3 ms·

(I'll try to use groups and traits at random to protect myself from cherry-picked quotes). Suppose we discovered that gay people have a tendency to be better a

(I'll try to use groups and traits at random to protect myself from cherry-picked quotes). Suppose we discovered that gay people have a tendency to be better at sport, and black people a tendency to be smarter. That white people have better reflexes, and asians can remember things really well. All the "discoveries" about physical attributes have a pretty good chance of being tolerated by society, all the ones about mental attributes are likely to cause a massive public outcry. For the scientific/analytical thinkers, this taboo of researching certain things is a bit weird. There is essentially the potential for knowledge that we're not allowed to discover. The steps to gaining that knowledge can be perfectly ethical, but the knowledge itself is toxic. This generally troubles me. This idea that I can't talk about certain things, even if it's just to try to get people to point out the flaws in my reasoning... It's like a kind of self-imposed censorship.

mrow84 10y ago
I think it is considered problematic because ability in the modern world (at the very least) is largely correlated with "mental attributes", and, in a meritocratic society, a group which was less able would be afforded less power. That unequal distribution of power would be in direct conflict with the democratic ideal of equal representation, leading to the tension. If it was generally believed that the democratic will represents everyone's interests roughly equally, then this wouldn't of itself present a problem. Unfortunately, the failure of nominally inclusive establishments to address the political concerns of large sections of their societies strains the credibility of this belief, to the point of breaking, in some cases. Beyond the political consequences, meritocratic societies have a tendency to draw a relationship between economic value and social value. Telling a group of people that they are less socially valuable just isn't very nice. Of course, these relationships aren't facts of the world - they are simply choices made be societies. So, it would be possible to have a society where such things as you mention could be discussed openly without drawing criticism, but it would be necessary for the labelling that you were engaging in to not make implicit claims about people's social value.
- hga 10y ago
  And to the extent you believe e.g. the remnants of movement conservatism is on the right, this is not even a Right/Left thing, as Kevin Williamson put it, "The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale [white, working class] communities is that they deserve to die.": http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432876/donald-trump-white-working-class-dysfunction-real-opportunity-needed-not-trump http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432876/donald-trump-wh... An opinion that as far as I can tell, especially based on deeds, is shared by most of the GOPe(stablishment).

mrow84 10y ago

I think it is considered problematic because ability in the modern world (at the very least) is largely correlated with "mental attributes", and, in a meritocratic society, a group which was less able would be afforded less power. That unequal distribution of power would be in direct conflict with the democratic ideal of equal representation, leading to the tension. If it was generally believed that the democratic will represents everyone's interests roughly equally, then this wouldn't of itself present a problem. Unfortunately, the failure of nominally inclusive establishments to address the political concerns of large sections of their societies strains the credibility of this belief, to the point of breaking, in some cases. Beyond the political consequences, meritocratic societies have a tendency to draw a relationship between economic value and social value. Telling a group of people that they are less socially valuable just isn't very nice. Of course, these relationships aren't facts of the world - they are simply choices made be societies. So, it would be possible to have a society where such things as you mention could be discussed openly without drawing criticism, but it would be necessary for the labelling that you were engaging in to not make implicit claims about people's social value.

hga 10y ago
And to the extent you believe e.g. the remnants of movement conservatism is on the right, this is not even a Right/Left thing, as Kevin Williamson put it, "The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale [white, working class] communities is that they deserve to die.": http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432876/donald-trump-white-working-class-dysfunction-real-opportunity-needed-not-trump http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432876/donald-trump-wh... An opinion that as far as I can tell, especially based on deeds, is shared by most of the GOPe(stablishment).