561–570 of 756 posts
If we're talking about personal decision making, dig in, help me improve myself, warn me what to look out for... But too many of these conversations are actually masking conversations about trying to charge more or outright deny opportunities to people who are deemed to have inferior genes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> are the Nordics or most of Europe socialist? Absolutely not. They are primarily market based with a relatively large welfare state. How is that even a question?
Because that is what most "socialists" want, meaning your definition of socialism and theirs are probably very different.
I don't disagree with you that most "socialists" want what is essentially a government modeled on the Nordic states. But its highly problematic for those people to delude themselves into thinking that is socialism. I think it boils down to a bunch of lemmings who essentially want social democracy who don't realize a fraction of their comrades genuinely want to abolish private property and install an authoritarian government. At the very least it makes one doubt how seriously their loud opinion should be taken when those opinions are completely internally inconsistent.
Chomsky wrote the definitive progressive answer to all this 50 years ago: https://libcom.org/files/chomsky%20-%20iq%20building%20block... Still timely and fresh, especially considering that he was critiquing Herrnstein 20 years before The Bell Curve. Because he's smart and unafraid, either of science or the truth, Chomsky never denies the possibility of a genetic component to IQ, even IQ/race. What he denies are the…
The research definitely is significant - definitely politically, if not scientifically (which I'd argue it is, any research that helps find the truth / predict the future / create a better model of the world is scientifically significant ). We're currently in the middle of several highly emotional political debates, which would easily be resolved by having better/more scientific data, particularly into the correlatio…
Clear evidence that one group differs from another doesn't provide any useful information for dealing with individuals.
Like make up a characteristic where women differ statistically from men, but have the difference be about 1/2 the standard deviation for either group. Lots of women will be closer to the average for men than the average for women, and vice versa, there's no useful generalization to make from the clear evidence.
And lo and behold, most human characteristics are similar to this pattern, with clear distinctions available between groups and of no value in making decisions about individuals, because of intragroup variation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> assumptions which he brilliantly lays bare and then demolishes. He also questions the scientific significance of the research, even if it is true - a phrase he uses a lot. Absolutely true. Even if it's true, the society should not give ammunition to closet racists with their attempts to stealthily legitimise racism. Equally so, in the current immigration debacle, we need to call things their own names. What these p…
>Even if it's true, the society should not give ammunition to closet racists with their attempts to stealthily legitimise racism. So we shouldn't try to find out the truth, lest it be against our interests? That doesn't bode well at all. The idea that racism is wrong because we all have equal capabilities is preposterous to begin with, why, you might as well justify sexism in that way.
Nobody challenges that women are physically weaker then men. Trying to point to this, and scream out of loud as part of some fetish is preposterous, and trying to justify sexism.
Nobody denies that genetics exist. Waging a sneaky campaign to seep into scientific publications to legitimise racism, and attempting to "scientifically pronouncing somebody dumber than others" is preposterous, and is racism.
This vexation of finding scientific basis for somebody's inferiority is exactly what German, and American Nazis did in nineteen thirties, while hiding behind the fig leaf of "doing real science."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s easier to type retarded than intellectually disabled on an iPad. I wrote the modern version in my original comments. Clearly I have been discussing this topic in a detached way. You’ve formed an image in your mind about me that isn’t supported by the evidence. I’ll read whatever response you have but won’t comment further. I wish you well. Keep up the good fight!
Thanks, I appreciate you taking the time to talk about a view you've held that's been unpopular with your colleagues. I think you, and everyone who thinks like you, need to take a very hard look at what you've done to eliminate the environmental factors related to your viewpoint that some people aren't smart enough to learn something, because its extremely easy to trick yourself into thinking someone is incapable whe…
Chomsky wrote the definitive progressive answer to all this 50 years ago: https://libcom.org/files/chomsky%20-%20iq%20building%20block... Still timely and fresh, especially considering that he was critiquing Herrnstein 20 years before The Bell Curve. Because he's smart and unafraid, either of science or the truth, Chomsky never denies the possibility of a genetic component to IQ, even IQ/race. What he denies are the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Chomsky never denies the possibility of a genetic component to IQ, even IQ/race. What he denies are the ideological assumptions people make about the social consequences that must follow if those findings are true The identification of differences between groups seem to be commonly conflated with the act of unfairly discriminating against a group with prejudice based on differences (perceived or real), which is kin…
> the world has become overly sensitive to certain subjects. I'm not sure that the world has become sensitive. Rather, opinions that people didn't feel safe to express about nonsense they experienced in their earlier life are now coming out. I recall a story about a church that held an "Aunt Jemima" event in 1991 and were surprised that so many black families chose not to show up - but none of those folks protested o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Leftists" don't think the correlations between results in IQ tests and many other things (such as memory, income and reflexes) exist?
Correlation doesn't always imply causation, right? For example, there's a correlation between IQ and income. There are several causative possibilities: * IQ causes income * Income causes IQ * Some unknown thing causes both income and IQ * The correlation is spurious; IQ and income are unrelated Evidence strongly suggests that the third bullet point is true; socioeconomic class causes both income and IQ. Richer people…
Adoption studies might also be informative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Even if it's true, the society should not give ammunition to closet racists with their attempts to stealthily legitimise racism. So we shouldn't try to find out the truth, lest it be against our interests? That doesn't bode well at all. The idea that racism is wrong because we all have equal capabilities is preposterous to begin with, why, you might as well justify sexism in that way.
> The idea that racism is wrong because we all have equal capabilities is preposterous to begin with, why, you might as well justify sexism in that way. Nobody challenges that women are physically weaker then men. Trying to point to this, and scream out of loud as part of some fetish is preposterous, and trying to justify sexism. Nobody denies that genetics exist. Waging a sneaky campaign to seep into scientific publ…
I have encountered multiple people in my personal life who are offended by the idea that women are physically weaker than men.
There is also plenty of evidence of this in the raging debate surrounding transgender (specifically male to female) individuals and their physical advantages competing against non-transgender women.
So yes, I would say there are many who challenge that notion.
From the article: Over the next year, a biosciences working group revised the program’s funding guidelines, stipulating in the final draft that it would not support any research into the first-order effects of genes on behavior or social outcomes. The fact that this area is controversial suggests to me that it is worth exploration. I’ve taught mathematics at community colleges for over 20 years and I’m absolutely con…
Like if I learn accounting, I know why I'm learning it; to learn how to create, audit, or read the financial statements of a business. If I learn math, it comes across more as "here are these arcane puzzles you need to solve." Like no one does double entry bookkeeping in the abstract; you learn the history, the methods, etc in the confines of an express purpose.
But trying to learn precalc as an adult (which i do get), what's striking is how little purpose or context there is to it. Why do I need to know how to factor imaginary numbers, or know the slope of something?
I think math when isolated is a big reason why its so hard to learn. They teach the toolset but people don't have the need to use the tools unless they go into a separate subject.