[kenberg]

Vampyr, on 2015-June-11, 12:13, said:

Going back to a bit earlier in the thread.... I am sure we all remember the publication of the book The Bell Curve and the furore that accompanied it. I have never read the book, but I am sure that a graph like this would be consistent with its findings:

http://www.my-iq.net/images/700-1.png

This image is very popular and is used on numerous websites. Now, ignoring all of the problems associated with the production of this graph, suppose there seemed to be some truth in the differences in intelligence and it seemed that it might be genetic. Would it be considered taboo to do any research to investigate whether this was true?

Are there things we consider too abhorrent to even investigate?

A note:
nige mentions Eysenk in his first post. He wrote a book called Know your own IQ. So I bought it and took the first of several tests. In the back of the book he suggests suitable career paths based on the result. For me he suggested semi-skilled labor. I was a graduate student in mathematics and had recently passed my quals, so I threw the book away. I actually enjoy semi-skilled labor, it's relaxing, but I figured that I would stick with the x and the y.

Now can we investigate such matters? I suppose so, if we must.

The other IQ story I like: I was dating a girl in high school who had a part time job at the courthouse. This gave her (illegal) access to records. She proudly announced that she had looked up my IQ and hers was higher.

You can probably tell that I am not a great fan of IQ tests, although I acknowledge that this gal was quite possibly smarter than I was.

[mikeh]

Vampyr, on 2015-June-11, 12:13, said:

Going back to a bit earlier in the thread.... I am sure we all remember the publication of the book The Bell Curve and the furore that accompanied it. I have never read the book, but I am sure that a graph like this would be consistent with its findings:

http://www.my-iq.net/images/700-1.png

This image is very popular and is used on numerous websites. Now, ignoring all of the problems associated with the production of this graph, suppose there seemed to be some truth in the differences in intelligence and it seemed that it might be genetic. Would it be considered taboo to do any research to investigate whether this was true?

Are there things we consider too abhorrent to even investigate?

I am not sure on that, but I suspect the answer is 'yes'.

Consider: during WWII, some doctors in the German concentration camp system performed a lot of experiments. For example, and far from the most abhorrent, they immersed prisoners in ice water for varying periods of time and then applied different forms of treatment. There was a 'legitimate' purpose to this, and it wasn't just about torturing their subjects. Air force personnel and seamen were often required to abandon their plane or ship/submarine in the cold waters of the Baltic, the North Sea, the Atlantic and so on, and hypothermia was little understood. I gather that to this day the human data obtained by these doctors is unique....for what I trust are obvious reasons, the research was not duplicated. The result was an ethical controversy within the medical profession post-war: should we use this data or should we refuse due to the horrific circumstances in which it was collected? After all, even if the experimenters found something that 'worked', they'd move onto another experiment and the subject sooner or later died a nasty death.

However, the notion that there may be innate cognitive differences associated with different ethnic backgrounds doesn't seem to me to be at all abhorrent, for two reasons.

The first is that as I understand matters, nobody, other than the most rabid racists, would suggest that the best of one category would be worse than the least of another. We are speaking of large populations, with wide variety within populations. We are speaking of complex topics when we speak of intelligence.

At best, the proponents of the notion that there are genetically based cognitive differences between genders and between ethnic groups argue that on average such differences can be seen measured across populations. I know of no-one, other than bigots, who would argue that it is impossible for a woman to be as smart as a man, or that it is impossible for a white person to be as mathematically gifted as an 'oriental'.

Thus at one level, admittedly probably not the level at which the media and racists would discuss the notion, the question of whether such differences exist should have no impact, since we should judge all individuals based on who they are, and what abilities they possess, and not on whether that individual is male, female, Asian, African, etc.

The second reason is that a lot of people already believe that such differences exist, and base their attitudes on this. There is compelling evidence that populations asserted by some to be inferior will be influenced in their performance by that cultural belief.

It may be my bias, rather than rational argument, but I suspect that a properly designed testing of these alleged differences would reveal that it is impossible to demonstrate any significant difference between the sexes or 'races' once one eliminates or accounts for the effect of culture.

However, and I repeat myself: even if significant differences were revealed, in no rational society would this be justification for systemic discrimination against anyone.

[nige1]

kenberg, on 2015-June-11, 12:20, said:

I don't usually try to hang people on their exact choice of words but in your original post you "confessed" that you cannot believe that homosexuality is innate. That perhaps settles it. You can't believe it.

I lack evidence for some of my beliefs. But I prefer my beliefs to be evidence-based. Lacking evidence that homosexuality is innate, I can't believe it.

kenberg, on 2015-June-11, 12:20, said:

On to God, for the analogy. I can't believe that God exists. Now do I really mean this? Well, I suppose I can imagine circumstances under which I would change my mind, I have absolutely no reason to expect such circumstances to ever appear. So what I really mean is "If you come to my door and try to convince me that God exists I may or may not listen, I may or may not be polite, but I am extremely confident that when you finally go away, I will still believe that there is no God".
Back to homosexuality. Whatever you have in mind for evidence, it is very unlikely that any regular poster here will change your mind. If you take a year or two off from your job to fully look into it, you might or might not change your mind. But a few casual posts surely won't do it.
For me, the issue of whether homosexuality is or is not innate is not very important. I am not even sure what "innate" means here. Certainly some people are attracted to members of the same sex, and that's innate enough for me.
Now the existence of God could be important, depending on which God and depending on how easygoing He is about my failure to believe in Him. But really, it is a waste of time to try to convert me.

Our beliefs are our prerogative

[nige1]

mikeh, on 2015-June-10, 21:54, said:

ok, maybe an example will indicate what I meant.

Imagine nige1 answering a bridge problem and advising that a 4♠ call gets a score of 10 and 4♦ a score of 6. Imagine that I think that 4♦ is far superior.

If nige1 had laid out reasons for his choices, I could address his post in two ways.

I could point out that in a recent thread he stated that he believed that one's ethnic background gave a guide to one's cognitive abilities, That way of thinking arguably reflects a racist attitude if nige1 can point to no generally scientifically accepted evidence to support his thinking. I could point out that without reference to any evidence he has stated that he refuses to believe that sexuality is innate, and has failed to respond to a request that he explain why he believes as he does. That way of thinking arguably reflects homophobia, in that the particular area of sexuality to which he refers is homosexuality.

I could then assert that his attitudes in these areas reveal him to be a nasty human being and I would argue, expressly or by innuendo, that his bridge ideas are unworthy of respect because of who he is.

I don't think I have ever made such a response to anyone on any topic in any part of my life, and if I have, I would be embarrassed.

On the other hand, I could point out bridge reasons for rejecting his bridge thinking.

The former would be ad hominem. The latter would not.

In this thread, nige1 started by offering a provocative statement. I posted that I would defend his right to hold the beliefs he expressed, even tho anyone familiar with my WC posts would know that they were anathema to me. However, by making his post, and further posts in the thread, imo, he invited criticisms of those beliefs, and it is inappropriate for him to duck those criticisms by claiming that the attacks were on him as a person rather than his beliefs as posted by him here.

This is the last post I will make on this now-tedious thread. As I stated earlier, I hope that I am mistaken in drawing the inferences of racism and homophobia that, to me, seemed to arise from the beliefs and attitudes claimed by nige1, and I readily admit that I may well be wrong. What I don't admit is that it is ad hominem to draw those inferences or to call him out on them. Should I or anyone pretend not to see those notions in what he posted, when we do? If I misunderstood him, then better I tell him my thinking and let him correct me through reasoned dialogue than that I or others write him off as a bigot. While, if he is a bigot, then it is only right to call him out. Unfortunately, he has chosen to avoid explaining himself, which makes it difficult to see how I was mistaken.

[billw55]

nige1, on 2015-June-11, 13:38, said:

I lack evidence for some of my beliefs. But I prefer my beliefs to be evidence-based. Lacking evidence that homosexuality is innate, I can't believe it.

I am curious. Would you also say that, lacking evidence that homosexuality is an acquired characteristic, you cannot believe it?

[nige1]

billw55, on 2015-June-11, 14:29, said:

I am curious. Would you also say that, lacking evidence that homosexuality is an acquired characteristic, you cannot believe it?

So far, most people seem to believe it's innate. I've admitted before that I'm uncertain about most things. I've few beliefs.

I feel that homosexuality is more likely to be an acquired preference. I wouldn't bet on it. I'd be interested in the results of more research.

[mikeh]

nige1, on 2015-June-11, 14:52, said:

So far, most people seem to believe it's innate. I've admitted before that I'm uncertain about most things. I've few beliefs.

I feel that homosexuality is more likely to be an acquired preference. I wouldn't bet on it. I'd be interested in the results of more research.

acquired how?

I know, I said I wouldn't post more in response to you, but this post made me laugh. Just how we do picture all these gays getting exposed to and experimenting with feeling attracted to people of the same sex?

Bear in mind that in many cultures today, being gay leads to extreme social discrimination, up to and including prison sentences, forced castration, and death sentences, yet somehow people in those countries still end up 'preferring' to be gay?

Even in 'enlightened' western society, gays are often the target of abuse from religious leaders (and followers) and politicians, and rejection by family, including parents and siblings.

So please, explain to us the evidence that leads you to the 'feeling' that homosexuality is an acquired preference?

The reality appears to be that many gay men, perhaps not as often these days where gay rights actually exist, would do almost anything to be straight, including living lives of quiet desperation, deep within the closet....including, all too often, taking political and religious stances decrying that very same 'preference' that you say they must have acquired.

Btw, I assume you identify as a straight male. Can you recall precisely when you made the intellectual decision that you'd rather be physically attracted to females than to other males? I mean, if same-sex attraction is an acquired preference, why is opposite-sex attraction any different?

Here's a wild guess: you aren't 'sure about anything', including your 'feelings' or your 'inability to believe' and it is ad hominem to claim that you are a not very well hidden homophobe, racist and sexist bigot, because all you say is that it is 'OK' to hold homophobic, racist and sexist beliefs, not that you hold them personally.

[kenberg]

I am taking the liberty of keeping only a few of the sentences, mike's complete in sight is a few posts back.

mikeh, on 2015-June-11, 13:35, said:

I am not sure on that, but I suspect the answer is 'yes'.

Consider: during WWII, some doctors in the German concentration camp system performed a lot of experiments....

Definitely some experiments are forbidden. If a topic cannot be investigated w/o performing unacceptable experiments, then it cannot be done.

Quote

However, the notion that there may be innate cognitive differences associated with different ethnic backgrounds doesn't seem to me to be at all abhorrent, for two reasons....

Generally I agree. I think if we look sufficiently hard for differences, surely we will find some somewhere. Maybe Italians on average are shorter than Norwegians. My model for this really is my father. I never saw him treat another man differently based on race. Like many of his generation (1900-1977) he thought that black people should marry black people, white people should marry white people, Catholics should marry Catholics and so on. But in day to day living, he treated a person as a person.

Quote

It may be my bias, rather than rational argument, but I suspect that a properly designed testing of these alleged differences would reveal that it is impossible to demonstrate any significant difference between the sexes or 'races' once one eliminates or accounts for the effect of culture.

However, and I repeat myself: even if significant differences were revealed, in no rational society would this be justification for systemic discrimination against anyone.

The problem is this: If we are to judge ourselves and our programs by whether we do or do not have proportional representation in, say, mathematics departments at high level schools Princeton, Cal Tech etc then equal mathematical ability, or the lack thereof, becomes an issue. I much, much, much prefer to judge individuals. It's a little know fact, but there are people out there who actually don't want to become mathematicians even if they could.

Some differences in opportunity are so stark you don't need a magnifying glass to see them. If we ever get the system so that African Americans have an equal shot at good elementary and secondary education then, after a generation or two, or three, we can look at differences in ability. That's if for some reason we feel that we really must.

[hrothgar]

Vampyr, on 2015-June-11, 12:13, said:

Going back to a bit earlier in the thread.... I am sure we all remember the publication of the book The Bell Curve and the furore that accompanied it. I have never read the book, but I am sure that a graph like this would be consistent with its findings:

http://www.my-iq.net/images/700-1.png

This image is very popular and is used on numerous websites. Now, ignoring all of the problems associated with the production of this graph, suppose there seemed to be some truth in the differences in intelligence and it seemed that it might be genetic. Would it be considered taboo to do any research to investigate whether this was true?

Are there things we consider too abhorrent to even investigate?

The earlier reference to even USING / REFERENCING the "research" that the Nazi's performed in the death camps seems telling...

Given the information that we currently have, I think that further research on the relationship between race and intelligence falls into a similar category.
In my experience, this just doesn't lead to productive discussions.

[RMB1]

Godwin

[nige1]

mikeh, on 2015-June-11, 16:01, said:

acquired how?

I know, I said I wouldn't post more in response to you, but this post made me laugh. Just how we do picture all these gays getting exposed to and experimenting with feeling attracted to people of the same sex?

Bear in mind that in many cultures today, being gay leads to extreme social discrimination, up to and including prison sentences, forced castration, and death sentences, yet somehow people in those countries still end up 'preferring' to be gay?

Even in 'enlightened' western society, gays are often the target of abuse from religious leaders (and followers) and politicians, and rejection by family, including parents and siblings.

So please, explain to us the evidence that leads you to the 'feeling' that homosexuality is an acquired preference?

The reality appears to be that many gay men, perhaps not as often these days where gay rights actually exist, would do almost anything to be straight, including living lives of quiet desperation, deep within the closet....including, all too often, taking political and religious stances decrying that very same 'preference' that you say they must have acquired.

Btw, I assume you identify as a straight male. Can you recall precisely when you made the intellectual decision that you'd rather be physically attracted to females than to other males? I mean, if same-sex attraction is an acquired preference, why is opposite-sex attraction any different?

Here's a wild guess: you aren't 'sure about anything', including your 'feelings' or your 'inability to believe' and it is ad hominem to claim that you are a not very well hidden homophobe, racist and sexist bigot, because all you say is that it is 'OK' to hold homophobic, racist and sexist beliefs, not that you hold them personally.

You're welcome to reveal more about yourself, mikeh. I've stated some of my views. I'm not the subject of this topic, however.

From Gene-survival principles, a heterosexual preference is likely to be innate. But more research might result in more evidence and less speculation.

[mikeh]

nige1, on 2015-June-11, 17:29, said:

You're welcome to reveal more about yourself, mikeh. I've stated some of my views. I'm not the subject of this topic, however.

From Gene-survival principles, a heterosexual preference is likely to be innate. But more research might result in more evidence and less speculation.

ok, you have demonstrated to my satisfaction that you are in truth a despicable as well as a stupid person. Thanks for removing any doubt.

[billw55]

nige1, on 2015-June-11, 17:29, said:

You're welcome to reveal more about yourself, mikeh. I've stated some of my views. I'm not the subject of this topic, however.

From Gene-survival principles, a heterosexual preference is likely to be innate. But more research might result in more evidence and less speculation.

Nigel, I do respect the tone in which you have chosen to conduct this discussion.

Still ... the point has been made that the research/evidence is both abundant and readily available. Despite that point, and indeed multiple times after that point was made, you continue to assert that you cannot believe it until you have more research/evidence.

I invite you to consider how this encourages the perception that this is not a case of cannot believe, but rather a case of will not believe.

[mike777]

Again guys there seem to be at least few, tiny few reported cases of gender preference switching after surgery and hormone and other therapy.

I fully grant the science on these incidents is open to discussion.

With all of the above said innate seems to be the science in 99%+
Again there seems to be a much wider sexual preference spectrum than 100% one or the other.

As for those selfish genes...they seem willing to jump species or populations.

[barmar]

billw55, on 2015-June-11, 18:25, said:

Still ... the point has been made that the research/evidence is both abundant and readily available. Despite that point, and indeed multiple times after that point was made, you continue to assert that you cannot believe it until you have more research/evidence.

Reminds me of the politicians who still proclaim that "the science isn't conclusive" about climate change. They manage to find a few outlier scientists who disagree with the mainstream, and use them to support their views (which they probably hold mainly because it would be politically inconvenient for them to switch sides).

[barmar]

Warning: If I see the word "stupid" (or similar) used to refer to another poster again, I'm shutting down this thread. Ad hominem or not, personal attacks and insults are not acceptable here.

[MrAce]

barmar, on 2015-June-12, 09:24, said:

Warning: If I see the word "stupid" (or similar) used to refer to another poster again, I'm shutting down this thread. Ad hominem or not, personal attacks and insults are not acceptable here.

I know you are trigga happy on doing this, but please do not.

If you really need to do something, just edit or move the replies that contains personal attacks and not punish the rest of the people who contributed to the topic. Diana is actually doing good job about this instead of not shutting down the whole thing just because she can.

[nige1]

billw55, on 2015-June-11, 18:25, said:

Nigel, I do respect the tone in which you have chosen to conduct this discussion. Still ... the point has been made that the research/evidence is both abundant and readily available. Despite that point, and indeed multiple times after that point was made, you continue to assert that you cannot believe it until you have more research/evidence. I invite you to consider how this encourages the perception that this is not a case of cannot believe, but rather a case of will not believe.

When I wrote the OP, I added Homosexuality as an afterthought. I wish I hadn't. Before posting, I looked for relevant material and found general articles e.g.
Is homosexuality innate?
Is sexual orientation innate?
Environment and sexual orientation
Biology and sexual orientation?
Homosexuality
The latter contains general conclusions

(Wikipedia) the American Academy of Pediatrics, in 2004 said:

Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts. [...] Although there continues to be controversy and uncertainty as to the genesis of the variety of human sexual orientations, there is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation. Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established during early childhood.

(Wikipedia) the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and National Association of Social Workers in 2006 said:

Currently, there is no scientific consensus about the specific factors that cause an individual to become heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual—including possible biological, psychological, or social effects of the parents' sexual orientation. However, the available evidence indicates that the vast majority of lesbian and gay adults were raised by heterosexual parents and the vast majority of children raised by lesbian and gay parents eventually grow up to be heterosexual

(Wikipedia) the Royal College of Psychiatrists, in 2014 said:

Sexual orientation is determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors. There is no evidence to go beyond this and impute any kind of choice into the origins of sexual orientation.

"Biological" includes intra-uterine environmental factors. IMO, the most telling argument for innate determination was

(Wikipedia) a meta-study by Hershberger (2001) said:

(Comparing the results of eight different twin studies) All but two showed MZ twins having much higher concordance of sexual orientation than DZ twins, suggesting a non-negligible genetic component.

Some quotes were amusing

(Wikipedia) A study by geneticists at the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology said:

(They) altered the sexual preferences of female mice by removing a single gene linked to reproductive behavior. Without the gene, the mice exhibited masculine sexual behavior and attraction toward urine of other female mice. Those mice who retained the gene fucose mutarotase (FucM) were attracted to male mice.

I've read some original papers but they're old and controversial. Hence, i'd be interested to read contemporary peer-reviewed original research (or abstracts). But as of now, it seems to me that the jury is still out.

[barmar]

I think the reason some people are reacting so vehemently to the claim "it's not innate" is that to many people this is interpreted as "it's a choice". Or worse, that it's "caused" by too much exposure to gay culture, which has been used as justification for discrimination against gays (e.g. until civil rights laws were enacted, schools would routinely prohibit gay teachers). But as indicated in those quotes, it's not anywhere close to that simple.

Sexual orientation is innate in much the same way that intelligence and height are. You could have the genes to be tall, but if you're malnourished during your childhood you probably won't be. You could have genes for high intelligence, but if you don't get a decent education you probably won't exhibit it.

But if you have the Down Syndrome gene, you're not likely to become a genius no matter how good the school you go to is. Similarly, if you don't have the genetic tendency towards homosexualilty, no cultural factors are likely to make you gay.

Genetics is just one factor that goes into a person's physical and personality makeup. But for many attributes, it's a necessary prerequisite.

[hrothgar]

barmar, on 2015-June-12, 13:27, said:

I think the reason some people are reacting so vehemently to the claim "it's not innate" is that to many people this is interpreted as "it's a choice". Or worse, that it's "caused" by too much exposure to gay culture, which has been used as justification for discrimination against gays (e.g. until civil rights laws were enacted, schools would routinely prohibit gay teachers). But as indicated in those quotes, it's not anywhere close to that simple.

My understanding is that the issue is two fold

1. This idea is WRONG
2. If sexual orientation is a choice, then the "wrong choice" can be beaten out of you...