,
25 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
(1) Last week, I posted the below thread on polygenic scores and have been pulled into almost-unrelated convos on Race and IQ since (my choice to engage, obv.) Here's a (v. long) thread w/ thoughts on these interactions.
(2) This will be a mostly opinion w/ a bit of science. I'm muting it right away, and if you @ me with this I might mute or block you. I'm writing this bc I find myself being reactive in conversations I don't want to be a part of.
(3) First, some non-science. One striking thing is that my original thread didn't say anything about IQ, but the convo went there *so fast*. People/bots/trolls came out of the woodwork.
(4) These accounts have ranged widely in their cordiality, numeracy/literacy, and desire to engage genuinely. But all of them wanted to go from a generic convo about polygenic scores to race/IQ. They are The Fixated.
(5) The Fixated seem to like to claim that scientists treat race/IQ as a special question for political reasons; it's ironic that that *they* are the ones doing this.
(6) What I've said about IQ so far goes for any other complex trait where we can't do convincing randomized experiments and don't know mechanisms. It's not special. The only thing special is the degree of interest shown by The Fixated.
(7) They posture as unbiased truth-seekers (and maybe some even are), but it's hard to avoid the conclusion that most of the interest in this topic has nothing to do with science.
(8) All of this is pretty obvious, and there are plenty of folks on here who've dealt with this much more extensively than I have. (And I want to acknowledge how grateful I am for the folks who've been supporting me as I have dealt w/ my first real experience w/ this)
(9) Now, some science. It's mostly covered in the other thread and the replies, but the short version is that the genetic vs. env. explanations of racial test score differences is not a good scientific question in 2019.
(10) There are (mostly small) allele-frequency differences btwn people who are grouped into different "races" (taking a USA lay-sense of the term "race"---"race" isn't a scientific term).
(11) There are also loads of differences in their environments. The Fixated point out that test-score gaps are only partly explained (regression sense) by the environmental factors that have been easiest to measure and test.
(12) There is a lot of controversy in this area (how much? which factors?), but we can't equalize the environments, randomize people to environments, or do expts. in animals of, say, literacy.
(13) I've found that when you point this out, two things happen. First, every Fixated w/ an excel license starts sending you scatterplots. Second, they accuse you of worshiping a "God of the Gaps."
(14) But there's nothing terribly scientific about leaping over huge gaps in an argument. The Fixated are rely people's prior beliefs to fill in the gaps. This happens in other contexts too, but here the priors are basically racist ideas.
(15) One more point that's a mix of science and opinion: IQ itself. I worked in clinical psychology for a few years, and IQ has uses. An IQ test can help you identify mental disability and isolate specific learning disabilities.
(16) And high achievers in many domains are enriched for high IQ. (Though there are multiple explanations and interpretations of this enrichment.) That's interesting. (end of science)
(17) But the energy that some of The Fixated bring to this is totally different. It's more like talking to guys who really like measuring their dongs and want a dong-ruler for their brains.
(18) To close, I've said that I don't like being part of these conversations. Why not? Isn't it just talking science?
(19) It is *not* just talking science. It is a conversation that is continuous w/ centuries of racism. To some extent, geneticists are in such a conversation all the time, given that our field is historically connected to eugenics. But the IQ stuff is a whole other ballgame.
(20) It is taking a trait that people tie to achievement and (wrongly) tie to intrinsic human value, and asking whether certain (oppressed) groups might have less of it. The Fixated ask, "Why is this offensive? Isn't this just science?"
(21) Well imagine I were to dump a bucket filled with centuries of human shit on your head, and then I started writing papers speculating that you are genetically predisposed to smell like shit. Wouldn't you be offended?
(22) I'd guess you would, and your offense probably wouldn't even depend much on the kind or strength of evidence I marshaled. (This is a salty paraphrase of one of Turkheimer's arguments here:) cato-unbound.org/2007/11/21/eri…
(23) It's offensive because these lines of speculation downplay the treatment of people, both historical and continuing. That doesn't mean that one can't talk about it or that anyone is saying "evolution stops at the neck." It just means that you have to acknowledge history.
(24) The other reason I don't like talking about this is the moral framework that is often hiding just behind the discussion.
(25) Some people (not most, and not even all of The Fixated) clearly want to treat groups as having different moral value--or as being of differently deserving of empathy or help--on the basis of IQ. You don't have to be a scientist to condemn that. (end)
