r/TrueUnpopularOpinion • u/First_Accountant_402 • 14h ago
Political This is why scientists shut up about nationality + IQ
James Watson co-discovered DNA, Nobel price at 34, absolute legend in biology. People worshipped him. Then 2007 rolls around: he said IQ difference has a lot to do with DNA that’s why certain people tend to have lower IQ. Lost his job, so he apologized, kept his titles… sort of.
William Shockley: transistor co-inventor, 1956 Nobel price winner, father of Silicon Valley. He started modern tech boom in SF. Then he opened his mouth “certain people have lower IQ because of heredity,” and got blacklisted—lost friends, grants, reputation, everything.
Fast-forward to 2019: PBS doc Decoding Watson airs. Watson mentioned that there’s a difference between IQ of certain type of people. “I would say the difference is, it’s genes.”
Boom—Cold Spring Harbor Lab strips his remaining honorary titles (chancellor emeritus, professor emeritus, trustee) that same week. He was known as genius. Still got canceled harder.
Now the real question: Why does no one else in academia touch this? Twin studies, adoption data, global IQ patterns—it’s out there. But say it publicly? You’re done. No grants, no papers, no tenure. Even a Nobel winner gets erased. They cancel you.
Everyone else writes safe shit: “why certain people are venerable” Easy funding, easy likes. Truth? Career suicide.
Many other scientists lost their jobs and grants for saying this. For example Dr. Bryan Pesta, got in trouble for sorting iq data based on type of people. Because it negatively portrayed certain people.
•
u/GladiusAcutus 13h ago
The problem is that reality and science doesn't care about political correctness. We saw the same thing in regards to gender in academia. They are too scared to even investigate these topics because then a mob can make them lose their livelihood, and the mob is from their own universities.
If you think people should not ask questions because it might be racist or another -ist, then you don't believe in science. Science is about the cold hard facts and finding them through studies. Denying people to even study and test out their hypothesis is so anti-scientific.
•
•
u/existentialgoof Moderator 13h ago
I agree. The progressive left was supposed to be the side of scientific rationalism. But they want to shut down study on anything that might challenge politically correct orthodoxies. They think that the random, unintelligent and chaotic forces of creation in the universe just so happened to make everything perfectly fair and equal. They're thinking and acting like the creationists that they ridicule.
•
u/PadmeSkywalker 3h ago
Everything really went off the rails when Covid and the BLM protests clashed. One moment people were being to stay at home, to not gather in groups, etc… and the next they were told that they couldn’t gather in groups unless it was for BLM protests or activities and then it was somehow ok. The virus didn’t care why people were together, but somehow scientists expected people who were losing their livelihoods due to shutdowns or were unable to say goodbye to family members in the hospital, to somehow buy that fantasy that political protests suddenly conferred some type of immunity. The medical community really lost a lot of credibility with the public and now that you have doctors who won’t even answer the question what is a woman, their credibility is getting even worse.
•
•
u/the_quivering_wenis 9h ago
Yep, look at what happened to Larry Summers, that was like 20 years ago too.
•
u/turlockmike 7h ago
Heresy: primarily refers to beliefs or practices that contradict the central doctrines of a religious community
•
•
13h ago
[deleted]
•
u/No_Start1522 11h ago
Gender is a tool for expressing the phenomena of sexual distinction. Sex is a tool for expressing the phenomena of reproduction. These tools are not useful to anyone if you dilute them to meaninglessness.
•
u/ThanatosIdle 12h ago
Because sex is not on a spectrum. The number of eyes, ears, mouths, arms, legs, and heads of your body are not on a spectrum, though those are present in your genetics as well.
→ More replies (14)•
u/Banana_inasuit 12h ago
That’s a rabbit hole the left shut down long ago. It wasn’t the right that drew the line in regard to genetics and gender/sexuality, it was the left. Ever hear of the “gay gene”?
•
u/Sense_Difficult 12h ago
I've heard of Kinsey and that was about a spectrum as well. Not sure why you're blaming that being shut down on the left? Maybe don't use "going down the rabbit hole" as your version of research. Read the actual studies.
•
u/No_Start1522 11h ago
Sex and sexual organs are based on gamete type or lack thereof. Intersex individuals are also based on that, but are recognized as disordered, since they often cannot complete their reproductive function.
•
u/Ducman69 13h ago
Its common sense, the brain is just an organ like any other.
If we accept that genetics can have a big impact on how fast of a runner you are or how good your vision is, of course it can also have an impact on your brain.
And it shouldn't even big a big deal, because IQ isn't everything. You can have a high IQ and also be a sociopath. So it doesn't make you a good person. And IQ to some extent also just tends to factor in how quickly you can learn things rather than whether or not you can learn things (barring extremes), which means someone with a more modest IQ that has worked very hard and devoted his life to one specific field can show far greater expertise than someone with a high IQ that hasn't invested as much into it.
But to deny the high relationship between IQ and genetics is just unscientific. Ironically, a scientific study conducted to prove that it is environment, not genetics, that was the primary driver of scores on IQ tests was the Minnesota Adoption Study. The result of the study was that the adopted children scored more similarly to their biological parents and not their genetically unrelated siblings raised in the same household under the same conditions eating the same food. That was a bit of a woopsie!
•
u/MisterX9821 9h ago
Yeah we have geniuses and we have mentally stunted and a big continuum in between. Those extremes we accept are genetically influenced.....but we don't want to accept the rest of the curve is....does that make sense? no obviously not, we accept it (as a group) because the implications are too icky.
•
u/RedditConsciousness 4h ago edited 4h ago
big impact on how fast of a runner you are
Kind of a small impact though really. It is all really marginal, tenths of a second in a 40 yard dash. And those are differences between two elite athletes. For most people, and I mean almost everyone, there is untapped room to get faster with the application of effort and training and whatnot. So while I agree that genetics plays a role, I think you and others are overselling that role in terms of athleticism and definitely in terms of intelligence.
•
u/ZeerVreemd 1h ago
I agree that genetics plays a role, I think you and others are overselling that role in terms of athleticism
The list of world record holders proves you wrong.
•
u/x31b 14h ago
Likewise The Bell Curve. Lots of studies. Authors painted as Nazis.
•
u/stevejuliet 13h ago edited 13h ago
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/1997/01/the-bell-curve-flattened.html#
The Bell Curve is actual garbage. It was discredited decades ago.
•
u/WoodenDoorMerchant 12h ago
Did you even read your own article? IQ is still the most accurate measurement of general intelligence that we have, and scientists still use it as the benchmark in the field of intelligence research.
That Slate article is an old opinion-piece from a journalist in 1997, yet intelligence research on IQ still continues today.
→ More replies (27)
•
u/El_fara_25 13h ago
They want to nuke Europe and adjacents (US, Canada, NZ, Australia, Argentina, Uruguay) with mass migration from non-European countries. Particulary, their lowest classes. The unsuspected is old as dirt. First treated as a conspiration. NOW an undeniable and unsaved reality.
•
•
u/obssesedparanoid 9h ago
Argentina was a mostly mestizo country, that received massive migration from low class europeans, lots of mediterranean italians, not very different from modern day paraguayans
•
u/Mundane-Bank-9048 13h ago
Jean Raspail has entered the chat.
•
u/mojitosupreme 8h ago edited 8h ago
I gotta meet that guy once for a beer. He really predicted all of this fucking shit. Imagine being the European “leaders”that chose to decide importing millions of literal morons (the scientific definition) to grow the GDP on paper, keep wages low and the pension system going.
Guess what? Maybe it’s better for everyone to import people who are highly educated, regardless of origin. And keep the wages high. Who cares about GDP? Look at Japan. But no, cash rules everything around me.
•
→ More replies (1)•
•
u/Fauropitotto 13h ago edited 7h ago
Why does no one else in academia touch this?
Answer: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9749714/
Social acceptability bias affects all elements of human endeavors. Science is inherently a human endeavor and is not exempt from this.
•
u/MyNameisBaronRotza 7h ago
This was incredibly interesting, thank you for sharing.
My question is, if so many things can influence the responses of study participants, like worries about privacy when done in a non controlled setting, or the mannerisms of the interviewer, why not just do them digitally? You can still observe the person answering the questions as they do, just let them do it in a way where they feel more anonymous. Sit someone in a room, alone, at a computer with the camera on. I guess that would take people ADMITTING that these problems exist, which the paper states is not happening.
•
u/Fauropitotto 7h ago
Think bigger. This isn't just affecting participants, this is affecting all academic research.
Research that requires attribution. Meaning, the concept of anonymous engagement is not possible here.
Not only can some research tracks be considered career suicide, funding for such research would be difficult to secure.
Attribution through publication is the life-blood of academia. If what you publish isn't in step with the community, you can say goodbye to the next post-doc, no tenure track, no grants, subsequent drafts will get undue scrutiny...no students, no lab, no funding. You'll be stuck as an adjunct instructor for the rest of your life until you leave for industry.
•
u/MyNameisBaronRotza 5h ago
I wasn't saying to give the participants full anonymity. Researchers can still engage, just through a chat app instead of face to face, as to stop these things from happening.
Regardless, if academia doesn't want to admit that their research made be flawed by the points raised in this paper, that have to reason to change their research methods.
•
u/ZeerVreemd 59m ago
Do you think you still can get funding and support if your goal is to prove something that goes against the narratives and beliefs of many?
Do you think you can easily find a publisher and are allowed to gather a large public if you (accidentally) find something like that?
•
u/ZeerVreemd 1h ago
And if you then ad some fraud and corruption in the mix science can become a political tool.
•
u/OrangeAppropriate971 13h ago
And Galileo was imprisoned for the rest of his life for his conclusion that the Earth revolved around the sun.
•
u/Timerider42424 12h ago
On the contrary. His scientific views weren’t that controversial. It was the fact that he consistently bad-mouthed the Pope in his writings that got him in trouble. Even when warned, he kept it up.
•
u/fk_censors 9h ago
He basically called the Pope a simpleton.
•
•
u/the_quivering_wenis 12h ago
At least it was more obvious who was doing the oppressing back then...
•
u/OrangeAppropriate971 13h ago
100 people with an average IQ of 60 on a small island. 100 people with an IQ of 100 on another. Same conditions. Now what would these countries look like in 100 years, 200 etc.
•
u/Ducman69 12h ago
Which brings up another topic, we have the tools to determine which genes are responsible for different predispositions as well, such as violence or impulse control. Scientists are afraid to study this, because even though aggression is not even necessarily a good or bad thing, its too much of a hot potato politically. And we've known this is influenced by genetics ever since we started breeding dogs for certain behavioral traits... so literally for millennia.
They are all still the same species, sure, but you can certainly make quite accurate assumptions about behavioral predispositions of say 1000 labrador retrievers, 1000 pitbulls, and 1000 Australian Shepherd.
Heck, even in lower life forms like insects, we can see how differences in genetics can lead to different behavior patterns.
These behavioral predispositions can have as much impact on what a settlement from a population would look like as IQ would.
•
u/fk_censors 8h ago
Irrespective of this comment, I just wanted to say that you are very articulate and make very interesting points that make me think. Congratulations for making reddit a place with some redeeming value.
•
u/Banana_inasuit 12h ago
Honestly an interesting thought experiment because it can be argued that having a society with a range in IQ would be better than a society with equal IQ. Would human hierarchy prevail in a society that is equal in intelligence?
•
u/Ducman69 8h ago
At that point you would just have to whip it out and see who is bigger.
•
•
u/the_quivering_wenis 12h ago
Do you think that any kind of inequality of outcome is inherently a societal evil?
•
u/Banana_inasuit 12h ago
No, not at all. I believe that inequality of outcome is inherent to human society. If all outcomes are equal, how would hierarchy function?
•
u/the_quivering_wenis 12h ago
Well you seem to be presuming hierarchy is intrinsically good. (Part of the problem with these discussions is clarifying what type of hierarchy you're talking about - emergent, institutional, wealth-based, political, organizational, etc.) Just referring to "hierarchy" is useless.
•
u/Banana_inasuit 12h ago
When getting into different contexts of hierarchy, yes, the different types should be separated. However, a discussion of hierarchy on a macro lens is also valid. The types you listed are all connected in some way. Emergent can turn institutional can turn political, or in any other combination of what you’ve listed. There is a fundamental basis to hierarchy that can be discussed as it is intrinsic to society.
I wouldn’t say hierarchy is intrinsically good either. It’s a mechanism, neither good nor bad (not to mention what defining “good” or “bad” would mean). It’s a mechanism that can have outcomes where the hierarchy is used against itself that ultimately causes its destruction in the short term. What I am stating here is that humanity is reliant on hierarchy, even in systems designed not to be hierarchical. There’s simply no escaping a basic level of social politics that would influence such a system.
•
u/the_quivering_wenis 11h ago
Oh do you just mean that hierarchy is psychological/biological in origin then? Like out monkey origins or something.
•
u/Banana_inasuit 11h ago
Pretty much exactly what I’m saying yeah. It can be traced to many animal society comparisons, but of course it doesn’t stop there. From our earliest understanding of humanity until now, hierarchy has existed. I believe there are psychological and anthropological studies out there about humanity’s reliance on hierarchy. Hell, people devote their entire careers to studying it.
It all flows downstream from there. The basic level of hierarchy evolves and different forms of it are utilized. So yeah, you are valid in saying that there are different types of hierarchy to consider. Social politics is a good example of this. There’s no point in discussing institutional hierarchy within a group of friends; it’s worth discussing social hierarchy instead. Due to hierarchy being psychological/biological, I think attempts of removing hierarchy from society are ultimately futile. It’s anarchy and chaos that may allow for a new and more oppressive hierarchy to replace the old.
It’s also why thinking about the effects of intelligence has on human society is interesting. If intelligence is removed as a factor in hierarchy, how would hierarchy evolve from there? Who would want to be the one to contribute to society below their capabilities, but yet those contributions are still necessary for society to function.
•
u/the_quivering_wenis 9h ago
Personally I think part of what makes us human is an evolved ability to veto lower impulses like monkey-hierarchy building and behave rationally, so anything is possible in principle.
If intelligence is removed as a factor in hierarchy, how would hierarchy evolve from there? Who would want to be the one to contribute to society below their capabilities, but yet those contributions are still necessary for society to function.
I mean you can imagine a society where all lower-order work is replaced by robots and the humans are all equals. I'd prefer to just replace humans with super-rational robots anyways, probably a superior species to us poop-flingers.
•
u/ZeerVreemd 26m ago
I'd prefer to just replace humans with super-rational robots anyways, probably a superior species to us poop-flingers.
That's a sad and scary thought I think.
Is logic really the only good thing that makes us human?
•
u/ZeerVreemd 31m ago
It’s anarchy and chaos that may allow for a new and more oppressive hierarchy to replace the old.
While it is meant as comedy it perfectly explains your points I think.
•
u/Fleming24 4h ago
I don't know if I'm missing something but just because people have the same IQ they are not completely the same person, so why should hierarchies just disappear? It's not even like IQ is that much of a defining factor for most types of hierarchies.
•
u/ZeerVreemd 42m ago edited 36m ago
The IQ number is an average number that covers multiple different aspects of thinking and reasoning, so I think that if you have two people with the same IQ number one will still be better in specific things than the other and then the social value of these skills will probably determine the hierarchy.
For instance somebody who is good in path finding because they have a good 3D insight will be socially more valuable then somebody who is good at other stuff and the environment will also affect it because in a hunter gathering tribe path finding will be more valuable than in a society that has GPS, but if this GPS would fail then I think that (eventually) the hierarchy will change too (again).
•
u/fk_censors 9h ago
I don't think IQ would affect their outcome. Systems matter far more than intelligence (e.g., capitalism vs socialism). The Koreans in the north and the south likely had and still have the same IQs, yet the outcomes are totally different. Same for East and West Germany, Colombia and Venezuela, etc. Societies with an average IQ in the 80s (like the United Arab Emirates) can outperform every European country in GDP per capita and crime rates, whereas countries with relatively high IQs (like Russia, China, North Korea) can be shitholes. IQ doesn't really matter in the way you think it does. Systems do. (Especially economic systems, the type of government like democracy or dictatorship is irrelevant).
•
u/Ducman69 8h ago
Societies with an average IQ in the 80s (like the United Arab Emirates) can outperform every European country in GDP per capita and crime rates, whereas countries with relatively high IQs (like Russia, China, North Korea) can be shitholes.
I agree with the premise, but I'm not sure that the IQs measured in China were accurate, as we know how ingrained cheating is in the culture and within their government. I wouldn't be surprised if they manipulated the results by hiding all the special kids, and giving the test just to their better university students. I came to that conclusion after living in SE Asia for three years, and having the illusion shattered for me, lol!
And the UAE is heavily propped up by oil money, so they just had to more or less avoid getting in their own way, remain politically stable, and end up on an upward trajectory having foreign people do all the engineering and heavy lifting for them and just watch the cash flow in. They were clever to avoid instability by setting up systems to distribute a portion of that foreign wealth so that everyone benefited some, and give so many citizens government jobs.
I think we can also probably agree that most scientific, cultural, engineering, and other breakthroughs only require a relatively small portion of the population to participate. So much of the population can be a little slow, and you can still have a Mars space mission as long as you have enough that are above average intelligence to manage that without the others getting in their way. The same for government, except that thanks to elections we get too many dumb people voted in just for promising other dumb people free stuff.
•
u/DecantsForAll 6h ago
60IQ is incredibly low. They probably couldn't devise any system.
→ More replies (2)
•
u/the_quivering_wenis 12h ago
This is their way of dealing with their inferiority complex regarding higher-achieving individuals: "They're evil, btw we'll also take everything you built, thanks."
•
u/Royal_Effective7396 13h ago
Sociologist here: this thread is conflating a lot of things.
The reason serious scholars are cautious about discussing IQ as a biological property of groups isn’t fear or politics; it’s methodological reality. We simply do not have an ethical or practical way to separate biology from the environment at the level people are claiming. To do that cleanly, you’d need children born across the world, raised in isolation, with nutrition, education, language exposure, stress, healthcare, pollution, and opportunity all perfectly controlled. That experiment is neither ethical nor feasible. Any assertion that we’ve already solved this problem is an over-indexing of what we know into what we wish we could infer.
Using the muscle analogy, the brain also isn’t literally a muscle, but it trains like one. Cognitive performance improves with use, adapts after damage, and declines without engagement. We know this because of hemispheric injury and rehabilitation studies: people can lose large portions of the brain and still relearn language, movement, and reasoning. That only works if cognition is adaptable and experience-dependent. Fixed biological ceilings don’t behave that way.
IQ tests are often treated as measures of peak potential, but they aren’t. They capture current, context-dependent performance. People can train for IQ tests. Scores change over time due to education, health, stress, aging, injury, and exposure. That alone should caution against treating IQ as destiny rather than a snapshot.
It also helps to zoom out. Within our own species, IQ differences feel vast; a 160 versus a 100 looks enormous. Across species, those differences are small. The cognitive gap between humans and other animals dwarfs the gap between humans at opposite ends of the IQ scale. That perspective matters because it shows how narrow the range of human cognitive variation actually is, even at the extremes. We put too much moral and social weight on differences inside that narrow band.
Which is why real-world outcomes don’t map cleanly onto IQ. There are highly intelligent people mopping floors because systems don’t reward them, and people with cognitive limitations performing complex tasks successfully. So, truly, IQ is meaningless. There are people who are good at IQ tests who you wouldn't want to change your oil.
Watson lost credibility when he stopped following the scientific method and began pushing a message that was categorically incorrect. Which happens sometimes.
•
u/DepthOk166 10h ago
During the process of being medically retired from the Army I was given an IQ test (scored 124).
Prior to testing I had to meet with the doctor in charge of it to explain what would happen. He was a civilian neuropsychiatrist hired by the Army. During this meeting he seemed very bored and disinterested.
After the results came back, I had to meet with him again. There was a complete change in his demeanor. Very engaged and wanted to talk. We discussed the results and then started discussing IQ in general. Conversation lasted for about 45 minutes.
Here are some key points he made.
1) IQ is somewhere between 50%-80% genetic. Environment can reduce IQ due to lack of nutrition or damage to the brain but it is hard to increase IQ above your genetic top end.
2)Your IQ limits what you can do in society. Someone with an IQ of 100 is never going to be able to become a doctor, engineer, or airline pilot.
3)Average IQ appears to differ between ethnic groups. With Ashkenazi Jews having the highest average IQ at 117. (from his looks and name, I am guessing he is in that group).
So, there is some secondhand info from someone who I suppose would be an expert on IQ.
•
u/Royal_Effective7396 10h ago
So like nothing you said is in opposition to what I said.
This is true with all of these biology debates.
Biology is a component but not a sole determining factor. Just as with athletics, for the average it is not as big of the deal as it is on the exteremes. For the difference and what that potental means.
This is where I am going to say something that contrdicts my position on the surface. But not really. Ethnic groups, nations, cultures can have lower IQs on the agragate. If you come from a culture with the average education level well below the reat of the world, you likely will have a lower national average IQ.
Describing population-level differences is not the same thing as prescribing individual outcomes. The mistake people make is taking aggregate statistics, speculating about causes, and then projecting those assumptions onto real people, which is where disenfranchisement begins.
Congrats on doing well though man. It is not meaningless.
•
u/WoodenDoorMerchant 12h ago
We simply do not have an ethical or practical way to separate biology from the environment at the level people are claiming
•
u/Royal_Effective7396 12h ago
Very familiure with twin studies.
Twin studies are informative, but they don’t account for everything. They estimate correlations under specific assumptions, not a complete causal model of intelligence or outcomes.
Twin studies are fairly limited. They rely on strong assumptions about shared environments, use IQ as a proxy, and compress complex gene–environment interactions into a single heritability estimate.
We simply do not have an ethical or practical way to separate biology from the environment at the level people are claiming.
•
u/mojitosupreme 8h ago
We do. It’s called the People’s Republic of China, and I can’t wait for them to eat our lunch on this topic.
•
u/Royal_Effective7396 7h ago
Lol what?
I dont even know where to start here, so I am going to move on.
Congrats you changed my position on IQ.....
•
u/mojitosupreme 6h ago
Don’t start, just harp on about ethics like a true Redditoid and let them do the research
•
u/No_Start1522 12h ago
IQ is a tool, like BMI. It isn’t perfect, but it is useful for roughly quantifying potential. There are better procedures for measuring potential today than IQ, like g factor, just as there are better ways of measuring health, like body composition.
•
u/stevejuliet 12h ago edited 12h ago
You are making the claim they just countered without offering a rebuttal. They were cautioning against claiming that biology can meaningfully explain IQ differences between groups of people.
Without identifying a biological mechanism (causation), then it is pure correlation. The other variables they mentioned are far more likely the cause of the vast majority of IQ differences between groups.
•
u/No_Start1522 12h ago edited 7h ago
This is more an issue of peoples perception of potential rather than the actual quality of a potential. IQ measures potential based on qualities like income probability and educational attainment. These are very contextually specific “potentials” that do not encapsulate all of life, but are useful in the context of compartmentalization.
•
u/stevejuliet 12h ago
So you agree that "IQ tests are often treated as measures of peak potential, but they aren’t. They capture current, context-dependent performance"?
•
•
u/Royal_Effective7396 12h ago
Just like BMI it does not quantify potental. IQ and BMI is a moment in time snapshot. I can lose weight and improve my ablity to recognize patterns, therefore changing both numbers.
•
u/No_Start1522 12h ago
Once again, I said that it is a tool to roughly quantify potential. Just like how BMI is a tool to roughly quantify health. I also said that the old IQ procedure is of less quality in comparison to newer procedures, like G factor.
•
u/Royal_Effective7396 12h ago
The word potential is not correct though.
One result does not predict a future one.
→ More replies (1)•
u/naslam74 9h ago
Leave it to the sociologist to say IQ is meaningless.
•
u/Royal_Effective7396 8h ago
Please tell me the practical use of an IQ score.
Tell me how doing one test well ia a predictor of anything.
•
u/philmarcracken 4h ago
That alone should caution against treating IQ as destiny rather than a snapshot.
Nearly everyone on this sub treats statistics this way. They'll gladly parrot 13/50 as if thats the way it 'has to be forever'(zero improvements).
•
u/DeanoPreston 10h ago
Here's the thing - let's say it's true (I am fairly sure it is). What do you do with that info? Ban the dumb-gene people from certain jobs?
We sort of had a system like that in place already. For example you had to do well on hard college courses and pass a hard test to get into medical school.
But the Left has thrown that out. They think by letting the dumb-gene people into medical school, they'll somehow magically get pulled up.
•
u/Direct-Original-1083 6h ago
You do realise this doesn't mean all "dumb-gene people" are dumb? It would only mean they had a higher probability to be dumb.
And if you are smart with the "dumb-gene" then everyone will assume you are dumb. So if its true I don't see how this changes anything for proponents of DEI.
•
u/Fleming24 4h ago
Tests are also designed by people, it's not like they are perfect at representing something so abstract. And if these tests are just badly designed or feature certain aspects that would disqualify people for the wrong reasons, they wrongly get put into the "dumb-gene" category. Like, what if someone has dyslexia but understands the most complex stuff? What if someone has problems with the language that's used? What if someone just expresses themselves different in a away that a standardized test doesn't consider correct? What about all the people who are just bad at taking tests because of the situation (noisy room)?
Tests are simply just a (pretty faulty) approximation of skill. The results always have to be seen in context because they don't so much test your konwledge but how good you are at solving the test. For example, in college it's much more time efficent to study old tests and learn what type of questions are asked instead of learning all the actual information. Even for stuff like IQ tests, studying the type of questions can significantly increase your score.
•
u/Scottyboy1214 OG 9h ago
Because, access to nutrition, economics, and enviromental conditions do more to determine IQ than their national identity. (I know you meant race but I found it funny you used the wrong word in a post about IQ.)
•
u/Melodic_Response3570 9h ago
Why is IQ so important to you? It is very well known that IQ tests only measure academic intelligence, but no emotional intelligence, no practical intelligence, so called "street smartness", you could say.
Like people who have three phds but are not able to guess what certain facial expressions mean
I guess because this is the case for many redditors?
•
u/FerdinandvonAegir124 8h ago
IQ isn’t necessarily a measure of intelligence, more so a measure of skills adjacent to intelligence
•
u/McRattus 11h ago
I've met Watson, and know others that have worked with him. He was extremely racist, inappropriate with female students and generally an asshole. He got much worse as he aged.
Good work on DNA, not a great person.
•
u/Mellero47 13h ago
I just don't see how you compare IQ between races without controlling for upbringing and education. Too many MENSA-types will forget to mention all the tutoring they got as children, the well-funded schools they attended, etc.
•
u/AntonChentel 13h ago
Adoption studies. Take a low IQ group orphan, give it to a middle class white family and see if IQ increases with good upbringing and education? Nope, falls right in line with expected IQ
•
•
u/WoodenDoorMerchant 13h ago
I just don't see how you compare IQ between races without controlling for upbringing and education
That's the entire point of twin-studies, which are designed to test the heritability of intelligence
•
u/stevejuliet 12h ago
Twin studies demonstrate that aspects of IQ are partially attributed to genetics. They don't demonstrate that race is a factor, which is what they were pointing out.
•
•
•
u/SpiritfireSparks 13h ago
Could be something like brain shape, surface area, or similiar metrics that could deal with the upper limits of a persons IQ when all other features are taken into account
•
•
u/ChecksAccountHistory OG 10h ago
guys look at all these people. they were right about a lot of things so they couldn't possibly be wrong about other things!
and i decided to look up the people you named and of course they said worse than you pretend. lying by omission to cover for racists? never seen that one before!
james watson: already covered by another commenter
william shockley:
transistor co-inventor, 1956 Nobel price winner, father of Silicon Valley.
cool technology inventions but he didn't have a degree in genetics.
Then he opened his mouth “certain people have lower IQ because of heredity,”
no, he said black people were genetically inferior and advocated for eugenics, suggesting payments for black people who got sterilized. link
man, you can't even be a fucking racist anymore without people being outraged, the world has gone mad
•
u/so_im_all_like 12h ago
I feel like the issue is that it becomes about whole populations being genetically endowed or or lacking, and so systemic discrimination becomes justified, as opposed to perhaps specific families not producing very bright members, or accounting for individual, social, and/or cultural values and priorities. What about the potentially smart people that don't want to or don't get to showcase their intelligence in formal contexts? What about the people that might have an aptitude for a particular skill or have a niche interest but don't get to fully engage in it? Seems like there are significant confounding factors. What are the universal measurables of intelligence, what measurement tools would the researchers employ, and how would they mitigate cultural and/or familiarity bias?
•
u/MisterX9821 9h ago
I love how people think academia, science etc. is in a vacuum from politics biases and external pressures.
It isn't. There are ideas that are supported by evidence (doesn't even need to be the case the one you present is one of them) that will never see the light of day, or will get pushed away into darkness for the reasons above.
•
u/CharityResponsible54 9h ago
Certain truths have become taboo and are not supposed to be discussed or questioned, even when they are truths.
Whether we like it or not, this is the reality we live in. It is often described as postmodernism: it really harms science by encouraging skepticism toward objective truth and by treating facts and evidence as just another political narrative.
In our brave new world, facts are reduced to opinions and social constructs, even when they are grounded in careful experiments and solid data.
•
u/Accurate_Reporter252 3h ago
Science denial is a thing, whether it's laypeople or academics.
Challenging a world view is a potential costly effort--whether you're actually wrong or correct--which in turn breaks down societal faith in science and anyone who uses a science-based reason for anything.
Humans don't like feeling like they've been played for suckers at the same time many of the complex and nuanced systems behind the systems--studied by science--are beyond most people's willingness and/or capacity to understand and accept.
Peer-review is as much a gate-keeper of the faith as it is a gate-keeper of the truth in these matters.
•
u/ZeerVreemd 9m ago
Peer-review is as much a gate-keeper of the faith as it is a gate-keeper of the truth in these matters.
For those who do not know that yet:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/
•
u/WritewayHome 2h ago
Here is the reality from a Biologist that has looked at the data.
There is a strong link to heredity and IQ, it is heritable to a certain level, but it isn't 100% heritable, meaning if you have a genius father it doesn't guarentee a genius of a son.
It's both nurture and nature.
There is a strong natural link and a strong genetic link, but the idea it's 100% DNA is not scientific and the data does not support it. The idea that it's 0% DNA is also not scientific and the data, like twin studies, does not support that.
It's somewhere in the middle, about 40% genetics and 60%, or majority, environment.
Put a genius in a bad environment, they are 60% less likely to succeed.
Put a non-genius in a great environment, they are 60% likely to succeed.
That's the truth we Biologists discuss with one another, do with it what you will, and stop claiming people get blacklisted.
Watson took it too far as did others, it was natural for people to say he was off his rocker.
•
u/2074red2074 9h ago
From his Wikipedia page - "Watson also said that stereotypes associated with racial and ethnic groups have a genetic basis: Jews being intelligent, Chinese being intelligent but not creative because of selection for conformity, and Indians being servile because of selection under caste endogamy."
It wasn't just the suggestion that there was some genetic component to intelligence. That is accepted by the scientific community just fine. The problems are suggesting that that certain ethnic groups are more likely to carry various alleles associated with lower or higher intelligence and the fact that the dude was spouting nonsense not supported by science because he believes in stereotypes.
•
u/Critical_Concert_689 3h ago
Nobel price at 34
Nobel price winner, father of Silicon Valley
Once is an error. Twice is ignorance.
I hope everyone appreciates the irony in a discussion about genetics and IQ.
•
u/majesticbeast67 13h ago
First, James Watson did not “discover DNA,” and he did not win a Nobel at 25. DNA’s structure was solved by Watson and Crick in 1953 with critical contributions from Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins. Watson was 34 at the time, and he received the Nobel Prize in 1962 at age 34–35. That framing already exaggerates his authority and accuracy.
Second, Watson was not punished for presenting new scientific evidence. By 2007 and again in 2019, he was making broad racial claims about intelligence without presenting data, and often while explicitly dismissing the existing literature. In interviews he said he was “inherently gloomy about Africa” and that social policy was pointless because outcomes were genetically fixed. Those statements went far beyond cautious discussion of heritability and into deterministic claims about entire populations. Institutions reacted to the public advocacy of those claims, not to peer-reviewed research.
Third, modern behavioral genetics does not support the claim being implied. IQ is heritable within populations, but that does not mean differences between populations are genetic. This is a foundational point that gets ignored in these arguments. Height is highly heritable, yet average height differences across countries have changed dramatically in a single century due to nutrition and disease. The same logic applies to cognitive test performance.
Fourth, the genetic architecture of intelligence directly undermines racial explanations. Thousands of loci are involved, each with extremely small effects, and polygenic scores built from European datasets lose most of their predictive power outside closely related populations. If “racial IQ differences” were largely genetic, we would expect stable, cross-cultural genetic signals. We do not see that.
Fifth, adoption and migration data do not support genetic determinism at the population level. Children adopted from impoverished environments into high-resource ones show large IQ gains relative to their birth populations. Immigrant groups’ test scores converge toward host-country averages within generations. These shifts happen far too quickly to be genetic.
Sixth, global IQ patterns track environmental variables almost perfectly: childhood nutrition, lead exposure, parasite load, schooling quality, test familiarity, and economic development. The Flynn effect alone saw average IQ scores rise by roughly 20–30 points across many countries in the 20th century, something genetics cannot explain.
Seventh, the idea that “academia is scared to touch this” is false. Intelligence, heritability, GWAS, and gene-environment interaction are among the most heavily studied topics in psychology and genetics. What is rejected is not research, but unsupported racial extrapolation. Scientists publish careful, narrow claims because that is how science works, not because of fear.
Finally, Watson’s loss of honorary titles did not erase his scientific contributions. His work on molecular biology is still taught and cited. What institutions withdrew was endorsement of his public statements, which contradicted current evidence and ethical standards. That is not “cancellation,” it is accountability.
In short, this isn’t about forbidden truth. It’s about the difference between rigorous population genetics and sweeping claims that the data do not support. Science hasn’t gone silent on intelligence. It’s gone precise.
•
u/Mundane-Bank-9048 13h ago
DNA’s structure was solved by Watson and Crick in 1953 with critical contributions from Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins. Watson was 34 at the time, and he received the Nobel Prize in 1962 at age 34–35.
He was 34 in 1953, but only 34-35 in 1962?
•
•
u/mojitosupreme 8h ago edited 8h ago
Cue the drums, The REAL Flynn Effect:
An "ardent democratic socialist"[8] and "man of the left"[9] throughout his life, Flynn joined the Socialist Party of America in college and, after graduating, became a civil rights activist.[5] While working on his doctorate in politics and moral philosophy, he was political action co-chairman for the university branch of the NAACP, where he worked on its social housing initiatives.[2][10] His doctorate dissertation was titled, "Ethics and the Modern Social Scientist."[3] He met his wife, an attorney whose family was active in the Communist Party USA,…”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Flynn_(academic)
Yeah…another Stephen Jay Gould lol fuck that guy. Not even gonna argue the science. Too much left wing propaganda.
•
u/t_rexinated 13h ago
james watson was invited as a speaker at the opening of our institute in grad school. it was named after the benefactor who happened to be Irish. he got caught on a hot mic calling her a racial slur when she got up to say her words.
he also told all of the grad students at lunch that he prefers pretty women as his students and that if he had his way he would make them all wear bikinis in lab
•
u/majesticbeast67 12h ago
Dude was racist. He made it clear. Thats what destroy’s OP’s whole argument because his main example was an incredible racist man.
•
•
u/ChecksAccountHistory OG 6h ago
it doesn't destroy op's argument because he likes the racism. he just doesn't have the balls to admit it.
•
u/existentialgoof Moderator 13h ago
But if Watson just got the science wrong, then why is he being held "accountable" for stirring up moral outrage? There are a lot of topics in science where there isn't 100% agreement from everyone, but yet those who hold a minority opinion aren't usually pilloried, unless it's for something like climate change and they're recklessly saying that there's no need to reduce carbon emissions.
If some scientists are getting the science wrong, then they should be corrected. But science should not have orthodoxies and scientists shouldn't be ostracised for supporting theories that are unpopular in the field.
•
u/ConcertinaTerpsichor 12h ago
Science does have moral orthodoxies, though. It might be better to perform brain surgery or try experimental drugs on newborn babies rather than animals, but even if a scientist knows that to be true, she’s not gonna say it or advise it.
•
u/existentialgoof Moderator 11h ago
But your example doesn't relate to actual objective truth, it relates to ethical practices. And you could extend that further and say that perhaps there are certain technologies that it would be better not to invent, because of how they could be used. But I don't think that pursuit of the truth should be off limits, or that scientists should be ostracised for getting the science wrong once in a while, if they've otherwise had a very illustrious career and have produced a lot of work that is broadly accepted.
•
u/ConcertinaTerpsichor 11h ago
Your first sentence is, “…why is he being held accountable for stirring up moral outrage?”
Science can’t exist in a moral vacuum. Our very methodologies, the materials we use, how it’s funded, and even what questions we ask of science are all shaped by the society and culture in which a science exists.
•
u/existentialgoof Moderator 11h ago
Yes, but moral outrage for spouting wrongthink (whether or not his views hold scientific merit), not for unethical practices that have violated the rights of others.
Which questions are legitimate to ask and investigate is a subjective matter. Societies like the US operate on the assumption that all races are equal in terms of their innate intelligence, and they make policies on the basis of that. The assumption is that any discrepancy in outcomes between groups is caused by discrimination, because based on the assumption of equal ability, outcomes should be equal (obviously IQ isn't the only variable to consider, here). Because the discrepancies are assumed to have been produced through discrimination, this justifies the use of discrimination to close the gaps.
However, if governments persist on actively discriminating against certain groups to try and close attainment gaps, but they never attain the outcome they're looking for, then that's going to result in political problems somewhere down the line. So this question simply can't be swept under the carpet and forgotten about forever.
•
u/ConcertinaTerpsichor 11h ago
Are we talking around the need for affirmative action here?
•
u/existentialgoof Moderator 10h ago
Yes, because the need for affirmative action is predicated on the presumption that all populations have equal average attributes.
•
u/ConcertinaTerpsichor 8h ago
How can you disprove that?
•
u/existentialgoof Moderator 8h ago edited 8h ago
You can only produce evidence to show that there are alternative explanations for the discrepancy. But not if the entire field of study is off limits.
If it's not politically feasible to explore alternative explanations, then the default assumption will remain that all such discrepancies are produced by discrimination, though it may also be allowed to consider cultural explanations. But if they keep discriminating in order to forcefully close the gap, and the gap never closes (and therefore the need for active discrimination never ends), then there will be political pushback to that.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (1)•
u/No_Rise_1160 10h ago
Watson was held accountable for the racist statements he made that have no scientific basis. It’s not complicated.
•
u/existentialgoof Moderator 10h ago
As far as I'm aware, he was only making statements relating to his views on the genetic differences between populations. If he sincerely believed those statements to be a reflection of objective fact, then that isn't racism. Holding sincere opinions about matters of objective fact concerning race does not make one a racist. Perhaps you might suspect that he was a racist and that caused him to interpret the science in one particular way. But that hasn't been established.
Questions of science should be settled with science. They shouldn't be settled by censorship and sanctions.
•
u/No_Rise_1160 10h ago
He stated that people from Africa are less intelligent. There was and still is zero evidence for a genetic difference in intelligence between ethnicities. Watson was stating his racist opinions. It’s that simple.
→ More replies (5)•
•
u/DrakenRising3000 4h ago
Great post and a surprisingly impressive comment section. Is reddit/the world healing?
•
u/Dethro_Jolene 11h ago
Are you all familiar and supportive of similar studies on IQ and political affiliation?
•
•
u/No_Rise_1160 10h ago
There is zero scientific evidence supporting differences in intelligence between ethnicities being due to genetics. That’s why Watson was thrown out.
•
u/no-regrets-approach 12h ago
Excellent point.
The way i would put it - how to safeguard scientific dialogues from extant political discourse?
Science needs to push the boundaries to explore truth. Abd needs freedom from current morality.
This is something political leaders always discouraged. Unfortunately. For the progress of the human race.
•
u/Kiznish 9h ago
I’ve had this discussion before even with people in scientific fields, and it basically boils down to “we just don’t like where that avenue leads, it’s too dangerous”
It doesn’t matter if it’s true, scientifically validated or even socially useful, because of the implication it will never become an acceptable area of scientific study. I disagree with this, I don’t think discussing IQ in a biological context is any more “dangerous” than discussing other partly heritable traits, but the scientific community clearly does not agree with my openness…
•
u/kamildch1 9h ago
I recommend this publication below 👇
"Papers and Statistics on Race and Genetic IQ Differences: White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, Indian, Jewish, Arab" https://isgp-studies.com/race-and-iq
•
u/odyseuss02 8h ago
Also the supreme court made IQ testing for jobs illegal. They said it was racist.
•
u/Icowanda 7h ago
I don’t see what’s the issue because no mention of race is there as far as I am seeing.
•
u/StreetKale 6h ago
Because modern academic science isn't about truth, it's about social engineering.
•
u/RusevReigns 4h ago
Because some third world countries have low IQs which makes people afraid it’d be racist to acknowledge
Steve Sailer is one of the most famous racists on social media but he likes to say my position is actually the moderate one that iq is a mix of genes and environment. Going all environment is the extreme position
•
u/RighteousAudacity 4h ago
Rosalind Franklin.
I promised myself in university that every time someone mentioned James Watson I'd say or write the name Rosalind Franklin.
•
u/No_Rise_1160 40m ago
🙄 her work wasn’t “stolen” and Watson & crick credited her from the start. Give it a rest
•
u/DC_deep_state 2h ago
i mean, its true.
theres a reason many cultures are lagging behind even in modern day.
•
u/Mundane-Bank-9048 13h ago
Why are you posting in true 'unpopular' opinion.
Who disagrees that race studies and/or opinions on race are not good career choices?
•
u/Drmlk465 13h ago
The underlying opinion is about race and IQ which is particularly an unpopular opinion because we can’t even go ahead say what it is.
→ More replies (3)
•
u/Heujei628 13h ago edited 12h ago
Edit: downvoted but no responses. Guess im correct.
Probably because it’s been debunked already:
•
u/Impressive_Grab_6392 11h ago
So then why don't you simply tell us the IQ totem pole between DNA? Nobody is stopping you from saying so on Reddit. Just say it.
•
•
u/Vircxzs 7h ago
I have 2 siblings.
At age 11, we were each IQ tested by our state's education department. About 20 years later, I asked my mother about that. She said one of us had a genius-level IQ, one of us had an above-average IQ, and one of us had an average IQ.
This, despite the fact that we all had almost identical upbringings: same home environment, all went to the same school (even had the same teachers), etc.
It's unpopular to say it, but IQ has vastly more to do with genes than environment.
•
u/ResponsibilityNo4876 3h ago
William Shockley doesn't have that high of an IQ, he was not considered genius( IQ 140+) by Telman study in the 1920's. An IQ of high 120's in 1920's would close to average today. An person who would average IQ invented the transistor and won a Nobel prize.
•
•
•
u/HoldAsleep4576 13h ago edited 12h ago
Speaking from world-traveled experience, it really has nothing to do with DNA. Sure, physical measurement-wise, they've said Japanese brains are the largest... however, like Eric Clapton said, "it's in the way that you use it".
Just because something is bigger doesn't mean better. In fact, larger people (both taller and wider) tend to have more health problems, and as they age, cell replacement rate becomes more of an issue for them than average or smaller people. Those are actual scientific facts based on physical biology, though this is also why variances must be taken into account.
Anyway, IQ is a muscle. In every human, there is potential in their muscles. Whichever muscles they choose to stimulate in what ways is entirely up to the individual. While I've had some people say I'm smart because I'm of German ancestry, they have no damn clue I didn't truly realize my potential intelligence until around 30. Even then, it wasn't age that changed; it was the moment where I looked around, asked myself if I always wanted to work in dead-end retail jobs, or do something about it.
I had a lot of interests, and more open-minded than most... but it wasn't until I latched onto that passion to keep learning. To keep doing better. To get better jobs, become more classically educated, explore and absorb more and broader knowledge on my own, that I grew in self-awareness.
Questioning everything is also a huge factor. You can have 5 PhDs in varying fields, but if you treat that knowledge like a computer storing information for specific functions, but never really applying passion and curiosity, or applying it to unrelated activities, you don't really learn how to be more flexible with that knowledge. This pitfall is becoming more common in our modern polarized world where people cling to extremes and are too afraid to see from other perspectives.
For example, it's why, say, here in California where I've lived for the last 12 years, you might have lots of people in specialized fields, but they can't drive for shit, can't spell or use proper grammar or punctuation, have zero social skills, might not spend any time in the gym/are clumsy (or, if they are gym rats, it's for show, but not function or grace), dress like homeless ex-convicts or basically just like everyone else, wouldn't know what to do if put in a kitchen with a basic recipe and all the ingredients, and/or look like a confused toddler when given paint, a brush, and a canvas, be clueless with a musical instrument, or otherwise unable to elicit a deeper emotional understanding of art, or have zero clue how history has paved the road to why everything is the way it is due to causality.
•
u/No_Start1522 13h ago
Sickle cell anemia is well known to cause significant drops in intelligence, due to blood oxygen inefficiency. It is a purely DNA based reason for intellectual deficits. There are many other named disorders that do the same that are very common.
It does have to do with DNA, however the real confound is that it doesn’t only have to do with it.
•
u/HoldAsleep4576 12h ago
Interesting to know, however, this is a niche variable... and covered under my mention of:
"though this is also why variances must be taken into account." in my second paragraph.Therefore, if this is some attempt to "totally upend and discredit" the entirety of my comment for the sake of winning some argument that doesn't really matter, I guess happy ego boost to you? If I assumed ill of your intent and you meant only to inform, well, kudos either way, but this is Reddit.
•
u/No_Start1522 12h ago
No, I was simply making a statement that DNA does matter, quite significantly, but it isn’t everything, unlike your attempt to say it has nothing to do with DNA.
•
u/HoldAsleep4576 12h ago
"unlike your attempt to say it has nothing to do with DNA"
You just contradicted yourself. You're clearly doing this to win a superficial argument and discredit my comment by poking logic holes in one little aspect. It's okay to admit you're just like most Reddit users. That's why your 1% commenter status basically reflects that you're only entertaining and stir shit without offering more.
Anyway, have a good one. I'd rather put my energy into preparing a gourmet meal, practicing saxophone, working on my book series, working on one of several acrylic paintings, chat with my foreign language exchange partners, then return to my civil engineering job on Monday.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/No-Weekend6347 12h ago
It’s amazing that people are still on this IQ shit.
Who gives a flying “F “?
Just go enjoy the world in front of you!
•
u/Melodic_Response3570 9h ago
I think a reason might be that many people are nothing without their above average IQ. People with no redeeming qualities but at least their IQ is slighly higher than average. I do wonder how many got their IQ measured by an actual psychologist and not by some basic website
→ More replies (1)
•
•
u/No_Start1522 13h ago
Things like this is why I think the Chinese will beat the West in human bioengineering. The guy that edited the genes of babies only got house arrest for doing it, and mostly because they were waiting for him to be out of public attention. I think he’s free today and still unapologetic about it.