Hacker News Reader

Comment by dx87 | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

> "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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com