Is what I'm about to do self-censorship? (read the description)

In somewhat more than a week, I'm planning to present my research in front of my university. It's gonna be a public lecture with many ppl attending, including the majority of the Uni's staff (including the president of the Uni) and some students. My "real" research is about a connection between variable (let's just call it Variable 3) and national Human Development Index (HDI) and national IQ. For my presentation (and the paper I'll hand out for that particular lecture) I plan to throw the national IQ variable out.

I wish to do so as to stop too much emphasis being put onto the national IQ part. To even say nations differ in their average IQ ( a finding thoroughly confirmed and replicated) is controversial and has brought up a lot of heat (i.e. "OMG, IT'S RACIST", or its somewhat more reasonable counterpart: "IQ TESTS ARE BIASED"). So, I don't want the lecture to be all about on national IQs, nor do I want that to be the part that ppl focus on. I want them to focus on the Variable 3. Moreover, national IQs and HDI correlate very strongly (so much the two are always associated with the same thing), so throwing one of them out virtually won't change the results, anyway.

Is this self-censorship?

I'm not throwing the national IQ part away because I worry of how ppl will treat me, or if they'll change their opinion on me. I'm not trying to gain social approval. I just want the lecture to be about what it's gotta be - Variable 3. I fear the national IQ may get too much undeserved attention. Does this constitute "self-censorship", or is it just being practical?

I would never want to self-censor. I'd open my mouth sooner or later.

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

Abrienda · 26-30, F

🤗Yes it is. If "National IQ" levels is part of your overall conclusion then it must be included in the presentation or the premise of your whole paper is dishonest.

Easy for me to say "Go get into trouble and I'll watch", no? But I had to decide to do something similar ... admit what I knew was true...yet the consequences of that would have not been worse than my living a lie.

Here I regularly extoll the superior culture of the West...for which I am routinely called a "white supremacist" (though I am half-Asian, should go to my next a "Klan meeting" not likely again for a Catholic with Jewish godparents ... information easily available if people here cared to find out before making an ass out of themselves). So what should I do? Be silenced by Fascists about Islam and other issues? I say no.

We are drowning not in lies but in half-truths. By speaking what you belive is true will give courage to others who are similarly reluctant but need to be encouraged. You owe it them and yourself.

Include it. Regardless what happens you will feel clean and free afterwards.

(Sorry I see I am a little late in responding to your Question but wanted to anyway!)

Boallods · 26-30, M

@Abrienda I don't know where you live, what you study (or have studied), or where you work, so I can't know the risks you would put yourself in by explicating these obvious truths. I can't compare our situations.

I've only recently become a believer and started applying my faith wherever I can. Applying my faith here looks something like: We were told, "Do not lie". If I omit some of my results, I would obviously lie. So I ain't gonna do it. God is with me, so who can be against me?

Telling the truth must be timely - even Jesus didn't utter the truths disregarding the situation. But if *I* am to hold a lecture, presenting *my own* research - what time could be better than that, then?

Don't worry about answering late. Always good to hear new perspectives.

DragonFruit · 61-69, M

No, what you are doing is removing a variable (closer to editing than censorship).
Besides, if anyone is to determine what should and shouldn’t be in your presentation....shouldn’t that person be you?
Explain why you are removing that variable, though, so your target audience understands your choice.

Boallods · 26-30, M

@DragonFruit The problem with that is that the national IQ variable shouldn't be mentioned at all.

DragonFruit · 61-69, M

@Boallods ....but it IS mentioned, and to not explain why you’re not including it would be viewed as an omission on your part by some. Not everyone believes that it shouldn’t be mentioned at all....explain why you think that it shouldn’t (don’t spend a lot of time on your explanation, but don’t simply neglect to mention that you have your reason....or it may end up being the main topic of discussion).
Look, it’s your presentation....but if I were in your position, I’d give a short explanation why you’re not including it.

Boallods · 26-30, M

You were right, essentially. Even though it seems you don't understand how controversial the national IQ question is in the academe.

Here's an update on what happened: I - being but a student - didn't get to even apply for the lecturing. Last year, students could apply, this year not so. They changed it this year, for some reason or another; I've only found out when I saw the agenda.

However, you were essentially right. I should mention it and why I excluded it. Although, I also must say you are plain wrong in claiming it would be viewed as an omission on my part by someone. It couldn't by further away from the truth. I know **I** would view it as an omission on someone else's part, but that's just how it is. IQ - the single most important construct in psychology - is systematically ignored, neglected and misinterpreted. You could apply national IQ variable to the majority of modern social science studies (at least, those studies whose domain of research is international), yet it's rarely done.

But know your advice has been useful. I didn't take it lightly.

kayoshin · 41-45, M

It seems like you are worrying about the wrong thing, it doesn't matter since you said yourself the IQ thing is irrelevant and even if you don't mention it if the correlation is so high someone else will bring it up. The issue is that if variable 3 is correlated to findings that are biased (and it definetely seems the case since cultural factors and variables like alimentation which is not constant every generation and the lack of a standardized is testing system accepted and applied widely in each country it can just bring random population samples which seems trivial) again if variable 3 sees correlation with a flawed and controversial research result wouldn't that be seen as a symptom of the same flawed methodology? I would worry more about that than anything else and wonder if you haven't asked yourself that along the way.

Abbenthewarwolf · 18-21, M

Good luck

Add a comment...