I miss the days when this was just a summer thing.
Advertisement
by Cannot think of a name » Mon Oct 29, 2018 10:52 pm
by Bombadil » Mon Oct 29, 2018 10:53 pm
by Cannot think of a name » Mon Oct 29, 2018 10:53 pm
by Darussalam » Mon Oct 29, 2018 10:55 pm
Liriena wrote: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.
Liriena wrote:"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.
Liriena wrote: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 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.
by Darussalam » Mon Oct 29, 2018 10:56 pm
The Batorys wrote:Darussalam wrote: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.
by The Batorys » Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:00 pm
by Grenartia » Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:03 pm
by The Batorys » Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:05 pm
Grenartia wrote: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).
by Darussalam » Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:09 pm
The Batorys wrote:Darussalam wrote: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.
by The Batorys » Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:13 pm
Darussalam wrote:The Batorys wrote: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.
by Darussalam » Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:18 pm
The Batorys wrote:Darussalam wrote: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.
by Seangoli » Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:20 pm
Grenartia wrote: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).
by Grenartia » Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:28 pm
Darussalam wrote: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.
by Seangoli » Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:32 pm
Grenartia wrote:Darussalam wrote: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.
by Darussalam » Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:44 pm
Seangoli wrote:Grenartia wrote: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 wrote:Darussalam wrote: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.
by Bombadil » Tue Oct 30, 2018 12:10 am
by Darussalam » Tue Oct 30, 2018 12:19 am
Bombadil wrote: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.
by Darussalam » Tue Oct 30, 2018 12:27 am
The Batorys wrote:USS Monitor wrote:
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."
by Bombadil » Tue Oct 30, 2018 12:40 am
Darussalam wrote:Bombadil wrote: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.
by Wahlid » Tue Oct 30, 2018 12:40 am
Darussalam wrote:The Batorys wrote: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.
New haven america wrote:Why has this thread been allowed to continue on for 4 bloody pages?
by Darussalam » Tue Oct 30, 2018 12:47 am
Wahlid wrote: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.
Wahlid wrote:Also, what the hell did M and V stand for in the 1995 California IQ graphs you posted a while ago?
Wahlid wrote:I guess it hasn’t met the burden of proof for abject trolling.
by Vassenor » Tue Oct 30, 2018 12:49 am
Darussalam wrote:Wahlid wrote: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.Wahlid wrote: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.Wahlid wrote:I guess it hasn’t met the burden of proof for abject trolling.
Why would this qualify as trolling?
by Darussalam » Tue Oct 30, 2018 12:50 am
Bombadil wrote:Darussalam wrote: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.
by Darussalam » Tue Oct 30, 2018 12:53 am
by Vassenor » Tue Oct 30, 2018 12:58 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Cessarea, Corporate Collective Salvation, Haganham, Ineva, Juristonia, Kostane, The Xakkaamboreezie
Advertisement