[wongarsu]

Also a "climate alarmist". There is a band of climate science you can freely publish without reputational damage, but don't go over or under it.

But that's probably nothing compared to the narrow band of tolerable science when it comes to questions of race or ethnicity. Anything that could be construed as people of some descent being "inferior" in any aspect is pretty risky to publish.

[brabel]

I've just watched a documentary on Netflix, "Three Identical Strangers" (SPOILER ALERT), about a 1960's to 1980's study about identical twins/triplets separated at birth and who grew up in intentionally distinct conditions (of the triplets, one grew up in a blue collar family, one in middle class, and one in a upper class family, all with an older sibling in the family as a sort of "control").

Apparently, the study ran for decades, but the results were never published... it's unclear why but it seems plausible to me that, aside from the ethical concerns, the study came to uncomfortable conclusions about the polemic "nature VS nurture" debate. Initially, they show how all siblings in the study, despite the intentionally very different environments, all came to like and do the exact same things... but later in the documentary, it also shows there were differences enough that the similarities were only superficial (in what I can't see as anything other than trying to appease the "nurture" crowd - as there seems to be no justification for that, as much as I tried to find it in what was shown).

The documentary also mentions the study may even actually have been about the influence of different parenting styles on the children, or even about mental illness, given many of the participants in the study had biological parents who may have been mentally ill (who the hell would give up their children if they didn't have some serious mental issues?!), which again seems to point at trying to divert from the study findings in my opinion.

The documentary is a little sensationalistic as it tries to outrage the viewers instead of trying to understand the actual circumstances of the study (siblings were always separated at birth at the time in most adoption agencies, apparently, that was not the fault of the study), which is a pity but understandable as that makes for better entertainment which is what Netflix really needs for its viewers to be happy, but still it's well worth a watch.

These articles talk a little bit about the controversies:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2208369-three-identical...

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/nov/11/nature-or-nu...

[Anotheroneagain]

>uncomfortable conclusions about the polemic "nature VS nurture" debate

These always seem to miss the effect of nutrition (and other) in the womb, which is massive. You need nonidentical twins as controls.

[EnigmaFlare]

There's a dirty fashion in climate science to include political activism or call to action in their papers. Especially if they've found something that shows good news about climate change. They qualify it with "... but we must all make an effort to reduce fossil fuel use".

I used to teach science and would tell students not to give life advice to the reader, because that's what we were supposed to teach them. But then all these climate change papers started doing just that. It's equivalent of ancient mathematicians saying "glory to the king" in their work and reveals that the authors are bound by a conflict of interest and can't be expected to do honest work.

I recently read one about childhood safety, and they said that following the government's safety rules was important, while also defining their own idea of what kinds of safety are valuable or harmful. If the government already knows better than you, why are you even researching this? It's obviously just some effort to pressure people into not making their own dangerous decisions. But again, that's not science, that's activism and non-objective.

[dmbche]

You got some of those edgy papers near? I keep hearing things like this, but at every turn the science being published is hot trash.

[EnigmaFlare]

You're probably not searching with a genuine effort to find the good ones.

There's the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. The authors found a politically incorrect result and tried to cover it up by inventing a new hypothesis (which they hadn't tested) after they'd collected their data.

I also read a fairly comprehensive secondary research paper trying to support the no-biological-differences theory and when it came to Ashkenazi Jews, they admitted the only plausible explanation was genetic superiority.

This is an area where the science all points in one direction but popular opinion is in the other direction. People don't look at the research. Probably because they don't want to understand, they just want to spread their political ideology. Nobody, as far as I know, has ever shown that no races are inferior.

[defrost]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption...

where the bulk of scientists agreed in various ways that the confounding problems made it exceedingly implausible that differences were either entirely genetically based or entirely environmentally based?

> This is an area where the science all points in one direction but popular opinion is in the other direction.

Or maybe an area where the science is inconclusive but personal opinion shades the reading and subsequent presentation?

[EnigmaFlare]

> exceedingly implausible that differences were [...] or entirely environmentally based

"entirely environmentally based" is the popular and un-scientific belief that I disagree with. So you agree with me?

[dmbche]

What's the conclusion everyone is missing?

I'm sure you know how unscientific IQ tests are, I'm surprised that's what you're bringing up here as being "good science" being shut down politically. Just trying to correlatw the two tests they used is absolutely subjective, I would take a step back and reexamine the parts of those studies that convinced you of whatever beliefs you have - it seems like a shoddy foundation.

[EnigmaFlare]

IQ test have genuine predictive power when applied to large groups. So no, they're not unscientific. In fact, the idea of IQ tests being useless or culturally biased is a now-outdated excuse that people used to use to justify the different results between ethic groups. It's now well accepted that different ethnic groups have different average IQs, and that IQ is a useful predictor of various life outcomes. What the politically-motivated researchers don't agree on is whether that's entirely environmental or partly genetic. Everyone agrees that it's at least partly environmental.

There's honestly no evidence for the environmental-only theory of intelligence. That's the popular politically correct belief but every study I've ever seen or heard of either fails to support it or supports the opposite.

[pasabagi]

In general the thing people find obnoxious about this kind of argument is that both 'race' and 'IQ' have their origin in eugenics, but are meaningless in genetics. The genetic variation across one race (say black) is much greater than the variation between races. There are no well-established genetic predictors of IQ. So, even if you do find evidence that there is a statistical correlation between these two unscientific and essentially meaningless concepts, your correlation is equally unscientific and meaningless.

[tdba]

> There are no well-established genetic predictors of IQ

Common misconception, sadly untrue. There are known genetic predictors of intelligence, they're just not simple genes that the layman can wrap his head around.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg.2017.104

[Vecr]

Can't you train a predictor on skull shape/bone length and IQ and go from there? Yeah there's no causation there, but you should be able to give a percentage that someone's IQ is above a certain number depending on high-rez MRI scan input of skull and bone length measurements.

[EnigmaFlare]

Finding evidence to be obnoxious because of political associations is anti-science. You could make a moral argument that humans shouldn't be allowed to know certain things because we can't be trusted with that knowledge, but that's separate from trying to understand reality.

> The genetic variation across one race (say black) is much greater than the variation between races.

Why did you say that? Are you implying that there must be a wider range of IQs among various ethnicities within a race than between races? That's not a logical conclusion. Do you have some other chain of logic in mind?

By the way, I only use the word race loosely. I really mean ethnicity. Although the findings do still broadly apply to the classic 3-ish races.

[te_chris]

This guy clearly is just trying to bang on about racial superiority but coaxing it in terms of "they won't let us say the thing". Your response neatly shuts him down. Well done.

[biorach]

Thank you