4 ms·

Genetic, "wide" social or "close" social (family), I see no such claim being made, and if anyone were to make that claim, I think that they have no good foundat

Genetic, "wide" social or "close" social (family), I see no such claim being made, and if anyone were to make that claim, I think that they have no good foundation to base it on. Asift made this claim and you asserted it was false. What evidence (if any) would cause you to believe it to be true? Even if that were true, I see no claim that they cannot change, so I don't see why the cause matters. The cause matters because it affects potential solutions. If the cause of a mobility difference between the US and Sweden is economic, then the fix is probably adopting the Swedish economic system (e.g., privatizing education and adopting their sane corporate tax system). If the cause is genetic then the solution would be adopting Swedish genetics by removing from the gene pool anyone of non-Nordic descent. If the cause were close social then the solution would be preventing poor people from transmitting their harmful values and behaviors to their children. Hypothetically, suppose I could provide adequate evidence (as per my prior question) that Ashkenazi Jews have superior intelligence and other hereditary advantages that cause them to occupy disproportionate chunks of the top rungs of society (thereby lowering mobility). Asift and myself would oppose changing this since the only solutions are violent. If one doesn't eliminate violence as a possible solution, what new avenues open up for us to solve this "Jewish problem"?

pron 11y ago
> What evidence (if any) would cause you to believe it to be true? I said: any strong evidence that no human action could improve the poor's fortunes. I doubt such evidence could be found, though. First, equality has improved a lot due to human action, so the claim needs to be "but where we are now is as good as it gets", which sounds suspiciously convenient (especially as the people making that claim believe that almost everything else can be greatly improved, and their claim is usually based on no study at all of human society, so not understanding how change has been achieved so far makes the claim that we can't take it further even more suspect). Second, we are now able to stay underwater or in space, and to fly over oceans -- things we are genetically less inclined to do -- so I seriously doubt human ingenuity stops when it comes to equality. The question is how far should we work towards equality, but that is a question of values, again. > The cause matters because it affects potential solutions. Of course, but we're not arguing about solutions but about whether solutions need to be sought at all. > Asift and myself would oppose changing this, since the only solutions are violent and we both seem to prefer low violence to high mobility. If one doesn't oppose violence, what violent solutions to this hypothetical Jewish problem are acceptable? I, too, would oppose a violent solution, and not only for egotistical reasons, but your example is a non-sequitur. In order for this problem to be a problem at all, you'll need to show that it is in fact a major cause for lowered mobility. Second, I don't see what violence has to do with it. Your entire argument sounds like, "I need to get to the top floor of that building, but as someone opposed to violence I wouldn't kill everyone in the street and climb the nice incline of the pile of bodies to get to the top; how does one who isn't categorically opposed to violence suggest to get up there?" Why, she might just take the elevator. In other words, why would you even think that the only solution to inequality is violence?
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  I said: any strong evidence that no human action could improve the poor's fortunes. That's not an answer, it's just a tautology. "Anything that meets the criteria of the question you asked" is not an answer. I'm asking for specific measurements. E.g., "data showing that holding economics constant, certain groups wildly underperform". Of course, if your views are faith based then no such measurement exists. Given how carefully you avoid stating such a measurement, this is my belief. I, too, would oppose a violent solution, and not only for egotistical reasons, but your example is a non-sequitur. A hypothetical designed to probe the limits of your morality is hardly a non-sequitur. Similarly, the trolley problem probably never literally happened in real life. That doesn't mean it's a non-sequitur to ask. Anyway, good to know that there is little in this discussion beyond assertions of faith and dodging the core questions. Have fun.
  - pron 11y ago
    > I'm asking for specific measurements. E.g., "data showing that holding economics constant, certain groups wildly underperform". I don't understand. What measurement would have convinced you that it is impossible for humans to cross the Atlantic in under a day? You're making an impossibility claim and ask me to come with a measurement to verify it. I guess I could come up with a very long and boring series of experiments, each invalidating a possible approach, but nothing that you couldn't think of yourself. > Of course, if your views are faith based then no such measurement exists. Both of our views are largely based on values (although mine is augmented by study) but the difficulty of proving an impossibility result is not a consequence of that. Also, I'm not sure why you choose to call values "faith". Not that I mind, but "value" is the familiar philosophical (and psychological) term that is most apt here. > Anyway, good to know that there is little in this discussion beyond assertions of faith and dodging the core questions. As someone who implies that his views are based on measurements, you seem strangely incapable of listening and processing new input. Remember, valuable input does not have to be raw data, if, for example, it points out that your mathematical reasoning is based on unfounded assumptions. You don't "know" what you have just said any more than you did before joining the conversation. You pre-supposed that, and then didn't try to understand what I was saying. Which goes to show that mere observation doesn't change any conclusion if it is never processed by the observer. How do you expect to have an interesting conversation if you don't make the effort to understand what the other side is actually saying? Aren't you even curious to see whether you could come up with good arguments to counter the other side's actual arguments? It's OK to accidentally talk past one another because of a misunderstanding, but it seems like you're making a conscious effort to not understand what people are saying (and not just me), and then respond to your own made-up distortion by ridiculing that made-up position. What's the point?

pron 11y ago

> What evidence (if any) would cause you to believe it to be true? I said: any strong evidence that no human action could improve the poor's fortunes. I doubt such evidence could be found, though. First, equality has improved a lot due to human action, so the claim needs to be "but where we are now is as good as it gets", which sounds suspiciously convenient (especially as the people making that claim believe that almost everything else can be greatly improved, and their claim is usually based on no study at all of human society, so not understanding how change has been achieved so far makes the claim that we can't take it further even more suspect). Second, we are now able to stay underwater or in space, and to fly over oceans -- things we are genetically less inclined to do -- so I seriously doubt human ingenuity stops when it comes to equality. The question is how far should we work towards equality, but that is a question of values, again. > The cause matters because it affects potential solutions. Of course, but we're not arguing about solutions but about whether solutions need to be sought at all. > Asift and myself would oppose changing this, since the only solutions are violent and we both seem to prefer low violence to high mobility. If one doesn't oppose violence, what violent solutions to this hypothetical Jewish problem are acceptable? I, too, would oppose a violent solution, and not only for egotistical reasons, but your example is a non-sequitur. In order for this problem to be a problem at all, you'll need to show that it is in fact a major cause for lowered mobility. Second, I don't see what violence has to do with it. Your entire argument sounds like, "I need to get to the top floor of that building, but as someone opposed to violence I wouldn't kill everyone in the street and climb the nice incline of the pile of bodies to get to the top; how does one who isn't categorically opposed to violence suggest to get up there?" Why, she might just take the elevator. In other words, why would you even think that the only solution to inequality is violence?

yummyfajitas 11y ago
I said: any strong evidence that no human action could improve the poor's fortunes. That's not an answer, it's just a tautology. "Anything that meets the criteria of the question you asked" is not an answer. I'm asking for specific measurements. E.g., "data showing that holding economics constant, certain groups wildly underperform". Of course, if your views are faith based then no such measurement exists. Given how carefully you avoid stating such a measurement, this is my belief. I, too, would oppose a violent solution, and not only for egotistical reasons, but your example is a non-sequitur. A hypothetical designed to probe the limits of your morality is hardly a non-sequitur. Similarly, the trolley problem probably never literally happened in real life. That doesn't mean it's a non-sequitur to ask. Anyway, good to know that there is little in this discussion beyond assertions of faith and dodging the core questions. Have fun.
- pron 11y ago
  > I'm asking for specific measurements. E.g., "data showing that holding economics constant, certain groups wildly underperform". I don't understand. What measurement would have convinced you that it is impossible for humans to cross the Atlantic in under a day? You're making an impossibility claim and ask me to come with a measurement to verify it. I guess I could come up with a very long and boring series of experiments, each invalidating a possible approach, but nothing that you couldn't think of yourself. > Of course, if your views are faith based then no such measurement exists. Both of our views are largely based on values (although mine is augmented by study) but the difficulty of proving an impossibility result is not a consequence of that. Also, I'm not sure why you choose to call values "faith". Not that I mind, but "value" is the familiar philosophical (and psychological) term that is most apt here. > Anyway, good to know that there is little in this discussion beyond assertions of faith and dodging the core questions. As someone who implies that his views are based on measurements, you seem strangely incapable of listening and processing new input. Remember, valuable input does not have to be raw data, if, for example, it points out that your mathematical reasoning is based on unfounded assumptions. You don't "know" what you have just said any more than you did before joining the conversation. You pre-supposed that, and then didn't try to understand what I was saying. Which goes to show that mere observation doesn't change any conclusion if it is never processed by the observer. How do you expect to have an interesting conversation if you don't make the effort to understand what the other side is actually saying? Aren't you even curious to see whether you could come up with good arguments to counter the other side's actual arguments? It's OK to accidentally talk past one another because of a misunderstanding, but it seems like you're making a conscious effort to not understand what people are saying (and not just me), and then respond to your own made-up distortion by ridiculing that made-up position. What's the point?