News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:What Rosalind Franklin truly contributed to the discovery... by underlipton on Tuesday April 25, 2023 @09:00PM (#35708628)
>There's also a ton of evidence that IQ is heritable and largely determined by genetics.

Correlated, within populations. Race, intelligence, and genetics are emotionally-charged topics because the historical and socially-prevalent assumption of white superiority threatens to be upended by the prospect of there simply being no real notional space where all three exist as rational neighbors.

Re:What Rosalind Franklin truly contributed to the discovery... by lolinder on Tuesday April 25, 2023 @09:31PM (#35708801)
No, it's the people who insist that IQ must be the sole example of a physiological characteristic that has no genetic component who feel threatened by the science.

To be clear, I fiercely oppose racism in all forms, but the battle should be up against the idea that there's some inherent value in IQ scores, not against the idea that genes play a role in the scores.

Re:What Rosalind Franklin truly contributed to the discovery... by jojobas on Tuesday April 25, 2023 @10:12PM (#35709023)
Would you rather go to a 150 IQ doctor or a 90 one? Why?
Re:What Rosalind Franklin truly contributed to the discovery... by lolinder on Tuesday April 25, 2023 @10:27PM (#35709094)
I would rather ask more questions before deciding on my doctor.

How well do they listen to me? Are they willing to give me time, or do they treat their patients as an assembly line? Do they continue to read up on new research, or are they relying on their 30-year-old med school degree? Are they someone that I'd be comfortable talking to about very personal matters?

None of these questions have anything to do with IQ, and I frankly have a hard time thinking of an IQ-related question that would matter to me in selecting a doctor.

Re:What Rosalind Franklin truly contributed to the discovery... by jojobas on Wednesday April 26, 2023 @12:32AM (#35709660)
Imagine all you know is their IQ and don't deflect.

>None of these questions have anything to do with IQ

They do, big time. Knowing their IQ allows to make a very good guess on who reads more, who would listen and, in general, do their job better.

Re:What Rosalind Franklin truly contributed to the discovery... by notsosec on Wednesday April 26, 2023 @01:26AM (#35709890)
Let's make the question more tricky. All you know are two things: * One doctor is white, one doctor is black * One of them has IQ 90, the other has IQ 150

You are allowed to choose based on this information only.

(I am what many people would call an "alt righter" and I would choose the doctor with IQ 150). I'm curious how other demographics would answer (white liberals, etc.)

Re:What Rosalind Franklin truly contributed to the discovery... by underlipton on Tuesday April 25, 2023 @10:28PM (#35709098)
IQ isn't a physiological characteristic. It's a measure of intelligence, which is itself a phenomenon that rests on top of cognition, which rests on top of consciousness, which somehow (we're not sure how) rests on top of the physiology of the nervous system. There may well be a genetic component to that physiology, but it's an unscientific assumption that that component is the deciding factor in race-level differences in measures of IQ. It's also not the sole example to commonly fall to this fallacy. Polygenic traits are not so simple.
Re:What Rosalind Franklin truly contributed to the discovery... by lolinder on Tuesday April 25, 2023 @10:38PM (#35709151)
> IQ isn't a physiological characteristic. It's a measure of intelligence, which is itself a phenomenon that rests on top of cognition, which rests on top of consciousness, which somehow (we're not sure how) rests on top of the physiology of the nervous system.

So... it's fundamentally physiological. We just don't know the details of how the physiology gives rise to conscious thought.

> that component is the deciding factor in race-level differences in measures of IQ

I never said that it's the deciding factor and most people don't. What irks me is when people discount it as being a factor at all. Everything in biology is a complex interaction of genetics and environment, and IQ is no different.

> IQ isn't a physiological characteristic. It's a measure of intelligence

See, this is exactly my point—your line of argument does more to support racist claims than it does to dethrone them. You're arguing a position that cannot be seriously defended while giving credence to a claim that is fundamentally flawed. The idea that there is some discrete quantity called "intelligence" that can be measured by a test and that causes some people to be more successful than others is a far more vulnerable position to attack than the idea that our consciousness is influenced by our physiology, and I'm not sure why you picked that windmill to tilt at.

Re:What Rosalind Franklin truly contributed to the discovery... by WillPostForFood on Tuesday April 25, 2023 @11:18PM (#35709345)
the battle should be up against the idea that there's some inherent value in IQ scores

IQ is a predictor of academic achievement, job performance, income, health, and inversely correlates with criminal behavior. But if only we could find some value in it!