>His appointment has faced criticism, with one philosophy student telling Varsity: “It’s crazy that someone who’s published such obviously questionable work has been given not only a platform but a Fellow position. It’s obviously disappointing but not surprising.”

[deleted]

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 73%. (I'm a bot)

> An American academic who has expressed controversial views about racial differences in intelligence has been made an early career fellow in the University's Philosophy faculty.

> In 2019 Nathan Cofnas became embroiled in controversy over an article he wrote, in which he argued that genetic differences in IQ could exist between racial and ethnic groups.

> He compared hypothetical racial differences in intelligence to gender-based differences, arguing "Virtually everyone believes in physical and psychological differences between men and women, and essentialize these differences", but that didn't stop "Men in the West from supporting women's rights, and didn't prevent great progress towards the end".

Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: differences^#1 Cofnas^#2 article^#3 racial^#4 published^#5

The backlash to these sorts of things is always predictable. They always get called pseudo scientific or just plain garbage but it's rare for the critics to have read the material or understood it.

I, also have not read the paper but the basic idea doesn't seem implausible given that we give people credit for positive things about their race. For all I know, that could be exactly what this guy said

[deleted]

https://scienceandsociety.duke.edu/does-race-exist/

https://digitalpublications.brown.edu/projects/race-and-genetics-in-america/resource/is-race-real

Odds of interacting with an entire race of folk seems real small. Why is this important?

Now I'm sure this is some white supremacist awfulness, however...

Races have differences in terms of averages.

If people are going to sit here and try to tell me it's just coincidence that the Summer Olympics running events are dominated by Jamaicans and Africans, I am going to have to laugh.

The problem is when people use these observations of differences to assume its true for EVERYONE of that race, and to treat someone worse or better for these differences.

Science doesn't care about people's feelings, but WE should.

In this recent mega genetics paper, people were still grouped by ancestries of region in the world.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05275-y

Kenya wins in running because running is one of the few forms of entertainment that they have. They don't have gameboys like we do

Paper in question he wrote:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09515089.2019.1697803

Abstract

>In a very short time, it is likely that we will identify many of the genetic variants underlying individual differences in intelligence. We should be prepared for the possibility that these variants are not distributed identically among all geographic populations, and that this explains some of the phenotypic differences in measured intelligence among groups. However, some philosophers and scientists believe that we should refrain from conducting research that might demonstrate the (partly) genetic origin of group differences in IQ. Many scholars view academic interest in this topic as inherently morally suspect or even racist. The majority of philosophers and social scientists take it for granted that all population differences in intelligence are due to environmental factors. The present paper argues that the widespread practice of ignoring or rejecting research on intelligence differences can have unintended negative consequences. Social policies predicated on environmentalist theories of group differences may fail to achieve their aims. Large swaths of academic work in both the humanities and social sciences assume the truth of environmentalism and are vulnerable to being undermined. We have failed to work through the moral implications of group differences to prepare for the possibility that they will be shown to exist.

Sounds like his critics prove him right.

Actually, Kenyans and Ethiopians do have a strong advantage in marathon running. I can't remember exactly what it came down to but it seemed to me that the gist of it was that generations of starving had enabled them to ration out their energy much more efficiently. Sort of like how Nepalese have a huge advantage at high altitudes.

[deleted]

And yet he didn't actually say anything objectionable in that passage at least. More like his critics proved themselves to be exactly what he claimed they were all along.

This is a matter of science, not politics or what’s temporarily popular.

If this guy’s ideas are incorrect—and I don’t know enough about them to weigh in one way or another—then they are incorrect because the data of observation does not support his hypothesis, not because some people or groups find his ideas scandalous or inconvenient.

It’s a very dangerous thing to say that some ideas may never be raised, hypothesized, experimented, researched, talked about or written about. Just like with faith, we should question everything. That which is true will stand the test of close scrutiny. The scientific method is sufficient to handle any ideas that may come its way. Those who would attempt to censor, shout-down, disbar, or terminate people for asking questions and doing science are no friend to science.

It's funnily enough more racist to me to imply that Kenyans are good runners because they "dont have gameboys" and must resort to running for fun, than it is to just acknowledge that they seem to at least on average have a sort of biological running advantage.

Not really because circumstances do effect upbringing

Yet AMERICANS who are of Jamaican ethnicity typically outperform their fellow Americans who are white at the absolute top of running competition?

You can literally just watch the fucking olympics to realize your opinion is beyond flawed.

If upbringing was what decided who the top 0.01% of competitors were in sheer sports of athleticism like track, you would see more diversity. But you dont. Because when a 1% advantage decides if you win or lose then every possible factor tends to matter.

The analogy fails.

The question of God is its own philosophy field.

No, the question is one of ethics.

Science itself has no ethics to it. Easy to dream up morally horrible scientifically sound experiments. Some type of experiments are off limits.

That said, this researcher was defending research linking genetics within groups of people to IQ

Is it ethical to even conduct the research is the question.

The guy that just got the fellowship said yes it is ethical to do the research.

I will go with the guy who thinka the prevailing academic Silos are a problem they always are. We got the war on drugs and it took seventy years to start to unravel this effect this includes prohibition of research by threatening colleges with total funding halt if anyone with them did private research in the topic.

It is possible that with useful research we would know how to respond to addiction issues effectively.

Anyway, we know of a specific mutation that causes common learning issues. This one happens to be know to be gender related is it impossible that this might be associated with blood type which does have a practical association with a proxy for "race".

The problem is historically people like Bell were doing their research to get to a particular result, even if the data did not go there.

>Races have differences in terms of averages.
>
>If people are going to sit here and try to tell me it's just coincidence that the Summer Olympics running events are dominated by Jamaicans and Africans, I am going to have to laugh.

It is world of difference to compare running speeds of different groups of people on the same course than comparing intelligence or IQ of different groups of people. It's not as straight forward as running from point A to point B as quickly as you can.

But even Olympic competitions are not a great way to compare groups of people in the same sport. In the 1970s and 1980s the Eastern Bloc countries dominated many Olympic events. They had set up state-sponsored athletic schools that they funneled sporty kids into. They could train kids in a specialty from a very young age, controlling their entire lives to make them the best athletes they could be. Compared to the US system where if a kid has an interest, talent, willing parents, and money they may turn into elite athletes. Saying Eastern Bloc countries during this time had better athletes because they won more Olympic medals would not be accurate. They set up athlete factories most other countries would not or could not replicate.

tl/dr: race/ethnicity is never the only factor

[removed]

One philosophy student. Scathing, absolutely scathing.

so what advantages do Asians have if their physical traits are genetic but not their intellectual potential?

Never the only factor.

But it is a factor.

I do agree though that "intelligence" is a far tricker metric than "who tends to run fastest."

Regardless, its a really touchy subject that is typically more trouble than its worth to research or write about imho.

There are some serious flaws with his whole hypothesis if it’s based on using IQ as a measure of “intelligence”. That test has been shown repeatedly to be heavily culturally biased. If you’ve never encountered one before, you’re likely to score worse than someone who has. All it really tests is your ability to take IQ tests.

The Eastern Block countries, especially the Soviet Union and East-Germany had absolutely massive state-sponsored doping programs which are probably the main reason for their athlete's dominance in the Olympic games.

And if the data show evidence that that’s the case, so be it. Again, the fact that some get emotional is no reason not to do the science. There’s nothing unethical in doing legitimate science to determine whether such a link exists, or defending such, assuming sound methods.

Entertainment and game boys and Kenyans. No, man. No assumptions. You have a question, you create a process, and you study it. There's a board of ethics that reviews what you're doing. They can stop you before you begin. Something as serious and political as race will get srutinized beyond anything I can imagine. I simply would not even ask a question about race. I have a career and am older, we'll see what happens with his life. If he's a full of shit racist, which I doubt he is, then this will end soon.

It makes sense that his research would be viewed as morally suspect. In order for his research to have any solid basis, his studies would have to to control for all possible non-racial factors that could affect the results. The problem with trying to do that though, is that most racial groups tend to stick within their own communities or geography, which are impossible to control for, and will invariably skew the results. It will make it look like there is a genetic component, even though the same data can equally point to an environmental origin for group differences in intelligence.

The geographic distribution of racial communities, and the likely shared environmental experiences of individuals within those communities, will give the impression of racial differences in intelligence. For a researcher to them conclude from such data that there's a genetic origin for group differences in intelligence, is controversial. Never mind that in all likelihood it will be an unfounded conclusion due to the body of research strongly indicating education being a strong determining factor in intelligence.

Of course, this research ignores the fact that race is a social construct. It isn't genetic.

[removed]

This doesn't sound like a paper on intelligence but more on a paper against academics whom the author disagrees with. He is not talking about genetics or intelligence. He is complaining about an imaginary stifling of intelligence research despite the massive amounts of intelligence research that exists.

This is basically a meta-discussion, its not science. The author is a culture warrior that does not seem to accept that his side of the argument lost; having little science to back up his beliefs, he now turns to attack those who disagree with him.

>If this guy’s ideas are incorrect

He is not providing any new ideas. He is complaining that other people are ignoring "intelligence research" and claiming that some Very Bad Thing could happen if they continue to ignore it.

I agree that the science to this is ethical. I was just trying to phrase that comment neutral.

Article is in a philosophy journal. Paper is about ethics. He argues it is ethical to do scientific research that connects genetics and intelligence even if racial groups are found.

Edit typo

We're Jamaicans all brought over from the same part of Africa?

He was claiming that programs based on an environmentalist approach are doomed to failure, because no-one has researched if genetics are linked to intelligence. If there is a link, trying to address the issue through environment won't work.

Yeah. I don't understand how intelligence can be accurately measured across ethnicities (considering that most ethnicities aren't monolithic and isolated) in the current limitations of social inequality, barriers in access to education and workforce, recovery from colonisation, racism, gender prejudice and so on. I don't know how can you possibly account for all of that. A very intelligent and capable woman from post-colonial country with practical skills might score much lower in IQ tests than a less intelligent and less capable university student from a wealthy country who has done IQ tests before, and it has nothing to do with race and everything to do with inequality.

They will have to account for racism and gender bias even in the context of wealthy countries. If a very intelligent person is systematically discriminated, told that they are less intelligent, experience racial or gender prejudice in education and workforce or even outright harassment, have low expectations and little representation to inspire them, it can become a self fulfilling prophecy of how well they perform. And somehow account for the Indigenous knowledge, too, when it's been only in the recent decades that some Indigenous skills (like more efficient land management techniques) started getting proper attention.

>He was claiming that programs based on an environmentalist approach are doomed to failure

That is not for him to decide. Let the scientific process decide what will and will not fail.

>because no-one has researched if genetics are linked to intelligence

This is patently false. There has been so much research and debate over this. Even for laypeople, Charles Murray's books were always bestsellers.

People have a right to complain about this culture warrior worming his way into such a high office. He is pushing demonstrably wrong opinions, this isn't science - not to mention he poisons the mind of people like you.

Such research has been done and was done for a long, long time. Its not forbidden.

Its just that the scientific consensus points to these ideas being wrong.

The author refuses to accept this and just wrote a paper to complain and smear those who disagree.

If the author could actually do research and provide insights into the intelligence of "racial groups" that would be science. He would be providing new insights and challenging our understanding of these matters.

But he can't do this, so he goes after his fellow colleagues.

It still can be heavily impacted by cultural component. Cultures that have heavy focus on football have more top football players, regions that emphasise fighter culture and invest a lot in wrestling sports have top wrestlers in the Olympic games. Cultures that practice running and have running as their top preference will focus on running and encourage this skill through training, financially and by trying to seek the people who have good characteristically for running through screenings. A person living overseas will still be at least somewhat impacted by their country of origin or by their culture through their family and identity. Natural advantage would mean little with no training, financial support or cultural encouragement.

Could you link a research review or something elaborating on the scientific consensus you mention? This is the first time I've heard someone being categorical on this topic, but it's not exactly an area I'm familiar with.

These are just his claims. I'm not versed in social sciences at all.

Bell Curve - An extremely popular best seller. Yet we are told that this kind of books are forbidden. This is done in bad faith.

The Mythical Taboo on Race and Intelligence - yet the "race researcher" mentioned in this post is inventing imaginary oppression.

https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/ - there are no separate or distinct "races". A "race" is a sociopolitical classification, not a genetic or biological one.

Measure the "intelligence" (a difficult thing in itself) of groups that cannot be objectively defined is destined to fail.

Also: Race is a social construct

Thanks, I'll give these a read.

>Races have differences in terms of averages.

Races cannot be objectively defined, therefore this line of thought will get you nowhere. For example, "African" is not a race, neither is "Jamaican".

ancestry != race

[deleted]

I remember Murray’s work from when I was a kid, and a professor talking about “ bad truths “. He didn’t believe the research to necessarily be correct, but believed it could only have a negative impact.

I don’t think any culture is better at taking those tests than others.

The dummies downvoting you need a time out, thanks for the sources!

And yet you're here defending him like he's your homie, what's that about?

I don't know how a reiteration of a point counts as defending.

I am used to it. People pushing these race & intelligence narratives are almost always vicious authoritarians.

You don't? Shit, seems you know even less than you thought. Amazin.

Instead of being a condescending prick who thinks he's very smart, you could always just tell me, someone who has admitted that social sciences aren't my field, why both the original point is incorrect and how reiterating counts as support.

Race is a categorical designation that holds explanatory power in grouping people together with similar genetics. Whether or not “race” means anything beyond that is purely semantics, but it is undeniable that the term has a clear meaning and use. Arguing otherwise is just an intentional obfuscation of the obvious.

So yeah, calling it a social construct doesn’t make it less real. All categories, and I mean all, are social constructs. It’s like asking for the definition of a chair. The answer can’t be precise - it inherently requires some degree of generalization and imprecision

Yes, I could, but you see, I'm a condescending prick... dilemmas.

Race is clearly a social construct that doesn't really hold any explanatory power in modern societies. This should be obvious because there is no objective way to determine one's race.

The term has absolutely no clear use in any meaning; it barely makes sense in the most extreme of circumstances i.e. if you live in a predominantly "white" town and categorize everyone else as "black" or "asian". It doesn't make sense nor has any meaning for people who have received a basic education and understand science and history.

All categories are absiolutely not social constructs. If we categorize people by height or blood type then these are categories that can be objectively defined.

Whereas with race you have no clue which race you belong to, you cannot prove or determine what race I belong to. You don't even have a fixed list of races to chose form. Hence, social construct.

Depends on the age group and such. IQ tests are designed to check for mental shortcomings not celebrate the difference between 130 and 140

It is very useful to figure out who needs to be processed for a SPED ruling

The scientific process? Oh, you mean the capitalist process of paying scientists to research that which results in the most $$$?

I think your professor is right. But bad truth sounds a lot like forbidden knowledge. But I had to look up Murray to know who he was. So i am out of my depth. But my position is lamarkian so I am definitely among the heathen..

Cool.

That aligns you with a small handful of right-wing “thinkers” who are desperate to prove that black people are just naturally inferior to everyone else. This opinion is based on one paper, published in 1980, that reads like it was written by a KKK member cosplaying as an academic, but gets trotted out as a counter-argument by the types of websites that rant about “the left” “dismissing college”.

Tell that to the people determined to use it to “prove” that Africans and their descendants are naturally mentally inferior.

[removed]

All I meant is that people, regardless of background, do not usually take those tests. Thus nobody can be prepared for it.

That’s not what you said at all.

It also false

IQ tests are stupid.

With your comment as context, yes that’s absolutely what I said.

>All it really tests is your ability to take IQ tests.

That's oversimplifying it. It clearly measures something. Childhood IQ tests correlate too strongly to all sorts of life outcomes to be as meaningless as just measuring your ability to take an IQ test.

Oh sure. I was being a little deliberately obtuse. They can be used to demonstrate that a person has certain cognitive abilities that we in the West have deemed are indicators of intelligence - logic puzzles, pattern recognition, mathematics, grammar and syntax tests. But not every culture values these things the same. And someone who doesn’t score highly on such a test doesn’t necessarily lack intelligence. Anyone can improve their IQ score simply by taking repeated tests and learning how they work.

If you’re from a culture where such tests are fairly common, you’ve got more chance of getting a high score. Even within one geographical area, chances are, if you go to a decent school, you’ll be better prepared than someone who doesn’t.