Matthew—many EAs seem to think that intelligence research is ‘this one topic with virtually no relevance to our actual goals’, but doesn’t make sense to me.
Intelligence research is relevant to (for example):
measuring harmful effects of global public health problems (e.g. IQ deficits due to parasite load, lead exposure, iodine deficiency),
identifying effective educational interventions (after controlling for IQ),
improving mental health (where lower IQ is a risk factor for most mental illnesses), and
choosing careers (e.g. 80k hours recommendations that should take each person’s cognitive abilities into account.)
General intelligence is the most reliable, valid, predictive psychological trait ever discovered, and it has pervasive implications for human flourishing, education, economics, mental health, physical health, careers, and many other domains.
Embryo selection for cognitive ability would have plenty of positive downstream consequences. If in vitro gametogenesis enables selection from large batches, there could be large gains from selection. If smart fraction theory is true, then widespread cognitive genetic enhancement even among a small portion of the population may have disproportionately large downstream positive consequences. Not discussing cognitive ability might be deterimental considering the benefits are so large. This is one cause area that I think is drastically underconsidered due in part to stigma.
I understand. But the idea that there’s some nefarious field of ‘race science’ is a straw man buzzword invented by activist academics who are opposed to any empirical study of group differences in any domain of science—even things like biomedical differences in responsiveness to different pharmaceuticals, or differences in susceptibility to specific diseases.
I would define race science as the field trying to prove the superiority of one race over another race, for the purpose of supporting a racial hierarchy.
So IQ differences between races = race science
Susceptibility to different diseases != race science
Differences in 100M dash times != race science (countries don’t choose their leaders based on sprint times).
Do you think there are absolutely no differences between races in how they score on IQ tests?
Do you believe in race science?
Edit: Comment below was deleted so I am posting what prompted me to ask this question.
My point is that “IQ differences between races = race science” is such a low qualifying bar that you might fall under it. It appears the author of this post acknowledges the existence of IQ differences. Many people do not dispute that there are disparities in IQ scores, as well as SAT, ACT, MCAT, etc.
I believe there exist gaps on these tests. And yet, I wish they did not exist. Many come to these conclusions not because they are “trying to prove the superiority of one race over another race” but because they are persuaded by the evidence. The people willing to discuss this are extraordinarily atypical due to extreme selection pressure from social stigma. This probably makes most sane people “in the know” avoid discussing the topic entirely.
Again, if there are no differences then open inquiry will reveal the truth and we should pursue these questions. If there are differences and its infohazardous, we ought to want to prepare by inoculating people from the idea that anything heinous follows from these facts. Eventually genetic researchers will demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt what is true. They will talk about ancestral populations when they do rather than races. Researching the genetic architecture of cognitive ability will inadvertently point to population differences if they exist.
If we hide data and do not expand datasets on cognitive ability and other culturally sensitive traits of diverse non-European populations, parents from those populations will have less ability to accurately select embryos with those desired traits. The sensitivity around these questions creates an unwillingness to do GWAS of IQ and even prevents scientists from accessing NIH data.
Since I am a strong proponent of cognitive enhancement and think IQ is a major driving force in inter- and intranational socioeconomic outcomes, I think stigmatizing and delaying research into these topics is extaordinarily harmful. Slight delays could mean the differences between global catestrophe and a longterm future. Massive cognitive enhancement would be extraordinarly important.
Wouldn’t an acceptable approach to race science be to demonstrate that races are actually all the same across every trait we care about and the racists are wrong? Why not fight bad science with good science?
I disagree, I don’t think there is value in race science at all, since race isn’t a particularly good way of categorizing people. At the moment, there are plenty of good scholars working in population genetics (David Reich at Harvard is a good example). None of the scholars I’m aware of use race as a primary grouping variable, since it’s not particularly precise.
David Reich claims that whilst we don’t currently have any evidence to suggest that one particular population group is genetically more intelligent than another, the claim that such a thing is impossible or even unlikely, is also incorrect. Theres currently not much evidence either way and there’s no theoretical basis on which to decide there aren’t any such differences either.
At the same time he highlights the importance of respecting all people as individuals when treating with them, irrespective of the distribution of various characteristerics among their population groups.
Matthew—many EAs seem to think that intelligence research is ‘this one topic with virtually no relevance to our actual goals’, but doesn’t make sense to me.
Intelligence research is relevant to (for example):
measuring harmful effects of global public health problems (e.g. IQ deficits due to parasite load, lead exposure, iodine deficiency),
discussing cognitive enhancement (e.g. embryo selection),
identifying effective educational interventions (after controlling for IQ),
improving mental health (where lower IQ is a risk factor for most mental illnesses), and
choosing careers (e.g. 80k hours recommendations that should take each person’s cognitive abilities into account.)
General intelligence is the most reliable, valid, predictive psychological trait ever discovered, and it has pervasive implications for human flourishing, education, economics, mental health, physical health, careers, and many other domains.
Embryo selection for cognitive ability would have plenty of positive downstream consequences. If in vitro gametogenesis enables selection from large batches, there could be large gains from selection. If smart fraction theory is true, then widespread cognitive genetic enhancement even among a small portion of the population may have disproportionately large downstream positive consequences. Not discussing cognitive ability might be deterimental considering the benefits are so large. This is one cause area that I think is drastically underconsidered due in part to stigma.
To be clear, the “one topic” is race science, not general intelligence.
I understand. But the idea that there’s some nefarious field of ‘race science’ is a straw man buzzword invented by activist academics who are opposed to any empirical study of group differences in any domain of science—even things like biomedical differences in responsiveness to different pharmaceuticals, or differences in susceptibility to specific diseases.
I would define race science as the field trying to prove the superiority of one race over another race, for the purpose of supporting a racial hierarchy.
So IQ differences between races = race science
Susceptibility to different diseases != race science
Differences in 100M dash times != race science (countries don’t choose their leaders based on sprint times).
Do you think there are absolutely no differences between races in how they score on IQ tests?
Do you believe in race science?
Edit: Comment below was deleted so I am posting what prompted me to ask this question.
My point is that “IQ differences between races = race science” is such a low qualifying bar that you might fall under it. It appears the author of this post acknowledges the existence of IQ differences. Many people do not dispute that there are disparities in IQ scores, as well as SAT, ACT, MCAT, etc.
I believe there exist gaps on these tests. And yet, I wish they did not exist. Many come to these conclusions not because they are “trying to prove the superiority of one race over another race” but because they are persuaded by the evidence. The people willing to discuss this are extraordinarily atypical due to extreme selection pressure from social stigma. This probably makes most sane people “in the know” avoid discussing the topic entirely.
Again, if there are no differences then open inquiry will reveal the truth and we should pursue these questions. If there are differences and its infohazardous, we ought to want to prepare by inoculating people from the idea that anything heinous follows from these facts. Eventually genetic researchers will demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt what is true. They will talk about ancestral populations when they do rather than races. Researching the genetic architecture of cognitive ability will inadvertently point to population differences if they exist.
If we hide data and do not expand datasets on cognitive ability and other culturally sensitive traits of diverse non-European populations, parents from those populations will have less ability to accurately select embryos with those desired traits. The sensitivity around these questions creates an unwillingness to do GWAS of IQ and even prevents scientists from accessing NIH data.
Since I am a strong proponent of cognitive enhancement and think IQ is a major driving force in inter- and intranational socioeconomic outcomes, I think stigmatizing and delaying research into these topics is extaordinarily harmful. Slight delays could mean the differences between global catestrophe and a longterm future. Massive cognitive enhancement would be extraordinarly important.
Wouldn’t an acceptable approach to race science be to demonstrate that races are actually all the same across every trait we care about and the racists are wrong? Why not fight bad science with good science?
I disagree, I don’t think there is value in race science at all, since race isn’t a particularly good way of categorizing people. At the moment, there are plenty of good scholars working in population genetics (David Reich at Harvard is a good example). None of the scholars I’m aware of use race as a primary grouping variable, since it’s not particularly precise.
Would you support discussions and research into ancestral population differences?
Sure, I provided David Reich as an example of a population geneticist doing good work that I believe is worthwhile.
David Reich claims that whilst we don’t currently have any evidence to suggest that one particular population group is genetically more intelligent than another, the claim that such a thing is impossible or even unlikely, is also incorrect. Theres currently not much evidence either way and there’s no theoretical basis on which to decide there aren’t any such differences either.
At the same time he highlights the importance of respecting all people as individuals when treating with them, irrespective of the distribution of various characteristerics among their population groups.