Why is research into Sex, Ethnicity (and Intelligence) so controversial?

1« Previous thread | Next thread »
- Descent
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Why is research into Sex, Ethnicity (and Intelligence) so controversial?
OP - October 01, 2014, 08:16 AM

This is pretty much sums up my view:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7231/pdf/457788a.pdf

Should Scientists study IQ and Ethnicity?

Yes

by Stephen Ceci and Wendy M. Williams,
Department of Human Development at Cornell University

Why do you think there is so much opposition towards it?
- Quod Sum Eris
- King of the
- Pub Regular
- offline
Why is research into Sex, Ethnicity (and Intelligence) so controversial?
Reply #1 - October 01, 2014, 09:42 AM

Probably the cultural memory of Nazism.

`But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
`Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.'
`How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
`You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
- yeezevee
- Pub Regular
- offline
Why is research into Sex, Ethnicity (and Intelligence) so controversial?
Reply #2 - October 01, 2014, 10:02 AM

Quote from: Descent on October 01, 2014, 08:16 AM
This is pretty much sums up my view:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7231/pdf/457788a.pdf

Should Scientists study IQ and Ethnicity?

Yes

by Stephen Ceci and Wendy M. Williams,
Department of Human Development at Cornell University

Why do you think there is so much opposition towards it?

That is Extremely Important work.. MYTHS OF RACIAL SUPERIORITY w.r.t human intelligence MUST BE BUSTED ..

Race and Intelligence: Separating Science From Myth

Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything
I renounced my faith to become a kafir,
the beloved betrayed me and turned in to a Muslim
- Cornflower
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Why is research into Sex, Ethnicity (and Intelligence) so controversial?
Reply #3 - October 01, 2014, 11:47 AM

Quote from: Quod Sum Eris on October 01, 2014, 09:42 AM
Probably the cultural memory of Nazism.

The cultural memory of race biology in general, not just the Nazi ideology that emerged during the 20's/30's.

I don't see the benefits or use of such research when compared to the possible, and very real, negative side effects and consequences of such research.

"The healthiest people I know are those who are the first to label themselves fucked up." - three
- asbie
- Actually just a dude
- Poster of the Month
- Past, present, future...
- offline
Why is research into Sex, Ethnicity (and Intelligence) so controversial?
Reply #4 - October 01, 2014, 02:58 PM

Descent: Just stay away from this controversial nonsense. You can do plenty of good elsewhere.

Quote from: yeezevee on February 11, 2016, 02:05 PM
how fuck works without shit??

Let's Play Chess!

harakaat, friend, RIP
- Ishina
- Militant Atheist
- Ex-Muslim
- No Fate But What We Make
- offline
Why is research into Sex, Ethnicity (and Intelligence) so controversial?
Reply #5 - October 01, 2014, 03:03 PM

Quote from: Descent on October 01, 2014, 08:16 AM
Why do you think there is so much opposition towards it?

Because it's invariably agenda and value driven, stacked to favour certain biases, and funded by xenophobes/sexists who want the results to use as propaganda.

A more productive and fair-minded approach to studying disparity in intelligence would be to study and account for actual relevant factors such as poverty level, access to education, nutrition, etc, instead of ethnicity, nationality, skin colour, hair colour, genitals, shoe size, etc.

Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
- schizo
- tesco value gabba
- Ex-Muslim
- One must be absolutely modern.
- offline
Why is research into Sex, Ethnicity (and Intelligence) so controversial?
Reply #6 - October 01, 2014, 03:12 PM

Because it is based on a mechanical materialism which posits the emergence of historical materialism out of the natural, which is an undialectical way to view things. This, alone, explains the failure of really-existing 20th century socialism. One cannot merely impute social phenomena onto science through a crude cause-and-effect reductionist principle.

As regards evolutionary psychology, most of it is pseudoscience not because it's evidentiary, but because it is based on incorrect auxiliary hypotheses: I.E: reverse engineering into the pleistocene epoch, existing hunter-gatherer societies (which are not remotely similar to pre-agricultural archetypes) and primate studies as a whole.

It's all a minefield of Popperian stupidity.
1« Previous thread | Next thread »