6 ms·

Yes, when I choose to date a woman (in part because of her beauty), I consider her my social equal. I also believe beauty gains a woman status and influence. Do

Yes, when I choose to date a woman (in part because of her beauty), I consider her my social equal. I also believe beauty gains a woman status and influence. Do you disagree with these two claims? (In fact, I consider beauty to be one of the most underappreciated virtues in the modern world. As a weird tangent, one of the major things I prefer about NYC to Bombay is how NYC weights beauty over wealth.) I'm beginning to think that what you call "scientific racism" is what I'd simply call "science" applied to humans. Do you believe it differs? If so, how? I suspect that question will be dodged. I suspect you are using the term "scientific racism" rather than "science" in order to create equivalence between scientists and "hate groups", and imply I feel hatred towards some group. That's definitely an implication I object to. So if you want to follow up with a question of whether or not you're a Jewish supremacist, you can spare it. I've read it all in 100+-year-old books. As I suspected, all possible viewpoints I might hold result in you believing I'm a white supremacist. Have fun with the highbrow dismissal and vague hints that some uncited authority supports your views.

pron 10y ago
> when I choose to date a woman (in part because of her beauty), I consider her my social equal. I also believe beauty gains a woman status and influence. Do you disagree with these two claims? I have no idea whether you consider the women you date to be your social equal or not -- it is none of my business -- but I don't think it is necessarily the case that every man (or woman) considers their romantic partners their social equal. As to the other claim, I wholeheartedly disagree. There is no question that beauty is a source of power. But you'd need to be blind to think that it is a greater source of power in our society than other qualities. Note, also, how beautiful women are often brought down (just a pretty face etc.), whereas powerful men are not discussed in the same way (nah, he's just an ugly billionaire). > I'm beginning to think that what you call "scientific racism" is what I'd simply call "science" applied to humans. Do you believe it differs? If so, how? What "I call" scientific racism is what is known by historians as scientific racism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism. The difference (aside from question of whether actual science is involved or not) is the following: Just to be sure, first of all let me say that I do not believe (based on the evidence at hand) that scientific-racist claims have any merit whatsoever, and based on the history I studied, I am quite certain that even if there were some truth to them, the effect size is negligible compared to social effects. But, for the sake of argument (although it makes me sick to my stomach), let’s suppose that scientific-racism’s claims are absolutely true. There is a crucial distinction to be made between the veracity of a claim and the importance of discussing it. There’s a parable (by Kierkegaard, I think) about a man who escapes from an insane asylum and, determined not to be sent back, decides to appear sane by only saying true statements. To everyone he meets, he says, "The earth is round. The earth is round," which, naturally, gets him sent back. Or consider Trump’s statement about Carly Fiorina’s looks. I think most people would agree that the important question about the event is not whether Fiorina is actually ugly or not, but why Trump saw the need to make that statement, regardless of its empirical truth. Often, finding the need to say something tells more about the speaker than about the object of the statement. In Trump’s case, it was an expression of how he thinks women should be valued. Given the treatment of, say, blacks in the US, the question of whether and by how much blacks are innately stupider than whites is completely uninteresting to me. What is interesting to me is why some people think the question of their innate abilities is so important to merit discussion and/or investigation at this point in time. After all, there is much to be done to treat people more fairly and with more dignity even before getting to the question of their innate worth. Once all people are treated with the dignity they deserve, we can try addressing every person's individual abilities. We've invented technological solutions to short-sightedness; maybe we can find technological solutions to stupidity, too. So to answer your question: scientific racism often has motivations that are completely different from those behind most science. Expecting your next question, let me say that the reason racism and sexism are studied collectively yet innate abilities should be studied at the individual level -- putting aside the obvious answer of respective effect size and variability -- is this: it has been found as conclusively as anything in social science, that many social forces are best studied collectively, just as gas molecules are; that's just how they work. > in you believing I'm a white supremacist. I honestly don't understand this. I don't believe you're a white supremacist; I don't know you personally at all! You just keep claiming to be a white supremacist, maybe not using those exact words, but by repeating textbook scientific racism claims. I could insist not to be a billionaire, only to have a billion dollars in my bank account, and to talk about "your definition of billionaire". Scientific racism has a pretty well accepted definition, and your well publicized views coincide with it well. > highbrow dismissal and vague hints that some uncited authority supports your views. What views? That you're repeating classic scientific racism claims? The Wikipedia page has dozens of relevant references. Also, I don't understand your point about "highbrow dismissal". If I were to tell you "just use logic! Quantum mechanics can't possibly be true!" would your educated response be considered highbrow dismissal?
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  But, for the sake of argument (although it makes me sick to my stomach)... Given this strong emotional motivation, do you really think you can objectively evaluate the truth of these claims without bias? I certainly don't. So to answer your question: scientific racism often has motivations that are completely different from those behind most science. Juxtaposing this with your term "hate group", I assume you mean the motivation is some sort of collectivist hatred or other negative feelings? In that case, it's pretty clear that you intend this to be a mere ad-hominem attack. You simply refuse to acknowledge the possibility that a person might hold certain positive beliefs without also holding certain normative beliefs. Essentially: "Anyone who believes in evolution must therefore worship the devil. The church opposes both of these things!" Have fun with that. If you ever want to understand the world better, consider the possibility that atheists are not necessarily satanists.
  - pron 10y ago
    > do you really think you can objectively evaluate the truth of these claims without bias? Yes, more or less, just as many kinds of professionals are required to do the same. But regardless, my entire point is that the truth of these claims is the least important thing about them, just as the interesting question about a wager between two college students of whether a vagrant would shit his pants or not when they set him on fire is not which of them was right. > I assume you mean the motivation is some sort of collectivist hatred or other negative feeling I did not study psychology but history, and I'm not interested in feelings but in the distribution of power. Yes, the motivation is to justify and perpetuate a distribution of power that's favorable to the groups where those ideas are found. > In that case, it's pretty clear that you intend this to be a mere ad-hominem attack. You simply refuse to acknowledge the possibility that a person might hold certain positive beliefs without also holding certain normative beliefs. Not at all. When discussing the history of ideas we do not attempt to track every single person's motivations, just as I don't suppose you "refuse to acknowledge the possibility" of some black woman being smarter than some Asian man. Your beliefs -- as I hope you know -- are not only not unique at this point in time, they echo almost precisely very old and well studied ones, and thus can be and indeed have been discussed in general without attributing anything to you personally. Even in proper science (leaving aside the question of whether a certain strain of scientific racism qualifies as such or not), researchers often discuss why they're interested in a specific question (and need to justify the importance of their research in order receive grants). So the question of what motivates certain people to be interested in studying and publicly writing about any scientific topic is not only reasonable and pertinent, but a fairly common one. Even on a personal level, a scientist often needs to answer it to herself and to others. Also, I am absolutely not attacking you, but merely pointing out that the name of the school of thought your beliefs (in this context) belong to is scientific racism. Perhaps now that you know what your philosophy is called, you can more easily find academic discussions about it if you are interested in learning more. But just as I wouldn't be able to fairly say, "people here are call me names like billionaire", after telling them I have billions in the bank regardless of my personal feelings towards the name, I don't think you get to say that people "call you racist" when it is you who present yourself as such (and not in any subtle way, or one that's open to interpretation), even though it turns out that you don't like the title.

pron 10y ago

> when I choose to date a woman (in part because of her beauty), I consider her my social equal. I also believe beauty gains a woman status and influence. Do you disagree with these two claims? I have no idea whether you consider the women you date to be your social equal or not -- it is none of my business -- but I don't think it is necessarily the case that every man (or woman) considers their romantic partners their social equal. As to the other claim, I wholeheartedly disagree. There is no question that beauty is a source of power. But you'd need to be blind to think that it is a greater source of power in our society than other qualities. Note, also, how beautiful women are often brought down (just a pretty face etc.), whereas powerful men are not discussed in the same way (nah, he's just an ugly billionaire). > I'm beginning to think that what you call "scientific racism" is what I'd simply call "science" applied to humans. Do you believe it differs? If so, how? What "I call" scientific racism is what is known by historians as scientific racism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism. The difference (aside from question of whether actual science is involved or not) is the following: Just to be sure, first of all let me say that I do not believe (based on the evidence at hand) that scientific-racist claims have any merit whatsoever, and based on the history I studied, I am quite certain that even if there were some truth to them, the effect size is negligible compared to social effects. But, for the sake of argument (although it makes me sick to my stomach), let’s suppose that scientific-racism’s claims are absolutely true. There is a crucial distinction to be made between the veracity of a claim and the importance of discussing it. There’s a parable (by Kierkegaard, I think) about a man who escapes from an insane asylum and, determined not to be sent back, decides to appear sane by only saying true statements. To everyone he meets, he says, "The earth is round. The earth is round," which, naturally, gets him sent back. Or consider Trump’s statement about Carly Fiorina’s looks. I think most people would agree that the important question about the event is not whether Fiorina is actually ugly or not, but why Trump saw the need to make that statement, regardless of its empirical truth. Often, finding the need to say something tells more about the speaker than about the object of the statement. In Trump’s case, it was an expression of how he thinks women should be valued. Given the treatment of, say, blacks in the US, the question of whether and by how much blacks are innately stupider than whites is completely uninteresting to me. What is interesting to me is why some people think the question of their innate abilities is so important to merit discussion and/or investigation at this point in time. After all, there is much to be done to treat people more fairly and with more dignity even before getting to the question of their innate worth. Once all people are treated with the dignity they deserve, we can try addressing every person's individual abilities. We've invented technological solutions to short-sightedness; maybe we can find technological solutions to stupidity, too. So to answer your question: scientific racism often has motivations that are completely different from those behind most science. Expecting your next question, let me say that the reason racism and sexism are studied collectively yet innate abilities should be studied at the individual level -- putting aside the obvious answer of respective effect size and variability -- is this: it has been found as conclusively as anything in social science, that many social forces are best studied collectively, just as gas molecules are; that's just how they work. > in you believing I'm a white supremacist. I honestly don't understand this. I don't believe you're a white supremacist; I don't know you personally at all! You just keep claiming to be a white supremacist, maybe not using those exact words, but by repeating textbook scientific racism claims. I could insist not to be a billionaire, only to have a billion dollars in my bank account, and to talk about "your definition of billionaire". Scientific racism has a pretty well accepted definition, and your well publicized views coincide with it well. > highbrow dismissal and vague hints that some uncited authority supports your views. What views? That you're repeating classic scientific racism claims? The Wikipedia page has dozens of relevant references. Also, I don't understand your point about "highbrow dismissal". If I were to tell you "just use logic! Quantum mechanics can't possibly be true!" would your educated response be considered highbrow dismissal?

yummyfajitas 10y ago
But, for the sake of argument (although it makes me sick to my stomach)... Given this strong emotional motivation, do you really think you can objectively evaluate the truth of these claims without bias? I certainly don't. So to answer your question: scientific racism often has motivations that are completely different from those behind most science. Juxtaposing this with your term "hate group", I assume you mean the motivation is some sort of collectivist hatred or other negative feelings? In that case, it's pretty clear that you intend this to be a mere ad-hominem attack. You simply refuse to acknowledge the possibility that a person might hold certain positive beliefs without also holding certain normative beliefs. Essentially: "Anyone who believes in evolution must therefore worship the devil. The church opposes both of these things!" Have fun with that. If you ever want to understand the world better, consider the possibility that atheists are not necessarily satanists.
- pron 10y ago
  > do you really think you can objectively evaluate the truth of these claims without bias? Yes, more or less, just as many kinds of professionals are required to do the same. But regardless, my entire point is that the truth of these claims is the least important thing about them, just as the interesting question about a wager between two college students of whether a vagrant would shit his pants or not when they set him on fire is not which of them was right. > I assume you mean the motivation is some sort of collectivist hatred or other negative feeling I did not study psychology but history, and I'm not interested in feelings but in the distribution of power. Yes, the motivation is to justify and perpetuate a distribution of power that's favorable to the groups where those ideas are found. > In that case, it's pretty clear that you intend this to be a mere ad-hominem attack. You simply refuse to acknowledge the possibility that a person might hold certain positive beliefs without also holding certain normative beliefs. Not at all. When discussing the history of ideas we do not attempt to track every single person's motivations, just as I don't suppose you "refuse to acknowledge the possibility" of some black woman being smarter than some Asian man. Your beliefs -- as I hope you know -- are not only not unique at this point in time, they echo almost precisely very old and well studied ones, and thus can be and indeed have been discussed in general without attributing anything to you personally. Even in proper science (leaving aside the question of whether a certain strain of scientific racism qualifies as such or not), researchers often discuss why they're interested in a specific question (and need to justify the importance of their research in order receive grants). So the question of what motivates certain people to be interested in studying and publicly writing about any scientific topic is not only reasonable and pertinent, but a fairly common one. Even on a personal level, a scientist often needs to answer it to herself and to others. Also, I am absolutely not attacking you, but merely pointing out that the name of the school of thought your beliefs (in this context) belong to is scientific racism. Perhaps now that you know what your philosophy is called, you can more easily find academic discussions about it if you are interested in learning more. But just as I wouldn't be able to fairly say, "people here are call me names like billionaire", after telling them I have billions in the bank regardless of my personal feelings towards the name, I don't think you get to say that people "call you racist" when it is you who present yourself as such (and not in any subtle way, or one that's open to interpretation), even though it turns out that you don't like the title.