Should Research on Race and IQ Be Banned?

[Jono]

Noticed this article just now. in Scientific American, where a reporter/writer named John Horgan said, among other things:

These are the same sorts of things said in 1994 when Harvard researchers Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray argued in The Bell Curve that programs to boost black academic performance might be futile because blacks are innately less intelligent than whites; and in 2007 when geneticist and Nobel laureate James Watson ascribed Africa’s social problems to Africans’ genetic inferiority. (Watson is also a former Harvard professor. What is it with Harvard? Could there be something in the drinking water?)

I’m torn over how to respond to research on race and intelligence. Part of me wants to scientifically rebut the IQ-related claims of Herrnstein, Murray, Watson and Richwine. For example, to my mind the single most important finding related to the debate over IQ and heredity is the dramatic rise in IQ scores over the past century. This so-called Flynn effect, which was discovered by psychologist James Flynn, undercuts claims that intelligence stems primarily from nature and not nurture.

...
So what do I really mean by a ban? Here’s one possibility. Institutional review boards (IRBs), which must approve research involving human subjects carried out by universities and other organizations, should reject proposed research that will promote racial theories of intelligence, because the harm of such research–which fosters racism even if not motivated by racism–far outweighs any alleged benefits. Employing IRBs would be fitting, since they were formed in part as a response to the one of the most notorious examples of racist research in history, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, which was carried out by the U.S. Public Health Service from 1932 to 1972.

I know that Steven Pinker, at least, would have an issue with these paragraphs. Like he mentioned in "Blank Slate", the denialists of nature are so often caught in a mindset where including a biological possibility or notable component (whether it is correct or incorrect) is an act of heresy and must be purged.

 

[Dinwar]

Banning research is always wrong. Science requires freedom to explore wherever the data leads. The instant you put up a barrier like this you're saying that politics controls science, which makes you no better than the worst versions of the Church in the Middle Ages/Renaissance. It's cowardly, it will NOT stop at the questions you consider too icky to ask, and it undermines the very foundations of the grand experiment that is science.

 

[mutile]

They should also ban professional sports, because the harm of such activities,which fosters sexism.

 

[Craig B]

... I know that Steven Pinker, at least, would have an issue with these paragraphs. Like he mentioned in "Blank Slate", the denialists of nature are so often caught in a mindset where including a biological possibility or notable component (whether it is correct or incorrect) is an act of heresy and must be purged.

I hope it's permissible to be strongly opposed to Steven Pinker, and at the same time be opposed to a ban on research into these topics.

 

[Jono]

Banning research is always wrong. Science requires freedom to explore wherever the data leads. The instant you put up a barrier like this you're saying that politics controls science, which makes you no better than the worst versions of the Church in the Middle Ages/Renaissance. It's cowardly, it will NOT stop at the questions you consider too icky to ask, and it undermines the very foundations of the grand experiment that is science.

In one of my correspondences with Pinker (yeah, I know, I talk about him alot but I tend to agree with his views, usually) I asked a question (after having read a few of his books) on what the dangers are with increasing censorships on ideas at institutions and places of learning. He wrote me a very lengthy (well somewhat) rendering and primer of how human behaviour and ideas work in society and why mussling one side of a given issue just, historically, pushes the pen out of their hands which then will potentially grab a sword instead (paraphrasing a bit).

Furthermore, I just found a 61-minute discussion/debate between the author of the formentioned article and Steven Pinker from a couple of years ago (I found it quite interesting, and I think Pinker answered him well):
http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/3164

 

[Jono]

I hope it's permissible to be strongly opposed to Steven Pinker, and at the same time be opposed to a ban on research into these topics.

Heh, well maybe. If you don't me snickering a bit then leaving for playing Mass Effect 3 or Old Republic.

 

[Dinwar]

He wrote me a very lengthy (well somewhat) rendering and primer of how human behaviour and ideas work in society and why mussling one side of a given issue just, historically, pushes the pen out of their hands which then will potentially grab a sword instead (paraphrasing a bit).

My problem with it isn't pragmatism, but the fundamental ideas of science. Science is enshrined heresy. The process of science is all about taking strongly-held ideas, throwing them against Reality as hard as we can, and sifting through the wreckage to see what holds up. To place ANY idea outside scientific inquiry for no better reason than "We might not like the answers" (which is all that the argument "It's dangerous" really boils down to) makes science the handmaiden of politics. (To be clear, there ARE legitimate reasons to say "This question is outside science's domain". For example, what kinds of curtains my wife hangs is not a question science can answer.)

If we can ban research into race and intelligence--an area where there are legitimate questions--than we can also ban research that would contradict the Bible or the Koran. After all, it's dangerous for a society to do that. Just look at all the social problems! Hell, there's a body count associated with questioning the Koran in some parts of the world--and not a small one. Doing that is MUCH mroe dangerous than asking questions about race and IQ!!! When it comes to psychology this is even more dangerous. There have been a number of threads on this forum talking about how this or that political group had disfunctional brains. Imagine the power of such nonsense if it's held to be above scientific analysis. It wouldn't take that much; again, the exact same arguments for banning research into race and IQ could be applied almost verbatum to forbidding people to question that conservatives or liberals (whoever happens to be in power at the time) are disfunctional.

Science, to remain science, MUST be free to ask questions that are painful, even dangerous to societies. Because science is an exploration of Reality, of the universe and its contents as they actually are. If a society is based on something that science disproves, that means that that society is based on a lie and cannot survive anyway. To put up a fence around certain ideas and say "You're not allowed to look here" is to admit that you fear that your ideas are irrational, and to attack the single best way our species has ever developed for determining what is real. It's institutionalized insanity, at any scale.

 

[mutile]

Equality is not about equal abilities, but value. It is obvious that IQ varies between 'races', but even if researched it wouldn't change racist attitudes as racists are already convinced and others would not care.

 

[Craig B]

Equality is not about equal abilities, but value. It is obvious that IQ varies between 'races', but even if researched it wouldn't change racist attitudes as racists are already convinced and others would not care.

Can you explain how that's "obvious" in the absence of research?

 

[mutile]

Can you explain how that's "obvious" in the absence of research?

There is no need to explain the obvious, if you don't agree then it is not obvious to everyone, I take it back, personally I would be extremely surprised if something as variable as IQ was identical between large groups, can you think of any other physical attribute that is identical in all 'races' ?

 

[DC]

no, its better the racist scientists have their racism exposed in public. IQ itself is already a bit prolbematic and not very meaningfull, and then race, there is no such thing, we all are one race. this stuff is so dumb, its not even worth a ban.

 

[Ray Brady]

While it shouldn't be banned, it's difficult to see the value of such research, given the hopelessly nebulous definitions of both "race" and "intelligence". Any conclusions would inevitably boil down to "people who self-report as belonging to Racial Group A perform better on a certain standardized test than people who self-report as belonging to Racial Group B".

 

[Zelenius]

No, I don't believe it should be banned. Just because some people may not like the answers, for political, or religious, or personal reasons, doesn't mean it should be banned. Science regularly comes up with answers that make a lot of people feel uncomfortable. Look at how many radical feminists hate evolutionary psychology(granted, it is still a "soft" science); some of them even claim the entire field exists to justify "patriarchy" and sexism, yet almost always fail to do any scholarly research that actually challenges some of the findings made by EP and related fields.

And while I may strongly disagree with radical feminists, I fully support their right to free speech, to be activists, to hold conferences, and to teach and do research at universities. To be honest, some of the things they say "offends" me as a male and non radical feminist.

So should we ban scientists and academics from doing research that has the potential to offend a lot of people? To me, the answer is always a big "NO".

Of course, the "value" of this kind of research is a different question entirely.

The last thing we need to do is impose censorship on science; just look at other countries where harsh censorship was imposed and look at the outcome. Whenever I hear questions like this, I always think of the saying "The road to hell was paved with good intentions".

 

[joesixpack]

While it shouldn't be banned, it's difficult to see the value of such research, given the hopelessly nebulous definitions of both "race" and "intelligence". Any conclusions would inevitably boil down to "people who self-report as belonging to Racial Group A perform better on a certain standardized test than people who self-report as belonging to Racial Group B".

Exactly this.

There's an IQ thread or two in this forum where the merits of IQ testing are debated. I don't see any compelling evidence to demonstrate that IQ tests measure anything besides cultural assimilation.

 

[azzthom]

Exactly this.

There's an IQ thread or two in this forum where the merits of IQ testing are debated. I don't see any compelling evidence to demonstrate that IQ tests measure anything besides cultural assimilation.

I'm forced to agree. I've never seen any convincing evidence that 'I.Q' is a meaningful measure of anything. I don't think the research should be banned, I just don't think there's any value, or indeed point, to carrying it out.

 

[OtakuNutchi]

Trying to fight racism by banning research seems a bit like targeting one of many possible symptoms, rather than addressing causes or reasons for racism being perpetuated. I'm not saying that there's an underlying 'structural' racism that is responsible, motivating research like this, or that the potential scientific results are responsible for perpetuating racism. That would be an unfair and inaccurate simplification. I guess my point only repeats what has already been emphasized; that politics shouldn't interfere with science in this matter. (Indeed, should it ever?)

 

[Sideroxylon]

Banning research is always wrong. Science requires freedom to explore wherever the data leads. The instant you put up a barrier like this you're saying that politics controls science, which makes you no better than the worst versions of the Church in the Middle Ages/Renaissance. It's cowardly, it will NOT stop at the questions you consider too icky to ask, and it undermines the very foundations of the grand experiment that is science.

Right, it is the responsibility of society and its leaders to decide what to do with anything we learn. The scientists job is discovery and, I think for at least some members of that group, communicating what they know, how they know it, the reliability, and implications that they can foresee. We likely also need well funded science institutions to provide that interface for the non scientific decision makers and public.

This is what we saw with the development of the nuclear bomb. Scientists theorised the possibility and warned in the Einstein–Szilárd letter, but a government made the decision to engineer and build it. Einstein may have later regretted involvement in it, but it was not his call.

 

[Corsair 115]

Wouldn't we need a scientifically based and valid definition of "race" first? Does such a definition even exist?

 

[Dinwar]

Wouldn't we need a scientifically based and valid definition of "race" first? Does such a definition even exist?

Yes. "Race" is synonymous with "subspecies". Whether or not Homo sapiens sapiens is dividable into subspecies is an open question (the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature has no criteria for sub-species classification). If you ask me, I'd say we were getting there, but that the Age of Imperialism more or less canceled that out by removing the barriers to interbreeding.

 

[Jono]

My problem with it isn't pragmatism, but the fundamental ideas of science. Science is enshrined heresy. The process of science is all about taking strongly-held ideas, throwing them against Reality as hard as we can, and sifting through the wreckage to see what holds up. To place ANY idea outside scientific inquiry for no better reason than "We might not like the answers" (which is all that the argument "It's dangerous" really boils down to) makes science the handmaiden of politics. (To be clear, there ARE legitimate reasons to say "This question is outside science's domain". For example, what kinds of curtains my wife hangs is not a question science can answer.)

If we can ban research into race and intelligence--an area where there are legitimate questions--than we can also ban research that would contradict the Bible or the Koran. After all, it's dangerous for a society to do that. Just look at all the social problems! Hell, there's a body count associated with questioning the Koran in some parts of the world--and not a small one. Doing that is MUCH mroe dangerous than asking questions about race and IQ!!! When it comes to psychology this is even more dangerous. There have been a number of threads on this forum talking about how this or that political group had disfunctional brains. Imagine the power of such nonsense if it's held to be above scientific analysis. It wouldn't take that much; again, the exact same arguments for banning research into race and IQ could be applied almost verbatum to forbidding people to question that conservatives or liberals (whoever happens to be in power at the time) are disfunctional.

Science, to remain science, MUST be free to ask questions that are painful, even dangerous to societies. Because science is an exploration of Reality, of the universe and its contents as they actually are. If a society is based on something that science disproves, that means that that society is based on a lie and cannot survive anyway. To put up a fence around certain ideas and say "You're not allowed to look here" is to admit that you fear that your ideas are irrational, and to attack the single best way our species has ever developed for determining what is real. It's institutionalized insanity, at any scale.

You said it well. Pinker did too, as it is. Here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0W9sSqeJnA