| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
PoulsenB
Poland7733 Posts
On November 10 2022 20:50 KwarK wrote: I really don’t see why any of you guys take the time replying to him. None of his posts so far have merited the time it would take to write a response. I just felt I need to say something about this sort of nonsense, if only for the sake of my own sanity. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11787 Posts
On November 10 2022 21:32 PoulsenB wrote: I just felt I need to say something about this sort of nonsense, if only for the sake of my own sanity. Yeah, that is a core problem in online discourse. If no one bothers to reply to utter nonsense because it is stupid and exhausting, it looks as if everyone agrees with the nonsense. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26468 Posts
On November 10 2022 15:03 L_Master wrote: CRT views race as a social construct, that society advances whites at the expense of other races, and that the US "neutral" laws are actively racist. Classes (e.g. lower, middle, upper) are nothing more than distributions. Higher cognitive ability, greater impulse control, greater intuition for reciprocity, greater conscientiousness, etc. Better genetics. Classes are classes because we've already sorted (distribution level) by ability. This is why if you look overall, class mobility looks like garbage. But, if you look at first gen immigrants there is excellent class mobility still. It's not that it's impossible or broken, it's that we are already sorted by our genetic ability (minus, of course, outliers). So, race problems are class problems because the races are also already sorted by class, and the underlying cause is the genetic distributions across the population. Thanks for the expansion. I’d largely profoundly disagree, I think there’s a fair amount of evidence that race as we consider it is socially constructed. Genetic tests of various populations show close similarities between populations that look very different phenotypically, and conversely big divergence in groups that look very similar. Which would strongly indicate that not just that racial categorisation was very arbitrary at the time, but also that those categories were not right for the wrong reasons. It’s one thing to go ‘hey these people have dark skin, they belong to the same race’, and genetic analysis to prove you right after the fact, but that’s not even the case. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
On November 10 2022 20:50 KwarK wrote: I really don’t see why any of you guys take the time replying to him. None of his posts so far have merited the time it would take to write a response. It's been a while since I visited this thread but isn't he parroting the same biological deterministic crap some other guy who got banned years ago was? | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On November 10 2022 20:55 farvacola wrote: The long form word salad, unsubstantiated “name of the enemy” drops, and retro pseudo-scientific essentialism reminded me of what some folks used to post here ten years ago, so there’s that at least. I'd have to use the search function, and gourd knows I'm not gonna do that lol, but GH compared his arguments to phrenology, and that was better than any words I had for it. It is very odd, in general, to see argumentation that clearly casts racism and fascism as being bad, and then turns to theories of personality that stand eerily close to eugenics, in an overreaching attempt to fit people into neat little boxes. It's not worth continuing to engage with as far as I'm concerned. | ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
On November 10 2022 22:32 NewSunshine wrote: I'd have to use the search function, and gourd knows I'm not gonna do that lol, but GH compared his arguments to phrenology, and that was better than any words I had for it. It is very odd, in general, to see argumentation that clearly casts racism and fascism as being bad, and then turns to theories of personality that stand eerily close to eugenics, in an overreaching attempt to fit people into neat little boxes. It's not worth continuing to engage with as far as I'm concerned. This is approximately what I expected given the general climate of the thread. Largely, emotional dismissal of the form "I don't like this, it can't be true" Very little in the way of any discussion of factual information. Lots of attempts to dismiss arguments by saying "This sounds like bad thing X" or "This sounds like bad thing Y". Very little trying to understand what is being said. It is very odd, in general, to see argumentation that clearly casts racism and fascism as being bad, and then turns to theories of personality that stand eerily close to eugenics, in an overreaching attempt to fit people into neat little boxes. It's not odd. Who in their right mind, with any understanding of ethics, would advocate for hatred towards other humans? That's....awful. It's like "Oh yea, these people got dealt a really bad hand already, so we should totally also treat them like garbage too." Like......what?? The rest is wrong. People aren't being fit into boxes. Even if you buy single word I just said with religious fervor, one still cannot make accurate predications about individuals because the variations between individuals as absurdly massive. The broad structure of civilization and of groups are being fit into (very approximate) boxes. There is nothing neat about it. It's extraordinarily messy. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
On November 10 2022 17:46 Slydie wrote: Yes, PoulsenB has some chilling logic. It is often underesteimated how much luck is a factor for being rich. Others are also good at exploiting without getting caught. I don't mind that people are rich, but it does not imply that they are smarter or "better". Unfortunately, social factors are equally important in the other end of the spectrum. Heavy baggage is also passed on to children, and even in social democratic countries, there is no easy way to solve this. Things like free education mainly benefit the middle class. It's not that chilling, because everything he said was pretty damn accurate. Itt's true that the uber rich usually had extreme luck, that they were often born into wealth, that there are thousands of failure stories for each one success, etc. That's a metric shitload of starting luck. That in no way contradicts what I said. He replied as if I said: "Anybody that has high IQ, high ability to cooperate, high conscientiousness, and good people skills will become rich" And it's like....no. They won't. (but they will usually lead at least a moderately successful life). Broadly, that's the entire point of talking about distributions, because distributions account for exceptions, of which there are often a great many. | ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
On November 10 2022 23:24 JimmiC wrote: Where are the facts and studies you have provided? Only one claim would fit into that category (of needing facts), and it's the claim about genetics being a prime driver of differences in success, productivity, and cooperativity across classes. Everything else is mathematics style logic, if X, then Y. With respect to that, a few pages ago I mentioned a whole host of data that supports the argument and the studies/branches from which this is coming from. I'm not sure how such a discussion would go beyond that. I would go grab 15-20 papers, people would generally skim 2 or 3, then they would go and grab some papers saying the opposite. I'm not sure how that argument could progress meaningfully from there, especially given I don't expect everyone to be a technical expert in study design and statistical analysis and inferences to really discuss papers individually one by one. I have a feeling we would spend.....10 hours? At least, and get approximately nothing out of it, discarding the things the other person said. But that does raise the most important point, what *WOULD* cause me to change my mind? - Probably a mixture of long conversations that convinced me that much of the early science was just wrong systematically without relying on "they were all racists" - Why the general success of civilizations over time maps well with cognitive ability - A powerful argument against the swedish IVF study at a mininimum - And most importantly, a compelling argument for why intelligence and personality *wouldn't* be genetically controlled, despite it having known physical characteristics (increased pruning, increased transmission speed, etc.) that are genetically controlled, strong evolutionary logic to expect it to be genetically controlled, and a general explanation why other physical traits (height, athleticism, etc.) are significantly genetically influenced, but this for some reason passes over intelligence - Why no efforts to improve intelligence (outside of malnourishment) have been even marginally successful, e.g. education doesn't help, better parenting doesn't help, etc. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
and are in my experience an attempt at denigrating a large subset of the population. not saying this is what you're trying to do here as this is utterly boring of a topic with little meaning to me and I dont really wanna engage in boring stuff. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On November 10 2022 23:23 L_Master wrote: This is approximately what I expected given the general climate of the thread. Largely, emotional dismissal of the form "I don't like this, it can't be true" Very little in the way of any discussion of factual information. Lots of attempts to dismiss arguments by saying "This sounds like bad thing X" or "This sounds like bad thing Y". Very little trying to understand what is being said. It's not odd. Who in their right mind, with any understanding of ethics, would advocate for hatred towards other humans? That's....awful. It's like "Oh yea, these people got dealt a really bad hand already, so we should totally also treat them like garbage too." Like......what?? The rest is wrong. People aren't being fit into boxes. Even if you buy single word I just said with religious fervor, one still cannot make accurate predications about individuals because the variations between individuals as absurdly massive. The broad structure of civilization and of groups are being fit into (very approximate) boxes. There is nothing neat about it. It's extraordinarily messy. You talk about people being "dealt a bad hand", in reference to genetics, you talk about how wealthy people are just flat out better than poor people, you talk about the exact personality traits that are predicted by people's politics, but what you're not doing is trying to put people into boxes. Okay. I'm just laying that out there. If you're an academic, take this opportunity to examine the assumptions you've made about your research. Shit stinks to high heaven. I think it's great if you believe that disadvantaged people shouldn't be further treated like garbage. The issue I take is that you do nothing to acknowledge that their disadvantages are systemically created by a society that still sees them differently. Instead you insist that it's all in their blood. You're gonna continue to have problems with folks here as long as that's your logical bedrock. | ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
On November 11 2022 00:00 JimmiC wrote: So you are not sharing facts you are sharing your assumptions. Do not ask others to do what you can not provide. Basically you think you are so smart that your assumptions are factual but others need to provide proof of theirs. Sounds like Narcissism. Clearly a lot of your assumptions are wrong, an easy one is that the rich are "more moral" you can easily fight hundreds of study's showing the link between narcacism and wealth along with sociopathy and wealth. A smart person can demonstrate their intelligence, people will draw their own conclusions from my reasoning, and the way I discuss matters. I offered to share a variety of studies if people were interested. But, usually people don't actually want to read them. Reading 20 papers, effectively, is something that takes a minimum of 40 hours, but realistically something like 80-100+ hours if you want to do quality analysis. You made it sound like I wouldn't, when it's really "I will, but only if someone is saying 'Yes, I genuinely want to comb through a bunch of studies'". Otherwise, I spend an hour or two aggregating studies that nobody reads. Others don't need to prove to me. One of the more important tenants of rational thinking is that your "beliefs must pay rent". They must accurately predict the world, and (outside of logical, formal proof) they must be probabilistic. If you're 100% certain (inconvincible) then you don't have a reasonable belief. You have faith. Religion. So, it's important to answer the question: "What would convince me that I am wrong", and a fundamental first step to let people know what arguments might be convincing to you. Sounds like Narcissism. Psychologizing already. Didn't take long. | ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
On November 11 2022 00:16 NewSunshine wrote: You talk about people being "dealt a bad hand", in reference to genetics, you talk about how wealthy people are just flat out better than poor people, you talk about the exact personality traits that are predicted by people's politics, but what you're not doing is trying to put people into boxes. Okay. I'm just laying that out there. If you're an academic, take this opportunity to examine the assumptions you've made about your research. Shit stinks to high heaven. You talk about people being "dealt a bad hand", in reference to genetics, you talk about how wealthy people are just flat out better than poor people, you talk about the exact personality traits that are predicted by people's politics, but what you're not doing is trying to put people into boxes. I also talked about how a substantial fraction of wealthy people (3-5x base rate) are psychopaths', about higher rates of narcissim and especially machiavellianism, etc. I don't put people in boxes because individuals vary dramatically, like hugely. I would be horrifically wrong, in ways that matter substantially to the individuals, if I rounded off individuals to their distribution. I've met absolutely brilliant individuals from my time in poverty. I've met repulsive, greedy rich people. On rare occasions, I've met unintelligent rich people. Individual variation is tremendous, if you systematically "round off" people to their distribution, it's my opinion you're committing a massive error and will systematically mistreat people in ways that have noticeable impact. The short way to say is: individuals vary tremendously and are wildly unpredictable, large groups behave in predictable ways | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On November 11 2022 00:24 L_Master wrote: I also talked about how a substantial fraction of wealthy people (3-5x base rate) are psychopaths', about higher rates of narcissim and especially machiavellianism, etc. I don't put people in boxes because individuals vary dramatically, like hugely. I would be horrifically wrong, in ways that matter substantially to the individuals, if I rounded off individuals to their distribution. I've met absolutely brilliant individuals from my time in poverty. I've met repulsive, greedy rich people. On rare occasions, I've met unintelligent rich people. Individual variation is tremendous, if you systematically "round off" people to their distribution, it's my opinion you're committing a massive error and will systematically mistreat people in ways that have noticeable impact. I appreciate you saying this much. Your posting earlier in the discussion very much was saying the opposite. I take immense issue with the idea that someone's genes will dictate their politics, their fortunes, and their freedoms. There's always the debate over nature vs. nurture in the formation of someone's identity, but as long as I've been around, I've noticed that all the major forces that taint our society, the racism, the classism, the fascism, the discrimination on all levels of a society that seeks to prop up the privileges of the few, those things are taught and learned. Hatred is not a natural feeling, we are taught that we should hate some other that exists out there. We are taught that we should act like "we" are better than "them". People have agency, and can make their choices, without trying to fit them to a curve. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States43755 Posts
On November 11 2022 00:18 L_Master wrote: A smart person can demonstrate their intelligence, people will draw their own conclusions from my reasoning, and the way I discuss matters. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28779 Posts
One peer reviewed article with its credibility intact (so yes, no Herrnstein/Murray) confidently stating that 'observed differences in IQ between ethnic groups are caused by biological differences' would go a long way. I don't really care about this topic so I'm not promising that I'm going to bother engaging (rather, to the contrary, I'm indicating that I probably won't), but the notion that your efforts are bound to be fruitless so you're not going to bother coupled with a 'trust me, I know about this stuff' attitude really isn't particularly convincing, and I'm just trying to help you out here. You're clearly a smart dude, I'm sure you have some degree of understanding of which particular statements you're making people are most in disagreement with (for example, nobody is disputing that rich people are healthier - although they might disagree on cause and effect) - if these ideas are becoming mainstream (as per the 'When I'm seeing previous moderate liberals that I know to be reasonable people starting to have these conversations' quote), and with you claiming that you are used to writing academically (I assume that means you work in academia?) it shouldn't be hard to find some quick, peer reviewed sources to back up the ideas that get most immediate opposition. | ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
On November 11 2022 01:08 Liquid`Drone wrote: L_Master, you really don't have to cite us a whole gish gallop of studies to showcase your point. One peer reviewed article with its credibility intact (so yes, no Herrnstein/Murray) confidently stating that 'observed differences in IQ between ethnic groups are caused by biological differences' would go a long way. I don't really care about this topic so I'm not promising that I'm going to bother engaging (rather, to the contrary, I'm indicating that I probably won't), but the notion that your efforts are bound to be fruitless so you're not going to bother coupled with a 'trust me, I know about this stuff' attitude really isn't particularly convincing, and I'm just trying to help you out here. You're clearly a smart dude, I'm sure you have some degree of understanding of which particular statements you're making people are most in disagreement with (for example, nobody is disputing that rich people are healthier - although they might disagree on cause and effect) - if these ideas are becoming mainstream (as per the 'When I'm seeing previous moderate liberals that I know to be reasonable people starting to have these conversations' quote), and with you claiming that you are used to writing academically (I assume that means you work in academia?) it shouldn't be hard to find some quick, peer reviewed sources to back up the ideas that get most immediate opposition. Alright, I'll make a point a point to do that sometime today. In general though, I find the tendency is for people to skim, find a few things they don't like, say that makes the study invalid/less valuable, and then cite some counter studies (which, most subjects have) Which is sorta why I made the points I did about what might convince me. The studies are valuable, but so are discussions of causality, and models of "If Theory A is true, what does it predict. And, equally important, what does it NOT predict" | ||
|
justanothertownie
16324 Posts
Yeah, that statement is incredibly ironic. | ||
| ||
|
|
RSL Revival
ByuN vs Maru
MaxPax vs TriGGeR
WardiTV Team League
BSL
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
Light vs Calm
Royal vs Mind
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
OSC
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
He's a Tea Party type alright. Just again, I guess the word "needlessly" is doing some heavy lifting. but at at the end of tonight's consideration, we ought to think about how he managed to win by so much. Florida is becoming more red, but he did like 15 points better than Trump in 2020. he's convincing someone, or lots of someones. 
