[jkr124]

Some people bring a cult-like mentality to the discussion of diversity and related issues. Dissent is not welcome, unpleasant facts and observations explained away often in contrived ways. Why is it so hard to imagine that maybe there are meaningful group variations within the human species?

[MartinCron]

Why is it so hard to imagine that maybe there are meaningful group variations within the human species?

The worst things humans have ever done to each other have all centered around the notion of "meaningful group variations within the human species". Without hard science, it's a scary and dangerous place.

[yummyfajitas]

I was under the impression that communism was centered around the notion that people are all equal and highly malleable, not that there were intrinsic and immutable differences between human groups.

But assuming you are actually referring to nationalists (who probably rank #2 on the list of "worst things humans have done to each other"), I'll just quote a blog post Bryan Caplan wrote today:

We've learned so much from human genetic research. But when I read Fisher, I understand why the subject terrifies so many people. Hereditarianism combined with inane, half-baked moral philosophy does indeed logically imply Nazi-style homicidal mania. But don't blame the facts of human genetics. Blame the inane, half-baked moral philosophy.

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/01/the_demented_pa....

[MartinCron]

Wasn't referring to nationalists specifically. I was thinking of the broad ranger range of things like slavery, genocide, segregation, apartheid, etc.

If you think that communism is worse, that's fine by me. It doesn't change the fact that history is littered with cautionary examples of group-based determinism gone terribly wrong. It's naive to pretend otherwise.

[yummyfajitas]

History is also littered with cautionary examples of [belief in] equality and malleability gone terribly wrong.

"Meaningful variations between groups" does not logically imply that concentration camps are good policy, just as a belief in equality does not imply that gulags are.

Supposing that Jews are only half as smart as Aryans, it doesn't imply that they should be killed. Similarly, if I'm twice as smart as my maid, it doesn't follow that I should murder her. In both cases, you need some intrinsic moral belief that killing is acceptable - and that's where the real problem lies.

Also, need I point out that you are employing the logical fallacy of "appeal to consequences"?

[MartinCron]

I'm not even sure what the argument is here. I gave an honest and legitimate reply to the question "Why is it so hard to imagine that maybe there are meaningful group variations within the human species?"

I'm not saying it should be so hard. If we had a greater understanding of differences, that would probably be great. But it is hard, and it helps to be honest about that.

[jkr124]

"The worst things humans have ever done to each other have all centered around the notion of 'meaningful group variations within the human species'."

That is an extremely strong statement to make without justification. It sounds like a forbidden knowledge-type of argument. Science should decide if there are statistically significant intergroup variations. But right now, that is strictly verboten by the type of arguments you just gave me. This strikes me as an echo of the resistance to understanding human evolution, but by a group that considers itself to be rational and scientific. It seems some people literally have taken the notion of universal human equality as a revealed truth in the religious sense. These people are hostile to inquiry into the matter because it would literally upset their entire worldview.

[queensnake]

To be fair, if the gates of acceptance of HBD (human biodiversity) were thrown open, people fear there would be a lot more social friction. And I think you're right about the worldview bit, too - people not being seen as quite equal would be a major change. Gah, I wish HBDers would discuss the repercussions of acceptance of HBD instead of just sniping from the sidelines (not meaning you, now), as the mainstream won't accept it until they're comfortable with the consequences.

[MartinCron]

That's why I said that without hard science it's a scary and dangerous place.

With hard science, you can do things like determine that some ethnic groups are more likely to develop particular kinds of illnesses or respond differently to some kinds of medications. That's great!

But looking at the status quo and saying "I guess women just aren't any good at this whole programming business" isn't hard science, it's ex-post-facto rationalization.

[philwills]

No, it's just saying that in the absence of any such evidence it's sensible to adopt the null hypothesis that there's no intrinsic difference and that you'd need very high level of confidence in such research before making policy based on it.