• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The looming [un-PC] crisis in human genetics

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
New Genetic studies will reveal there ARE genetic mental and physical differences among the Races/Ethnicities.
Research which had a medical motivation, will instead reveal some very un-PC news.
All hell may break loose when we find out why 'White men can't jump' or some even more controversial differences in mental abilities.

The looming crisis in human genetics

Nov 13th 2009
Premium content | Economist.com
RichardDawkins.net Forum • View topic - The looming crisis in human genetics
"...Human geneticists have reached a private Crisis of Conscience, and it will become public knowledge in 2010. The crisis has depressing health implications and alarming political ones. In a nutshell: the new genetics will reveal much less than hoped about how to cure disease, and much more than feared about human evolution and inequality, including genetic differences between classes, ethnicities and races....
[..........]
The trouble is, the resequencing data will reveal much more about human evolutionary history and ethnic differences than they will about disease genes. Once enough DNA is analysed around the world, science will have a panoramic view of human genetic variation across races, ethnicities and regions. We will start reconstructing a detailed family tree that links all living humans, discovering many surprises about mis-attributed paternity and covert mating between classes, castes, regions and ethnicities.

We will also identify the many genes that create physical and mental differences across populations, and we will be able to estimate when those genes arose.
Some of those differences probably occurred very recently, within recorded history. Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending argued in “The 10,000 Year Explosion” that some human groups experienced a vastly accelerated rate of evolutionary change within the past few thousand years, benefiting from the new genetic diversity created within far larger populations, and in response to the new survival, social and reproductive challenges of agriculture, cities, divisions of labour and social classes. Others did not experience these changes until the past few hundred years when they were subject to contact, colonisation and, all too often, extermination.

If the shift from GWAS to sequencing studies finds evidence of such politically awkward and morally perplexing facts, we can expect the usual range of ideological reactions, including nationalistic retro-racism from conservatives and outraged denial from blank-slate liberals.
The few who really understand the genetics will gain a more enlightened, live-and-let-live recognition of the biodiversity within our extraordinary species—including a clearer view of likely comparative advantages between the world’s different economies....
 
Last edited:
I'll want some peer reviewed findings first, as the claims are quite outrageous. For example, class can't really have a genetic basis, as the circumstances that determine class can change within a single person's lifetime. For example, the shift in Britain from aristocracy having the money to industrialists was far too rapid for any genetic changes to take place. By the same token, poor farmers became poor factory workers in a single generation. Evolutionary time takes a least hundreds of years for anything noticeable, society can be utterly changed in a decade.

The attempt to frame opponents of their hypothesis as politically minded is sloppy, pathetic and highly unprofessional. Bold claims demand skepticism and scrutiny, so they should expect to be grilled over their findings.
 
I'll want some peer reviewed findings first, as the claims are quite outrageous. For example, class can't really have a genetic basis, as the circumstances that determine class can change within a single person's lifetime. For example, the shift in Britain from aristocracy having the money to industrialists was far too rapid for any genetic changes to take place. By the same token, poor farmers became poor factory workers in a single generation. Evolutionary time takes a least hundreds of years for anything noticeable, society can be utterly changed in a decade.

The attempt to frame opponents of their hypothesis as politically minded is sloppy, pathetic and highly unprofessional. Bold claims demand skepticism and scrutiny, so they should expect to be grilled over their findings.

I can see how class could have a genetic basis. How is any different then say (example) people with genome X has been found to be 80% more likely to have breast cancer. While this does not garuntee cancer it greatly increases the odds.

So instead we have people with genome X has been found to be 80% more likely to be a lower class citizen.

While it may prove nothing I can see how they can make the claim that it may indicate genes can infact play a roll in a persons class. Im not saying that they are not simply drawing political conclusions to suit there own views here.

Not in reply to you but I have often wondered if behavioural differences such as phedophiles and homosexuals were found to have a genetic difference if society would label it as being simply different or label it as a defect? What if science deemed them defects (by whatever scientific means). Would we treat them any differently? Would we treat it as a disease or a social issue?
 
I can see how class could have a genetic basis. How is any different then say (example) people with genome X has been found to be 80% more likely to have breast cancer. While this does not garuntee cancer it greatly increases the odds.

So instead we have people with genome X has been found to be 80% more likely to be a lower class citizen.

While it may prove nothing I can see how they can make the claim that it may indicate genes can infact play a roll in a persons class. Im not saying that they are not simply drawing political conclusions to suit there own views here.

Not in reply to you but I have often wondered if behavioural differences such as phedophiles and homosexuals were found to have a genetic difference if society would label it as being simply different or label it as a defect? What if science deemed them defects (by whatever scientific means). Would we treat them any differently? Would we treat it as a disease or a social issue?

Genetics would only play a role in class if no interbreeding between the class's occured. Which is generally not the case in most areas. Inbreeding is generally not advisable either looking at the Hapsburgs and the genetic deformaties that they had a strong tendancy for as well


As for genetic differences resulting in differing potentials, I certainly feel that it is more then possible.

Looking at the Olympics you see certain physical types dominating in certain athletic events. Tall and thin people tend to do well in long distance endurance running, while a dense muscular body type does well in sprinting. You see East Africans doing very well in the endurance running events, while those of west African heritage do very well in sprinting ( when was the last time a person not of west African ethnicity won the 100 m dash?)

You also have a tendancy for European jews to have Tay Sach's (among other lipid storage diseases) which some believe reflect genes that "enhance dendrite growth and promote higher intelligence when present in carrier form" (quoted from Wiki)
 
i'm not really surprised, i find that the human species is analogous to dogs, the size, shape, colour, abilities all vary wildly per breed, yet all are Canis Lupus Familiaris, and the same is of humans, we're all different, but are all Homo Sapiens
 
I can see how class could have a genetic basis. How is any different then say (example) people with genome X has been found to be 80% more likely to have breast cancer. While this does not garuntee cancer it greatly increases the odds.

Cancer is always caused by cells mutating into uncontrolled growth. Class is determined by a whole host of ever changing factors. For example, lets look a English knights in the 1300's as an example of the upper class. Genetically speaking, having the strength and endurance to survive battles in service of your lord would genetically be an advantage to maintain your class. However, a mere 200 years later, the entire social structure has changed. Nobles no longer engage in combat, wealth is obtained through trade and commerce. Now, having resistance to foreign diseases while sailing around the globe trading is advantageous. 200 years is too short to have much evolutionary change, so it would be impossible to have genetic selection for class.
 
Last edited:
Cancer is always caused by cells mutating into uncontrolled growth. Class is determined by a whole host of ever changing factors. For example, lets look a English knights in the 1300's as an example of the upper class. Genetically speaking, having the strength and endurance to survive battles in service of your lord would genetically be an advantage to maintain your class. However, a mere 200 years later, the entire social structure has changed. Nobles no longer engage in combat, wealth is obtained through trade and commerce. Now, having resistance to foreign diseases while sailing around the globe trading is advantageous. 200 years is too short to have much evolutionary change, so it would be impossible to have genetic selection for class.
Let's not get Diverted by the more difficult 'class', which may be more explainable and small after-the-fact. Rather stick with more easily apparent race and ethnicity until results are released.

The fact that there are differences in, ie, Race and IQ is well known. Only the explanations/rationalizations are different.
For a century or more, anyone suggesting so has been branded a Racist, Eugenecist, etc.
This is a political Nuke. H-bomb in fact.

Careers/reputations were severely damaged in the case of 'The Bell Curve' for documenting what should be evolutionarily obvious. Though these results will probably exonerate them somewhat from the PC attackers.

-
 
Last edited:
Let's not get Diverted by the more difficult 'class', which may be more explainable and small after-the-fact. Rather stick with more easily apparent race and ethnicity until results are released.

The fact that there are differences in, ie, Race and IQ is well known. Only the explanations/rationalizations are different.

Careers/reputations were severely damaged in the case of 'The Bell Curve' for even suggesting so. Though these results will probably exonerate them somewhat from the PC attackers.
This is a political Nuke.
-

The reason this is a political nuke is that the racists will want to use this to justify many programs that will hold back or prevent other ethnic groups.

Ie why fund the educucation of ethnic group X when they are a bunch of morons, all they are good for is physical labour.
 
The reason this is a political nuke is that the racists will want to use this to justify many programs that will hold back or prevent other ethnic groups.

Ie why fund the educucation of ethnic group X when they are a bunch of morons, all they are good for is physical labour.
It's far larger than just education funding.
The simple Fact that some group/Race/ethnicity may not even have the same potential as others is a bombshell and has far larger implications.
In fact, it may (I suspect it Will) explain what we see among the continents and their peoples' in the world today on it's largest scale, and get yet more specific for groups within countries, etc.
 
Last edited:
Who here has watched the movie Gattica?

Some intresting premises in that one, somewhat along these lines. Rather than being racially oriented, it is more a question of what an individual's genes say about their inborn tendencies. Specifically, that your job interview may consist exclusively of a genetic examination.
 
Who here has watched the movie Gattica?

Some intresting premises in that one, somewhat along these lines. Rather than being racially oriented, it is more a question of what an individual's genes say about their inborn tendencies. Specifically, that your job interview may consist exclusively of a genetic examination.

As gene's will only give a person the potential to do achieve things at a certain level. It would be the motivation and environment that will determine if the person reach's that potential
 
As gene's will only give a person the potential to do achieve things at a certain level. It would be the motivation and environment that will determine if the person reach's that potential


I tend to agree with this...but what if the idea took hold that a person's genes were best indicator of his ability to succeed?
 
I tend to agree with this...but what if the idea took hold that a person's genes were best indicator of his ability to succeed?

If that happens I dont want to be around for it. It wont be pretty.


The eugenics ideal that was popular in the early 1900's would come roaring back. We would have institutional policies against specific ethnicities and possible regions (aka hillbillies). Possible sterilization of those that are deemed to be lower genetic stock
 
Let's not get Diverted by the more difficult 'class', which may be more explainable and small after-the-fact. Rather stick with more easily apparent race and ethnicity until results are released.

They made a wild claim that flies in the face of current knowledge, so they should be called on its flaws.

The fact that there are differences in, ie, Race and IQ is well known.

True, but that has nothing to do with genetics. Race and IQ are social constructs, not scientific definitions.

Only the explanations/rationalizations are different.
For a century or more, anyone suggesting so has been branded a Racist, Eugenecist, etc.

That is probably because they were in fact racists and eugenicists. The guys in the 1930's weren't really looking to advance the cause of science.


Careers/reputations were severely damaged in the case of 'The Bell Curve' for documenting what should be evolutionarily obvious. Though these results will probably exonerate them somewhat from the PC attackers.

The bell curve should have damaged careers. It was a horribly sloppy excuse for psychology, much less a more rigorous field like biology. Its entire premise is riddled with unfounded assumptions and over generalized conclusions from simplistic tests. Saying it was Political Correctness that caused criticism is dishonest and shows how weak your argument actually is.
 
They made a wild claim that flies in the face of current knowledge, so they should be called on its flaws.
No. They are reporting what Will be coming out, not personally presenting their own research.
What's "wild" remains to be seen until the studies do come out.

Tho the article author did predict the 'blank-slate hostilty' would be coming from some quarters. Already correct on that I see.

True, but that has nothing to do with genetics. Race and IQ are social constructs, not scientific definitions.
They are studyable classes and I could swear I just filled mine in the US Census.
Go figure.
And their is much previous work on this by others, and yes, they aren't nazis either.
Get a grip.

The bell curve should have damaged careers. It was a horribly sloppy excuse for psychology, much less a more rigorous field like biology. Its entire premise is riddled with unfounded assumptions and over generalized conclusions from simplistic tests.
Saying it was Political Correctness that caused criticism is dishonest and shows how weak your argument actually is.
Actually there is much correct and affirmed in it.
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve]The Bell Curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
-
and These new studies will almost certainly back/affirm yet more.
And there certainly is/was PC reactionism to it from many people who are [also] clueless.

And again, predictably, much ad hom by people like You who are unwilling (and unable) to explore politically incorrect subjects.
-
 
Last edited:
New Genetic studies will reveal there ARE genetic mental and physical differences among the Races/Ethnicities.

Cool! For your next trick, could you tell me next week's winning powerball numbers?

:roll:
 
Tho the article author did predict the 'blank-slate hostilty' would be coming from some quarters. Already correct on that I see.

The hostility comes with good reason. Sloppy work deserves criticism.

They are studyable classes and I could swear I just filled mine in the US Census.
Go figure.
And their is much previous work on this by others, and yes, they aren't nazis either.
Get a grip.

Did your IQ test measure reading comprehension? I didn't mention Nazis at all.

Actually there is much correct and affirmed in it
and These new studies will almost certainly back/affirm yet more.
And there certainly is/was PC reactionism to it from many people who are [also] clueless.

Really, is that why it wasn't submitted for peer review? Breaking the basic process for the scientific method itself doesn't really establish credibility.

And again, predictably, much ad hom by people like You who are unwilling (and unable) to explore politically incorrect subjects.

No, you are whining about how persecuted it was for being politically incorrect to cover the fact that the bell curve is ****ty science.
 
There are certain areas of information that, when they are generally known, lead to far reaching and unjustly ignorant conclusions and actions. The reason this occurs in some areas of knowledge is because a perfect storm of two things applies about the information:

  • the analysis of the information is too complex for the general population to perform or understand

  • and the shoddy analysis they are able to understand easily leads to the aforementioned 'ignorant conclusions and actions.'

Information coming out of these studies is likely to be of this nature. For example, suppose the information shows that Africans are statistically 2% less intelligent than Europeans (I doubt any findings will even be this straightforward, but lets just say...). Would this mean that, say for example, Clarence Thomas was in idiot? Of course not. Whatever the information in this science is, Thomas is probably smarter than anyone on this message board, and there are some smart people here. It would still be true that each individual human ought to be given their individual chance to have our respect.

And yet, many people would begin to let this information affect their behaviors. Important ones, like hiring. Or how they teach certain individuals. And, indeed, it could go much farther than this, in certain places. Overt racism would have a resurgence in locations where it is just barely beneath the surface right now.

The prospects sicken me.

What I would think would be just too funny is if something like Europeans were shown to have statistically fewer dendritic connections in the brain than Africans. It would make laugh for a full day solid, I think.
 
Last edited:
The hostility comes with good reason. Sloppy work deserves criticism.
No, I'm afraid it's you with a GIANT reading comprehension problem.
AGAIN, this is just a report of TO BE Released studies.

Did your IQ test measure reading comprehension? I didn't mention Nazis at all.
Get a grip, this isn't evwen a good aimles but hostile response.

Really, is that why it wasn't submitted for peer review? Breaking the basic process for the scientific method itself doesn't really establish credibility.
It wasn't purely scientific paper and the contriversial parts compose mainly 2 chapters.
Get a grip.

No, you are whining about how persecuted it was for being politically incorrect to cover the fact that the bell curve is ****ty science.
Again with more ad hom.
I knew this topic might be difficult for some. Alas, your misdirected hostility and ad homs, clearly show you are one of those people who can't stay measured in it.
 
the analysis of the information is too complex for the general population to perform or understand
Clearly,and even message board posters.

Information coming out of these studies is likely to be of this nature. For example, suppose the information shows that Africans are statistically 2% less intelligent than Europeans (I doubt any findings will even be this straightforward, but lets just say...).
Past studies have it more like 10%+, a full standard deviation.
But I agree the release will fall all over itself to avoid telling the Flat out truth.
May have been delayed already for soft landing.

Would this mean that, say for example, Clarence Thomas was in idiot? Of course not. Whatever the information in this science is, Thomas is probably smarter than anyone on this message board, and there are some smart people here. It would still be true that each individual human ought to be given their individual chance to have our respect.
This is Very disappointing from you Dezaad.
1. I doubt Clarence thomas is that bright, and
2. Even if his race was shown 10% lesser IQ overall, there's nothing preventing any individual fom being a 150 IQ, even if his group is avg 90. It would just make it less likely.
This is ridiculous attempted refutation by anecdote.
You really should do some preliminary research into this topic.

And yet, many people would begin to let this information affect their behaviors. Important ones, like hiring. Or how they teach certain individuals. And, indeed, it could go much farther than this, in certain places. Overt racism would have a resurgence in locations where it is just barely beneath the surface right now.
The prospects sicken me.
You clearly admit you have an emotional stake in the outcome.
Not ready for simple facts- "sickened"
Many here really need better attitudes as mentioned in the OP about whatever the results show.
Again:

"..We can expect the usual range of ideological reactions, including nationalistic retro-racism from conservatives and outraged denial from blank-slate liberals.
The few who really understand the genetics will gain a more enlightened, live-and-let-live recognition of the biodiversity within our extraordinary species—including a clearer view of likely comparative advantages between the world’s different economies....
 
Last edited:
Information coming out of these studies is likely to be of this nature. For example, suppose the information shows that Africans are statistically 2% less intelligent than Europeans (I doubt any findings will even be this straightforward, but lets just say...). Would this mean that, say for example, Clarence Thomas was in idiot? Of course not. Whatever the information in this science is, Thomas is probably smarter than anyone on this message board, and there are some smart people here. It would still be true that each individual human ought to be given their individual chance to have our respect..
As I said, your logic is fallacious, and beyond, you really need some basics:

Race differences in average IQ are largely Genetic
Medical Research News
26-Apr-2005

A 60-page review of the scientific evidence, some based on state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of brain size, has concluded that race differences in average IQ are largely genetic.

The lead article in the June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy and Law, a journal of the American Psychological Association, examined 10 categories of research evidence from around the world to contrast "a hereditarian model (50% genetic-50% cultural) and a culture-only model (0% genetic-100% cultural)."

The paper, "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability," by J. Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario and Arthur R. Jensen of the University of California at Berkeley, appeared with a positive commentary by Linda Gottfredson of the University of Delaware, three critical ones (by Robert Sternberg of Yale University, Richard Nisbett of the University of Michigan, and Lisa Suzuki & Joshua Aronson of New York University), and the authors' reply.

"Neither the existence nor the size of race differences in IQ are a matter of dispute, only their cause,"
write the authors. The Black-White difference has been found consistently from the time of the massive World War I Army testing of 90 years ago to a massive study of over 6 million corporate, military, and higher-education test-takers in 2001.

"Race differences show up by 3 years of age, even AFTER matching on maternal education and other variables,"
said Rushton. "Therefore they CANNOT be due to poor education since this has not yet begun to exert an effect. That's why Jensen and I looked at the genetic hypothesis in detail. We examined 10 categories of evidence."
1. The Worldwide Pattern of IQ Scores. East Asians average higher on IQ tests than Whites, both in the U. S. and in Asia, even though IQ tests were developed for use in the Euro-American culture.
Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; for Whites, about 100; and for Blacks about 85 in the U.S. and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa.


2. Race Differences are Most Pronounced on Tests that Best Measure the General Intelligence Factor (g). Black-White differences, for example, are larger on the Backward Digit Span test than on the less g loaded Forward Digit Span test.

3. The Gene-Environment Architecture of IQ is the Same in all Races, and Race Differences are Most Pronounced on More Heritable Abilities. Studies of Black, White, and East Asian twins, for example, show the heritability of IQ is 50% or higher in all races.

4. Brain Size Differences. Studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) find a correlation of brain size with IQ of about 0.40. Larger brains contain more neurons and synapses and process information faster. Race differences in brain size are present at birth. By adulthood, East Asians average 1 cubic inch more cranial capacity than Whites who average 5 cubic inches more than Blacks.

5. Trans-Racial Adoption Studies. Race differences in IQ Remain following adoption by White middle class parents. East Asians grow to average higher IQs than Whites while Blacks score lower. The Minnesota Trans-Racial Adoption Study followed children to age 17 and found race differences were even greater than at age 7: White children, 106; Mixed-Race children, 99; and Black children, 89.

6. Racial Admixture Studies. Black children with lighter skin, for example, average higher IQ scores. In South Africa, the IQ of the mixed-race "Colored" population averages 85, intermediate to the African 70 and White 100.

7. IQ Scores of Blacks and Whites Regress toward the Averages of Their Race. Parents pass on only some exceptional genes to offspring so parents with very high IQs tend to have more average children. Black and White children with parents of IQ 115 move to different averages--Blacks toward 85 and Whites to 100.

8. Race Differences in Other "Life-History" Traits. East Asians and Blacks consistently fall at two ends of a continuum with Whites intermediate on 60 measures of maturation, personality, reproduction, and social organization. For example, Black children sit, crawl, walk, and put on their clothes earlier than Whites or East Asians.

9. Race Differences and the Out-of-Africa theory of Human Origins. East Asian-White-Black differences fit the theory that modern humans arose in Africa about 100,000 years ago and expanded northward. During prolonged winters there was evolutionary selection for higher IQ created by problems of raising children, gathering and storing food, gaining shelter, and making clothes.

10. Do Culture-Only Theories Explain the Data? Culture-only theories do not explain the highly consistent pattern of race differences in IQ, especially the East Asian data. No interventions such as ending segregation, introducing school busing, or "Head Start" programs have reduced the gaps as culture-only theory would predict.​

In their article, Rushton and Jensen also address some of the policy issues that stem from their conclusions. Their main recommendation is that people be treated as individuals, not as members of groups. They emphasized that their paper pertains only to average differences. They also called for the need to accurately inform the public about the true nature of individual and group differences, genetics and evolutionary biology.

Rushton and Jensen are well-known for research on racial differences in intelligence. Jensen hypothesized a genetic basis for Black-White IQ differences in his 1969 Harvard Educational Review article. His later books Bias in Mental Tests (1980) and The g Factor (1998), as well as Rushton's (1995) Race, Evolution, and Behavior, show that tests are not biased against English speaking minorities and that Black-White-East Asian differences in brain size and IQ belong in an evolutionary framework.

CHARLES DARWIN RESEARCH INSTITUTE
VIA:
Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic
 
Last edited:
whats the big deal?????
Italians wave their hands
Blacks tend to be .5 larger than whites
Asians then to be smaller.... yet they have their kids more under control
Indians are focused on learning



You see something that is out of place PLEASE tell me. Certain cultures have certain attributes.

It is what it is. There is no absolute.
 
Last edited:
The reason this is a political nuke is that the racists will want to use this to justify many programs that will hold back or prevent other ethnic groups.

Assuming you believe this, what would be some examples? I expect that with current technology and communication capabilities, it's not likely that anyone would actually use this information in this manner today. 80-100 years ago? Yeah.
 
New Genetic studies will reveal there ARE genetic mental and physical differences among the Races/Ethnicities.

Frankly, I'm surprised that anyone thinks otherwise. We are all different, we all have our strengths and weaknesses, and we all have qualities that can contribute to the betterment of society and mankind. As long as equal opportunity to succeed or fail, whatever one desires, is preserved and practiced, I'm not offended. We like to pretend that the world just awakened one day with different races, beliefs, cultures, and interests.
 
Clearly,and even message board posters.
What is it, exactly, that you think I believe?

Past studies have it more like 10%+, a full standard deviation.
But I agree the release will fall all over itself to avoid telling the Flat out truth.
May have been delayed already for soft landing.
I am not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that they are delaying release of the info for propaganda purposes?

This is Very disappointing from you Dezaad.
1. I doubt Clarence thomas is that bright
Really? A guy who made it to be a Supreme Court Justice isn't that bright? Not brighter than a bunch of Internet dwellers on a message board? Ok :doh
, and
2. Even if his race was shown 10% lesser IQ overall, there's nothing preventing any individual fom being a 150 IQ, even if his group is avg 90. It would just make it less likely.
...
OMFG. You are simply making my argument for me. This is EXACTLY what I was trying to convey. This is precisely the reason every individual deserves their chance to prove themselves. What did you think I meant?

You clearly admit you have an emotional stake in the outcome.
Yep. I think we all should have an emotional stake in the outcome.

If it turns out that it is a fact that one race TENDS to be less capable than another, it would still not justify discrimination based on race: Because any one individual within that race could be a whole lot smarter than, say 80% of the other 'smarter' race.

But, this isn't what would happen. Discrimination would happen based on race. Humans don't behave in an ideal fashion. There would be a pronounced wave of discrimination based on facts, but also based on faulty logic.

Not ready for simple facts- "sickened"
You seem to think that I won't accept the facts (if they turn out as the OP hints), or that I believe in suppressing them. I don't. I am still sickened by the probable outcome in society that will result from the discovery of those facts. You should be too.

Many here really need better attitudes as mentioned in the OP about whatever the results show.
Agreed. But, here, the majority probably will. Out there, not so much.
Again:

"..We can expect the usual range of ideological reactions, including nationalistic retro-racism from conservatives and outraged denial from blank-slate liberals.
The few who really understand the genetics will gain a more enlightened, live-and-let-live recognition of the biodiversity within our extraordinary species—including a clearer view of likely comparative advantages between the world’s different economies....

I concur, it will be only a few who really understand the meaning of the genetics and will gain an enlightened, live and let live recognition ... and so forth. The rest, the majority, will choose a different path. This is what scares me. A majority will feel justified in their racism.

I know it seems impossible, but sometimes the revelation of facts CAN lead to poor outcomes. I still believe that we must maintain credibility by allowing the truth to see the full light of day, but that changes nothing about the nature of the outcome.

All that said, I do think we need a reminder that this information has not been presented, yet. Nor has it been debated by the larger scientific community. I have been speaking hypothetically and speculatively about what it is that they think they have.
 
Back
Top Bottom