On reflection, I think I have an obligation to stick my neck out and address some issue of potential dangerous knowledge that really matters, rather than the triviality (to us anyway) of heliocentrism.
Suppose (worst case) that race IQ differences are real, and not explained by the Flynn effect or anything like that. I think it’s beyond dispute that that would be a big boost for the racists (at least short-term), but would it be an insuperable obstacle for those of us who think ontological differences don’t translate smoothly into differences in ethical worth?
The question of sex makes me fairly optimistic. Men and women are definitely distinct psychologically. And yet, as this fact has become more and more clear, I do not think sexual equality has declined. Probably the opposite—a softening of attitudes on all sides. So maybe people would actually come to grips with race IQ differences, assuming they exist.
More importantly, withholding that knowledge could be much more disastrous.
(1) If the knowledge does come out, the racists get to yell “I told you so,” “Conspiracy of silence” etc. Then the IQ difference gets magnified 1000x in the public imagination.
(2) If the knowledge does not come out, then underrepresentation of certain races in e.g., higher learning stands as an ugly fact sans explanation. Society beats its head against a problem of supposed endemic racism for eternity, when the real culprit is statistical differences in mean IQ. Even though—public perceptions be damned—statistical IQ differences should have all the moral weight of “pygmies are underrepresented in basketball.”
Knowing about (potential) racial IQ differences is dangerous; so is a perpetual false presumption of racism resulting from ignoring those differences if they exist. Which one generates the most angst, long-term? I don’t know. But the truth is probably more sustainable than a well-intentioned fib.
I certainly don’t think that avoiding dangerous knowledge is a good group strategy, due to (at least) difficulties with enforcement and unintended side-effects of the sort you’ve described here.
The question of sex makes me fairly optimistic. Men and women are definitely distinct psychologically. And yet, as this fact has become more and more clear, I do not think sexual equality has declined. Probably the opposite—a softening of attitudes on all sides. So maybe people would actually come to grips with race IQ differences, assuming they exist.
While the scientific consensus has become more clear, I’m not sure that it’s reflected in popular or even intellectual opinion. Note the continuing popularity of Judith Butler in non-science academic circles, for example. Or the media’s general tendency to discuss sex differences entirely outside of any scientific context. This may not be the best example.
Perhaps not for society at large, but what about empirically-based intellectuals themselves? Do you think knowledge of innate sex differences leads to more or less sexism among them? I think it leads to less, although my evidence is wholly anecdotal.
There is another problem with avoiding dangerous knowledge. Remember the dragon in the garage? In order to make excuses ahead of time for missing evidence, the dragon proponent needs to have an accurate representation of reality somewhere in their heart-of-hearts. This leads to cognitive dissonance.
Return to the race/IQ example. Would you rather
know group X has a 10 points lower average IQ than group Y, and just deal with it by trying your best to correct for confirmation bias etc., OR
intentionally keep yourself ignorant, while feeling deep down that something is not right.
?
I suspect the second option is worse for your behaviour towards group X. It would still be difficult for a human to do, but I’d personally rather swallow the hard pill of a 10-point average IQ difference and consciously correct for my brain’s crappy heuristics, than feel queasy around group X in perpetuity because I know I’m lying to myself about them.
(1) If the knowledge does come out, the racists get to yell “I told you so,” “Conspiracy of silence” etc. Then the IQ difference gets magnified 1000x in the public imagination.
I think we are seeing that among the for now (fortunately) small group of relatively intelligent unconformist people who change their opinion on this subject once looking at the data.
It biases them towards unduly sympathetic judgements of everyone else who happens to hold the same opinion.
“Oh that guy is just a bit rough around the edges, he’s just ranting in that post. I kind of understand him, its so hard to keep seeing the same lies and falsehoods behind repeated over and over and over again.”
or
“I’m mean sure he’s wrong on that, but we can’t be picky in choosing allies in our fight for truth when our opposition has the full weight of the state on their side. ”
or eventually
“Yes the guy is a douche and bigot but if we are ever to stop wasting 4% of our GDP on policies based on this falsehood we need to be political realists and just work with them.”
Leaking unconfromist, driven, principled (as in truth seeking even when it costs them status) intelligent people to otherwise unworthy causes? This may prove to be dangerous in the long term.
One can’t overestimate the propaganda value of calling out a well intentioned lie out as a lie and then proving that it actually is, you know, a lie. Our biases make us very vulnerable to be overly suspicious of someone who has been shown to be a liar. This is doubly true of our tendency to question their motives.
On reflection, I think I have an obligation to stick my neck out and address some issue of potential dangerous knowledge that really matters, rather than the triviality (to us anyway) of heliocentrism.
Suppose (worst case) that race IQ differences are real, and not explained by the Flynn effect or anything like that. I think it’s beyond dispute that that would be a big boost for the racists (at least short-term), but would it be an insuperable obstacle for those of us who think ontological differences don’t translate smoothly into differences in ethical worth?
The question of sex makes me fairly optimistic. Men and women are definitely distinct psychologically. And yet, as this fact has become more and more clear, I do not think sexual equality has declined. Probably the opposite—a softening of attitudes on all sides. So maybe people would actually come to grips with race IQ differences, assuming they exist.
More importantly, withholding that knowledge could be much more disastrous.
(1) If the knowledge does come out, the racists get to yell “I told you so,” “Conspiracy of silence” etc. Then the IQ difference gets magnified 1000x in the public imagination.
(2) If the knowledge does not come out, then underrepresentation of certain races in e.g., higher learning stands as an ugly fact sans explanation. Society beats its head against a problem of supposed endemic racism for eternity, when the real culprit is statistical differences in mean IQ. Even though—public perceptions be damned—statistical IQ differences should have all the moral weight of “pygmies are underrepresented in basketball.”
Knowing about (potential) racial IQ differences is dangerous; so is a perpetual false presumption of racism resulting from ignoring those differences if they exist. Which one generates the most angst, long-term? I don’t know. But the truth is probably more sustainable than a well-intentioned fib.
I’m inclined to agree with you.
I certainly don’t think that avoiding dangerous knowledge is a good group strategy, due to (at least) difficulties with enforcement and unintended side-effects of the sort you’ve described here.
While the scientific consensus has become more clear, I’m not sure that it’s reflected in popular or even intellectual opinion. Note the continuing popularity of Judith Butler in non-science academic circles, for example. Or the media’s general tendency to discuss sex differences entirely outside of any scientific context. This may not be the best example.
Perhaps not for society at large, but what about empirically-based intellectuals themselves? Do you think knowledge of innate sex differences leads to more or less sexism among them? I think it leads to less, although my evidence is wholly anecdotal.
There is another problem with avoiding dangerous knowledge. Remember the dragon in the garage? In order to make excuses ahead of time for missing evidence, the dragon proponent needs to have an accurate representation of reality somewhere in their heart-of-hearts. This leads to cognitive dissonance.
Return to the race/IQ example. Would you rather
know group X has a 10 points lower average IQ than group Y, and just deal with it by trying your best to correct for confirmation bias etc., OR
intentionally keep yourself ignorant, while feeling deep down that something is not right.
?
I suspect the second option is worse for your behaviour towards group X. It would still be difficult for a human to do, but I’d personally rather swallow the hard pill of a 10-point average IQ difference and consciously correct for my brain’s crappy heuristics, than feel queasy around group X in perpetuity because I know I’m lying to myself about them.
I think we are seeing that among the for now (fortunately) small group of relatively intelligent unconformist people who change their opinion on this subject once looking at the data.
It biases them towards unduly sympathetic judgements of everyone else who happens to hold the same opinion.
or
or eventually
Leaking unconfromist, driven, principled (as in truth seeking even when it costs them status) intelligent people to otherwise unworthy causes? This may prove to be dangerous in the long term.
One can’t overestimate the propaganda value of calling out a well intentioned lie out as a lie and then proving that it actually is, you know, a lie. Our biases make us very vulnerable to be overly suspicious of someone who has been shown to be a liar. This is doubly true of our tendency to question their motives.
Possibly, but faith in the truth winning out also looks like faith to me. Also, publicly at least people have to pick their battles.