4 ms·

But regardless, my entire point is that the truth of these claims is the least important thing about them... That much is clear, and the source of our differen

But regardless, my entire point is that the truth of these claims is the least important thing about them... That much is clear, and the source of our differences. I do care about reality and I don't mind if bad people have learned true facts. Yes, the motivation is to justify and perpetuate a distribution of power that's favorable to the groups where those ideas are found. And the motivation for studying evolution is to reduce people's faith in the one true god, and prevent them from getting to heaven. Therefore I can refer to an individual evolutionist as a satanist. When discussing the history of ideas we do not attempt to track every single person's motivations You aren't discussing the history of ideas. You are discussing specifically whether I am a "scientific racist" and "white supremacist". And you've defined these terms as people having specific motivations which I don't share.

pron 10y ago
> That much is clear, and the source of our differences. I do care about reality and I don't mind if bad people have learned true facts. That cannot possibly be our difference because I also care about reality and I don't mind if bad people have learned true facts. I have no reason to believe that I care about reality any less than you do. There are only two differences between our views : 1. I do not think there is currently any evidence whatsoever that innate differences between human races are a significant causal factor in the observed power difference, and 2. I think that in the whole of science there are few questions that are less interesting. In fact, while I have occasionally found myself pondering scientific questions that can be said to be utterly ridiculous and pointless, the thought of whether blacks are less intelligent than whites has never even crossed my mind. When a question does cross my mind, I always -- always -- ask myself why is it important to me that I should spend time pondering it, let alone writing about it. I think that in all of science, pretty much the only time uninteresting questions (i.e., those not given explicit justification for study by scientists) become interesting is when there is incontrovertible evidence for something totally surprising (even if uninteresting). I don't think that this is the case with scientific racism, either. I wonder why it is that this question is so important to you, that you'd rather spend your time writing about it, than say, how cats purr or why we yawn. > You are discussing specifically whether I am a "scientific racist" and "white supremacist". And you've defined these terms as people having specific motivations which I don't share. I'm afraid I don't think it is possible to believe whites are innately more intelligent than blacks and not be a white supremacist (at least not without some clearly spelled out motivation), or to believe that differences in traits such as intelligence between races are either supported by science or should be studied by science without being a scientific racist, sorry. I sort-of understand your desire to both have a billion dollars and yet not be considered a billionaire, but I'm just not sure how this can be done. You may claims that scientific racism is an interesting and valid scientific discipline or that your motivations are pure etc., but you cannot argue that you are not a scientific racist if those are your views. Also, I did not define scientific racism as having specific motivations. I restated the well accepted -- and, AFAIK, the only definition of scientific racism, as the belief that some races are innately superior or inferior to others (usually in qualities that coincide with social power) and that this can and/or should be proven with science. I added, in response to your question, that it has been well established (although that is not the definition) that scientific racism is an all-too-familiar tool being used in the same ways, making the same assertions, time and again by people with similar motivations. Your personal motivations are your own business, but I wonder if you've asked yourself why you are personally so drawn to such questions, especially as most people (even those who care a lot about reality) aren't.
- tnone 10y ago
  Just like a creationist, when you finally stop going around in circles, you end up questioning the motivations of your opponent as a shaming attack, even as you insist they are not your business. This is what religion looks like.
  - pron 10y ago
    First, I did not question anyone's motivations, simply expressed curiosity, because the scientific questions that interest yummyfajitas are so unusual. It was through him that I first learned of contemporary scientific racism, and I am truly and honestly curious about this. E.g., how far do they go? Do they also think we should investigate whether people of Irish descent are more intelligent than people of German descent? If so, what are their hypotheses? Are they also interested in studying qualities like sense of humor? Love of satirical novels? To my ears, someone saying that we must know the truth about whether or not blacks are dumber than whites sounds no less bizarre than someone who says we must know by how much the angle of a cat's raised tail changes after dreaming of mice, and to anyone who asks why this question is of so much interest, they say, "why are you trying to hide the truth?" I think most scientist find a person's (let alone a group's) fascination with such questions of far greater scientific interest and importance than the actual answer to the questions. Second, I don't know how much you're involved with the scientific community, but every researcher is required to explain their motivation for studying just about anything (at least in the first half of their careers, and even when they're not required, it is something that they're expected to be able to answer when interviewed, for example). That's just how science works. Third, I don't recall making any kind of attack in this thread.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      If your curiosity is genuine I can tell you the answer. First, a casual perusal of any human biodiversity blog will tell you that they do in fact care about differences between Germans and Irish as well. Or Tamils and Gujuratis, or a variety of other groups that exhibit interesting differences. Intelligence is particularly interesting relative to other traits since it explains so many social outcomes, but many other traits are interesting. For example, clannishness: https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2013/09/07/how-inbred-are-europeans/ https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2013/09/07/how-inbred-are-euro... Some people just find human biology intrinsically interesting, and don't have the same negative emotional reactions to it that you do. If you want a more traditional "give me a grant" motivation, here it is: public policy. Consider racial disparities across fields. One possible cause of such disparities is disparate treatment - e.g., judging white job applicants more harshly than Asian ones. Another possibility is disparate ability - e.g. a greater proportion of Asian people than white people are smart. Different causes of disparities would significantly change what policy you would choose. For example, if disparate ability is the cause and equal outcomes is your goal, you would choose a quota system to cap the number of Asians. and to anyone who shouts them down, calls them racist and attempts to get them socially ostracized, they say, "why are you trying to hide the truth? Fixed that for you.

pron 10y ago

> That much is clear, and the source of our differences. I do care about reality and I don't mind if bad people have learned true facts. That cannot possibly be our difference because I also care about reality and I don't mind if bad people have learned true facts. I have no reason to believe that I care about reality any less than you do. There are only two differences between our views : 1. I do not think there is currently any evidence whatsoever that innate differences between human races are a significant causal factor in the observed power difference, and 2. I think that in the whole of science there are few questions that are less interesting. In fact, while I have occasionally found myself pondering scientific questions that can be said to be utterly ridiculous and pointless, the thought of whether blacks are less intelligent than whites has never even crossed my mind. When a question does cross my mind, I always -- always -- ask myself why is it important to me that I should spend time pondering it, let alone writing about it. I think that in all of science, pretty much the only time uninteresting questions (i.e., those not given explicit justification for study by scientists) become interesting is when there is incontrovertible evidence for something totally surprising (even if uninteresting). I don't think that this is the case with scientific racism, either. I wonder why it is that this question is so important to you, that you'd rather spend your time writing about it, than say, how cats purr or why we yawn. > You are discussing specifically whether I am a "scientific racist" and "white supremacist". And you've defined these terms as people having specific motivations which I don't share. I'm afraid I don't think it is possible to believe whites are innately more intelligent than blacks and not be a white supremacist (at least not without some clearly spelled out motivation), or to believe that differences in traits such as intelligence between races are either supported by science or should be studied by science without being a scientific racist, sorry. I sort-of understand your desire to both have a billion dollars and yet not be considered a billionaire, but I'm just not sure how this can be done. You may claims that scientific racism is an interesting and valid scientific discipline or that your motivations are pure etc., but you cannot argue that you are not a scientific racist if those are your views. Also, I did not define scientific racism as having specific motivations. I restated the well accepted -- and, AFAIK, the only definition of scientific racism, as the belief that some races are innately superior or inferior to others (usually in qualities that coincide with social power) and that this can and/or should be proven with science. I added, in response to your question, that it has been well established (although that is not the definition) that scientific racism is an all-too-familiar tool being used in the same ways, making the same assertions, time and again by people with similar motivations. Your personal motivations are your own business, but I wonder if you've asked yourself why you are personally so drawn to such questions, especially as most people (even those who care a lot about reality) aren't.

tnone 10y ago
Just like a creationist, when you finally stop going around in circles, you end up questioning the motivations of your opponent as a shaming attack, even as you insist they are not your business. This is what religion looks like.
- pron 10y ago
  First, I did not question anyone's motivations, simply expressed curiosity, because the scientific questions that interest yummyfajitas are so unusual. It was through him that I first learned of contemporary scientific racism, and I am truly and honestly curious about this. E.g., how far do they go? Do they also think we should investigate whether people of Irish descent are more intelligent than people of German descent? If so, what are their hypotheses? Are they also interested in studying qualities like sense of humor? Love of satirical novels? To my ears, someone saying that we must know the truth about whether or not blacks are dumber than whites sounds no less bizarre than someone who says we must know by how much the angle of a cat's raised tail changes after dreaming of mice, and to anyone who asks why this question is of so much interest, they say, "why are you trying to hide the truth?" I think most scientist find a person's (let alone a group's) fascination with such questions of far greater scientific interest and importance than the actual answer to the questions. Second, I don't know how much you're involved with the scientific community, but every researcher is required to explain their motivation for studying just about anything (at least in the first half of their careers, and even when they're not required, it is something that they're expected to be able to answer when interviewed, for example). That's just how science works. Third, I don't recall making any kind of attack in this thread.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    If your curiosity is genuine I can tell you the answer. First, a casual perusal of any human biodiversity blog will tell you that they do in fact care about differences between Germans and Irish as well. Or Tamils and Gujuratis, or a variety of other groups that exhibit interesting differences. Intelligence is particularly interesting relative to other traits since it explains so many social outcomes, but many other traits are interesting. For example, clannishness: https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2013/09/07/how-inbred-are-europeans/ https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2013/09/07/how-inbred-are-euro... Some people just find human biology intrinsically interesting, and don't have the same negative emotional reactions to it that you do. If you want a more traditional "give me a grant" motivation, here it is: public policy. Consider racial disparities across fields. One possible cause of such disparities is disparate treatment - e.g., judging white job applicants more harshly than Asian ones. Another possibility is disparate ability - e.g. a greater proportion of Asian people than white people are smart. Different causes of disparities would significantly change what policy you would choose. For example, if disparate ability is the cause and equal outcomes is your goal, you would choose a quota system to cap the number of Asians. and to anyone who shouts them down, calls them racist and attempts to get them socially ostracized, they say, "why are you trying to hide the truth? Fixed that for you.