It is should be obvious to anyone paying attention that a massive amount of horrific crimes were tolerated because of anti-racist ideology (the UK grooming gangs scandal being a prominent example). That is where the real harm is coming from. Censoring information made this possible, and that is what is abhorrent.
Its evident that particular biases try to close off avenues of research that might be politically and ideologically unpalatable. You ara absolutely correct in the criticisms you field against the arguments, as they appear to be spurious and drive at their outcomes with a determined political end. It is sad to see however how that expands and weakens academic research.
Genetic research is only harmful to those “scientists” who are trying to defend ideologies that claim genetics have little or no impact on human behavior, attitudes or outcomes.
If those persons really thought that they were correct in this assumption, then they would welcome genetic research. In other words, they know that they are incorrect, and they do not care. For them the ideological narrative is more important than the truth or science.
Blaming an individual's genetics for their poor performance is abhorrent but blaming other people (the environment) for that individual's poor performance is good?
There is a great deal of shoddy research done in service of promoting the systemic racism narrative, much of which amounts to literal blood libel, such as the 2020 study which concluded, on the basis of a poorly-controlled regression, that being cared for by a white doctor doubled the neonatal mortality of black infants. Are the authors of this paper equally concerned with this research?
The admixture of European genetics among African American descendants of American slaves is an interesting topic. Who were these "Europeans"? I would assume a great many of them were actual slaveholders who raped their African women slaves. They must have a genetic propensity for such crimes.
In any event, they were committing the moral crime of holding slaves, and if there is a genetic component to that, then, well, of course they had it, and passed it on, no?
These men were, moreover, largely the kind of men who could father children off a slave and then hold such children as slaves themselves. In other words, they were by some standards close to the very worst father a child could have. They were not only criminals, they were criminal rapists and psychopaths.
This was also the ruling class of the South, thought we must keep in mind that it was in fact a small minority of Southerners.
Many of this genetic type must have been killed off in the US Civil War, which is, genetically speaking, a blessing for subsequent generations.
I'm no anthropologist, but it seems fairly evident that a hypergamous tendency is widespread among females of the species, from which it could be inferred that most of those sexual liaisons were consensual.
That whole argument can be turned on its head. Since anti-hereditarian beliefs such as communism have caused immense suffering and deaths, any research into the role of nurture should be forever banned.
Direct and substantial harm is currently being done to Asian Americans by the un-evidenced *rejection* of hereditarianism. The possibility that high rates of admittance to leading universities and medical schools might simply be in line with expectations, given their abilities, is rejected out of hand, and so are many of their applications. The potential for negating this wrong currently being done to a minority group is just one example of why research in this area could have “value”.
Presumably anthropologists who examine cranial size of early hominids and use that as a proxy for intelligence are also doing 'abhorrent' research.
Do the environmentalists actually know what racism is based on? Racists very rarely base racism on IQ differences. Racist attitudes are almost always based on perceiving other cultures as vastly inferior to 'white' culture.
Noah, thanks for your efforts to successively support hereditism. You are using science...they are using emotions. You will never change their minds...they are locked in denial.
"The authors devise a “value-harm map” for classifying scientific research. The map has two dimensions: value (e.g., scientific value) and harm. So research can vary in terms of how valuable it is and in terms of how much harm it poses. The authors use “abhorrent” to describe research that has little value and poses significant harm. And they assert that “genomic race science” constitutes an example of such research. In fact, they go as far as to say that “its abhorrent nature warrants moral disgust”."
The authors are asserting their opinion to abrogate the right to truth. There is always the chance that people of low integrity can use science for evil purposes. The onus is on the perpetrator, not the means.
It is should be obvious to anyone paying attention that a massive amount of horrific crimes were tolerated because of anti-racist ideology (the UK grooming gangs scandal being a prominent example). That is where the real harm is coming from. Censoring information made this possible, and that is what is abhorrent.
Its evident that particular biases try to close off avenues of research that might be politically and ideologically unpalatable. You ara absolutely correct in the criticisms you field against the arguments, as they appear to be spurious and drive at their outcomes with a determined political end. It is sad to see however how that expands and weakens academic research.
Genetic research is only harmful to those “scientists” who are trying to defend ideologies that claim genetics have little or no impact on human behavior, attitudes or outcomes.
If those persons really thought that they were correct in this assumption, then they would welcome genetic research. In other words, they know that they are incorrect, and they do not care. For them the ideological narrative is more important than the truth or science.
I call the liberal belief that all groups are born with the same latent IQ potential “liberal creationism.”
Blaming an individual's genetics for their poor performance is abhorrent but blaming other people (the environment) for that individual's poor performance is good?
There is a great deal of shoddy research done in service of promoting the systemic racism narrative, much of which amounts to literal blood libel, such as the 2020 study which concluded, on the basis of a poorly-controlled regression, that being cared for by a white doctor doubled the neonatal mortality of black infants. Are the authors of this paper equally concerned with this research?
The admixture of European genetics among African American descendants of American slaves is an interesting topic. Who were these "Europeans"? I would assume a great many of them were actual slaveholders who raped their African women slaves. They must have a genetic propensity for such crimes.
In any event, they were committing the moral crime of holding slaves, and if there is a genetic component to that, then, well, of course they had it, and passed it on, no?
These men were, moreover, largely the kind of men who could father children off a slave and then hold such children as slaves themselves. In other words, they were by some standards close to the very worst father a child could have. They were not only criminals, they were criminal rapists and psychopaths.
This was also the ruling class of the South, thought we must keep in mind that it was in fact a small minority of Southerners.
Many of this genetic type must have been killed off in the US Civil War, which is, genetically speaking, a blessing for subsequent generations.
I'm no anthropologist, but it seems fairly evident that a hypergamous tendency is widespread among females of the species, from which it could be inferred that most of those sexual liaisons were consensual.
That whole argument can be turned on its head. Since anti-hereditarian beliefs such as communism have caused immense suffering and deaths, any research into the role of nurture should be forever banned.
Direct and substantial harm is currently being done to Asian Americans by the un-evidenced *rejection* of hereditarianism. The possibility that high rates of admittance to leading universities and medical schools might simply be in line with expectations, given their abilities, is rejected out of hand, and so are many of their applications. The potential for negating this wrong currently being done to a minority group is just one example of why research in this area could have “value”.
There is tremendous societal harm from surrendering to wokeism.
Presumably anthropologists who examine cranial size of early hominids and use that as a proxy for intelligence are also doing 'abhorrent' research.
Do the environmentalists actually know what racism is based on? Racists very rarely base racism on IQ differences. Racist attitudes are almost always based on perceiving other cultures as vastly inferior to 'white' culture.
"Racist attitudes are almost always based on perceiving other cultures as vastly inferior to 'white' culture."
Your comment implies only white people are racist.
Noah, thanks for your efforts to successively support hereditism. You are using science...they are using emotions. You will never change their minds...they are locked in denial.
"The authors devise a “value-harm map” for classifying scientific research. The map has two dimensions: value (e.g., scientific value) and harm. So research can vary in terms of how valuable it is and in terms of how much harm it poses. The authors use “abhorrent” to describe research that has little value and poses significant harm. And they assert that “genomic race science” constitutes an example of such research. In fact, they go as far as to say that “its abhorrent nature warrants moral disgust”."
The authors are asserting their opinion to abrogate the right to truth. There is always the chance that people of low integrity can use science for evil purposes. The onus is on the perpetrator, not the means.
Turkheimer doesn't deserve a response. He is a deliberate liar.