Tabula rasa, or science denial of the left

[Cannot think of a name]

Because NSG.

Why NSG? Why...?

I miss the days when this was just a summer thing.

[Bombadil]

Because NSG.

Why NSG? Why...?

..because population is ever moving and there's always new people who read The Bell Curve for the first time and think it explains the world.

..better than those who picked up Atlas Shrugged..

[Cannot think of a name]

Why NSG? Why...?

..because population is ever moving and there's always new people who read The Bell Curve for the first time and think it explains the world.

..better than those who picked up Atlas Shrugged..

It’s a push...

[Darussalam]

Yes, it does, when your ideological bias predisposes you to prioritizing a way of observing classifying intelligence in terms of allegedly innate racial differences. There's little to no possibility that you will be an objective observer. Your observation and discrimination in matters of intelligence will inevitably be tainted by your racism. Chances are you will be prone to overestimating or underestimating individuals based on how you classify them racially.

"Assumption of racial bias"? Yeah, not much of an assumption when you are unironically arguing that some "races" are innately more intelligent than others.

Stop insulting your readers' intelligence.

If a 70 IQ white person is as dumb as a 70 IQ black person, then where's the racism?

You lot have defined racism to the extent of "accepting that right things are right" and then becoming baffled at the prevalence of racism. If all you mean by racism is that you accept Bayesian inferences, then I don't care if you hurl the term to me. I'm not even white, and this sort of thing strikes me off as a really white thing.

Whoops, I'm being racist again! But it's reverse racism, so it's ok.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00028533.2006.11821659
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 6902003616
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1994/1 ... ell-curve/
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/0 ... sources-1/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 155220.htm
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/bl ... ce-realism

The first link has this as abstraction:

the past five decades, scholars have suggested that there are fallacious and proper uses of ad hominem arguments. Douglas Walton's pragmatic theory of argumentation incorporates a significant treatment of the ad hominem argument. This essay adapts Walton's theory to a case study of arguments about scientific research, paid for by the Pioneer Fund, into racial differences. The essay concludes that Pioneer-funded scientists engage in an illicit dialectical shift when they claim to be interested only in scientific, rather than political, questions. The essay calls for attention to the social context of arguers and arguing rather than abstract analytical categories.

Ok, what the fuck? Should I even dignify this with a reply?

The second link has actual criticisms, but doesn't actually address anything about Lynn's hereditarian ""heresies"", and barely talks about IQ.

The third and fourth links are guilt by association. Being peer-reviewed isn't enough to make the paper valid, apparently - the paper should be peer-reviewed by communists, too.
(This is off-topic, but if Sokal Squared scandal is anything to go by, imo peer review in general isn't a very good method to assess a paper's quality. A prediction market is more preferable instead.)

I think this in general establishes a trend - I might read other links when I can, but for now it's certainly wasting my time.

[Darussalam]

https://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the ... 1797564320

You can read the memo and judge for yourself whether it's hateful or not.

Any HR department worth its salt would have canned him, as by sending it to literally EVERYONE, he created a hostile work environment for those coworkers who had to deal with him.

I'm not seeing which part of the memo constitutes hostility.

[The Batorys]

Any HR department worth its salt would have canned him, as by sending it to literally EVERYONE, he created a hostile work environment for those coworkers who had to deal with him.

I'm not seeing which part of the memo constitutes hostility.

Then you should never be in charge of HR anywhere.

If you send out an email to all your coworkers that says, among other things, that over half of them are 'naturally inferior' to yourself, you're going to have a problem.

I have to say, I'm disappointed by this thread. I thought you were smarter than this.

[Grenartia]

Ah, yes, social darwinism. The 19th century's proto-fascist leftovers that have stayed in the fridge too long. Fuck that shit.

Any and all "differences" between 'races' (which are merely a social construct) are fully explainable and attributable to socioeconomic factors, not the supposed inferiority or superiority of their genes (because there are no genetic definitions of race).

[The Batorys]

Ah, yes, social darwinism. The 19th century's proto-fascist leftovers that have stayed in the fridge too long. Fuck that shit.

Any and all "differences" between 'races' (which are merely a social construct) are fully explainable and attributable to socioeconomic factors, not the supposed inferiority or superiority of their genes (because there are no genetic definitions of race).

Indeed. The human species is actually not all that genetically diverse.

[Darussalam]

I'm not seeing which part of the memo constitutes hostility.

Then you should never be in charge of HR anywhere.

If you send out an email to all your coworkers that says, among other things, that over half of them are 'naturally inferior' to yourself, you're going to have a problem.

I have to say, I'm disappointed by this thread. I thought you were smarter than this.

No part of the memo mentions that women are naturally inferior.

This is not the old struggle of patriarchy and those who defy it - what is being contested here is the assertion that women and men have different preferences on average, and that these preferences have biological underpinning.

If you accept this assertion, then according to feminists you're a misogynist, apparently. But the question is whether this assertion is right or not, and why is it not acceptable for it to be right.

[The Batorys]

Then you should never be in charge of HR anywhere.

If you send out an email to all your coworkers that says, among other things, that over half of them are 'naturally inferior' to yourself, you're going to have a problem.

I have to say, I'm disappointed by this thread. I thought you were smarter than this.

No part of the memo mentions that women are naturally inferior.

This is not the old struggle of patriarchy and those who defy it - what is being contested here is the assertion that women and men have different preferences on average, and that these preferences have biological underpinning.

If you accept this assertion, then according to feminists you're a misogynist, apparently. But the question is whether this assertion is right or not, and why is it not acceptable for it to be right.

Oh come on. Do you really think you're fooling anyone with that?

I'm afraid that our acquaintance has become untenable.

[Darussalam]

No part of the memo mentions that women are naturally inferior.

This is not the old struggle of patriarchy and those who defy it - what is being contested here is the assertion that women and men have different preferences on average, and that these preferences have biological underpinning.

If you accept this assertion, then according to feminists you're a misogynist, apparently. But the question is whether this assertion is right or not, and why is it not acceptable for it to be right.

Oh come on. Do you really think you're fooling anyone with that?

I'm afraid that our acquaintance has become untenable.

It is this sort of kneejerk reaction especially that I stated in the OP to be a problem.

If this is mainstream, then there is no higher ground for the left to hurl insults at creationists or climate science deniers.

[Seangoli]

Ah, yes, social darwinism. The 19th century's proto-fascist leftovers that have stayed in the fridge too long. Fuck that shit.

Any and all "differences" between 'races' (which are merely a social construct) are fully explainable and attributable to socioeconomic factors, not the supposed inferiority or superiority of their genes (because there are no genetic definitions of race).

I mean, to be fair on this one recent reputable studies have shown slight indications that genetics may play a minor role in cognitive ability. That said, these differences are far too overstated by most people who purport that genetics are the driving factor of cognitive ability, and they latch onto these minor differences as being practically the sole-driving explanation for cognitive differences between populations. Which they are not, as recent studies have shown that genetics *can possibly* only explain about 48% of the differences in cognitive ability, with the majority of differences being environmental. And even then, that doesn't mean that 48% of the cognitive differences is due to genetics, but rather that the 52% is purely and easily explained due to environmental factor, and that the remaining 48% has the possibility of being genetic.

The long of the short of this is that environmental factors have been shown to make up the majority of cognitive differences, and the remaining portions where it doesn't unambiguously explain the differences isn't necessarily due to biology. It just means that some amount of the remaining 48% of differences are ambiguously caused, and much of that remaining difference may still be due to more complex environmental conditions. Basically, cognitive differences due to biology are somewhere above 0% and below 48%, and nobody has given a particularly compelling argument that's its closer to the latter than the former aside from correlative data that fails to consider any number of explanations that may show a similar correlative effect to environmental stimuli. Make of

[Grenartia]

This is not the old struggle of patriarchy and those who defy it - what is being contested here is the assertion that women and men have different preferences on average, and that these preferences have biological underpinning.

Said differences are enough to be measured, but not enough to be significantly impactful, and can almost certainly be more attributable to social expectations rather than biology.

[Seangoli]

This is not the old struggle of patriarchy and those who defy it - what is being contested here is the assertion that women and men have different preferences on average, and that these preferences have biological underpinning.

Said differences are enough to be measured, but not enough to be significantly impactful, and can almost certainly be more attributable to social expectations rather than biology.

It's like saying that a car with 1000 horse power is significantly more powerful than a card with 1010 horsepower. I mean, sure, there is a difference. But I'll be arsed to admit that it represents some major differences that significantly influences the behavior of the vehicle.

[Darussalam]

Ah, yes, social darwinism. The 19th century's proto-fascist leftovers that have stayed in the fridge too long. Fuck that shit.

Any and all "differences" between 'races' (which are merely a social construct) are fully explainable and attributable to socioeconomic factors, not the supposed inferiority or superiority of their genes (because there are no genetic definitions of race).

I mean, to be fair on this one recent reputable studies have shown slight indications that genetics may play a minor role in cognitive ability. That said, these differences are far too overstated by most people who purport that genetics are the driving factor of cognitive ability, and they latch onto these minor differences as being practically the sole-driving explanation for cognitive differences between populations. Which they are not, as recent studies have shown that genetics *can possibly* only explain about 48% of the differences in cognitive ability, with the majority of differences being environmental. And even then, that doesn't mean that 48% of the cognitive differences is due to genetics, but rather that the 52% is purely and easily explained due to environmental factor, and that the remaining 48% has the possibility of being genetic.

The long of the short of this is that environmental factors have been shown to make up the majority of cognitive differences, and the remaining portions where it doesn't unambiguously explain the differences isn't necessarily due to biology. It just means that some amount of the remaining 48% of differences are ambiguously caused, and much of that remaining difference may still be due to more complex environmental conditions. Basically, cognitive differences due to biology are somewhere above 0% and below 48%, and nobody has given a particularly compelling argument that's its closer to the latter than the former aside from correlative data that fails to consider any number of explanations that may show a similar correlative effect to environmental stimuli. Make of

This is not the old struggle of patriarchy and those who defy it - what is being contested here is the assertion that women and men have different preferences on average, and that these preferences have biological underpinning.

Said differences are enough to be measured, but not enough to be significantly impactful, and can almost certainly be more attributable to social expectations rather than biology.

According to this, highest differences are found in more gender-egalitarian countries. In general, the memo touches on thing vs. people preference which has massive gender disparity. Gender segregation of career is also more pervasive in, say, Sweden than Iran.

So this doesn't support 'societal influences' hypothesis. A more likely explanation is the richer the society and the freer the people, more people have a luxury to reveal their innate preferences. And innate preference for most women aren't STEM - which ought to be respected. If you actually care about choices, anyway.

[Bombadil]

Not to rehash the whole memo debate but it did note that men were more suited to certain jobs and women to others.. on average!

That should in no way be used to determine an individual's career path, nor HR policy to guide one sex to one type of task and the other to another.

For a variety of factors the somewhat arbitrary IQ measurement applied as an average to a somewhat arbitrary set of genetic factors is no reason to discriminate against every individual in that set, or even the set as a whole.

What if I took the genetics of relative finger length and then measured average IQ across to say people with shorter relative fingers are inferior to those with longer relative fingers. It's typically a gene, it might be broadly isolated to a region.. but anyone would laugh at the idea of dividing the human race by relative finger length.

Having said that, those of us with green eyes are categorically superior to all others. That's just a fact.

[Darussalam]

Not to rehash the whole memo debate but it did note that men were more suited to certain jobs and women to others.. on average!

That should in no way be used to determine an individual's career path, nor HR policy to guide one sex to one type of task and the other to another.

And I agree with that!

What I am emphasizing quite strongly is that this Golden Mean, free market scenario is simply not the present status quo. In the status quo, you're not a biological entity with diverse variations, but instead a disembodied autonomous free souls... thing. You'll get hounded off for stating generalized differences and claiming these differences to be biological.

I don't have problem with debating whether it's biological or not. What I have trouble with is shutting the debate altogether and branding its participants as sexist and dumb. And the latter is what happened. The state and its religious creed does not favor traditional "stereotypes", it favors the stereotype of no stereotype at all at any cost, also empirical behavioral trends count as stereotypes and therefore ought to be suppressed.

[Darussalam]

You're going too far the other way and assuming everything is due to natural ability when that may not be the only factor in play.

I think he's trying to come up with reasons why capitalism doesn't produce such great outcomes for people of color, and rather than conclude that the system itself has some drawbacks, he's going with "oh they must just be dumber."

Many people of color have been doing very, very well under capitalism. Indians are overrepresented in Sillicon Valley and constitute the most affluent ethnic group in the United States, East Asians are wealthy abroad and in their homes, etc. etc.

I think you're forgetting the bit where conservatives mostly blame the poor because of their poor life choices. Biological determinism denies that there is ever such a choice to begin with. If you're into personal culpability, then people's conditions can be said as "none their fault". What do you think the phrase "genetic lottery" is for?

[Bombadil]

Not to rehash the whole memo debate but it did note that men were more suited to certain jobs and women to others.. on average!

That should in no way be used to determine an individual's career path, nor HR policy to guide one sex to one type of task and the other to another.

And I agree with that!

What I am emphasizing quite strongly is that this Golden Mean, free market scenario is simply not the present status quo. In the status quo, you're not a biological entity with diverse variations, but instead a disembodied autonomous free souls... thing. You'll get hounded off for stating generalized differences and claiming these differences to be biological.

I don't have problem with debating whether it's biological or not. What I have trouble with is shutting the debate altogether and branding its participants as sexist and dumb. And the latter is what happened. The state and its religious creed does not favor traditional "stereotypes", it favors the stereotype of no stereotype at all at any cost, also empirical behavioral trends count as stereotypes and therefore ought to be suppressed.

I think there is historical context for the distaste of such studies. Perhaps the studies themselves are genuinely undertaken by behavioural scientists and/or the like. Yet more often than not they're used to justify opinions that precede the data. Even The Bell Curve was filled with caveats, regardless of the issues within, about the conclusions but the debate was very much misused on both sides.

It's a bit like polling data, there's variances but people focus on the hard figure. So Brexit, for example, was 52-48 but with enough statistical variance to make it either way. Same with these studies, there's all sorts of caveats yet people jump on the conclusion that fits their agenda.

I don't know that people demand to shut down these studies so much as argue as to the conclusions formed by people with a prior belief.

[Wahlid]

I think he's trying to come up with reasons why capitalism doesn't produce such great outcomes for people of color, and rather than conclude that the system itself has some drawbacks, he's going with "oh they must just be dumber."

Many people of color have been doing very, very well under capitalism. Indians are overrepresented in Sillicon Valley and constitute the most affluent ethnic group in the United States, East Asians are wealthy abroad and in their homes, etc. etc.

The South Asians and East Asians diasporans you speak of are highly selected for educational attainment, general intelligence, and human capital. Your point also applies for recent highly-educated African immigrants to the US for that matter.

Also, what the hell did M and V stand for in the 1995 California IQ graphs you posted a while ago?

Why has this thread been allowed to continue on for 4 bloody pages?

I guess it hasn’t met the burden of proof for abject trolling.

[Darussalam]

The South Asians and East Asians diasporans you speak of are highly selected for educational attainment, general intelligence, and human capital. Your point also applies for recent highly-educated African immigrants to the US for that matter.

So? That doesn't discount their achievement.

Also, what the hell did M and V stand for in the 1995 California IQ graphs you posted a while ago?

SAT-V and SAT-M.

I guess it hasn’t met the burden of proof for abject trolling.

Why would this qualify as trolling?

[Vassenor]

The South Asians and East Asians diasporans you speak of are highly selected for educational attainment, general intelligence, and human capital. Your point also applies for recent highly-educated African immigrants to the US for that matter.

So? That doesn't discount their achievement.

Also, what the hell did M and V stand for in the 1995 California IQ graphs you posted a while ago?

SAT-V and SAT-M.

I guess it hasn’t met the burden of proof for abject trolling.

Why would this qualify as trolling?

Because spouting a load of unsourced thinly veiled racism and expecting everyone to prove you wrong is normally considered to be trolling.

[Darussalam]

And I agree with that!

What I am emphasizing quite strongly is that this Golden Mean, free market scenario is simply not the present status quo. In the status quo, you're not a biological entity with diverse variations, but instead a disembodied autonomous free souls... thing. You'll get hounded off for stating generalized differences and claiming these differences to be biological.

I don't have problem with debating whether it's biological or not. What I have trouble with is shutting the debate altogether and branding its participants as sexist and dumb. And the latter is what happened. The state and its religious creed does not favor traditional "stereotypes", it favors the stereotype of no stereotype at all at any cost, also empirical behavioral trends count as stereotypes and therefore ought to be suppressed.

I think there is historical context for the distaste of such studies. Perhaps the studies themselves are genuinely undertaken by behavioural scientists and/or the like. Yet more often than not they're used to justify opinions that precede the data. Even The Bell Curve was filled with caveats, regardless of the issues within, about the conclusions but the debate was very much misused on both sides.

It's a bit like polling data, there's variances but people focus on the hard figure. So Brexit, for example, was 52-48 but with enough statistical variance to make it either way. Same with these studies, there's all sorts of caveats yet people jump on the conclusion that fits their agenda.

I don't know that people demand to shut down these studies so much as argue as to the conclusions formed by people with a prior belief.

You can say that for literally every scientific research ever. Generally, ideologically motivated results will reveal themselves - it is hard to replicate them. And indeed social sciences seem to be plagued by replication problems. Hereditarian results, meanwhile, tend to be fairly robust.

Speakers have been shut down from college campuses for this.

[Darussalam]

So? That doesn't discount their achievement.

SAT-V and SAT-M.

Why would this qualify as trolling?

Because spouting a load of unsourced thinly veiled racism and expecting everyone to prove you wrong is normally considered to be trolling.

I have provided plenty of sources throughout the thread. Even then, no it's not.

[Vassenor]

Because spouting a load of unsourced thinly veiled racism and expecting everyone to prove you wrong is normally considered to be trolling.

I have provided plenty of sources throughout the thread. Even then, no it's not.

Just claiming "I'm not trolling" doesn't magically make it true.