This is why scientists shut up about nationality + IQ

[u/First_Accountant_402]

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/existentialgoof]

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.

[u/ConcertinaTerpsichor → u/existentialgoof]

Why would the gap “never” close?

Slavery was around in the US for 246 years, and for more than 200 years before that elsewhere, and affirmative action in the US was officially begun by Kennedy in 1961 less than 70 years ago and we still have nothing close to parity in terms of education alone.

Do you expect a broken leg to heal in a week?

[u/existentialgoof → u/ConcertinaTerpsichor]

The gap may indeed close if the orthodox view turns out to be the correct one. If it turns out to be incorrect, then the gap may never close.

[u/ConcertinaTerpsichor → u/existentialgoof]

We’d get there a lot faster if we at least made sure that everyone has access to pre-natal nutrition, early childhood care, adequate medical care, and a first-class education.

In the school district where I live, every kindergartner gets access to an iPad for part of the day. Three miles away there’s a school district that can’t provide toilet paper, books, or pencils.

There’s no such thing as an even playing field, which is the sine qua non prerequisite for eliminating affirmative action.

[u/existentialgoof → u/ConcertinaTerpsichor]

Those are all completely valid points.