Hacker News Reader

Comment by markdown | Hacker News Reader

> What is there to fear but an observation and the data it’s based on?

There is everything to fear. This is one issue for which a definitive answer (if not the correct one) could be catastrophically damaging to relations between humans forever.

In this matter, ignorance is bliss.

View on HN

I disagree. A group’s lack of emotional fortitude is inhibiting the search for truth and progress as a species. Life is unfair, full stop. I’m unsure how learning it’s genetic changes the situation. If anything, it gives us a better understanding about how to approach the situation.

The ignorant may keep the bliss. We are not served by putting our heads in the sand for the sake of political correctness.

One thing to keep in mind, is whether the difference is big enough to matter. I used to think the same as you, then I talked to my wife about a study I'd read that said the top end of male IQ is higher than the top end of female IQ, even if they are the same on average. She pointed out how even though there is a difference at the top end, it's not significant enough to matter (which is true). So there is no upside to publishing the research, but there is a definite downside of sexists/racists using the research to say "See, X is genetically inferior to us, that's why we shouldn't treat them the same". I don't think any particluar research should be banned, but the researchers should have the moral integrity to think about the impact of their research.

> "See, X is genetically inferior to us, that's why we shouldn't treat them the same".

Hiding science is not the way you attack bigots; you attack their immoral views directly.

My partner and I used IVF to have our first child. We had several fertilized embryos result. We were given the option of DNA sequencing and implanting embryos that met our genetic criteria. We didn't opt for it, but if we decide to have additional children and the data showed we could select for traits that were important to us (intelligence, height, athletically predisposed), I would absolutely opt for it. You want the best for your children (in my experience), and this is yet another selector in life to give them every advantage.

So, I do keep these things in mind. This research is going to occur (if not in the US, likely China), regardless of the uncomfortable feelings of vocal opponents. Get comfortable or get left behind.

> if we decide to have additional children and the data showed we could select for traits that were important to us (intelligence, height, athletically predisposed), I would absolutely opt for it. You want the best for your children (in my experience), and this is yet another selector in life to give them every advantage.

Gwern has a nice article on embryo selection: [0] I think the summary is "it has moderate-to-large effects, and might be worth the money today, and almost certainly will be worth the money in ten years".

0: https://www.gwern.net/Embryo-selection

This was along the lines of thought for which Dr Hsu was accused of being okay with removing disabled people from human expression through a eugenics program.

Why is it wrong to want to remove disabilities from the genetic corpus of the human species? This is no different then wanting to cure any debilitating genetic condition [1] using gene therapy.

You treat existing humans with the utmost of respect, but you also target maladies so future humans have better quality of life (including a lack of disabilities).

[1] https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/browse-by-first-l...

> Get comfortable or get left behind.

Yes. I understand the fear and loathing some people feel, but I've been watching this research area for the past decade or so — it might move around, but it's not being shut down.

Differences at the top (and indeed bottom) end of the curve are important, because they might explain differences in achievement in certain professions. There was a recent case with an Italian physicist from CERN getting in trouble for using that very argument (if the IQ curve for men is broader, this would explain why there are more men than women at the top of that profession).

I note that we don't have issues with men being over-represented on the other side of the curve (mental issues, violence, etc.) We're not calling the police "systematically sexist" despite the fact that most of the police shooting victims are men, for example. There is no call to have gender equality in prisons or mental hospitals.

No one is against learning. There is a difference between an academic dispassionately studying the subject and a man trying to harm other people by saying stuff like this[1]. What the academics must not do is give their credibility to such people.

[1]: https://i.redd.it/cc8wtw97vo931.jpg

I would be just as upset if a smallpox researcher agreed to be interviewed by someone interested in reintroducing smallpox to the public, and seeing the researcher giving them the scientifically accurate information about how to do it.

How do you feel about security researchers who publicly disclose security vulnerabilities?

> There is a difference between an academic dispassionately studying the subject and a man trying to harm other people by saying stuff like this

There is indeed such a difference. Some clarifications:

(1) That's not Hsu.

(2) That's not an academic.

(3) You're not in a position to divine whether or not there was intent to harm in that tweet (re. "trying to harm").

(4) It's a safe bet that no one was harmed by that tweet.

(5) For cognitive democracy[1] to work in a free society, the possibility of marginally hurting someone's feelings can't be grounds to silence people.

[1]: https://crookedtimber.org/2012/05/23/cognitive-democracy/

Um, what? We don't have enough data to confirm or deny the existence of average group differences between major races, but we have pretty good data to be able to eliminate large differences. Even Ashkenazi Jews, who are supposed to have average IQ 1 standard deviation above the mean, aren't a superrace - sure, they are overrepresented amongst Nobel laureates, but many of them are still stupid.

Basically, a small +-5 IQ point difference doesn't change the big picture that much - still most people between 80 and 120, and some outliers below and above that.

From what I can tell, ignorance is really only bliss for the privileged. When refusing to study the mechanics underlying a disadvantage, we are condemning those on the wrong side of that disadvantage to suffer indefinitely...

LOL, how do you propose to fix the genes of a group if indeed it is found that their genes are the cause of their circumstances?

You have it backwards. The privileged are losing their privileges, and desperately seeking to find ways to justify why they should remain privileged. It is these people who desire to find evidence that proves their existing deeply-held belief that they're special, because "god" made them so and that others are genetically inferior.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com