To think 'academic freedom' and whistleblower punishment are misused in those protesting the suspension of Nathan Cofnas

I totally agree with you that establishing a genetic basis for racial differences in intelligence absolutely would create/reinforce a hierarchy of esteem and respect, even if that weren’t the intention. But I think there’s a more fundamental question here: why should establishing such a difference be regarded as a meaningful or worthwhile scientific objective in the first place?

while we might study sex differences in particular cognitive abilities, we don’t generally regard the question “are men or women more intelligent?” as a particularly coherent or useful scientific question. Intelligence is multidimensional, the distributions overlap enormously, and average group differences tell us very little about individuals. I think similar considerations apply to racial comparisons, with the additional problem that racial categories are socially constructed and genetically heterogeneous.

Race isn’t a set of discrete, genetically coherent biological categories. There is enormous genetic and phenotypic variation within racial categories, and they don’t map neatly onto underlying population structure. So the question of whether an observed difference between socially defined racial groups is “genetic” is already a scientifically shaky hypothesis to pursue.

So to me the burden here is on those proposing this line of enquiry to first explain why this particular comparison is even scientifically meaningful, what it would actually tell us, and what value there is in pursuing it, rather than assuming that the possibility of a genetic difference makes the question intrinsically worth asking.

What I have seen of Cofnas's research is appalling quality. I have no idea how he got competitive funding. Anyway he's clearly brought the uni into disrepute and it's only normal he should be suspended for breaking the terms of his contract.

Whilst it doesn't create a hierarchy of moral worth for me, a gentic basis for racial differences would create (or more likely justify) a race-based hierarchy of esteem and respect for many.

I agree that if the science shows a genetic difference then we shouldn't pretend otherwise. But I dont think it does.

Right - I mean it's a cultural category

The fact that race is hard to pin down genetically doesn't mean it's not real - just ask any victim of racism!
That's completely skewed reasoning

The "science" doesn't show anything of the kind.

You are spreading racism.

All you know is single value for the mean average of a sample of people, broken down by ethnicity labels, which themselves are largely subjective. It's not science, it's fantasy.

You don't even know the standard deviation for each subsample, let alone what the circumstances of the test were.
I t is actually impossible to design a study that would eliminate bias.

We live, we need to cooperate to survive. We organise ourselves into communities that require a range of skills, abilities and knowledge.

Whilst it doesn't create a hierarchy of moral worth for me, a gentic basis for racial differences would create (or more likely justify) a race-based hierarchy of esteem and respect for many.

I agree that if the science shows a genetic difference then we shouldn't pretend otherwise. But I dont think it does.

Well: you are cleverer than some people you know and stupider than others. Do you think you are superior in any moral sense to those you are cleverer than or inferior to those you are stupider than? I’d guess not.

Also, we manage to recognise all sorts of other distribution differences between races without making them value laden. Most cultures seem to have some preference for tallness, but I’ve never heard it suggested that East Asians are inferior in any moral/value sense becuase they are shorter than Nordics, on average.

The idea that we are all, in some sense, of equal moral value is one of the bits of our Christian tradition that I think we should carry forward into a secular age. But it takes a conscious effort to do so. I think it’s better to focus on that than on (what looks to me like) motivated reasoning on the evidence base.

Like: if someone thinks women are less valuable than men because they are weaker, the correct answer isn’t to explain that the strength difference must be entirely cultural, but to say that that’s a stupid way to assess value to start with.

@TheCastleRascal wrote:
"I can't see how, if the data showed white people are genetically superior (in IQ terms) to black people, you could avoid a hierarchy."

A hierarchy of what?

Jason Arday was diagnosed as autistic during childhood and therefore did not have the everyday abilities of neurotypical people to stand up for himself when confronted, despite his academic abilities. If it is true that his PhD was based on plagiarism and not up to standard, why wasn't this picked up at the time? A PhD is supposed to be original and relevant and should be rejected if it is not.

What people believe isn't the same as what the data shows. I'll try to dig out some sources when I'm back.

Income isn't the entirety of environment. That rich black people dont have the same IQ as rich whites could be due to myriad other environmental factors; no need to assume genetics.

I can't see how, if the data showed white people are genetically superior (in IQ terms) to black people, you could avoid a hierarchy.

I don't claim any deep personal expertise, but this 2013/14 US survey of experts found a pretty broad spread of views on a nature-nurture scale. The large majority believed in a significant role for both nature and nurture, with the mode belief being that they are roughly equally important.

The researchers are centre-to-left wing (self-reported), so this doesn't seem to be a fringe right-wing belief.

https://www.scribd.com/document/611683839/2020-Survey-of-Expert-Opinion-on-Intelligence

Also, an environment-only theory fits poorly with findings such as US black students from the richest families (>$200k household income) underperforming white students from the poorest families (<$20k), or the fact that the economics or history of a state (e.g. slave state, non-slave, rich, poor, high-immigrant, low-immigrant, etc) is a weaker determinant of its school-testing performance than knowing its racial composition. A nature-and-nurture theory finds those sorts of findings much less hard to explain.

As I said before, I think the thing to do with this research is not to implicitly concede that if correct it would validate some sort of value hierarchy. Whether there is a value hierarchy between the races should not be turned into an empirical question! Rejection of a hierarchy is a an important moral precept that can survive whatever the research on this issue finds.

I don't claim any deep personal expertise, but this 2013/14 US survey of experts found a pretty broad spread of views on a nature-nurture scale. The large majority believed in a significant role for both nature and nurture, with the mode belief being that they are roughly equally important.

The researchers are centre-to-left wing (self-reported), so this doesn't seem to be a fringe right-wing belief.

https://www.scribd.com/document/611683839/2020-Survey-of-Expert-Opinion-on-Intelligence

Also, an environment-only theory fits poorly with findings such as US black students from the richest families (>$200k household income) underperforming white students from the poorest families (<$20k), or the fact that the economics or history of a state (e.g. slave state, non-slave, rich, poor, high-immigrant, low-immigrant, etc) is a weaker determinant of its school-testing performance than knowing its racial composition. A nature-and-nurture theory finds those sorts of findings much less hard to explain.

As I said before, I think the thing to do with this research is not to implicitly concede that if correct it would validate some sort of value hierarchy. Whether there is a value hierarchy between the races should not be turned into an empirical question! Rejection of a hierarchy is a an important moral precept that can survive whatever the research on this issue finds.

There are bound to be people like Cofnas, while there is DEI. It’s the scales of justice. If there wasn’t preferential treatment for poc, there wouldn't be a campaign to publicise the lower IQ of black people. The urge toward balance is strong in humans.

The reason is the data. It points towards an extremely small genetic component.

You are writing in a very authoritative style, as if you yourself are an expert in this specific niche.

Could you point me to some evidence?
I am deeply skeptical of what I can see from a quick look. I'm seeing incompatible sample sizes, and I can't see the explanation of how subjects were recruited, compensated, or incentivised. I don't currently have an Athens login so I can't easily read full texts.

For academic work, what matters is not abstract IQ, it's whether you have all the skills, knowledge, and ability, plus inclination, to do the job.

A confounding factor is that if an individual, or group, are not inclined toward academic work eg because they fear they won't fit in socially, then they may invest their time developing other skills, and acquiring other knowledge.

critics who say the evidence shows it's environmental rather than genetic.

Why not both?

Most other things about human outcomes are some mix of nature and nurture. We know intelligence is (highly) heritable at the individual level, we know (if we believe in evolution by natural selection) that humans evolve adaptive traits. Whats the reason for thinking that doesn’t apply to cognitive traits too?

Then there’s a lot of evidence pointing at both causes. Twin adoption studies, admixture studies, polygenetic tests are hard to explain entirely environmentally.

Most researchers in the field seem to think it’s some mixture of nature and nurture, with the 100% or 100% other positions being relative outliers.

I think we should allow ourselves to think this, and reject the premise that this has anything to say about moral value. Not implicitly accept the premise, and then reject the evidence. Seems healthier and more intellectually honest.

No, not claimed: Demonstrated through empirical evidence to have elimintaed comfounding factors of langauge/culture. This is pretty much settled science, now.

It's naive to think that scientist/academics work unaffected by ideology; people often posit (and seek to prove) hypotheses with which they morally agree. The people who designed the colour blind tests expected and likely hoped it would show that the differences in IQ were a defect of the tests rather than racial differences in mean IQ, and that they were disappointed that they showed the opposite, which is whythey didn't defend their methodology.

I get why the conclusion that there is a difference in mean IQ by race is uncomfortable, but it's pretty much indisputable at this point. But what we can (and should) do is refute claims by Cofnas and his ilk that this is because of genetics rather than environment (because that's what the data suggests). And try to level that environmental playing field.

Notably, Coftas talks mainly about the US. But its worth noting that the mean IQ gap between the races is much less pronounced in the UK, which, in itself suggests environment rather than genetics is the cause.

... and, as such, implies that the difference can be eliminated with social changes. Which is why Cofnas can't concede any ground to his critics who say the evidence shows it's environmental rather than genetic. Because that is an argument for DEI, which is what he hates (on the misconception that a world.wothout DEI is meritocratic, which e.g. CV studies have repeatedly shown to be false).