How Stifling Debate Around Race, Genes and IQ Can Do Harm

[Anonymous No.10858191]

It is often asserted that, when it comes to taboo topics like race, genes and IQ, scholars should be held to higher evidentiary standards or even censored entirely because of the harm that might result if their findings became widely known. There is held to be an asymmetry whereby the societal costs of discussing certain topics inevitably outweigh any benefits from doing so. This paper argues that no such asymmetry has been empirically demonstrated, and that stifling debate around taboo topics can itself do active harm. To the extent that the paper’s argument has force, it cannot simply be taken for granted that, when in doubt, stifling debate around taboo topics is the ethical thing to do.

To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker

––Frederick Douglas, 1860, A Plea for Free Speech in Boston

Carl, N. Evolutionary Psychological Science (2018) 4: 399.

[Anonymous No.10858194]

>>10858191
In the end, I just don't care.

[Anonymous No.10858198]

It is often asserted that, when it comes to taboo topics like race, genes and IQ, scholars should be held to higher evidentiary standards or even censored entirely because of the harm that could result if their findings became widely known (see Pinker 2002, Ch. 6; Gottfredson, 2010; Cofnas, 2016). There is held to be an asymmetry whereby the societal costs of discussing certain topics inevitably outweigh any benefits from doing so. For example, Kitcher (1985) writes,

Everybody ought to agree that, given sufficient evidence for some hypothesis about humans, we should accept that hypothesis whatever its political implications. But the question of what counts as sufficient evidence is not independent of the political consequences. If the costs of being wrong are sufficiently high, then it is reasonable and responsible to ask for more evidence than is demanded in situations where mistakes are relatively innocuous

Likewise, Block and Dworkin (1974) write,1

We are not... saying that at all times or in all places investigation of racial genotypic differences in IQ scores should stop. What we are saying is that at this time, in this country, in this political climate, individual scientists should voluntarily refrain from the investigation of genotypic racial differences in performance on IQ tests

More recently, Gillborn (2016) writes,

We need to move to a position where all research on human capabilities (whether involving genetics or not) is predicated on a clear statement that any assertion of fixed and inevitable inequalities in ability/intelligence between racial/ethnic groups is, by its nature, racist

Kourany (2016) goes further, calling for the creation of “a new National Science Advisory Board for Social Research” that would impose “tighter restrictions on race- and gender-related cognitive differences research”. Her contention being that “scientists’ right to freedom of research cannot

[Anonymous No.10858202]

be allowed to subvert other people’s rights”, in this case their “right to equality”.

The belief that stifling debate around race, genes and IQ is necessary to prevent harm has led to scholars being mischaracterised, censored and even physically attacked. Numerous examples can be found in Pinker (2002; Ch. 6), Nyborg (2011), Winegard and Winegard (2015) and Warne et al. (2018). Let us consider just a few. Following the publication of his book Sociobiology, which applied concepts from evolutionary biology to human social behaviour, E.O. Wilson was accused of attempting to justify genocide by fellow academics and was subjected to a campaign of harassment by irate student activists; defamatory leaflets were handed out, his lectures were invaded and he was even doused with a jug of water (Pinker, 2002). After publishing an article in The Harvard Educational Review arguing that efforts to boost children’s IQs and scholastic achievement were limited by their genetic endowments, Arthur Jensen was roundly denounced as a fascist, racist and elitist. In the months that followed, he was unable to open his mail, had to be escorted around the Berkeley campus by bodyguards and was eventually forced to move house (Nyborg, 2011). When Charles Murray co-authored his book The Bell Curve (with Richard Herrnstein), which discussed studies of race differences in IQ, he was excoriated for supposedly trying to demonstrate that blacks were genetically inferior to whites (Winegard and Winegard 2015). Twenty-three years later, Murray was invited to give a talk at Middlebury College about an unrelated book. Soon after the talk began, he was shouted down by a jeering mob of students, so the discussion was moved to another site and broadcast via live stream. Once the discussion had finished, Murray and his interviewer Alison Stanger (a liberal Democrat who disagreed with Murray) were accosted by a group of students. As Stanger (2017) recounts,

[Anonymous No.10858209]

Most of the hatred was focused on Dr Murray, but when I took his right arm to shield him and to make sure we stayed together, the crowd turned on me. Someone pulled my hair, while others were shoving me. I feared for my life. Once we got into the car, protesters climbed on it, hitting the windows and rocking the vehicle whenever we stopped to avoid harming them. I am still wearing a neck brace, and spent a week in a dark room to recover from a concussion caused by the whiplash

The foregoing examples illustrate the violent lengths to which some people will go to in order to stifle debate around race, genes and IQ. Why does this area of research incite such vitriolic indignation? A likely reason, as Winegard and Winegard (2015) argue, is that for a large number of academics in the West, the notion of biological sameness between groups (classes, sexes, races) has become what Tetlock (2003) calls a ‘sacred value’ (and see Ginges et al., 2007).2 Sacred values possess at least two important properties. First, they are incommensurable with respect to instrumental values: no amount of a sacred value can be traded off for any amount of an instrumental value. And second, proposals to accept such trade-offs are met not merely with rejection, but with moral outrage. Because arguments such as Wilson’s, Jensen’s and Murray’s clearly threaten the sacred value of biological sameness between groups, it is not enough simply to attack the arguments; the defenders of those arguments must be hounded, and their characters impeached.

[Anonymous No.10858215]

Furthermore, there is a large body of research in psychology showing that people are quite bad at objectively appraising risk (Kahneman, 2011, Ch. 13). For example, we tend to be more afraid of snakes, spiders and large carnivores than of loaded guns, faulty electrical wires and driving without a seatbelt (Pinker, 1997, Ch. 6.) One particularly important source of error is the ‘affect heuristic’, whereby people judge things to have worse consequences if their mental images of those things are imbued with more negative emotional content. As Slovic et al. (2007) note, “activities associated with cancer are seen as riskier and more in need of regulation than activities associated with less dreaded forms of illness, injury, and death (e.g., accidents)”. The existence of the ‘affect heuristic’ should give us pause before concluding that the degree of moral outrage associated with a phenomenon constitutes a good measure of how much risk that phenomenon actually poses to society.

Although a great many areas of science (e.g., the germ theory of disease, the chemistry of particulates, the psychology of manipulation) are open to misuse, there are few if anywhere the putative asymmetry between societal costs and scientific or other benefits is held to be as great as in the area of race, genes and IQ. Of course, the main concern among commentators who subscribe to this asymmetry is that evidence of a genetic contribution to IQ differences between human populations would be used by racists to justify oppression or exploitation of populations with lower average IQs. For example, if it were found that the difference in mean IQ between European Americans and African Americans is partly genetic, the difference would be in some sense fixed, and the worry is that racists would then have a justification for oppressing or exploiting African Americans. It goes without saying that this concern should be taken seriously; the possibility of an asymmetry between the costs and

[Anonymous No.10858219]

and benefits of discussing race, genes and IQ is not one that should be dismissed out of hand.

However, this paper argues that no such asymmetry has been empirically demonstrated, and that stifling debate around taboo topics can itself do active harm.3 To the extent that the paper’s argument has force, it cannot simply be taken for granted that, when in doubt, stifling debate around taboo topics is the ethical thing to do. The paper makes three main claims: first, that equating particular scientific statements with racism effectively holds our morals hostage to the facts; second, that the ‘blank slate’ view of human nature also has pernicious moral implications; and third, that there are clear examples of where stifling debate has done material harm to both individuals and societal institutions.

[Anonymous No.10859883]

maybe if we could accept these debates publicly we could do something about active dysgenic forces in our society?

[Anonymous No.10859895]

>another IQ thread

[Anonymous No.10859898]

>>10858209
Sad how much of /sci/ is pro-censorship and even pro-violently assaulting women who regardless of their own beliefs happen to be in the vicinity of someone doing wrongthink.

[Anonymous No.10859903]

>>10858191
guys please, science should care about feelings.

[Anonymous No.10859920]

>>10859898
how is /sci/ pro-censorship?

[Anonymous No.10859921]

>>10859895
>another "another IQ thread" post

[Anonymous No.10859923]

>>10859883
maybe we could

[Anonymous No.10859928]

>>10859923
Africa is going to have a bunch of famines in the coming decades, if everyone just ignores them for long enough the problem will mostly solve itself.

[Anonymous No.10859936]

>>10859923

[Anonymous No.10860003]

>>10859920
/pol/tards are brain-dead. They constantly post shit but think that proving them wrong and calling them idiots for their spam and retarded beliefs is censorship.
No idea about the "assaulting women" part, maybe some desperate attempt at getting attention since /sci/ keeps making fun of them.

[Anonymous No.10860274]

>>10859920
mods regularly delete race/iq threads

[Anonymous No.10861182]

>>10860003
>They constantly post shit but think that proving them wrong
when did this happen? post the proof

[Anonymous No.10861365]

>>10859923
>wah Africans bad because black skin

[Anonymous No.10861370]

>>10860274
Because there's often very little real science and instead a lot of racist people showing us how much mental gymnastics they can show to prove that their beliefs aren't just racist, which they inevitably are

[Anonymous No.10861413]

>>10861365
no, ``Africans bad`` because they machete up infants to cure their rampant AIDS

[Anonymous No.10861436]

>>10861370
What does it mean to be racist?

[Anonymous No.10861443]

Nobody gives a fuck you chinless phaggot

[Anonymous No.10861478]

>>10859883
We all implicitly know the problems in our society but no one would like to admit it. Blacks have a high rate of born out of wedlock, high crime rates and almost no interest in education. Mexicans and other south Americans dont integrate hen they come to the US in large swaths.

[Anonymous No.10861485]

>>10861436
Racism is denigrating someone for the way they look. Racialism is believing in racial differences which isn't racist.

[Anonymous No.10861486]

>>10861436
>What does it mean to be racist
Whatever is convenient for the person using the term. Prove me wrong, bet you can't.

[Anonymous No.10861490]

everyone knows, everyone, from whites to non whites everyone knows

everyone making pretend not to know is just them flexing on you and humiliating you

[Anonymous No.10861496]

>>10861486
You can use word nigger in public and then get mobbed for it.
If a black person is near you while saying word nigger, he may assault you & if you turn to court - he will be judged as 'Not guilty', since you are a racist fuck for calling him a nigger.

[Anonymous No.10861499]

>>10861496
no shit

negros are the most coddled people in the history of humanity you can't even look at them funny without going to prison

[Anonymous No.10861515]

>>10861436
you regularly attend point to points and steeple chases

[Anonymous No.10861521]

whatever you skin colour cranial morphology or underlying genetic clustering.
you're all just a super faggot a bundle of faggots.

[Anonymous No.10861532]

>>10861496
>If a black person is near you while saying word nigger, he may assault you & if you turn to court - he will be judged as 'Not guilty'
Uh, completely wrong you plebbit moron, that's not how the law works.

[Anonymous No.10861584]

>>10861532
>that's not how the law works
Are you fucking underage?

[Anonymous No.10861591]

>>10861584
saying nigger is not illegal. assault is. that is the law. real courts aren't twitter court.

[Anonymous No.10861666]

>>10861591
>real courts aren't twitter court
>real courts
Okay I'll bait, depends on where you are from, but lets say you smack someone in the face and get in so much trouble that escalates to a court case, there are many IF's depending on circumstances. Was it self defense? Was it some sort of provocation involving slander or the like & et cetera. All these different variables can be spun further into some other bullshit and so forth. Not to mention it depends on how jury sees it or who are the witnesses and how they perceived it.
The law rarely functions in a form: IF you do A THEN B happens & I'm confused whether you are so clueless or just fucking trolling.

[Anonymous No.10861678]

>>10861436
To have no respect for and show discriminatory behavior towards people just because of the colour of their skin

[Anonymous No.10861717]

>>10861182
Are you new ? we have multiple threads about this shit daily. Go to any of them. Or stop larping.

[Anonymous No.10861784]

>>10861370
>there is censorship but it's okay because excuses

[Anonymous No.10861789]

>>10858194
Niether do I, other than select a high IQ mate ofc. fuck the world tho. elites' IQ will rise making it easier to control the drooling masses. i might even publicly censor myself for the SJWs, if they get any real influence, which is unlikely.

[Anonymous No.10861794]

>>10861717
If there aren't any IQ threads up, is it really /sci/?

[Anonymous No.10861811]

>>10861666
holy shit, take your fucking meds, guy. And by meds I mean hormones, tranny.

>lets say you smack someone in the face
let's not, because who cares

>there are many IF's depending on circumstances
no shit.

>Was it self defense?
someone calling you a nigger is not a grounds for a self-defense claim

>All these different variables can be spun further into some other bullshit and so forth.
Stunning analysis. You must be a member of the bar

>The law rarely functions in a form: IF you do A THEN B happens
If you have not violated a law then it is impossible to be charged with the breaking of a law. Calling someone a nigger by itself is not against the law nor is it an action which would justify someone else breaking a law like those against physical assault. Nowhere. Never. Ever.

[Anonymous No.10861821]

>>10861717
there's a few up now but i'm not seeing anything. where's the proof?

[Anonymous No.10861834]

>>10861811
Who's point or what exactly are you arguing at this point?
Summer is almost over, so start to get ready for highschool, faggot, will ya?

[Anonymous No.10861840]

>>10861834
Learn to read you retarded shit-brained mongrel. The fact that you're out of school and this moronic is pathetic.

>Calling someone a nigger is not against the law
>Assault someone is against the law, even if they called you a nigger
>re: >>10861496

[Anonymous No.10861847]

>>10861840
>Learn to read
That's my line.