84% of surveyed intelligence researchers believe the gaps are at least partially genetic.[1] This statement is not just an appeal to authority, it is also inaccurate.
Anon Rationalist
Karma: 163
I agree with those who say it is better not to discuss the issue of whether some races are, on average, more academically successful or of higher IQ than others.
I disagree with the assertion that it is better to avoid these discussions. A better understanding of the forces underlying intelligence, and its correlates of socioeconomic status and wellbeing, are potentially incredibly valuable to the mission of doing the most good.
As Scott Alexander concludes in his article about why Jewish overachievement is interesting[1]:
But maybe the Jewish advantage will turn out to be cultural. If that’s true, I think it would be even more interesting—it would mean there’s some set of beliefs and norms which can double your income and dectuple your chance of making an important scientific discovery.
In the United States, the government spends billions of dollars on education, and increasingly focuses on closing racial achievement gaps. This effort plateaued decades ago, and the gaps remain massive.[2] This is not without costs. For example, many universities have abandoned standardized testing that have been proven predictive of student performance[3][4]. Discovering more effective methods, or that no environmental intervention would close these gaps, is of critical importance both in the United States and in altruistic efforts abroad.
We need to understand the tractability of the problem, as we try to with other interventions.
Even in the original email, Bostrom makes clear that differences in intelligence do not alter the moral value or human dignity of each person.
For him, as for many, the issues of intelligence and moral worth are distinct; he never claims that black people are worth less, you are ascribing your own notion that IQ=moral worth, and then blaming him for not responding to it.
It is surprising to see a community of rationalists so opposed to Bostrom’s original point, which is that object level discussions of potentially uncomfortable truths are best avoided in general company, but useful among rationalists.
I am especially disappointed in Bostrom himself, who seems to hedge on a belief he still clearly believes to be empirically valid.
Genetic differences in intelligence are certainly an impolite discussion, but Bostrom’s original framing coincides with my view; intelligence is not tied to moral worth or human dignity, but, for a moral philosophy focused on improving wellbeing, the topic is worth exploring.
Blank slate naivety should not have a home in a rationalist community, and we should embrace evidence regardless of what truths it leads to. I would be much more comfortable with a debate on the merits of evidence and ramifications than dismissal on aesthetic grounds of “racism.” At the least, we could discuss hereditarianism as in information hazard, but the outright dismissal of a strongly supported position seems at odds with the principles of this community.
I think this framing is accurate, and touches on a divide that has been repeatedly arising in EA discussions. I have heard this as “rationalists vs. normies,” “high decouplers vs. low decouplers,” and in the context of “feminization” of the movement (in reference to traditionally masculine dispassionate reason falling out of favor in exchange for emphasis on social harmony).
Additionally, I believe there are significant costs to total embrace of both sides of the “divide.”
There are cause areas with significant potential to improve effectiveness that are underexplored due to social stigma. A better understanding of heritability and genetic influences on all aspect of human behavior could change the trajectory of effective interventions in education, crime reduction, gene-editing, and more. A rationalist EA movement would likely do more good per dollar.
Embrace of rationalism would be toxic to the brand of EA and its funding sources. The main animus I have seen for the Bostrom email is that he said black people have lower IQs than white people. This, though an empirical fact, is clearly beyond the pale to a large percentage of the population EA seeks to win over. Topics like longtermism and animal welfare are weird to most people, but HBD actively lowers public perception and resultant funding. The good per dollar may go up, but without a degree of tact, the amount of dollars would significantly decrease.
I must imagine that there is a utility function that could find the equilibrium between these two contrasting factors: where the good per dollar and amount of funding achieve the most possible total good.