choosing to be incompletely informed.
I cannot imagine what strange interpretation of the universe leads you to conclude that.
In the same sense of "hack" used in "Hacker News", sure, perhaps.
A pattern that's repeated itself multiple times in the history of science is mathematicians and theoretical physicists showing up in other fields and making groundbreaking discoveries that end up re-orienting the field.
It's not at all surprising that incumbents would object to the competition, fault the 'interlopers' for not working within accepted paradigms, or just not have the background to fully understand their projects in the first place.
Do you have real examples? These types of accusations are meaningless without real data. If they are real, I'd like to know the actual threats.
In which he downplays racial bias in police shootings: https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2020/06/re-post-joe-cesario-on...
In which he says lack of segregation is the reason for racial underperformance: https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2020/03/claude-steele-on-chall...
Interview with an open white supremacist, check: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux
It seems you don’t feel that’s an acceptable question to ask: is racial bias in police shooting real?
I’d call that a dangerous question to ask, and try to answer honestly, because it could get a person fired.
Secondly, he doesn't particularly discuss it with respect nor realism. However, let's assume for the sake of discussion that we have the same view on that.
What about the second and third ones?
Even more shockingly, you can interview with someone because they actually share some interest in what you research or do, and still not be in agreement with the interviewer's platform, as is the case in the linked interview.
Edit: removed section on 'misleading narratives' as, truthfully, I don't know enough about this specific case to comment much on it other than it has the hallmarks of a political hit job.
The science clearly shows there is not much bias, he did not downplay anything.
> lack of segregation is the reason for racial underperformance
Where?
> Interview with an open white supremacist
Lots of people interviewed with Molyneux, this doesn't prove anything.
I think this is pretty much corroborated by this scientific review in Slate star codex: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/25/race-and-justice-much-...
Let me fix your summaries:
> In which he downplays racial bias in police shootings
In which a guest on Hsu's podcast, psychologist Joe Cesario, presents in detail his research, some of which is experimental, demonstrating no racial bias in police shootings (not the case in police interactions in general though).
> In which he says lack of segregation is the reason for racial underperformance
In which a guest on Hsu's podcast, Claude Steele, a[n African American] social psychologist, discusses his research in detail and his [African American] co-host, Corey Washington, discusses his daughter's educational experience. (And in which no one suggests that racial segregation in education would be desirable.)
> Interview with an open white supremacist
Interview with a YouTube personality who's also had Noam Chomsky and Peter Boghossian on his show, e.g.:
It is? I still don't see one meaningful example, and you didn't give any either.
I don’t see anything wrong with trying to understanding genes enough to make embryo selections to improve offspring for example.
It's not. It's purely media manipulation over the past few years that has some people conditioned to reflexively associate "eugenic" with creeping Nazism.
Consider this, from 2005:
https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2005/06/02/...
Herman and Chomsky describe this dynamic well in Manufacturing Consent.