> do you really think you can objectively evaluate the truth of these claims without bias?
Yes, more or less, just as many kinds of professionals are required to do the same. But regardless, my entire point is that the truth of these claims is the least important thing about them, just as the interesting question about a wager between two college students of whether a vagrant would shit his pants or not when they set him on fire is not which of them was right.
> I assume you mean the motivation is some sort of collectivist hatred or other negative feeling
I did not study psychology but history, and I'm not interested in feelings but in the distribution of power. Yes, the motivation is to justify and perpetuate a distribution of power that's favorable to the groups where those ideas are found.
> In that case, it's pretty clear that you intend this to be a mere ad-hominem attack. You simply refuse to acknowledge the possibility that a person might hold certain positive beliefs without also holding certain normative beliefs.
Not at all. When discussing the history of ideas we do not attempt to track every single person's motivations, just as I don't suppose you "refuse to acknowledge the possibility" of some black woman being smarter than some Asian man. Your beliefs -- as I hope you know -- are not only not unique at this point in time, they echo almost precisely very old and well studied ones, and thus can be and indeed have been discussed in general without attributing anything to you personally. Even in proper science (leaving aside the question of whether a certain strain of scientific racism qualifies as such or not), researchers often discuss why they're interested in a specific question (and need to justify the importance of their research in order receive grants). So the question of what motivates certain people to be interested in studying and publicly writing about any scientific topic is not only reasonable and pertinent, but a fairly common one. Even on a personal level, a scientist often needs to answer it to herself and to others.
Also, I am absolutely not attacking you, but merely pointing out that the name of the school of thought your beliefs (in this context) belong to is scientific racism. Perhaps now that you know what your philosophy is called, you can more easily find academic discussions about it if you are interested in learning more. But just as I wouldn't be able to fairly say, "people here are call me names like billionaire", after telling them I have billions in the bank regardless of my personal feelings towards the name, I don't think you get to say that people "call you racist" when it is you who present yourself as such (and not in any subtle way, or one that's open to interpretation), even though it turns out that you don't like the title.
But regardless, my entire point is that the truth of these claims is the least important thing about them...
That much is clear, and the source of our differences. I do care about reality and I don't mind if bad people have learned true facts.
Yes, the motivation is to justify and perpetuate a distribution of power that's favorable to the groups where those ideas are found.
And the motivation for studying evolution is to reduce people's faith in the one true god, and prevent them from getting to heaven. Therefore I can refer to an individual evolutionist as a satanist.
When discussing the history of ideas we do not attempt to track every single person's motivations
You aren't discussing the history of ideas. You are discussing specifically whether I am a "scientific racist" and "white supremacist". And you've defined these terms as people having specific motivations which I don't share.
> That much is clear, and the source of our differences. I do care about reality and I don't mind if bad people have learned true facts.
That cannot possibly be our difference because I also care about reality and I don't mind if bad people have learned true facts. I have no reason to believe that I care about reality any less than you do. There are only two differences between our views : 1. I do not think there is currently any evidence whatsoever that innate differences between human races are a significant causal factor in the observed power difference, and 2. I think that in the whole of science there are few questions that are less interesting. In fact, while I have occasionally found myself pondering scientific questions that can be said to be utterly ridiculous and pointless, the thought of whether blacks are less intelligent than whites has never even crossed my mind. When a question does cross my mind, I always -- always -- ask myself why is it important to me that I should spend time pondering it, let alone writing about it. I think that in all of science, pretty much the only time uninteresting questions (i.e., those not given explicit justification for study by scientists) become interesting is when there is incontrovertible evidence for something totally surprising (even if uninteresting). I don't think that this is the case with scientific racism, either.
I wonder why it is that this question is so important to you, that you'd rather spend your time writing about it, than say, how cats purr or why we yawn.
> You are discussing specifically whether I am a "scientific racist" and "white supremacist". And you've defined these terms as people having specific motivations which I don't share.
I'm afraid I don't think it is possible to believe whites are innately more intelligent than blacks and not be a white supremacist (at least not without some clearly spelled out motivation), or to believe that differences in traits such as intelligence between races are either supported by science or should be studied by science without being a scientific racist, sorry. I sort-of understand your desire to both have a billion dollars and yet not be considered a billionaire, but I'm just not sure how this can be done.
You may claims that scientific racism is an interesting and valid scientific discipline or that your motivations are pure etc., but you cannot argue that you are not a scientific racist if those are your views.
Also, I did not define scientific racism as having specific motivations. I restated the well accepted -- and, AFAIK, the only definition of scientific racism, as the belief that some races are innately superior or inferior to others (usually in qualities that coincide with social power) and that this can and/or should be proven with science. I added, in response to your question, that it has been well established (although that is not the definition) that scientific racism is an all-too-familiar tool being used in the same ways, making the same assertions, time and again by people with similar motivations. Your personal motivations are your own business, but I wonder if you've asked yourself why you are personally so drawn to such questions, especially as most people (even those who care a lot about reality) aren't.
Just like a creationist, when you finally stop going around in circles, you end up questioning the motivations of your opponent as a shaming attack, even as you insist they are not your business.
First, I did not question anyone's motivations, simply expressed curiosity, because the scientific questions that interest yummyfajitas are so unusual. It was through him that I first learned of contemporary scientific racism, and I am truly and honestly curious about this. E.g., how far do they go? Do they also think we should investigate whether people of Irish descent are more intelligent than people of German descent? If so, what are their hypotheses? Are they also interested in studying qualities like sense of humor? Love of satirical novels? To my ears, someone saying that we must know the truth about whether or not blacks are dumber than whites sounds no less bizarre than someone who says we must know by how much the angle of a cat's raised tail changes after dreaming of mice, and to anyone who asks why this question is of so much interest, they say, "why are you trying to hide the truth?" I think most scientist find a person's (let alone a group's) fascination with such questions of far greater scientific interest and importance than the actual answer to the questions.
Second, I don't know how much you're involved with the scientific community, but every researcher is required to explain their motivation for studying just about anything (at least in the first half of their careers, and even when they're not required, it is something that they're expected to be able to answer when interviewed, for example). That's just how science works. Third, I don't recall making any kind of attack in this thread.
If your curiosity is genuine I can tell you the answer.
First, a casual perusal of any human biodiversity blog will tell you that they do in fact care about differences between Germans and Irish as well. Or Tamils and Gujuratis, or a variety of other groups that exhibit interesting differences.
Intelligence is particularly interesting relative to other traits since it explains so many social outcomes, but many other traits are interesting. For example, clannishness: https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2013/09/07/how-inbred-are-euro... Some people just find human biology intrinsically interesting, and don't have the same negative emotional reactions to it that you do.
If you want a more traditional "give me a grant" motivation, here it is: public policy. Consider racial disparities across fields. One possible cause of such disparities is disparate treatment - e.g., judging white job applicants more harshly than Asian ones. Another possibility is disparate ability - e.g. a greater proportion of Asian people than white people are smart.
Different causes of disparities would significantly change what policy you would choose. For example, if disparate ability is the cause and equal outcomes is your goal, you would choose a quota system to cap the number of Asians.
and to anyone who shouts them down, calls them racist and attempts to get them socially ostracized, they say, "why are you trying to hide the truth?
> If you want a more traditional "give me a grant" motivation, here it is: public policy.
In that case, I can set your mind at ease. There is a wide scientific consensus -- no less conclusive than the consensus on global warming and based on decades of research -- that social policy itself and other social forces are by far the leading causes for power disparity.
Just to be clear: differences in ability among social groups are real, variance of ability among individuals due to biology is also real, and ability is indeed one factor in power disparity among individuals. What we're debating is the relationship between the three. The debate is whether biological differences are the main explanation for differences in abilities between social groups, and, more importantly, whether biological differences have any significant explanatory power for the vast power disparity between social groups.
Also, it is unclear to me how a positive answer for the biological explanation could possibly affect public policy. Your point that "if ... equal outcomes is your goal, you would choose a quota system to cap the number of Asians" is a non-sequitur. For one, "equal income" in the public policy sense doesn't remotely resemble what you imply you think it does in your suggestion. For another, I don't see why your suggestion would be different if the difference in ability was environmental rather than biological.
> don't have the same negative emotional reactions to it that you do
My emotional reaction stems from the fact that empirical evidence is so much against a biological explanation for the power disparity, and arguments against it are based on findings of such small effect size (which doesn't even suggest causality, but even assuming it does) combined with strong potential self-interest. This is a very similar emotional response to that towards climate-change deniers. Their evidence is weak, and denying human-caused global warming serves their interests. Maybe the reaction is unjustified and we should approach every single time anyone brings up an idea without consideration for the thousands of times similar ideas have been expressed in the past, but the reaction is nonetheless, I think, very reasonable.
> calls them racist
I think you are way too obsessed with labels. Definitions in social science are not the same as definitions in the exact sciences, and they are more used as a shortcut to frame a first guess. The opinions you express are textbook scientific racism, lifted almost verbatim from late-19th or early-20th century texts. I use the name to roughly place them in a tradition of ideas; you think it is an insult. Such rough categorization (which are well recognized by social researchers as such) are an invaluable tool in disciplines with too many variables. Without them, we cannot even begin to discuss models in the history of ideas. Denying that your ideas are part of the traditions is silly and factually wrong, and completely separate from the question of whether they're true or not. So how about instead of saying that you're a scientific racist, I'd simply say that your ideas are part of the scientific racism tradition?
You may counter and say that because scientific racism has bad connotations today (even though it was once the consensus), this is an implied insult. But scientific racism has always made scientific claims, and those claims have turned out to be false, that I think that if you're trying to go against scientific consensus (as you yourself claimed you do) -- which is certainly scientifically valid -- and if you think that unlike previous incarnations, scientific racism in its current incarnation is different the burden of proof is on you. If you want to dispel the negative connotations behind scientific racism, you can't attack their validity, because they are very valid; you should just prove us wrong (I would suggest, however, that you employ better data and better analysis than you did, for example, when writing about women's abilities in STEM, because your assumptions basically dictated the result, and were absolutely not justified, so that's going to do the very opposite of changing scientific consensus).
Yes, more or less, just as many kinds of professionals are required to do the same. But regardless, my entire point is that the truth of these claims is the least important thing about them, just as the interesting question about a wager between two college students of whether a vagrant would shit his pants or not when they set him on fire is not which of them was right.
> I assume you mean the motivation is some sort of collectivist hatred or other negative feeling
I did not study psychology but history, and I'm not interested in feelings but in the distribution of power. Yes, the motivation is to justify and perpetuate a distribution of power that's favorable to the groups where those ideas are found.
> In that case, it's pretty clear that you intend this to be a mere ad-hominem attack. You simply refuse to acknowledge the possibility that a person might hold certain positive beliefs without also holding certain normative beliefs.
Not at all. When discussing the history of ideas we do not attempt to track every single person's motivations, just as I don't suppose you "refuse to acknowledge the possibility" of some black woman being smarter than some Asian man. Your beliefs -- as I hope you know -- are not only not unique at this point in time, they echo almost precisely very old and well studied ones, and thus can be and indeed have been discussed in general without attributing anything to you personally. Even in proper science (leaving aside the question of whether a certain strain of scientific racism qualifies as such or not), researchers often discuss why they're interested in a specific question (and need to justify the importance of their research in order receive grants). So the question of what motivates certain people to be interested in studying and publicly writing about any scientific topic is not only reasonable and pertinent, but a fairly common one. Even on a personal level, a scientist often needs to answer it to herself and to others.
Also, I am absolutely not attacking you, but merely pointing out that the name of the school of thought your beliefs (in this context) belong to is scientific racism. Perhaps now that you know what your philosophy is called, you can more easily find academic discussions about it if you are interested in learning more. But just as I wouldn't be able to fairly say, "people here are call me names like billionaire", after telling them I have billions in the bank regardless of my personal feelings towards the name, I don't think you get to say that people "call you racist" when it is you who present yourself as such (and not in any subtle way, or one that's open to interpretation), even though it turns out that you don't like the title.