In the mid 80's I posted a question on a usenet news group that seemed to make me the target of all 'right thinking adults'. The question was simple. With the strong Darwinian selection against male homosexuality, the fact that it appeared to have a prevalence of ~ 0.02 or so instead of <.001 indicated that there was positive selection for a partial(s). What was the likely partial(s)?
I was condemned for asking the question - no right thinking person would do so. I still disagree with that viewpoint
Beyond taboo subjects are regulated and monitored subjects. Some research and information should not be published in the public environment. Genetic structures for dangerous diseases, .... Close to 40 years ago I was hit by a government secrecy order on one technology I was working on. There are a number of these issued every year in the US, and I am sure more elsewhere. I have a friend who had a project he was working on classified out from under him. It happens.
These 'Taboo's' are all softballs. The truly Taboo subjects they don't dare list.....like the one where pointing out a certain group controls everything will get you deplatformed and fired from everything.
Very interesting, but I think there may be a problem with the way the question was phrased namely "Please indicate how taboo you think the question is", since, in most cases, it's not the questions themselves that are controversial or taboo, only reaching a certain answer in respect of those questions.
Thus, asking the question "Whether European Whites are smarter than African Blacks for genetic reasons" isn't itself all that taboo, so long as one safely reaches the firm conclusion that they definitely are not. It is other answers to the question, namely that whites are smarter, or that the matter is unresolved, that are taboo.
This might sound like a very pedantic point, but I think it might have influenced how respondents answered the questionaire, since, in respect of many of the questions, most ordinary people aren't even aware that there's any controversy on these matters.
For example, in respect of the third ranked question (which I would have expected to be the first ranked), namely whether pedophilia is harmful, most people, I suspect, wouldn't even be aware that there is any scientific debate or controversy on this question, since, to my knowledge, the last time that the issue came into the public eye was the Rind et al controversy in 1998.
In contrast, the race and IQ question emerges pretty regularly in the popular press, twice at least this year alone, with the sacking of Nathan Cofnas and Elon Musk liking a tweet regarding DEI, pilots and HBCUs.
Therefore, on some of these matters, perhaps people don't rate the questions as especially taboo, because they think the matter is entirely settled, and the politically correct answer is proven and established and hence there is no real controversy.
Some time ago, the journal Nature had an article on taboo genetics (vol. 502, pp. 26-28, https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/502026a .) It said that the taboo level of intelligence and genetics was "high" and race and genetics "very high". In a way, this was a hopeful sign, since if these subjects were 100% impossible to discuss, Nature would not mention them at all, even to say that they were taboo. This was over ten years ago though and prohibitionist attitudes have probably changed and intensified since then.
Well, just going by the number of citations in this short article alone, the taboo is obviously not in the scientific field. There appears to be no lack of theoretical and experimental studies on the subject. Rather, the taboo appears to be, What to do with the answer to the question.
I suppose the counter-point would be "the perception that a subject is taboo does not necessarily imply there are real consequences for violating the taboo". To which the counter-counter-point would be, self-censorship due to perceived taboos *is* a consequence. Interesting followup would be asking researchers which taboo topics they would be interested in studying, whether they believe they could obtain grants to conduct that research, and whether they fear negative career consequences if they did.
Interested as to why you and others have gone to such trouble to highlight the “taboo” question of whether white people are smarter than black. Is your point freedom of speech? Freedom of science? In either case, the question (white people are smarter than black) crumbles at the slightest consideration. What does “smart” mean? Good at IQ tests? Good at 3D visual reasoning? Logical deduction? This is an entirely white male take on “smart” and any scientific enquiry is obviated. In this case the taboo serves to avoid wasting time and energy investigating an ill formed thesis. Not only that, the taboo stands on the shoulders of some very dark chapters in human history. Why lift the lid?
"What can be done to reduce the biasing effect of taboos on science?"
I believe you've nailed it - centralization of funding and employment leads to uniformity of taboo. Therefore, decentralize. Start working to enable science to happen away from the academy, and free of the national granting agencies - for instance, supported by small audiences of enthusiasts, along the lines that you among others are pioneering.
"Though, it should be noted that some groups find things more taboo in general than others"
it appears that at least for now, Asians seem to be in general the group least concerned about taboos; & Blacks & Jews & sexual deviants are , in general, the most concerning taboos
Nitpick: it would be one less layer of indirection if you asked people how strongly they themselves disapprove of such research.
In the mid 80's I posted a question on a usenet news group that seemed to make me the target of all 'right thinking adults'. The question was simple. With the strong Darwinian selection against male homosexuality, the fact that it appeared to have a prevalence of ~ 0.02 or so instead of <.001 indicated that there was positive selection for a partial(s). What was the likely partial(s)?
I was condemned for asking the question - no right thinking person would do so. I still disagree with that viewpoint
Beyond taboo subjects are regulated and monitored subjects. Some research and information should not be published in the public environment. Genetic structures for dangerous diseases, .... Close to 40 years ago I was hit by a government secrecy order on one technology I was working on. There are a number of these issued every year in the US, and I am sure more elsewhere. I have a friend who had a project he was working on classified out from under him. It happens.
These 'Taboo's' are all softballs. The truly Taboo subjects they don't dare list.....like the one where pointing out a certain group controls everything will get you deplatformed and fired from everything.
Maybe you should have asked specifically about child sex dolls rather than pedophilia per se.
Very interesting, but I think there may be a problem with the way the question was phrased namely "Please indicate how taboo you think the question is", since, in most cases, it's not the questions themselves that are controversial or taboo, only reaching a certain answer in respect of those questions.
Thus, asking the question "Whether European Whites are smarter than African Blacks for genetic reasons" isn't itself all that taboo, so long as one safely reaches the firm conclusion that they definitely are not. It is other answers to the question, namely that whites are smarter, or that the matter is unresolved, that are taboo.
This might sound like a very pedantic point, but I think it might have influenced how respondents answered the questionaire, since, in respect of many of the questions, most ordinary people aren't even aware that there's any controversy on these matters.
For example, in respect of the third ranked question (which I would have expected to be the first ranked), namely whether pedophilia is harmful, most people, I suspect, wouldn't even be aware that there is any scientific debate or controversy on this question, since, to my knowledge, the last time that the issue came into the public eye was the Rind et al controversy in 1998.
In contrast, the race and IQ question emerges pretty regularly in the popular press, twice at least this year alone, with the sacking of Nathan Cofnas and Elon Musk liking a tweet regarding DEI, pilots and HBCUs.
Therefore, on some of these matters, perhaps people don't rate the questions as especially taboo, because they think the matter is entirely settled, and the politically correct answer is proven and established and hence there is no real controversy.
Some time ago, the journal Nature had an article on taboo genetics (vol. 502, pp. 26-28, https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/502026a .) It said that the taboo level of intelligence and genetics was "high" and race and genetics "very high". In a way, this was a hopeful sign, since if these subjects were 100% impossible to discuss, Nature would not mention them at all, even to say that they were taboo. This was over ten years ago though and prohibitionist attitudes have probably changed and intensified since then.
Not sure about taboos, but not all topics need to be researched. And requires a distinction between actual Science vs. technology per se.
“breast feeding quality vs. synthetic breast milk”
The former is a legit domain of science, the latter is technological hubris
Well, just going by the number of citations in this short article alone, the taboo is obviously not in the scientific field. There appears to be no lack of theoretical and experimental studies on the subject. Rather, the taboo appears to be, What to do with the answer to the question.
I suppose the counter-point would be "the perception that a subject is taboo does not necessarily imply there are real consequences for violating the taboo". To which the counter-counter-point would be, self-censorship due to perceived taboos *is* a consequence. Interesting followup would be asking researchers which taboo topics they would be interested in studying, whether they believe they could obtain grants to conduct that research, and whether they fear negative career consequences if they did.
Interested as to why you and others have gone to such trouble to highlight the “taboo” question of whether white people are smarter than black. Is your point freedom of speech? Freedom of science? In either case, the question (white people are smarter than black) crumbles at the slightest consideration. What does “smart” mean? Good at IQ tests? Good at 3D visual reasoning? Logical deduction? This is an entirely white male take on “smart” and any scientific enquiry is obviated. In this case the taboo serves to avoid wasting time and energy investigating an ill formed thesis. Not only that, the taboo stands on the shoulders of some very dark chapters in human history. Why lift the lid?
"What can be done to reduce the biasing effect of taboos on science?"
I believe you've nailed it - centralization of funding and employment leads to uniformity of taboo. Therefore, decentralize. Start working to enable science to happen away from the academy, and free of the national granting agencies - for instance, supported by small audiences of enthusiasts, along the lines that you among others are pioneering.
"Though, it should be noted that some groups find things more taboo in general than others"
it appears that at least for now, Asians seem to be in general the group least concerned about taboos; & Blacks & Jews & sexual deviants are , in general, the most concerning taboos
https://www.abebooks.com/book-search/title/taboos-in-criminology/
In the Men/Women results, are Men really pink and Women blue?