Dear Joscha Bach. Unfortunately your post elides the core issue. The controversy is not simply about nuance, or about the public misunderstanding a private scientific discussion.
Your scientific framing here is still fundamentally misleading. Twin and family studies estimate within-population heritability under strong assumptions; they cannot support the population-level claims you made in your 2016 emails about Black children “never catching up”, developmental “genetic switches”, or group-level cognitive trajectories. Even the ACX piece you cite is explicit that twin estimates are likely inflated, that molecular methods produce far lower numbers, and that the missing-heritability problem remains unresolved. Crucially, behavioural geneticists across the field stress that within-group heritability cannot be used to infer genetic explanations for differences between socially defined groups.
Cross-cultural differences in early motor or cognitive development track environment, stress, nutrition, parenting practice and socio-economic inequality - not population genetics. There is no evidence for population-level differences in neuroplasticity timelines or developmental “switches”, and extrapolating from a documentary or 1980s preschool data to racialised biological claims is not scientifically defensible.
The two studies you cite also don’t do what you suggest they do. The Malina (1988) paper you link is a review of motor development and motor performance, not cognition; it finds that Black infants in the US literature appear advanced in early motor milestones and that Black school-age children often outperform white peers on speed and jumping tasks, and it explicitly notes that environmental factors are most often cited as the explanation, calling for a biocultural (not genetic-determinist) approach. The Fryer & Levitt article documents that a Black–white test score gap emerges and widens through third grade and that their observed variables cannot fully explain this divergence – but it does not attribute the residual gap to genetics, nor does it say anything about “genetic switches”, neuroplasticity timelines or an inherent trade-off between early motor development and later cognitive attainment. The “inverse relationship” you infer is your own speculation, not something these studies actually establish.
More importantly, your emails with Epstein, whom you engaged with long after his 2008 conviction for child sex offences, did not stop at speculative neurodevelopment. They included explicit proposals about genetically altering whole populations, described mass executions of the elderly as rational, and framed fascism as “the most efficient and rationally stringent” system of governance. These are eliminationist and hierarchical ideas in plain language, not misunderstood behavioural genetics. Your comment here is utterly unapologetic. You take no responsibility whatsoever for your own conduct, namely, your willingness to engage a sociopathic child rapist in pseudoscientific discussions which support fascist conclusions. I think it's fascinating that you position yourself wholly as a victim of an out of control public discourse, but appear to be utterly incapable of recognising that, perhaps, you actually did something wrong and ought to acknowledge your error.
I do not support any personal or hateful attacks on you. I am sorry that you are experiencing trauma. But it's also clear from this post that the unscientific ideas you expressed in private with Epstein have sadly continued to muddle your thinking even to this day, which is deeply alarming given your influence on the AI sector.
For transparency: I’m the journalist at Byline Times who contacted you for right of reply in reporting this material. You chose not to respond. I would urge you to do so as we will be publishing shortly. I’m commenting here not out of hostility, but because your post presents a scientific justification that doesn’t align with the actual evidence or with what you wrote, and it’s important that readers have an accurate account of both. Your post is in fact particularly revealing in that it demonstrates that you have doubled down on misinterpreting and, indeed, misrepresenting the wider scientific literature on these issues.
The fact, that the average person from the Netherlands is 20cm taller than the average person from the Philippines - do you think that's a matter of nutrition as well?
IMO, it's obviously genetics due to thousands of generations in a different environment. If that leads to huge differences in height, strength, or running speed, isn't it far fetched to assume that there's zero difference in cognitive abilities?
I don’t think anyone serious is arguing there can never be any genetic differences between populations. That’s a straw man. The real question is: what does the current evidence actually justify saying about the causes of observed gaps in things like test scores?
Your height example is actually a good cautionary tale:
• Height is one of the most heritable traits we know, yet average height in many countries has shifted by 10–20 cm in just a few generations with changes in nutrition, disease, and inequality. So even a highly heritable trait is still very sensitive to environment.
• The Dutch–Philippines gap is shaped by both genetics and big historical differences in diet, infection burden, childhood poverty, etc. It isn’t a clean “genes only” story.
Cognitive performance is much more complex than height. It’s shaped by schooling, language environment, stress, toxins (e.g. lead), sleep, discrimination, and test design, on top of whatever genetic influences exist. The genetic variants we’ve identified so far explain only a modest share of individual differences, and within-group heritability estimates don’t automatically translate into “group X is genetically less intelligent than group Y”.
So yes, in principle, evolution can produce population-level differences in traits related to cognition. The issue is that we don’t currently have strong, specific evidence that this explains racialised IQ gaps, and we know those gaps track massive, measurable environmental inequalities. That’s why claims like “Black children never catch up” or talk of a “genetic switch” for whole groups aren’t just speculative, they’re way beyond what the data can bear.
My objection to Bach’s emails isn’t that genetics can never matter; it’s that he moved from limited, noisy evidence to very confident, hierarchical claims about whole populations. Dressing that move up in the language of behavioural genetics after the fact doesn’t make it scientifically responsible.
I think you're mixing what Bach wrote and what Epstein did. The formatting of the mails doesn't clearly show the citations, but the change in writing style is huge. IMO it was clearly Epstein, who wrote about making blacks smarter with some genetic switch, for example.
(This formatting issue contributes a lot to the "scandal", in an unjust way.)
Of course most differences are a mix if nature and nurture. When it comes to cognitive differences, the only socially accepted interpretation is that it's 100% nurture, which in my opinion is as far fetched, as claiming, it's 100% genetics.
Joscha, we spoke briefly at the Hye-on-Way conference. Your passion and interest in discussing ideas with laypeople struck me — you were happy to expand the circle to whoever, regardless of their background, and engage in fun ideas. You clearly loved learning more than status. You lead from the heart and from scientific curiosity. Even only through public appearances your many fans note your high integrity. You have built a lot of trust, which is not so quickly squandered. Do not underestimate that or the reasonableness of people! I and many others still support you wholeheartedly and don’t overindex to malicious campaigns. Please soldier on!
While we've never talked privately and never been close to know each other's souls, I've seen you talk and write for quite a long time, and I believe you are one of the kindest people I've ever witnessed. I trust in your integrity and wish you to go as unscathed as possible through this storm.
The "notorious financier" aspect isn't the real problem, people are used to the economy being run by crooks, and not surprised that money tends to be dirty.
Neither is the sexism and racism, bad as those are, people are used to that as well.
You should know what the real problem is, and you've scarcely mentioned it, except to dismiss it.
The real problem is that someone who is supposed to be a moral philosopher knowingly allowed themselves to become involved with a convicted pedophile and sex trafficker, for money.
That other people did the same, doesn't make it any better, which as you point out, as a German you should also know.
Also, noone should be condemned for thought crimes, but Epstein didn't commit imaginary crimes.
I very much like you and your work, and I don't for a moment think you'd do anything like what you're now associated with, but you do appear to be avoiding the real problem.
I hope you find the resilience to withstand this firestorm. It is painful to see nuance lost to outrage, but I hope that in time, your true character and intentions are recognized. All the best also for your loved ones.
This was very interesting, as a view into your history and thinking in some areas I haven't heard you speak to, besides the contextualization of your relationship with Epstein. I'm terribly sorry that you're getting dragged into that hell hole. I hope that meaningful insight into the corridors of power comes from daylighting the Epstein files, and I'm sorry if you suffer peripheral damage: I think there's important exposure that needs to happen there, but if course it's primarily a political football right now.
I understand what you're saying about private conversations, but I suspect privacy is passe. So instead we need to foster a patience and interest in the vast and shifting diversity of human thought and experience. It's our greatest strength.
Joscha, you are someone whose thought and integrity i admire and i do not think you should be getting cancelled or death-threatened.
That said, i have seen this excuse given more than once from academics connected to Epstein:
“Several years earlier, Epstein had been convicted for the trafficking of minors and had spent a year in prison. While Epstein’s public reputation was forever destroyed, many people whose judgement I trusted assured me that he had reformed himself and was committed to staying on the good side of the law.“
i believe this is the truth, but i wish you and others who give similar reasons for your contact after his conviction would acknowledge how naive, amoral/asocial, out of touch, this comes across.
People deserve second chances and redemption, but deciding to give the time of day to a wealthy guy convicted of trafficking minors due to the judgement of colleagues in the highest echelons of academia seems so amazingly alienated to me it is very hard to sympathize with, and i think people deserve to be angry about this. And i think you should be expected to think carefully about that decision.
Maybe if u are willing to fraternize with sociopathic billionaires to reach your higher “truth”, you should assess your ethics of inquiry. In fact, that last sentence of yours summarizes everything i think is wrong with the sciences.
i only meant that i am willing to believe people who Bach trusts told him Epstein had reformed. like i said in the post, assuming that's true, the fact Bach took that at face value is alarmingly naive. im willing to believe the banality of evil may have more to do with lack of thought than conscious wickedness.
You have expressed some of the most profound and memorable ideas I have encountered.
Here is one of many that I hope serves of a reminder of how I and many others see you:
"if you want to align AGI, you should not align it with people because people are very transient and egotistical and stupid species...
AND
"Thomas Aquinas defines God, among other things, as the best possible agent, and God emerges through our actions when we make the best decisions. In this perspective, we should align AI or AGI with God, the longest player."
So align AGI with the best possible agent.
In my reckoning, you are well aligned with that "best possible agent" and I aspire to be well aligned with you.
Wenn man dir schon etwas länger folgt, weiß man eh, dass du kein Rassist bist. Und die Bereitschaft und Fähigkeit, frei zu denken und erforschen ist ja gerade das attraktive an deinem "Output".
Ich schließe aus dem Text, dass der CCC-Talk dann wahrscheinlich nicht stattfindet? Sehr schade, aber kann man wohl nichts machen. Wünsche dir viel Kraft, jedenfalls.
I am occasionally checking the subreddit related to you, to see if you had given an interview or podcast that interests me.
I was somewhat worried by the level on which the people there interacted with regards to this subject. I would have assumed that people who take a serious interest in your ideas shift such a discussion in a more abstract space (e.g. dynamics of thought revision or commitment to integrity and alignment).
This was not the case.
I am shocked and humbled by how drastic and real the sledgehammer of public attention can be.
Even more by how it really appears to be a dynamic that - in large part - is not open to develop its own understanding on the matter.
I hope academia - and the sometimes weird/seemingly confused people that make it up - develops towards a healthy place in our society/societies.
I'm very sorry to hear about this. You are a remarkable scientist and person, and all the attacks against you are unfair and unacceptable. May justice and reason prevail. Hang in there! May all be well with you.
I am one of the anonymous millions who have heard you talk and got some of the darkness of their own lives dispelled by the light of your words. I hope you survive unscathed through this ordeal, which will pass like all other monthly hype cycles, because the mindless shallowness of the public trial is intertwined with its fickle ephemeral nature. Until then, I wish you get all the strength and support you need.
Bleibende berufliche Schäden sind das eine. Der Eindruck sozialer Ächtung das andere. Dazu: vor diesem Post habe ich überhaupt nichts davon mitbekommen, wie wahrscheinlich der absolute Großteil der Leute, die dir folgen. Und die, die es mitbekommen, werden es einordnen können.
Habe viele deiner Talks gehört, wurde jedes Mal bereichert und bin echt selten einem so kindlich neugierigem Menschen wie dir begegnet. Absurd, da Rassismus zu unterstellen. Fühl dich gedrückt, ich wünsch dir, dass das auch wieder vorübergeht und du deine Kraft wichtigen Themen widmen kannst. Grüße aus Deutschland :)
My Heart is with you, your Family and anyone who was harmed by Epstein. In my eyes are a gentle, insightful, thoughtful, humorous, extremely intelligent being. Please let those of us who you have inspired give you strength and hope to get through this. It breaks my heart that you are suffering for anothers crimes. You and your Family deserve all the good in this world, hopefully there is enough left in this world to help all who are suffering heal. Sending love from Texas.
Dear Joscha Bach. Unfortunately your post elides the core issue. The controversy is not simply about nuance, or about the public misunderstanding a private scientific discussion.
Your scientific framing here is still fundamentally misleading. Twin and family studies estimate within-population heritability under strong assumptions; they cannot support the population-level claims you made in your 2016 emails about Black children “never catching up”, developmental “genetic switches”, or group-level cognitive trajectories. Even the ACX piece you cite is explicit that twin estimates are likely inflated, that molecular methods produce far lower numbers, and that the missing-heritability problem remains unresolved. Crucially, behavioural geneticists across the field stress that within-group heritability cannot be used to infer genetic explanations for differences between socially defined groups.
Cross-cultural differences in early motor or cognitive development track environment, stress, nutrition, parenting practice and socio-economic inequality - not population genetics. There is no evidence for population-level differences in neuroplasticity timelines or developmental “switches”, and extrapolating from a documentary or 1980s preschool data to racialised biological claims is not scientifically defensible.
The two studies you cite also don’t do what you suggest they do. The Malina (1988) paper you link is a review of motor development and motor performance, not cognition; it finds that Black infants in the US literature appear advanced in early motor milestones and that Black school-age children often outperform white peers on speed and jumping tasks, and it explicitly notes that environmental factors are most often cited as the explanation, calling for a biocultural (not genetic-determinist) approach. The Fryer & Levitt article documents that a Black–white test score gap emerges and widens through third grade and that their observed variables cannot fully explain this divergence – but it does not attribute the residual gap to genetics, nor does it say anything about “genetic switches”, neuroplasticity timelines or an inherent trade-off between early motor development and later cognitive attainment. The “inverse relationship” you infer is your own speculation, not something these studies actually establish.
More importantly, your emails with Epstein, whom you engaged with long after his 2008 conviction for child sex offences, did not stop at speculative neurodevelopment. They included explicit proposals about genetically altering whole populations, described mass executions of the elderly as rational, and framed fascism as “the most efficient and rationally stringent” system of governance. These are eliminationist and hierarchical ideas in plain language, not misunderstood behavioural genetics. Your comment here is utterly unapologetic. You take no responsibility whatsoever for your own conduct, namely, your willingness to engage a sociopathic child rapist in pseudoscientific discussions which support fascist conclusions. I think it's fascinating that you position yourself wholly as a victim of an out of control public discourse, but appear to be utterly incapable of recognising that, perhaps, you actually did something wrong and ought to acknowledge your error.
I do not support any personal or hateful attacks on you. I am sorry that you are experiencing trauma. But it's also clear from this post that the unscientific ideas you expressed in private with Epstein have sadly continued to muddle your thinking even to this day, which is deeply alarming given your influence on the AI sector.
For transparency: I’m the journalist at Byline Times who contacted you for right of reply in reporting this material. You chose not to respond. I would urge you to do so as we will be publishing shortly. I’m commenting here not out of hostility, but because your post presents a scientific justification that doesn’t align with the actual evidence or with what you wrote, and it’s important that readers have an accurate account of both. Your post is in fact particularly revealing in that it demonstrates that you have doubled down on misinterpreting and, indeed, misrepresenting the wider scientific literature on these issues.
The fact, that the average person from the Netherlands is 20cm taller than the average person from the Philippines - do you think that's a matter of nutrition as well?
IMO, it's obviously genetics due to thousands of generations in a different environment. If that leads to huge differences in height, strength, or running speed, isn't it far fetched to assume that there's zero difference in cognitive abilities?
I don’t think anyone serious is arguing there can never be any genetic differences between populations. That’s a straw man. The real question is: what does the current evidence actually justify saying about the causes of observed gaps in things like test scores?
Your height example is actually a good cautionary tale:
• Height is one of the most heritable traits we know, yet average height in many countries has shifted by 10–20 cm in just a few generations with changes in nutrition, disease, and inequality. So even a highly heritable trait is still very sensitive to environment.
• The Dutch–Philippines gap is shaped by both genetics and big historical differences in diet, infection burden, childhood poverty, etc. It isn’t a clean “genes only” story.
Cognitive performance is much more complex than height. It’s shaped by schooling, language environment, stress, toxins (e.g. lead), sleep, discrimination, and test design, on top of whatever genetic influences exist. The genetic variants we’ve identified so far explain only a modest share of individual differences, and within-group heritability estimates don’t automatically translate into “group X is genetically less intelligent than group Y”.
So yes, in principle, evolution can produce population-level differences in traits related to cognition. The issue is that we don’t currently have strong, specific evidence that this explains racialised IQ gaps, and we know those gaps track massive, measurable environmental inequalities. That’s why claims like “Black children never catch up” or talk of a “genetic switch” for whole groups aren’t just speculative, they’re way beyond what the data can bear.
My objection to Bach’s emails isn’t that genetics can never matter; it’s that he moved from limited, noisy evidence to very confident, hierarchical claims about whole populations. Dressing that move up in the language of behavioural genetics after the fact doesn’t make it scientifically responsible.
I think you're mixing what Bach wrote and what Epstein did. The formatting of the mails doesn't clearly show the citations, but the change in writing style is huge. IMO it was clearly Epstein, who wrote about making blacks smarter with some genetic switch, for example.
(This formatting issue contributes a lot to the "scandal", in an unjust way.)
Of course most differences are a mix if nature and nurture. When it comes to cognitive differences, the only socially accepted interpretation is that it's 100% nurture, which in my opinion is as far fetched, as claiming, it's 100% genetics.
Joscha, we spoke briefly at the Hye-on-Way conference. Your passion and interest in discussing ideas with laypeople struck me — you were happy to expand the circle to whoever, regardless of their background, and engage in fun ideas. You clearly loved learning more than status. You lead from the heart and from scientific curiosity. Even only through public appearances your many fans note your high integrity. You have built a lot of trust, which is not so quickly squandered. Do not underestimate that or the reasonableness of people! I and many others still support you wholeheartedly and don’t overindex to malicious campaigns. Please soldier on!
While we've never talked privately and never been close to know each other's souls, I've seen you talk and write for quite a long time, and I believe you are one of the kindest people I've ever witnessed. I trust in your integrity and wish you to go as unscathed as possible through this storm.
The "notorious financier" aspect isn't the real problem, people are used to the economy being run by crooks, and not surprised that money tends to be dirty.
Neither is the sexism and racism, bad as those are, people are used to that as well.
You should know what the real problem is, and you've scarcely mentioned it, except to dismiss it.
The real problem is that someone who is supposed to be a moral philosopher knowingly allowed themselves to become involved with a convicted pedophile and sex trafficker, for money.
That other people did the same, doesn't make it any better, which as you point out, as a German you should also know.
Also, noone should be condemned for thought crimes, but Epstein didn't commit imaginary crimes.
I very much like you and your work, and I don't for a moment think you'd do anything like what you're now associated with, but you do appear to be avoiding the real problem.
Alles gute !
I hope you find the resilience to withstand this firestorm. It is painful to see nuance lost to outrage, but I hope that in time, your true character and intentions are recognized. All the best also for your loved ones.
For the Trauma stuff:
https://helpforflashbacks.com/
Hire a professional PR exprt to manage that?
https://westsidebooks.com/book/9781779661951
This was very interesting, as a view into your history and thinking in some areas I haven't heard you speak to, besides the contextualization of your relationship with Epstein. I'm terribly sorry that you're getting dragged into that hell hole. I hope that meaningful insight into the corridors of power comes from daylighting the Epstein files, and I'm sorry if you suffer peripheral damage: I think there's important exposure that needs to happen there, but if course it's primarily a political football right now.
I understand what you're saying about private conversations, but I suspect privacy is passe. So instead we need to foster a patience and interest in the vast and shifting diversity of human thought and experience. It's our greatest strength.
Joscha, you are someone whose thought and integrity i admire and i do not think you should be getting cancelled or death-threatened.
That said, i have seen this excuse given more than once from academics connected to Epstein:
“Several years earlier, Epstein had been convicted for the trafficking of minors and had spent a year in prison. While Epstein’s public reputation was forever destroyed, many people whose judgement I trusted assured me that he had reformed himself and was committed to staying on the good side of the law.“
i believe this is the truth, but i wish you and others who give similar reasons for your contact after his conviction would acknowledge how naive, amoral/asocial, out of touch, this comes across.
People deserve second chances and redemption, but deciding to give the time of day to a wealthy guy convicted of trafficking minors due to the judgement of colleagues in the highest echelons of academia seems so amazingly alienated to me it is very hard to sympathize with, and i think people deserve to be angry about this. And i think you should be expected to think carefully about that decision.
Maybe if u are willing to fraternize with sociopathic billionaires to reach your higher “truth”, you should assess your ethics of inquiry. In fact, that last sentence of yours summarizes everything i think is wrong with the sciences.
That’s just me, i wish you all the best.
i only meant that i am willing to believe people who Bach trusts told him Epstein had reformed. like i said in the post, assuming that's true, the fact Bach took that at face value is alarmingly naive. im willing to believe the banality of evil may have more to do with lack of thought than conscious wickedness.
Joscha--
You have expressed some of the most profound and memorable ideas I have encountered.
Here is one of many that I hope serves of a reminder of how I and many others see you:
"if you want to align AGI, you should not align it with people because people are very transient and egotistical and stupid species...
AND
"Thomas Aquinas defines God, among other things, as the best possible agent, and God emerges through our actions when we make the best decisions. In this perspective, we should align AI or AGI with God, the longest player."
So align AGI with the best possible agent.
In my reckoning, you are well aligned with that "best possible agent" and I aspire to be well aligned with you.
Source:
https://theinsideview.ai/joscha
Wenn man dir schon etwas länger folgt, weiß man eh, dass du kein Rassist bist. Und die Bereitschaft und Fähigkeit, frei zu denken und erforschen ist ja gerade das attraktive an deinem "Output".
Ich schließe aus dem Text, dass der CCC-Talk dann wahrscheinlich nicht stattfindet? Sehr schade, aber kann man wohl nichts machen. Wünsche dir viel Kraft, jedenfalls.
I am occasionally checking the subreddit related to you, to see if you had given an interview or podcast that interests me.
I was somewhat worried by the level on which the people there interacted with regards to this subject. I would have assumed that people who take a serious interest in your ideas shift such a discussion in a more abstract space (e.g. dynamics of thought revision or commitment to integrity and alignment).
This was not the case.
I am shocked and humbled by how drastic and real the sledgehammer of public attention can be.
Even more by how it really appears to be a dynamic that - in large part - is not open to develop its own understanding on the matter.
I hope academia - and the sometimes weird/seemingly confused people that make it up - develops towards a healthy place in our society/societies.
I'm very sorry to hear about this. You are a remarkable scientist and person, and all the attacks against you are unfair and unacceptable. May justice and reason prevail. Hang in there! May all be well with you.
filip, do not be evil, it will get you
Wir wissen, dass du ein guter Mensch bist, Joscha. Es wird alles wieder gut.
I am one of the anonymous millions who have heard you talk and got some of the darkness of their own lives dispelled by the light of your words. I hope you survive unscathed through this ordeal, which will pass like all other monthly hype cycles, because the mindless shallowness of the public trial is intertwined with its fickle ephemeral nature. Until then, I wish you get all the strength and support you need.
Das tut mir sehr Leid zu lesen.
Bleibende berufliche Schäden sind das eine. Der Eindruck sozialer Ächtung das andere. Dazu: vor diesem Post habe ich überhaupt nichts davon mitbekommen, wie wahrscheinlich der absolute Großteil der Leute, die dir folgen. Und die, die es mitbekommen, werden es einordnen können.
Habe viele deiner Talks gehört, wurde jedes Mal bereichert und bin echt selten einem so kindlich neugierigem Menschen wie dir begegnet. Absurd, da Rassismus zu unterstellen. Fühl dich gedrückt, ich wünsch dir, dass das auch wieder vorübergeht und du deine Kraft wichtigen Themen widmen kannst. Grüße aus Deutschland :)
My Heart is with you, your Family and anyone who was harmed by Epstein. In my eyes are a gentle, insightful, thoughtful, humorous, extremely intelligent being. Please let those of us who you have inspired give you strength and hope to get through this. It breaks my heart that you are suffering for anothers crimes. You and your Family deserve all the good in this world, hopefully there is enough left in this world to help all who are suffering heal. Sending love from Texas.