|
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 |
On December 26 2024 21:22 Magic Powers wrote:
Economics is also a social science, which makes the right-wing believers in "not-a-real-science". Just saying.
Also, the right-wing has its own fair share of other social sciences. They especially like "race science".
It was a broad statement of course some social sciences like Economics and Psychology have some validity but they are very different than the ideological drivel like gender or ethnic studies.
Curiously enough about "Race science" the left also has strong anti-scientific positions here to the point to refuese to acknowledge IQ differences between races, hell actually I perfectly remember about almost 20 years ago Drone said that even if that were true he would deny it to not give racist fuel.
As you said in your other post, people will have antiscientific positions if it goes along their ideological lines, wich is why I said most people are immune to evidence.
|
On December 27 2024 11:58 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2024 21:22 Magic Powers wrote:
Economics is also a social science, which makes the right-wing believers in "not-a-real-science". Just saying.
Also, the right-wing has its own fair share of other social sciences. They especially like "race science". It was a broad statement of course some social sciences like Economics and Psychology have some validity but they are very different than the ideological drivel like gender or ethnic studies. Curiously enough about "Race science" the left also has strong anti-scientific positions here to the point to refuese to acknowledge IQ differences between races, hell actually I perfectly remember about almost 20 years ago Drone said that even if that were true he would deny it to not give racist fuel. As you said in your other post, people will have antiscientific positions if it goes along their ideological lines, wich is why I said most people are immune to evidence.
Racial IQ differences are outdated pseudo science. The differences vanish when adjusted for socio-economic factors.
|
On December 26 2024 21:50 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Hallopathy=allopathy. I think this was true in the past (that leftists were more likely to be dismissive) but i think that has changed with the realignment of the political landscape.
I'll also grant that anti-nuclear used to be a leftist position, as the belief was (and still is) that we should rather focus on less consumption. And if you look at the 9 political parties with parliamentary representation in Norway then two of the three parties opposed to nuclear power in Norway are the two most left-wing parties, and two of the three parties that are positive (the rest answer 'uncertain') are the two most right-wing parties we have.
Key point though is that the 'anti-nuclear' parties aren't categorically opposed, want to invest more into research into thorium, want to encourage moŕe nuclear in countries where it already exists, and mostly oppose it on the grounds that norway is already self-sufficient with hydro power -the nuclear we could end up producing a decade from now would be produced with the goal of selling it to Europe. Further - the opinion on nuclear power has changed a lot over the past two decades, and younger Norwegian leftists are in my experience very positive, while some older ones still struggle with chernobyl trauma.
So I'll agree with baal that this is an area where leftists have been less up to date with the science, also agree with anti-gmo, but also state that these opinions aren't as rigidly or stupidly held as for example anti-evolution or anti climate change views held and maintained by much of the right wing.
While also giving my standard addendum that i think the left right dichotomy is quickly losing its descriptive purpose.
Agreed with pretty much everything you said, except that you think the right wing example are more stupid, you feel that way because they are more alien to you, is anti-evolution really more retarded than healing crystals? hard to say tbh.
All those years arguing with Loco and him being so anti-nuclear I wondered why would somebody who had apocaliptic beliefs about Climate change would be against what seemed the most viable solution and then I realized that as you mention is that the core driving force behind this belief is degrowth.
|
On December 27 2024 00:06 Magic Powers wrote:It's also noteworthy that left-wingers more often criticize how scientific progress is being practically applied (nuclear facilities, GMOs, etc.), whereas right-wingers more often deny the causal connections discovered by scientists (vaccines, lockdowns, etc.) E.g. regarding climate change, left-wingers tend to reject nuclear power as the stopgap part of a broader solution, whereas right-wingers tend to reject the finding that CG is man-made. Gender studies are mostly embraced by left-wingers, whereas right-wingers stand alone in their resistance. Conversion therapy (a right-wing gender pseudo-science) is also an interesting example that right-wingers embrace because they don't care about scientific validity to begin with and they also reject sexual liberation. Meanwhile left-wingers reject CT because science-based policy shouldn't obstruct social progress. Conversion therapy is an oppressive rather than liberating application, so even if it were scientifically valid (which it certainly isn't), left-wingers would reject it regardless. This is how the pro-science and anti-science divide can often be understood. Not just policies are different between the camps, also the way ideology influences policy is very different. The fundamentals of the scientific method take a beating by right-wingers, while left-wingers embrace scientific experimentation and findings but sometimes obstruct policy application based on progressivist attitudes. In both instances fear is the driving force, but it's a fear of different things. PS: this is also why both left and right embrace homeopathy. It's pseudo-science either way, but it doesn't stand in the way of social progress on the left and it plays into the belief in miracles on the right. For the people who want to read up on this: https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/09/18/left-right-share-anti-science-instincts-rooted-fears-ideological-misuse/
Yep, agreed 100%
|
On December 27 2024 01:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2024 21:50 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Hallopathy=allopathy. I think this was true in the past (that leftists were more likely to be dismissive) but i think that has changed with the realignment of the political landscape. Thanks for the clarification! I look forward to hearing baal's arguments for why he believes that the left is disproportionately against allopathy.
Bro I'ts pretty well known prerhaps you are young so you arent familiar with it but alternative medicine has always been a left wing thing, the same as how anti-government conspiracy theories have always been a right wing phenomenom, no need for me to provide sources.
|
On December 27 2024 12:07 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2024 11:58 baal wrote:On December 26 2024 21:22 Magic Powers wrote:
Economics is also a social science, which makes the right-wing believers in "not-a-real-science". Just saying.
Also, the right-wing has its own fair share of other social sciences. They especially like "race science". It was a broad statement of course some social sciences like Economics and Psychology have some validity but they are very different than the ideological drivel like gender or ethnic studies. Curiously enough about "Race science" the left also has strong anti-scientific positions here to the point to refuese to acknowledge IQ differences between races, hell actually I perfectly remember about almost 20 years ago Drone said that even if that were true he would deny it to not give racist fuel. As you said in your other post, people will have antiscientific positions if it goes along their ideological lines, wich is why I said most people are immune to evidence. Racial IQ differences are outdated pseudo science. The differences vanish when adjusted for socio-economic factors.
While socio-economic factors are a much bigger factor than race, it doesnt wipe out the the difference, for example many countries in Eastern Asia like China outscores all of Europe despise being much poorer.
This is a topic im somewhat well versed about, I've seen Nassin Taleb, a brilliant staticist, bend over backwards making every single argument conceivable against it, the statistical noise in IQ tests at above 100 points, the variance from person to person being many standard deviations more significant than race etc, all good arguments but it doesn't change the truth, but its obviously a scary subject since its such a powerful cudel for maniacs and dimwits to wield against others, but I'm not a pragmatic I believe truth above all even if we march down to hell with it.
|
On December 27 2024 12:33 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2024 12:07 Magic Powers wrote:On December 27 2024 11:58 baal wrote:On December 26 2024 21:22 Magic Powers wrote:
Economics is also a social science, which makes the right-wing believers in "not-a-real-science". Just saying.
Also, the right-wing has its own fair share of other social sciences. They especially like "race science". It was a broad statement of course some social sciences like Economics and Psychology have some validity but they are very different than the ideological drivel like gender or ethnic studies. Curiously enough about "Race science" the left also has strong anti-scientific positions here to the point to refuese to acknowledge IQ differences between races, hell actually I perfectly remember about almost 20 years ago Drone said that even if that were true he would deny it to not give racist fuel. As you said in your other post, people will have antiscientific positions if it goes along their ideological lines, wich is why I said most people are immune to evidence. Racial IQ differences are outdated pseudo science. The differences vanish when adjusted for socio-economic factors. While socio-economic factors are a much bigger factor than race, it doesnt wipe out the the difference, for example many countries in Eastern Asia like China outscores all of Europe despise being much poorer. This is a topic im somewhat well versed about, I've seen Nassin Taleb, a brilliant staticist, bend over backwards making every single argument conceivable against it, the statistical noise in IQ tests at above 100 points, the variance from person to person being many standard deviations more significant than race etc, all good arguments but it doesn't change the truth, but its obviously a scary subject since its such a powerful cudel for maniacs and dimwits to wield against others, but I'm not a pragmatic I believe truth above all even if we march down to hell with it.
The studies showing racial IQ differences are all outdated and wrong. They didn't do proper scientific testing, they were done without acknowledging key biases in testing. If you do a proper large scale study today with valid norms and standards, with all possible biases eliminated, you arrive at perfectly equal scores across all ethnicities.
|
On December 27 2024 12:15 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2024 01:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 26 2024 21:50 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Hallopathy=allopathy. I think this was true in the past (that leftists were more likely to be dismissive) but i think that has changed with the realignment of the political landscape. Thanks for the clarification! I look forward to hearing baal's arguments for why he believes that the left is disproportionately against allopathy. Bro I'ts pretty well known prerhaps you are young so you arent familiar with it but alternative medicine has always been a left wing thing, the same as how anti-government conspiracy theories have always been a right wing phenomenom, no need for me to provide sources.
"Bro", believing that alternative medicine works (which tends to be a pretty dumb take) doesn't mean you necessarily think that allopathy doesn't also work, or that Democrats disproportionately reject allopathy compared to Republicans, which was your original statement. It's certainly possible for people to think that both kinds work, and/or for Republicans and Democrats to both reject allopathic medicine at roughly equal rates, so your citation is still needed.
And when you make claims while insisting "no need for me to provide sources", then I would refer you to this statement:
On December 26 2024 12:51 baal wrote:
you are not a serious person.
It really shouldn't be that hard for you to find evidence of your claims. Or just be careful about making certain claims if you can't find anything to support them.
|
On December 27 2024 12:33 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2024 12:07 Magic Powers wrote:On December 27 2024 11:58 baal wrote:On December 26 2024 21:22 Magic Powers wrote:
Economics is also a social science, which makes the right-wing believers in "not-a-real-science". Just saying.
Also, the right-wing has its own fair share of other social sciences. They especially like "race science". It was a broad statement of course some social sciences like Economics and Psychology have some validity but they are very different than the ideological drivel like gender or ethnic studies. Curiously enough about "Race science" the left also has strong anti-scientific positions here to the point to refuese to acknowledge IQ differences between races, hell actually I perfectly remember about almost 20 years ago Drone said that even if that were true he would deny it to not give racist fuel. As you said in your other post, people will have antiscientific positions if it goes along their ideological lines, wich is why I said most people are immune to evidence. Racial IQ differences are outdated pseudo science. The differences vanish when adjusted for socio-economic factors. While socio-economic factors are a much bigger factor than race, it doesnt wipe out the the difference, for example many countries in Eastern Asia like China outscores all of Europe despise being much poorer. This is a topic im somewhat well versed about, I've seen Nassin Taleb, a brilliant staticist, bend over backwards making every single argument conceivable against it, the statistical noise in IQ tests at above 100 points, the variance from person to person being many standard deviations more significant than race etc, all good arguments but it doesn't change the truth, but its obviously a scary subject since its such a powerful cudel for maniacs and dimwits to wield against others, but I'm not a pragmatic I believe truth above all even if we march down to hell with it.
How do you decide what is true?
For example, here are 12 sources that disagree with you:
"Although IQ differences between individuals have been shown to have a large hereditary component, it does not follow that mean group-level disparities (between-group differences) in IQ necessarily have a genetic basis.[140][141] The scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups.[142][143][144][145][141][146][147][148][60] Growing evidence indicates that environmental factors, not genetic ones, explain the racial IQ gap.[39][141][149][146]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence
That Wiki article, with hundreds of sources, states "Today, the scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain differences in IQ test performance between groups, and that observed differences are environmental in origin."
Could you please post evidence for your differing opinion? Please don't say "no need for me to provide sources" like you tried last time. Also, further elaboration would be helpful, such as how significant do you think the IQ differences between races are, and between which races. Obviously, there's a big difference between you suggesting that two specific races differ by 3 points (due solely to race) vs. you suggesting that two specific races differ by 20 points (due solely to race). You said that the Chinese outscore Europeans... by how much, and how do you know how much of that is purely due to race?
|
When you say 'Alternative medicine' the first things that come to mind are snake oil salesmen and grandma's time-honored cure for a cold. Neither of those scream "Holy shit lookout its a leftist" in my head. Grandma is mega conservative. She'd probably be down for some crystal healing, but she'd definitely be very conscious about not forming a complete rainbow, because then she'd become gay instantly and god would banish her to hell.
|
On December 27 2024 12:15 baal wrote:
alternative medicine has always been a left wing thing
Interesting that you say that. Let me look at the post you wrote right before this one.
On December 27 2024 12:12 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2024 00:06 Magic Powers wrote:
PS: this is also why both left and right embrace homeopathy. It's pseudo-science either way, but it doesn't stand in the way of social progress on the left and it plays into the belief in miracles on the right. Yep, agreed 100%
So much for it always being a left wing thing, I guess.
|
Norway28724 Posts
On December 27 2024 11:58 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2024 21:22 Magic Powers wrote:
Economics is also a social science, which makes the right-wing believers in "not-a-real-science". Just saying.
Also, the right-wing has its own fair share of other social sciences. They especially like "race science". It was a broad statement of course some social sciences like Economics and Psychology have some validity but they are very different than the ideological drivel like gender or ethnic studies. Curiously enough about "Race science" the left also has strong anti-scientific positions here to the point to refuese to acknowledge IQ differences between races, hell actually I perfectly remember about almost 20 years ago Drone said that even if that were true he would deny it to not give racist fuel. As you said in your other post, people will have antiscientific positions if it goes along their ideological lines, wich is why I said most people are immune to evidence.
Rofl no you don't. My memory is evidently way better than yours, because firstly this was like 10 years ago tops and secondly I corrected your claim that I had said this even then. Curiously you seemed to accept it back then (you weren't able to produce a quote) so I'm dumbfounded to see you repeat it.
|
On December 27 2024 16:25 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2024 11:58 baal wrote:On December 26 2024 21:22 Magic Powers wrote:
Economics is also a social science, which makes the right-wing believers in "not-a-real-science". Just saying.
Also, the right-wing has its own fair share of other social sciences. They especially like "race science". It was a broad statement of course some social sciences like Economics and Psychology have some validity but they are very different than the ideological drivel like gender or ethnic studies. Curiously enough about "Race science" the left also has strong anti-scientific positions here to the point to refuese to acknowledge IQ differences between races, hell actually I perfectly remember about almost 20 years ago Drone said that even if that were true he would deny it to not give racist fuel. As you said in your other post, people will have antiscientific positions if it goes along their ideological lines, wich is why I said most people are immune to evidence. Rofl no you don't. My memory is evidently way better than yours, because firstly this was like 10 years ago tops and secondly I corrected your claim that I had said this even then. Curiously you seemed to accept it back then (you weren't able to produce a quote) so I'm dumbfounded to see you repeat it.
The last time it was brought up baal even agreed with you
On July 06 2019 19:41 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2019 10:57 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I remember years ago Drone said to me that even if it was a fact he would deny that black people had a lower IQ than whites, and I disagreed with that position even if its one of the main talking points of the most dangerous strain of fascists, maybe I just dogmatically believe in truth and I don't fear fascists as much as you guys do.
I didn't really say that I would deny it, more that this isn't 'good' knowledge. Like there are some people who think 'all knowledge is good by default, only by misapplication can it be bad', but my opinion here is more that if this were real, it would be a piece of knowledge with no positive and a lot of very bad potential utility. And for that reason I'm negative towards say, doing research aimed to showcase different intellectual potential of different 'races'. Basically I disagree with the idea of knowledge being apolitical. (Some is, but in most cases our knowledge isn't sufficiently certain for personal interpretation to take no part in the formation or dissemination of it. ) But I do think this is an interesting and difficult discussion. Then we agree and that information must be used very carefully but never denied, it can lead to bad situations for example in the subject of gender equality many will deny natural gender preferences in the pursuit of equal representation, and social engineering while blindfolded by dogma is going to cause serious problems.
|
On December 27 2024 19:21 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2024 16:25 Liquid`Drone wrote:On December 27 2024 11:58 baal wrote:On December 26 2024 21:22 Magic Powers wrote:
Economics is also a social science, which makes the right-wing believers in "not-a-real-science". Just saying.
Also, the right-wing has its own fair share of other social sciences. They especially like "race science". It was a broad statement of course some social sciences like Economics and Psychology have some validity but they are very different than the ideological drivel like gender or ethnic studies. Curiously enough about "Race science" the left also has strong anti-scientific positions here to the point to refuese to acknowledge IQ differences between races, hell actually I perfectly remember about almost 20 years ago Drone said that even if that were true he would deny it to not give racist fuel. As you said in your other post, people will have antiscientific positions if it goes along their ideological lines, wich is why I said most people are immune to evidence. Rofl no you don't. My memory is evidently way better than yours, because firstly this was like 10 years ago tops and secondly I corrected your claim that I had said this even then. Curiously you seemed to accept it back then (you weren't able to produce a quote) so I'm dumbfounded to see you repeat it. The last time it was brought up baal even agreed with you Show nested quote +On July 06 2019 19:41 baal wrote:On July 06 2019 10:57 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I remember years ago Drone said to me that even if it was a fact he would deny that black people had a lower IQ than whites, and I disagreed with that position even if its one of the main talking points of the most dangerous strain of fascists, maybe I just dogmatically believe in truth and I don't fear fascists as much as you guys do.
I didn't really say that I would deny it, more that this isn't 'good' knowledge. Like there are some people who think 'all knowledge is good by default, only by misapplication can it be bad', but my opinion here is more that if this were real, it would be a piece of knowledge with no positive and a lot of very bad potential utility. And for that reason I'm negative towards say, doing research aimed to showcase different intellectual potential of different 'races'. Basically I disagree with the idea of knowledge being apolitical. (Some is, but in most cases our knowledge isn't sufficiently certain for personal interpretation to take no part in the formation or dissemination of it. ) But I do think this is an interesting and difficult discussion. Then we agree and that information must be used very carefully but never denied, it can lead to bad situations for example in the subject of gender equality many will deny natural gender preferences in the pursuit of equal representation, and social engineering while blindfolded by dogma is going to cause serious problems.
Quick aside, as I have a really stupid question: How did you find that post of baal's? When I want to see someone's posting history, I always just click "Profile" next to a TL user's name, and then I click their underlined number of TL posts in their profile, which (I had always assumed) gives all of their posts, starting with the most recent ones. When I do that with baal, I see zero posts between his silly May 2nd, 2010 post saying "evidence? lol i am not even stating anything here dumbass... seriously somebody stab him, quick before he breeds!" and his even sillier December 11th, 2024 post where he just posted a meme/GIF and got warned. I see no posting activity of baal's in between those two dates, yet you were able to dig up a post of his from 2019. Was that post from an alternate username of his or something?
|
On December 27 2024 20:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2024 19:21 BlackJack wrote:On December 27 2024 16:25 Liquid`Drone wrote:On December 27 2024 11:58 baal wrote:On December 26 2024 21:22 Magic Powers wrote:
Economics is also a social science, which makes the right-wing believers in "not-a-real-science". Just saying.
Also, the right-wing has its own fair share of other social sciences. They especially like "race science". It was a broad statement of course some social sciences like Economics and Psychology have some validity but they are very different than the ideological drivel like gender or ethnic studies. Curiously enough about "Race science" the left also has strong anti-scientific positions here to the point to refuese to acknowledge IQ differences between races, hell actually I perfectly remember about almost 20 years ago Drone said that even if that were true he would deny it to not give racist fuel. As you said in your other post, people will have antiscientific positions if it goes along their ideological lines, wich is why I said most people are immune to evidence. Rofl no you don't. My memory is evidently way better than yours, because firstly this was like 10 years ago tops and secondly I corrected your claim that I had said this even then. Curiously you seemed to accept it back then (you weren't able to produce a quote) so I'm dumbfounded to see you repeat it. The last time it was brought up baal even agreed with you On July 06 2019 19:41 baal wrote:On July 06 2019 10:57 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I remember years ago Drone said to me that even if it was a fact he would deny that black people had a lower IQ than whites, and I disagreed with that position even if its one of the main talking points of the most dangerous strain of fascists, maybe I just dogmatically believe in truth and I don't fear fascists as much as you guys do.
I didn't really say that I would deny it, more that this isn't 'good' knowledge. Like there are some people who think 'all knowledge is good by default, only by misapplication can it be bad', but my opinion here is more that if this were real, it would be a piece of knowledge with no positive and a lot of very bad potential utility. And for that reason I'm negative towards say, doing research aimed to showcase different intellectual potential of different 'races'. Basically I disagree with the idea of knowledge being apolitical. (Some is, but in most cases our knowledge isn't sufficiently certain for personal interpretation to take no part in the formation or dissemination of it. ) But I do think this is an interesting and difficult discussion. Then we agree and that information must be used very carefully but never denied, it can lead to bad situations for example in the subject of gender equality many will deny natural gender preferences in the pursuit of equal representation, and social engineering while blindfolded by dogma is going to cause serious problems. Quick aside, as I have a really stupid question: How did you find that post of baal's? When I want to see someone's posting history, I always just click "Profile" next to a TL user's name, and then I click their underlined number of TL posts in their profile, which (I had always assumed) gives all of their posts, starting with the most recent ones. When I do that with baal, I see zero posts between his silly May 2nd, 2010 post saying "evidence? lol i am not even stating anything here dumbass... seriously somebody stab him, quick before he breeds!" and his even sillier December 11th, 2024 post where he just posted a meme/GIF and got warned. I see no posting activity of baal's in between those two dates, yet you were able to dig up a post of his from 2019. Was that post from an alternate username of his or something?
The post was from a different website. Team Liquid's more or less defunct poker site that baal and Drone were active on
|
On December 27 2024 20:17 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2024 20:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 27 2024 19:21 BlackJack wrote:On December 27 2024 16:25 Liquid`Drone wrote:On December 27 2024 11:58 baal wrote:On December 26 2024 21:22 Magic Powers wrote:
Economics is also a social science, which makes the right-wing believers in "not-a-real-science". Just saying.
Also, the right-wing has its own fair share of other social sciences. They especially like "race science". It was a broad statement of course some social sciences like Economics and Psychology have some validity but they are very different than the ideological drivel like gender or ethnic studies. Curiously enough about "Race science" the left also has strong anti-scientific positions here to the point to refuese to acknowledge IQ differences between races, hell actually I perfectly remember about almost 20 years ago Drone said that even if that were true he would deny it to not give racist fuel. As you said in your other post, people will have antiscientific positions if it goes along their ideological lines, wich is why I said most people are immune to evidence. Rofl no you don't. My memory is evidently way better than yours, because firstly this was like 10 years ago tops and secondly I corrected your claim that I had said this even then. Curiously you seemed to accept it back then (you weren't able to produce a quote) so I'm dumbfounded to see you repeat it. The last time it was brought up baal even agreed with you On July 06 2019 19:41 baal wrote:On July 06 2019 10:57 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I remember years ago Drone said to me that even if it was a fact he would deny that black people had a lower IQ than whites, and I disagreed with that position even if its one of the main talking points of the most dangerous strain of fascists, maybe I just dogmatically believe in truth and I don't fear fascists as much as you guys do.
I didn't really say that I would deny it, more that this isn't 'good' knowledge. Like there are some people who think 'all knowledge is good by default, only by misapplication can it be bad', but my opinion here is more that if this were real, it would be a piece of knowledge with no positive and a lot of very bad potential utility. And for that reason I'm negative towards say, doing research aimed to showcase different intellectual potential of different 'races'. Basically I disagree with the idea of knowledge being apolitical. (Some is, but in most cases our knowledge isn't sufficiently certain for personal interpretation to take no part in the formation or dissemination of it. ) But I do think this is an interesting and difficult discussion. Then we agree and that information must be used very carefully but never denied, it can lead to bad situations for example in the subject of gender equality many will deny natural gender preferences in the pursuit of equal representation, and social engineering while blindfolded by dogma is going to cause serious problems. Quick aside, as I have a really stupid question: How did you find that post of baal's? When I want to see someone's posting history, I always just click "Profile" next to a TL user's name, and then I click their underlined number of TL posts in their profile, which (I had always assumed) gives all of their posts, starting with the most recent ones. When I do that with baal, I see zero posts between his silly May 2nd, 2010 post saying "evidence? lol i am not even stating anything here dumbass... seriously somebody stab him, quick before he breeds!" and his even sillier December 11th, 2024 post where he just posted a meme/GIF and got warned. I see no posting activity of baal's in between those two dates, yet you were able to dig up a post of his from 2019. Was that post from an alternate username of his or something? The post was from a different website. Team Liquid's more or less defunct poker site that baal and Drone were active on
Ah okay, thanks!
|
Northern Ireland26220 Posts
On December 27 2024 13:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2024 12:33 baal wrote:On December 27 2024 12:07 Magic Powers wrote:On December 27 2024 11:58 baal wrote:On December 26 2024 21:22 Magic Powers wrote:
Economics is also a social science, which makes the right-wing believers in "not-a-real-science". Just saying.
Also, the right-wing has its own fair share of other social sciences. They especially like "race science". It was a broad statement of course some social sciences like Economics and Psychology have some validity but they are very different than the ideological drivel like gender or ethnic studies. Curiously enough about "Race science" the left also has strong anti-scientific positions here to the point to refuese to acknowledge IQ differences between races, hell actually I perfectly remember about almost 20 years ago Drone said that even if that were true he would deny it to not give racist fuel. As you said in your other post, people will have antiscientific positions if it goes along their ideological lines, wich is why I said most people are immune to evidence. Racial IQ differences are outdated pseudo science. The differences vanish when adjusted for socio-economic factors. While socio-economic factors are a much bigger factor than race, it doesnt wipe out the the difference, for example many countries in Eastern Asia like China outscores all of Europe despise being much poorer. This is a topic im somewhat well versed about, I've seen Nassin Taleb, a brilliant staticist, bend over backwards making every single argument conceivable against it, the statistical noise in IQ tests at above 100 points, the variance from person to person being many standard deviations more significant than race etc, all good arguments but it doesn't change the truth, but its obviously a scary subject since its such a powerful cudel for maniacs and dimwits to wield against others, but I'm not a pragmatic I believe truth above all even if we march down to hell with it. How do you decide what is true? For example, here are 12 sources that disagree with you: "Although IQ differences between individuals have been shown to have a large hereditary component, it does not follow that mean group-level disparities (between-group differences) in IQ necessarily have a genetic basis.[140][141] The scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups.[142][143][144][145][141][146][147][148][60] Growing evidence indicates that environmental factors, not genetic ones, explain the racial IQ gap.[39][141][149][146]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence That Wiki article, with hundreds of sources, states "Today, the scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain differences in IQ test performance between groups, and that observed differences are environmental in origin." Could you please post evidence for your differing opinion? Please don't say "no need for me to provide sources" like you tried last time. Also, further elaboration would be helpful, such as how significant do you think the IQ differences between races are, and between which races. Obviously, there's a big difference between you suggesting that two specific races differ by 3 points (due solely to race) vs. you suggesting that two specific races differ by 20 points (due solely to race). You said that the Chinese outscore Europeans... by how much, and how do you know how much of that is purely due to race?
I think a wider issue there is racial categorisation to begin with, and as understanding of genetics improved, it exposed them as rather crude and arbitrary groupings.
So ‘race science’ is really just mashing up some elements of science atop of more culturally defined categories. Then using IQ tests as your measurement, which isn’t without value as some claim, but neither is it more than a crude approximation of measuring the totality of human intelligence.
Proponents of such analysis often, albeit not always tend to be quite scathing about the social, or ‘soft’ sciences, but this entire sub-realm fits very neatly into that tradition much more than in observable mechanistic empiricism.
|
I think most people would accept that there is a genetic component to intelligence. They would also accept that there are genetic differences between racial groups. Combining those 2 ideas is out of the question. Magic Powers seems quite certain that any measured differences in IQ between racial groups is 100% environmental. He has also said in the past that he believes anyone with transgenderism was simply born that way. Most things are some combination of nature and nurture, but obviously not these 2 things. I suspect these beliefs are not founded in robust evidence but instead simply from working backwards from the answer that is most convenient.
|
On December 28 2024 14:02 BlackJack wrote:
I think most people would accept that there is a genetic component to intelligence. They would also accept that there are genetic differences between racial groups. Combining those 2 ideas is out of the question. Magic Powers seems quite certain that any measured differences in IQ between racial groups is 100% environmental. He has also said in the past that he believes anyone with transgenderism was simply born that way. Most things are some combination of nature and nurture, but obviously not these 2 things. I suspect these beliefs are not founded in robust evidence but instead simply from working backwards from the answer that is most convenient.
Just because there's a genetic component to intelligence doesn't necessarily mean there's a racial component to intelligence, right? Since plenty of genetics aren't specific to one's race, right?
|
United States43338 Posts
Human races aren’t like dog breeds is the issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
