Wednesday, January 30, 2019

Is some research too politically dangerous?

Gerhard Meisenberg argues:
Some authors have proposed that research on cognitive differences is too dangerous to be allowed to proceed unchecked. ...

1. The alternative to knowledge about human intelligence differences is not ignorance, but false beliefs that people create to explain real-world phenomena.
2. In most cases, true knowledge is more likely than false beliefs to lead to beneficial outcomes.
3. The proper question to ask is not whether intelligence research is dangerous, but whether people in modern societies possess the moral values and intellectual abilities required to make good use of the knowledge.
4. If moral values are found to be lagging behind factual knowledge in modern societies, the appropriate response is not the restriction of “dangerous” knowledge, but the development of moral values capable of putting the knowledge to good use.
You might think that this is obvious, but it is not. The big European Physics center, CERN, has a policy of sponsoring lectures on how women are disadvantaged, and firing anyone who presents data and evidence to the contrary.


  1. When the beautiful lie you want people to believe becomes more important that what the ugly truth is, and you punish those who would reveal this deception, then you have revealed you value controlling other people more than you value truth. At this point, honesty, integrity, morality and ethics have already been abandoned, and the heart of the matter is laid bare: maintaining power over other people and what they believe.

    A lot of people in power have been preaching that all people are the same, and if they aren't, they will MAKE them the same through force in the pursuit of equality of outcomes. This is just about the shortest path to hell.

    1. Dear CFT,

      Just didn't become, as far as I understand, one of the favorites of the then professors at UAB, one who at that time was younger as compared to what *I* am today---Thom(p)son, Welding Engineer.

      No, Sir, *I* didn't become *him*. Ever. Before his personal visit to IIT Madras (in early-late 1980s, during the Reagen years, may be), or *after* that.

      No matter what the cost. ...

      ... May be I am rich, or whatever. (Indian IT industry (e.g. postmen's sons etc.) have always acted as if I were one).

      That's what I am afraid of. ... Not you, Sir; certainly not you. Or the runner of this blog.



    2. Ajit,
      I do not understand your reply, or how it pertains to what I said. I was commenting in relation to what Roger was talking about, that being cognitive differences (a racial/cultural hot potato at the moment) and how many in academia are wanting to basically pretend that if they stick their fingers in their ears this will go away... which it won't, or that they can wallpaper over cognitive differences by awarding favor by group quotas rather than individual merit by pursuing what is called 'equality of outcome'.

      Equality of opportunity is where people are given the freedom to pursue their interests as individuals.

      Equality of outcome is where people are treated according to their intersectional group identity, and are rewarded or silenced depending on which group is considered higher on the list of the most greivances in an attempt to 'make things fair'.

      As to your other comment, which I also don't understand what it pertains to, why on earth would you or anyone else to be afraid of me...or Roger for that matter? I really can't tell if you are being vague or just snarky.