"I've always said that I'm agnostic on whether... so there are observed test score differences between groups, I think that's clear, you can't deny that.
The causality of that, whether it's partially due to genetics, I've always been agnostic on. Not because I think it's impossible, but because it's such a charged thing we should really make sure the science is solid before we speculate. We shouldn't randomly speculate on something that sensitive.
But even just not being willing to categorically rule out that God could have created us with average group differences has gotten me into trouble. And I think that's just absurd. So for someone to attack me for saying 'We don't know the answer to this question, let's do the science first and then talk about it.' Even that position is actually not tenable in the current social justice warrior political climate."
A) I hope it's not true. I would much rather live in a world where there are not big group differences.
Number 2) I understand why it's a sensitive issue. Because it was used in a way to oppress people for a long time. So I'm not blind to that.
Number 3) I am a scientist. So when I say something like 'The results of the studies do not allow us to come to a high confidence conclusion about it.' That's what I'm going to say. So I've been attacked because I haven't been willing to categorically rule something out, which I think is absurd..."
"The scores are, as you say, you do the tests, you find differences. However there are differences in average environment that these people experience. So the really difficult statistical question is, is it the difference in average environment these people experience, or is it genes. And it's a very difficult question..."
>Not because I think it's impossible, but because it's such a charged thing we should really make sure the science is solid before we speculate. We shouldn't randomly speculate on something that sensitive.
I think he doesn't go far enough. Its not enough to just "not speculate," you have to also be responsible with how you use your reputation as a researcher in the field. As an analogy, it doesn't matter how principled or academic a political philosopher's belief in state's rights is, he'll lose his credibility if he agrees to speak at a bunch of racist confederate organizations. Even if he sticks to a boring non-racist script.
There is a movement out there seeking to drape their racist ideas in the trappings of science and reason. This researcher knows this. He ought to view it as his responsibility to make sure his good name is not attached to that movement. He could stay completely inside his ivory tower until he has the solid science, or he could heavily screen the media he speaks to. He has very clearly failed in that responsibility by going on Mr. "Humanity is not a single species[1]" Molyneux's show and saying that he thinks appealing to the environment as an explanation for group differences in IQ is a-scientific.
I'm currently a student of Michigan State. While I don't like Dr. Hsu very much (and I see more merit to the criticisms of him than I suspect many here) I see this as grievous damage to my university. This will be proof that researchers should be scared what they say will incite a twitter mob against them and get them fired. Instead, they should be insulated from public backlash and not be afraid to say what they believe no matter how controversial. Lacking that, the entire purpose of research universities (and with it our ability to speak of a consensus among experts) is corrupted.
I suppose it is fair to say speech of those in leadership positions with executive power is chilled by this. I think that's how its supposed to be though. Part of being in leadership is managing relationships with stakeholders. Part of it is being beyond reproach. Undisclosed conflicts of interest on published papers is not a small thing for an Executive at a university. Being responsible in an academic honesty sense is important in that position I think.
We all look at history and view the Church as both stupid and evil for arresting Galileo when he published evidence that Earth revolved around the sun. Why do we look at history that way and how is Steve Hsu different from Galileo?
Don't like his facts/scientific methods/conclusions? Fight them with other facts and methods and conclusions!
When you try and suppress the scientific method (especially in the age of the internet), you give the conspiracy theorists and white supremacists ammunition for a new generation of recruits. "Here are the facts they are hiding from you!"- they'll say. Fight ideas with better ideas, not by firings.
>However, these categories overlap & are all rooted in Hsu’s beliefs in innate biological differences between human populations, especially regarding intelligence --an unscientific position which makes him unsuited to direct a research institution’s funding or its graduate studies
Humans are, biologically, extremely diverse. Visible attributes, disease risk, geometry of the physical body, etc. Some groups are more prone to certain genetic disease risk factors, for example.
Doesn't it follow that the brains of different groups of humans might group into certain traits, including intelligence?
I'm asking in all sincerity. I'd love to hear if there's some evidence that my thinking is wrong.
The current argument is weasly though, approaching it as follows:
Race is a social construct and not a genetic one. Humans exist on a genetic spectrum. Therefore you can't box humans into distinct groups there. Therefore racial differences are moot.
This is based off the grad student unions linked sources. It's also weasly as all fuck. Race may be a social construct, but it does correlate strongly with a number of genetic factors. As such, race serves as an aggregate variable for a large quantity of genetic variation. And it can be shown that between populations of different race, there's an observable difference at a genetic level.
It's complicated. One thing we do know is that the variance in intelligence is larger than any group differences. People therefore often assume that anyone that insists on emphasizing the average difference is using it as a dog-whistle for some kind of bias. Whether the principle of charity should be applied or not is up to you.
There is no singular "intelligence" and measuring it is certainly not linear. Splitting hairs between a population of people (specifically blacks) who only 200 years ago were killed for being able to read certainly doesn't make for a compelling or worthy investment in research.
There is a simple solution to this: no one other than card-carrying scientists working exclusively on the evolution of intelligence should blurt out their opinions on this topic. This question should be clubbed with other questions which are always easy traps for any scientist into believing their opinion is valuable just because they "know how to do science". Better just stick to what field of science you are good and shut up about socially charged questions of no relevance to you.
In this guy's, case, it is arguable if he's in the field. He seems to have already made up his mind on it, he's just out to find proof of his hypothesis. This is in principle fine, but he should acknowledge that by choosing to study this field, he excludes himself from any position where he's in charge of teaching or training people - he seems to sincerely believe that some of them are dumber by their nature, that seeems like a massive conflict of interest to me.
I'm surprised how one sided the conversation is here.
This isn't "mob rule," this is the reasoned opinions of skilled scientists saying that Hsu's political opinions are 1) not backed by the science, and 2) establish strong ground to believe that he will not use his position of power fairly.
People have a right to be judged fairly in their careers, and those in leadership positions should not be unfairly prejudiced by bad beliefs. It might be fine for a tenured physics professor, but it's not OK for somebody making hiring and promotion decisions.
1. The idea that someone’s political views are not backed by science is a pretty bold claim. Who decides what political views are acceptably scientific?
2. Strong grounds? Is it possible to quickly present strong grounds in a twitter thread? Up until today he has done well in his job, and no one seemed to have a problem with him for 8 years. His boss or colleagues. Now, suddenly, we have deep concerns about how he hires people... why exactly? Because his political views aren’t scientific?
This is tribal mob rule under the guise of a sophisticated intellectual rationalization.
There is a petition in support of him which also has some big names. That should be sufficient to warrant further investigation rather than immediately forcing him to resign.
Scott Aaronson
Scott Alexander
Sam Altman
Linda S. Gottfredson, Professor Emeritus, University of Delaware, Past President of the International Society for Intelligence Research
Jonathan Haidt, Professor, New York University Stern School of Business, USA
Geoffrey Miller
Steven Pinker, Johnstone Family Professor of Psychology, Harvard University
Robert Plomin, Professor, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London
I have no idea about Hsu's research, but if you think that 'skilled scientists' in academia are not often as ruthlessly political as anyone else then gosh, do I have some research bridge projects to sell to you.
In terms of a battle of signatures, I'm not sure how meaningful that is, given that there's a <huge> list of reputationally prestigious names backing Stephen Hsu.
These are people who are not arguing on any scientific basis, but rather against any evidence that we've collected and against further collection that might prove for or otherwise.
Those in leadership positions for a scientific position should not forge their beliefs on the political zeitgeist, but on sound methods and the data stemming thereof.
> Hsu’s beliefs in innate biological differences between human populations, especially regarding intelligence --an unscientific position which makes him unsuited to direct a research institution’s funding or its graduate studies
I can see why this belief is controversial and in an ideal world I wish everyone was born exactly the same. However I don't think applying strong scientific research and methods to try and answer this hypothesis is necessarily wrong. Unless it has already been proven otherwise in which case I am unaware of the research.
In pretty much every study within group differences are far and away more massive that between group differences. Unlike other things like height, eye colour, or facial hair growth, intelligence is highly variable even between identical twins. The genetic link seems weak at best.
It’s also more or less impossible to study with great accuracy - you’re trying to study how race affects intelligence, but how do you correct for non-biological factors? Race is deeply intertwined with economics, education, nutrition, healthcare, and every other aspect of society and culture. Any study you do, regardless of results, will have a mountain or potentially over corrected or under corrected factors.
Finally, what are we even studying? Defining intelligence is a nightmare, and a quick glance at history shows how the definition of intelligence has changed over time and between cultures. Trying to look at how race’s biological factors affect intelligence irrespective of sociological factors is in many ways a fool’s errand - the very definition of intelligence is wrapped right up in those sociological factors!
I don't think it would be an ideal if everyone were born exactly the same. Seems like a lot of beauty in the world around us comes from our different faces, thoughts, beliefs, culture, etc, all born of how we're all different.
Throwaway because with headlines like this, you can't be too careful. It's getting scary seeing people keeping quiet in predominantly progressive sectors like media, academia, and tech, out of fear that what they say today will get them fired tomorrow, fear that something they say will draw attention to something from five years ago, or that something they say today will cost them in five years.
There's a class of under-researched things that we know too little about, but for political reasons, no one can research. Anything around genetic traits of races, differences between men and women, research around causes of LGBT orientations and identities that could lead to preventing people from being LGBT.
These aren't even the ethically hard ones like genetic modifications in humans. These are just political suicide.
"It is not within the power of practitioners of demonstrative sciences to change opinion at will, chooing now this and now that one; there is a great difference between giving orders to a mathematician or a philosopher and given them to a merchant or a lawyer; as demonstrated conclusions about natural and celestial phenomena cannot be changed with the same ease as opinions about what is or is not legitimate in a contract, in a rental, or in commerce." -Galileo
1. He wasn't forced to resign. He was requested to resign by the president of MSU.
2. He's still a tenured professor, and he will be returning to that role.
3. The group trying to oust him is the GEU (Graduate Employees Union, affiliated with the AFL-CIO), which represents 1200 graduate assistants at the University.
Apparently Dr. Hsu has made some controversial statements about genetics. The GEU's accusations appear to be about perceived racism.
One of Dr. Hsu's sins was appearing on a program with Stephane Molyneux, a conservative commentator whom they call "a white supremacist". I've watched several of Molyneux's programs and he is hardly a racist. Conservative and white, yes. I guess that's bad enough these days.
> I've watched several of Molyneux's programs and he is hardly a racist. Conservative and white, yes.
From his Wikipedia page:
Stefan Basil Molyneux (/stəˈfæn ˈmɒlɪnjuː/; born September 24, 1966) is a Canadian far-right, white nationalist[2] podcaster and YouTuber who is known for his promotion of scientific racism and white supremacist views.
Molyneux is described as a leading figure of the alt-right movement by Politico and The Washington Post, and as a far-right activist.[8][9][10][11] Tom Clements in The Independent described Molyneux as having "a perverse fixation on race and IQ".[12]
The Freedomain internet community which Molyneux leads has been described as a cult, and Molyneux has been described as a cult leader, using cult indoctrination techniques on his followers.
There are an incredible number of people on HN and in Silicon Valley who clearly believe that black people are on average genetically inferior to whites and Asians and also think they're being incredibly clever when they tap-dance around that core belief. Maybe now some of them will at least do the rest of us the courtesy of saying it outright.
I am very glad this happened and this decision was very supported by the faculty of MSU. He is still a full professor at MSU making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. He’s just no longer in charge of the research agenda. His own research on quantitative genetics is terrible and widely ridiculed. It’s great that he’s tenured and is allowed to have his poor scholarship justify his racist and sexist conclusions; but it doesn’t mean he gets to automatically lead a research agenda for a whole university.
People keep assuming that asking the question "what relationship (if any) is there between race and intelligence from a biological standpoint?" is the racist part. The question by itself isn't really the problem.
The racist part is pretending that it's still an open question. It isn't. There is no measurable biological relationship between race and intelligence.
There has been a massive amount of research into what influences "intelligence", and the sum of it makes it clear that environmental factors easily have a significant enough effect to explain differences in scores between racial groups on different metrics.
Someone might bring up the fact that often even when controlling for factors like education and family income, the racial gap narrows but might not disappear completely. The response is that it is fundamentally impossible to fully control for the effect of race on the environment someone grows up in. Even when absolutely every other factor is identical, a white person and a black person are not going to have the same environment because their race constantly affects how the rest of the world interacts with them.
Essentially: We know environmental factors can affect any given metric of intelligence on a magnitude consistent with racial performance gaps on those metrics. Proof of this can be found in things like the fact that average IQ scores have increased over time, and the average IQ of black people in the 1990s was equivalent to the average white IQ in the 1940s. Biology does not change in 50 years so the improvement must be entirely from changes in environmental factors.
In addition, race itself intrinsically has a significant effect on one's environment. Those two facts alone are enough to make it clear that any hypothetical biological component is too insignificant to be measured.
For those who are unaware or operate under certain assumptions of how Universities work, they tend to be highly politically charged places, and the value of "the brand" is more important than any individual. Regardless of what you think of Steve Hsu's statement ( measured vs tone-deaf, informed vs ignorant/racist), the mistake he made was taking a position to begin with. I was a the University where Trump went to undergrad when he was running for election, Not a single faculty/staff made comment about it because there was a directive from top down to say nothing. This is just how it is.
[+] [-] tuna-piano|5 years ago|reply
"I've always said that I'm agnostic on whether... so there are observed test score differences between groups, I think that's clear, you can't deny that.
The causality of that, whether it's partially due to genetics, I've always been agnostic on. Not because I think it's impossible, but because it's such a charged thing we should really make sure the science is solid before we speculate. We shouldn't randomly speculate on something that sensitive.
But even just not being willing to categorically rule out that God could have created us with average group differences has gotten me into trouble. And I think that's just absurd. So for someone to attack me for saying 'We don't know the answer to this question, let's do the science first and then talk about it.' Even that position is actually not tenable in the current social justice warrior political climate."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=58&v=XHUSl9FLAmE...
https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2020/06/twitter-attacks-and-de...
[+] [-] tuna-piano|5 years ago|reply
"My personal opinion about it is:
A) I hope it's not true. I would much rather live in a world where there are not big group differences.
Number 2) I understand why it's a sensitive issue. Because it was used in a way to oppress people for a long time. So I'm not blind to that.
Number 3) I am a scientist. So when I say something like 'The results of the studies do not allow us to come to a high confidence conclusion about it.' That's what I'm going to say. So I've been attacked because I haven't been willing to categorically rule something out, which I think is absurd..."
"The scores are, as you say, you do the tests, you find differences. However there are differences in average environment that these people experience. So the really difficult statistical question is, is it the difference in average environment these people experience, or is it genes. And it's a very difficult question..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGQdq8mOEd8
https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2020/06/twitter-attacks-and-de...
[+] [-] bloaf|5 years ago|reply
I think he doesn't go far enough. Its not enough to just "not speculate," you have to also be responsible with how you use your reputation as a researcher in the field. As an analogy, it doesn't matter how principled or academic a political philosopher's belief in state's rights is, he'll lose his credibility if he agrees to speak at a bunch of racist confederate organizations. Even if he sticks to a boring non-racist script.
There is a movement out there seeking to drape their racist ideas in the trappings of science and reason. This researcher knows this. He ought to view it as his responsibility to make sure his good name is not attached to that movement. He could stay completely inside his ivory tower until he has the solid science, or he could heavily screen the media he speaks to. He has very clearly failed in that responsibility by going on Mr. "Humanity is not a single species[1]" Molyneux's show and saying that he thinks appealing to the environment as an explanation for group differences in IQ is a-scientific.
[1] https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/indi...
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Miner49er|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] anchpop|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DSingularity|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ylem|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WesternStar|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tuna-piano|5 years ago|reply
Don't like his facts/scientific methods/conclusions? Fight them with other facts and methods and conclusions!
When you try and suppress the scientific method (especially in the age of the internet), you give the conspiracy theorists and white supremacists ammunition for a new generation of recruits. "Here are the facts they are hiding from you!"- they'll say. Fight ideas with better ideas, not by firings.
[+] [-] pseudalopex|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Apocryphon|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ciarannolan|5 years ago|reply
>However, these categories overlap & are all rooted in Hsu’s beliefs in innate biological differences between human populations, especially regarding intelligence --an unscientific position which makes him unsuited to direct a research institution’s funding or its graduate studies
Humans are, biologically, extremely diverse. Visible attributes, disease risk, geometry of the physical body, etc. Some groups are more prone to certain genetic disease risk factors, for example.
Doesn't it follow that the brains of different groups of humans might group into certain traits, including intelligence?
I'm asking in all sincerity. I'd love to hear if there's some evidence that my thinking is wrong.
[1] https://twitter.com/GradEmpUnion/status/1270829006439485441
[+] [-] esyir|5 years ago|reply
The current argument is weasly though, approaching it as follows:
Race is a social construct and not a genetic one. Humans exist on a genetic spectrum. Therefore you can't box humans into distinct groups there. Therefore racial differences are moot.
This is based off the grad student unions linked sources. It's also weasly as all fuck. Race may be a social construct, but it does correlate strongly with a number of genetic factors. As such, race serves as an aggregate variable for a large quantity of genetic variation. And it can be shown that between populations of different race, there's an observable difference at a genetic level.
[+] [-] Tarq0n|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway286|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] staplers|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] skosuri|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ramraj07|5 years ago|reply
In this guy's, case, it is arguable if he's in the field. He seems to have already made up his mind on it, he's just out to find proof of his hypothesis. This is in principle fine, but he should acknowledge that by choosing to study this field, he excludes himself from any position where he's in charge of teaching or training people - he seems to sincerely believe that some of them are dumber by their nature, that seeems like a massive conflict of interest to me.
[+] [-] andrewem|5 years ago|reply
Maybe a news article like https://www.wilx.com/content/news/MSU-Vice-President-of-rese... or https://statenews.com/article/2020/06/asmsu-advocates-call-t... or https://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/news/2020/06/15/mi...
[+] [-] lsb|5 years ago|reply
(from link 1)
[+] [-] holler|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] epistasis|5 years ago|reply
This isn't "mob rule," this is the reasoned opinions of skilled scientists saying that Hsu's political opinions are 1) not backed by the science, and 2) establish strong ground to believe that he will not use his position of power fairly.
People have a right to be judged fairly in their careers, and those in leadership positions should not be unfairly prejudiced by bad beliefs. It might be fine for a tenured physics professor, but it's not OK for somebody making hiring and promotion decisions.
[+] [-] natalyarostova|5 years ago|reply
This is tribal mob rule under the guise of a sophisticated intellectual rationalization.
[+] [-] monkeypizza|5 years ago|reply
https://sites.google.com/view/petition-letter-stephen-hsu/ho...
Signatures include:
[+] [-] oliverx0|5 years ago|reply
We have gotten to the point where no matter what you say or do, there is always a victim ready to complain.
And now it’s even worse, if science doesn’t back our political beliefs or feelings , let’s just shut down science!
[+] [-] giantDinosaur|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] threatofrain|5 years ago|reply
https://sites.google.com/view/petition-letter-stephen-hsu/ho...
Here's a letter from a professor at the university:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bNPOlcphtKfqoDThfdsYTL65...
[+] [-] esyir|5 years ago|reply
Those in leadership positions for a scientific position should not forge their beliefs on the political zeitgeist, but on sound methods and the data stemming thereof.
[+] [-] skellera|5 years ago|reply
https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2020/06/twitter-attacks-and-de...
Does anyone have more information for the opposing side?
Seems pretty terrible that people can take things you said over the years out of context and destroy your reputation.
[+] [-] jtchang|5 years ago|reply
> Hsu’s beliefs in innate biological differences between human populations, especially regarding intelligence --an unscientific position which makes him unsuited to direct a research institution’s funding or its graduate studies
I can see why this belief is controversial and in an ideal world I wish everyone was born exactly the same. However I don't think applying strong scientific research and methods to try and answer this hypothesis is necessarily wrong. Unless it has already been proven otherwise in which case I am unaware of the research.
[+] [-] 542458|5 years ago|reply
In pretty much every study within group differences are far and away more massive that between group differences. Unlike other things like height, eye colour, or facial hair growth, intelligence is highly variable even between identical twins. The genetic link seems weak at best.
It’s also more or less impossible to study with great accuracy - you’re trying to study how race affects intelligence, but how do you correct for non-biological factors? Race is deeply intertwined with economics, education, nutrition, healthcare, and every other aspect of society and culture. Any study you do, regardless of results, will have a mountain or potentially over corrected or under corrected factors.
Finally, what are we even studying? Defining intelligence is a nightmare, and a quick glance at history shows how the definition of intelligence has changed over time and between cultures. Trying to look at how race’s biological factors affect intelligence irrespective of sociological factors is in many ways a fool’s errand - the very definition of intelligence is wrapped right up in those sociological factors!
[+] [-] nothal|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] natalyarostova|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] hsuthrownaway|5 years ago|reply
There's a class of under-researched things that we know too little about, but for political reasons, no one can research. Anything around genetic traits of races, differences between men and women, research around causes of LGBT orientations and identities that could lead to preventing people from being LGBT.
These aren't even the ethically hard ones like genetic modifications in humans. These are just political suicide.
[+] [-] mikedilger|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blisterpeanuts|5 years ago|reply
1. He wasn't forced to resign. He was requested to resign by the president of MSU.
2. He's still a tenured professor, and he will be returning to that role.
3. The group trying to oust him is the GEU (Graduate Employees Union, affiliated with the AFL-CIO), which represents 1200 graduate assistants at the University.
Apparently Dr. Hsu has made some controversial statements about genetics. The GEU's accusations appear to be about perceived racism.
One of Dr. Hsu's sins was appearing on a program with Stephane Molyneux, a conservative commentator whom they call "a white supremacist". I've watched several of Molyneux's programs and he is hardly a racist. Conservative and white, yes. I guess that's bad enough these days.
[+] [-] ylem|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] markdown|5 years ago|reply
From his Wikipedia page:
Stefan Basil Molyneux (/stəˈfæn ˈmɒlɪnjuː/; born September 24, 1966) is a Canadian far-right, white nationalist[2] podcaster and YouTuber who is known for his promotion of scientific racism and white supremacist views.
Molyneux is described as a leading figure of the alt-right movement by Politico and The Washington Post, and as a far-right activist.[8][9][10][11] Tom Clements in The Independent described Molyneux as having "a perverse fixation on race and IQ".[12]
The Freedomain internet community which Molyneux leads has been described as a cult, and Molyneux has been described as a cult leader, using cult indoctrination techniques on his followers.
Molyneux is a proponent of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_genocide_conspiracy_theo...
[+] [-] kthxbye123|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stallmanite|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bJGVygG7MQVF8c|5 years ago|reply
https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2020/06/twitter-attacks-and-de...
[+] [-] skosuri|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maximilianroos|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] justinpombrio|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] afastow|5 years ago|reply
The racist part is pretending that it's still an open question. It isn't. There is no measurable biological relationship between race and intelligence.
There has been a massive amount of research into what influences "intelligence", and the sum of it makes it clear that environmental factors easily have a significant enough effect to explain differences in scores between racial groups on different metrics.
Someone might bring up the fact that often even when controlling for factors like education and family income, the racial gap narrows but might not disappear completely. The response is that it is fundamentally impossible to fully control for the effect of race on the environment someone grows up in. Even when absolutely every other factor is identical, a white person and a black person are not going to have the same environment because their race constantly affects how the rest of the world interacts with them.
Essentially: We know environmental factors can affect any given metric of intelligence on a magnitude consistent with racial performance gaps on those metrics. Proof of this can be found in things like the fact that average IQ scores have increased over time, and the average IQ of black people in the 1990s was equivalent to the average white IQ in the 1940s. Biology does not change in 50 years so the improvement must be entirely from changes in environmental factors.
In addition, race itself intrinsically has a significant effect on one's environment. Those two facts alone are enough to make it clear that any hypothetical biological component is too insignificant to be measured.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] xiaolingxiao|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ykevinator|5 years ago|reply