{"id":7593,"date":"2018-12-16T05:50:22","date_gmt":"2018-12-16T04:50:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/?p=7593"},"modified":"2020-05-20T21:00:34","modified_gmt":"2020-05-20T20:00:34","slug":"writings-on-ethics-and-politics-of-race-and-intelligence-research","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/2018\/12\/writings-on-ethics-and-politics-of-race-and-intelligence-research\/","title":{"rendered":"Writings on ethics and politics of race and intelligence research"},"content":{"rendered":"

Sometimes<\/a> people<\/a> argue<\/a> that one shouldn’t even be allowed to research race and intelligence causes. I’m sometimes asked directly why I choose to study this topic. Well, I could outline a number of reasons, but this would be endlessly quote mined by SJWs as proof of my wicked spirit. Of course, as usually noted, no social policy conclusion follows from any particular empirical fact, but empirical facts together with our personal value judgments do lead to conclusions about some policies being better than others. For instance, if it turned out that vaccines caused late-life cancer, this alone would not necessarily lead us to think we need to stop vaccination. The kind of cancer might be easily curable or very rare, or we might think that the evils vaccines prevent are worse than late life cancer. Still, because I’ve been repeatedly asked why I am interested in this question, here’s a list of relevant publications not from the shut it down<\/em> perspective. Some people might be surprised to see that Jensen himself wrote at length on the issue in the 1970s.<\/p>\n