EPTAbsolutely horrendous.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3815
| 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 | ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2602 Posts
Absolutely horrendous. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On November 11 2022 05:26 WombaT wrote: But, if we’re talking specifically racial IQ differentials, yes. People outside of the absolute fringes probably aren’t touching that with a fifty foot pole. There are a number of people who sort of touch it. They are very careful at writing abstracts, then they have very non-conformist bodies. Except the stuff out of China. Which, I can't read, but I know some academics that describe IQ research there as something along the lines of "would probably end US-China relations for a century." On November 11 2022 09:33 JimmiC wrote: @L_Master You missed some other questions, but understandable as it is you against the world right now (been there) so I do not expect a response to everything. But I would ask if gene's are what drives IQ, why are there many activities that you can do that increase IQ especially in Children? And it is not like Children get a choice in many of these activities. Here is an expert on raising IQ. And this is the tip of the iceberg, there is an entire industry based on raising IQ and tons of research on the topic. Stephen Ceci, professor of developmental psychology at Cornell University: Positive IQ research (increasing it) almost always fails to replicate. Negative IQ research is more reliable. It is easy to gimp the brain with lead, child abuse, lack of nutrition, etc. Reading to them at age 1 is trash research at its best. And, if no one's stated this before, IQ is the best social science statistic (damning with faint praise) by an order of magnitude. If you think, for example, a study or set of studies about education improving people's lot in life, you should 10x believe IQ stuff. Its that much more powerful. But again, faint praise, because most of social science is trash, particularly the more political it gets. On November 11 2022 11:03 JimmiC wrote: Now that gay men earn more than straight men, does that mean they are smarter, more moral and so on? Correlation with openness, which is another stat that correlates with IQ. Homosexuality is not a very heritable trait otherwise. Less heritable than being liberal/conservative generally, for example. | ||
|
Small_Technician_19
5 Posts
On November 11 2022 14:45 Slaughter wrote: With the amount of universities around those who do go against the grain tend to gather together in the same departments. You get very heavily skewed departments, but the variation between those departments can be pretty large. Professors are typically not afraid to rock the boat with tenure and generally, (at least in Anthropology) they specifically don't like to train students for all of their grad school experience (IE they like people doing their Masters and Doctorate at different institutions). There was definitely an awareness of how departments lean, especially the ones who had the big names of the field in them and a lot of people will leave departments for others if they feel they can't express themselves. Hell a distinguished archaeologist left Harvard for a much less prestigious institution where I did my doctoratal work at simply for more freedom (not of opinion but just less heavy handed oversight in his case). But at the end of the day? If you pull in money and publish a lot you will have no trouble finding jobs, unless your literally advocating for horrendous stuff. Even disciplines that most would find of questionable merit (either because they are outdated or new and still raw in their methods so hard to say if they will work out or not) will find their places at some universities. Yeah I can't speak for all social sciences but getting "cancelled" so to speak has more to do with how you present your work and you generally being an awful person to be around rather than the nature of your beliefs or work. This has been the case in academia since forever. Or anything in life, no one wants to be around a huge asshole. STEM supremacists like Neil DeGrasse Tyson love to repeat the myth of Galileo getting cancelled by the Catholic church because of his beliefs but it wasn't like that at all. Long story short, Galileo got into hot water because he was repeatedly doing the academic equivalent of writing cheques he couldn't cash. He got into embarrassing fights with other academics by saying shit full of contradictions, was generally a huge ass who had trouble communicating like a normal human being, and finally hamfisted theology into astronomical solutions he couldn't prove (and are actually wrong). Which is when the Church stepped in, because God doesn't need to be involved in this foolishness...and from memory he had the 5D brained idea to go call the Pope an simpleton and idiot when told to knock it off. That's really the thing that got the Catholic church all hot and bothered and can you really blame them? Its one of the first things my History professor taught us. What you argue isn't as important as how you argue it. Its probably not surprising that Neil DeGrasse Tyson, who has a long history of being a tool when talking about anything not-astronomy, seems to identify with and respect Galileo so much. | ||
|
Symplectos
Luxembourg42 Posts
Its one of the first things my History professor taught us. What you argue isn't as important as how you argue it. A helpful hint from a STEM supremacist: You should have listened to your history professor. | ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
On November 11 2022 15:36 gobbledydook wrote: Following this to the ultimate conclusion it seems that we should kill off all of the underclass and have robots do their work instead? Absolutely horrendous. Ermmm. Robots do all of the work? Yes fairly likely if continued AI progress (and AGI doesn't kill us all) But uh....kill of all of the underclass? Sir....what? | ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2602 Posts
On November 11 2022 22:20 L_Master wrote: Ermmm. Robots do all of the work? Yes fairly likely if continued AI progress (and AGI doesn't kill us all) But uh....kill of all of the underclass? Sir....what? The ultimate conclusion according to your theory, if the underclass is a net negative in that they consume more resources than they produce, then clearly the overall optimal solution is for them not to exist... | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28636 Posts
To be fair, this is how it works. It's why the bullshit asymmetry principle is so relevant, if the responsibility was on the person making the claim, it would hardly be relevant. But, falsification is all about making a claim or proposing a theory and having it withstand constant adversarial competition over time. The only thing missing is restitution being required for deliberately making callous or wanton claims. See, the thing is, falsification is not necessarily used all that much in social sciences. It has its role, sure, but not everything social sciences attempt to describe or analyze is possible to 'objectively test' or 'empirically prove'. This is why some will insist that social sciences are not 'real sciences'. Basically - falsification is only valid when you attempt to describe something falsifiable. If I were to deign myself an expert anthropologist, and I make the claim that '200000 years ago there was a tribe that believed in a deity called ZogNatz', that statement is not true until someone can falsify it. It's false until someone can prove it. While IQ is more measurable than accounts of deities predating writing or archaeology, 'to what degree observed differences in IQ can be attributed to genetic differences' is more in the realm of 'this is impossible to accurately observe' (and thus falsify). Now, it is possible to calculate how people perform on an IQ test. I'll even grant that seen across big groups of people, significant differences can be inferred from different IQ scores. Look at 1000 people with 80, 100 and 120 IQ, and they're gonna differ significantly from each other - in particular the group with 80 IQ. On an individual level, it's significantly less meaningful (but I suspect you're in agreement with that already) - although here, too, particularly low IQs will tend to be detrimental. But to what degree IQ is genetic and to what degree it's environmental, that's not an area where the science is settled. You claim 80% - my previous reading has stated somewhere between 50% and 70%-ish. However, even then, significant differences found between larger groups of people cannot confidently be stated to be attributed to genetic differences. The Flynn effect, for example, strikes me as highly relevant. British Children observed an increase in IQ of 14 points - basically one whole SD, from 1948 and 2009. Their genetics did not change much (if anything, more black people were introduced to the pool.) Topics that are genuinely falsifiable - like iunno, heliocentrism or something - don't have a bunch of different results or exceptions to them. With IQ, I'm seeing a whole lot of variations. Like your notion that '(intelligence generally decreases as you move equatorially -> less hostile climate -> less need for neural adaptability [intelligence])', that also doesn't really match up with how different groups tend to perform in such tests? I mean, Ashkenazis never found themselves populating particularly harsh regions? Scandinavians don't actually have all that great results on IQ tests. Asians do - but again, they've lived in regions much more hospitable than Northern Europe. If this was really the case, shouldn't Inuits be the group dominating the Nobel awards? There's way too much uncertain data - like you said yourself, you didn't feel like introducing papers because someone could just find a paper stating the opposite - to make confident assertions here. I have the impression you're a dude with a particularly strong need to have quantifiable data, but I also think you'd do yourself a favor through accepting that there are a whole slew of topics relating to 'humans' where such data does not (and perhaps cannot) exist. | ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
On November 11 2022 22:24 gobbledydook wrote: The ultimate conclusion according to your theory, if the underclass is a net negative in that they consume more resources than they produce, then clearly the overall optimal solution is for them not to exist... Now, you're closer to a statement that I agree with. And you do as well. Do you actually *want* there to be people who struggle just to hang on by a thread, or who actively unable to hang on? I think everybody wants a world in which we can solve problems like hunger, homelessness, and dependency. The part where it goes off the rails is "kill". Society is founded on cooperation, which rests upon reciprocity. There is no reciprocity in murdering people, and as such, creates an awful bedrock/precedent for cooperation in your society. Fastest (killing) =/= Best (reciprocity) | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8976 Posts
| ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
On November 12 2022 00:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: This is nice and all (not really). But this has exactly what to do with USPOL? Depends on your perspective. The discussion is centered around a gods-eye view of what *ought* be, and in order to determine that we have to know how reality is fundamentally set up. Good policy in world governed by a set of laws where people are all perfectly agentic and start with a blank slate is very different from good policy in a world governed by a set of laws where all people are completely genetic robots that have zero agency.....and the policy changes based on where you are in that continuum. I think there is an argument to be had both ways: 1) Too general of discussion, such that it's not really US politics specific enough 2) Pertinent to deciding what should be the goals of US politics and political decisions, so relevant | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
I don’t buy any of that. It’s an outrageous claim, certainly, and one that’s likely to offend a lot of people. But I’m not particularly inclined to engage with calipers enthusiasts. Like most chemists, I have a natural suspicion of social science claims as being soft and subjective, but to the extent social scientists produce valuable insights, they do so using statistical methods I’ve never had a reason to learn. I’m not in a position to check their work, which means I’m also not in a position to check the work of some random nerd on the internet that says the social scientists have got it all wrong and purports to offer his own outrageous social science hypotheses as correct. In my own lived experience, there are certainly societal factors that make true “color-blindness” seem naïve, but everything I’ve experienced has been completely consistent with the hypothesis that people of different racial backgrounds are all fundamentally human in the same ways - they want the same things out of life, they’re interested in the same things, they’re not innately any more or less capable at particular tasks. And my understanding of biology (much more in my wheelhouse than social science) leads me to believe that race is a largely fictional distinction, biologically speaking, and that any time a trait is confidently attributed to “genetics” the actual causal story is probably much more complicated. The essentialist might accuse me of lazily attributing different characteristics to “societal factors,” but if I’m forced to attribute observed differences to race my first anecdotal observation would be that white people are fucking idiots. Much more prone to getting some hare-brained idea in their head and becoming absolutely convinced of it (and evangelizing for it); frequently this is contrary to all expert opinion, common sense, or social tact. + Show Spoiler + Easy, lazy example: support for Donald Trump. TL;DR: I don’t think there’s a lot to be gained from engaging with racial essentialists. L_Master has his “god’s-eye” views, he’s entitled to them, and I don’t share them, but I don’t think either of us has much evidence or argumentation that would persuade the other. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8976 Posts
On November 12 2022 02:00 L_Master wrote: Depends on your perspective. The discussion is centered around a gods-eye view of what *ought* be, and in order to determine that we have to know how reality is fundamentally set up. Good policy in world governed by a set of laws where people are all perfectly agentic and start with a blank slate is very different from good policy in a world governed by a set of laws where all people are completely genetic robots that have zero agency.....and the policy changes based on where you are in that continuum. I think there is an argument to be had both ways: 1) Too general of discussion, such that it's not really US politics specific enough 2) Pertinent to deciding what should be the goals of US politics and political decisions, so relevant So...it has nothing to do with USPOL and this is more of a sociological experiment. I'm not as frequent a poster as I used to be, so I'd appreciate it (and I'm sure others would to), if you took this to blogs. I don't want an infinite scroll to get to actual political discussion. I'd rather miss the "white power but not really" conversation. Again. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2532 Posts
I.E. if we posit (race essentialism is correct), (capitalism and production are the primary goals of a society), (intellect, beauty and wealth are intrinsically linked via genetics) then what should we do about the underclass? We're not in an academic setting, and MOST of us seem to reject a lot of these positions to begin with, but we're neither being given an opportunity to do so (Effectively met with "If you don't believe me, you're just being too emotional and haven't ascended yet) nor the grace of presenting them as posits and not statements of fact. | ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
On November 12 2022 02:51 Fleetfeet wrote: I.E. if we posit (race essentialism is correct), (capitalism and production are the primary goals of a society), (intellect, beauty and wealth are intrinsically linked via genetics) then what should we do about the underclass? - I'd have to look at the definition, but from a quick skim, approximately true on first point - Bolded, fwiw, is false. False from the standpoint of natural law, in that all a society can do is maximize how adaptable to nature it is. That adaptability is a function of cooperation, which is maximized by maximizing agency, responsibility, and cooperation. So, the primary goals of society are not capitalism/production (we know unrestrained capitalism creates massive irreciprocities. They are maximization of agency, responsibility, and reciprocity. - Italicized yes, but extraordinarily soft at the individual level. Fairly strong at the group level. We're not in an academic setting, and MOST of us seem to reject a lot of these positions to begin with, but we're neither being given an opportunity to do so (Effectively met with "If you don't believe me, you're just being too emotional and haven't ascended yet) nor the grace of presenting them as posits and not statements of fact. I'm fairly confident I have not called anyone emotional, nor done anything other than discuss the information itself. But, your statement is correct in that I've indicated the conversation about race essential/HBD quickly devolves into study v study, and/or people pointing out anomalies that have been found. Addressing each of those anomalies takes another large amount of discussion, and even more studies, etc. I've laid out what would convince me otherwise a few pages back, and nobody is making any of those arguments (in part because they are hard/lengthy to make), and for me to make a proper case that would have a chance of being compelling to someone who is softly against the idea, and not an experienced researcher, would be at least a 40-50 page document. I've hinted at the layout of that document, and what would be in it, but I'm not going to write it. Which means there is a great deal of truth in what you said that I quoted. My issue with L_Master's approach is that it comes across more as a philosophical thought experiment than a grounded discussion, but is presented as the latter not the former. That sounds about right, if you don't accept the priors I hold, then almost by definition it's a philosophical "what if" type of scenario. Because of my priors, my framing naturally then gravitates towards grounded discussion. Excellent summation. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10429 Posts
On November 12 2022 02:51 Fleetfeet wrote: My issue with L_Master's approach is that it comes across more as a philosophical thought experiment than a grounded discussion, but is presented as the latter not the former. I.E. if we posit (race essentialism is correct), (capitalism and production are the primary goals of a society), (intellect, beauty and wealth are intrinsically linked via genetics) then what should we do about the underclass? We're not in an academic setting, and MOST of us seem to reject a lot of these positions to begin with, but we're neither being given an opportunity to do so (Effectively met with "If you don't believe me, you're just being too emotional and haven't ascended yet) nor the grace of presenting them as posits and not statements of fact. Similarly, I think the people that attribute any discrepancies between groups as proof of systemic biases/racism also treat their positions as statement of fact. I don't think L_Master has proven any of his arguments, but he's also not the one in front of the supreme court arguing that Harvard should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race or teaching white children that they are oppressors and continuously benefit from white supremacy. Perhaps that's who the burden of proof should fall on here. Coincidentally (or not so coincidentally) that's the same group who would be the first to call any research into the matter problematic. | ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
On November 12 2022 02:03 ChristianS wrote: I’m not in a position to check their work, which means I’m also not in a position to check the work of some random nerd on the internet that says the social scientists have got it all wrong and purports to offer his own outrageous social science hypotheses as correct. Outrageous is subjective, but mine is by no means a rare claim. It's not a common claim, but it's an opinion often held by many quality scientists within and outside of social sciences. Certainly not a majority. Strong objection to the idea that "social scientists have got it all wrong" because it presents social scientists as a monolithic block. A more reasonable statement would be: "some random nerd that says that the most popular view of intelligence/personality in the social sciences is wrong" TL;DR: I don’t think there’s a lot to be gained from engaging with racial essentialists. L_Master has his “god’s-eye” views, he’s entitled to them, and I don’t share them, but I don’t think either of us has much evidence or argumentation that would persuade the other. Likely not. If I had ten or twenty hours to spend with someone, that might be enough time to make a really solid case. I've posted what would change my mind, but again, that would be a VERY long post indeed, and I'm not really expecting anybody to do so, more important things everyone has in their lives. I'd appreciate it (and I'm sure others would to), if you took this to blogs. I don't want an infinite scroll to get to actual political discussion. Given the culture, and the magnetism that views as divergent as mine generate in this context, this seems entirely reasonable if it's an opinion shared by a handful of active posters. I can comfortably shift into a more direct political issue level commentary as desired. | ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
On November 12 2022 03:59 BlackJack wrote: Similarly, I think the people that attribute any discrepancies between groups as proof of systemic biases/racism also treat their positions as statement of fact. I don't think L_Master has proven any of his arguments, but he's also not the one in front of the supreme court arguing that Harvard should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race or teaching white children that they are oppressors and continuously benefit from white supremacy. Perhaps that's who the burden of proof should fall on here. Coincidentally (or not so coincidentally) that's the same group who would be the first to call any research into the matter problematic. For the record, I don't think I have either (proven them). Not even close. To even make what I would consider a "compelling case" I would need the 40-50 pages I mentioned. At which point, it would just be a "strong argument" and still far from proof. And, part of my motivation here is because the passage of time and continued study is forcing me more and more into the current position I hold. Which is something like 80-85% confidence in the strongish deterministic type view, and I'm always looking for someone deeply knowledgeable that can give me the type of argument I said would be convincing a few pages back, and TL definitely has some highly intelligent posters. Coincidentally (or not so coincidentally) that's the same group who would be the first to call any research into the matter problematic This is my biggest problem. I don't consider it evidence of any sort, but I find it problematic. Like, their sense is they have a sort of majority of research/scientists and are confident that makes them correct....but then they also are aggressive (at times) about stifling such research | ||
|
nojok
France15845 Posts
| ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
On November 12 2022 05:18 nojok wrote: If a 40/50 pages essay was enough to make a strong case in favor of what you describe, it would be all over the place given the current political climate in our Western societies... I....kinda disagree. And to the extent that it is, you're aggressively branded (and usually discredited) as a racist. Think someone like Kirkegaard. Given the current culture climate, if you want good arguments you need to read those labeled as racist, because making good arguments gets you labeled that way. We don't distinguish between "hateful, prejudiced" racism and "Non hateful guy who believes the evidence favors HBD" racism. Moreover, you attract a tremendous amount of attention from dissident right conservatives that almost nobody wants a part of because....well.....who they are. Unreasonable, often schizoid/conspiratorial in thinking, malcontent, and highly irresponsible are very common there. Regular conservatives also recoil from that one, with almost the same intensity as those on the left side of the spectrum in the US. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
| ||
