4 ms·

> Try this thought experiment. A dictator takes over the US and sends all the professors to re-education camps. The physicists are told they have to learn how t

> Try this thought experiment. A dictator takes over the US and sends all the professors to re-education camps. The physicists are told they have to learn how to write academic articles about French literature, and the French literature professors are told they have to learn how to write original physics papers. If they fail, they'll be shot. Which group is more worried? This is a huge problem with a lot of social-justice things. The above statement is the ultimate forbidden statement, isn't it ? The central idea is that people both are different, and that that justifies different attitudes to their statements. Especially when it comes to different attitudes about gasp their intelligence, even in groups specifically selected (at least partly) for their intelligence. Because of that, most of the social justice advocates I know would, perhaps after thinking on it for 5 minutes, have no trouble at all calling the above statement racist.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> > Try this thought experiment. A dictator takes over the US and sends all the professors to re-education camps. The physicists are told they have to learn how to write academic articles about French literature, and the French literature professors are told they have to learn how to write original physics papers. If they fail, they'll be shot. Which group is more worried? Kind of depends on who is judging the papers. > This is a huge problem with a lot of social-justice things. The above statement is the ultimate forbidden statement, isn't it ? Nope. It's not even a forbidden statement. It's not even a statement. Mistaking it for a statement seems to start with believing no one could possibly view the a sweet to the hypothetical question posed different than you do, and then build on that error. > The idea that people both are different, and that that justifies different attitudes to their statements. This is not an uncommon idea in social justice circles, though each specific versions of it is controversial with different supporting and opposing groups. Heck, the entire idea of group privilege as a basis for distrust frequently found in such circles is exactly a form of this idea. > Because of that, most of the social justice advocates I know would, perhaps after thinking on it for 5 minutes, have no trouble at all calling the above statement racist. Since, on top of not being a statement, the implicit axis of differentiation (assuming an answer other than “neither” or “it depends”) in the hypothetical has nothing to do with race, that seems improbable, and may say as much about your thought processes as about theirs.
- candiodari 8y ago
  > Kind of depends on who is judging the papers. That would mostly be physics phds and professors versus literature phds and professors. But if you want other examples, the group of people who keep failing to distinguish others' bullshit from "real science" thing are the social sciences [1][2][3]. And if you consider management "science" as a social science, there's roughly a century of this (most higher institutions do consider management science a social science) [4] At least French literature is studying fiction, whereas the social sciences claim that they're a valid science studying real, repeating (non-fiction) phenomena. > It's not even a statement. Unless a statement is very different from what Google answers when I type in "define:statement" I'm going to go with that it is a statement And judging by the downvotes, it's indeed not allowed. > Mistaking it for a statement seems to start with believing no one could possibly view the a sweet to the hypothetical question posed different than you do, and then build on that error. This sentence does not parse. Could you perhaps rephrase it ? I find the statement by Paul Graham obviously defines a "total order" [5], which means I could even translate that statement into logical symbols if you like. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair [2] https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2018/10/03/33299646/academic-hoax-reveals-deep-problems-in-social-sciences https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2018/10/03/33299646/academi... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility_Project [4] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/10/12/not-so-fast https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/10/12/not-so-fast [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_order https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_order
superhuzza 8y ago
Honestly speaking, I think the physicists would be more worried. Writing original papers about French literature would probably require being able to read French, which few people do. The French professors have almost definitely had basic introductions to physics, the scientific method and mathematics.
- leetcrew 8y ago
  touche, but you seem to be deliberately missing the point of the thought experiment. what if we substitute english for french?
  - superhuzza 8y ago
    Then yes, I supposed the English professors would be more concerned. They likely have less experience with physics than physicists have with English literature. I still doubt either group would actually write anything publishable, so it's a strange proxy for intelligence. Being able to write publishable academic works has much more to do with experience and domain specific knowledge than anything else. Why not just ask which group would score higher on an IQ test? Because then I'd have no problem guessing that the physicists would, on average, have higher IQ scores. I don't think that's a controversial statement though - Stephen Hawking was often touted as the smartest man alive for his accomplishments in physics.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> > Try this thought experiment. A dictator takes over the US and sends all the professors to re-education camps. The physicists are told they have to learn how to write academic articles about French literature, and the French literature professors are told they have to learn how to write original physics papers. If they fail, they'll be shot. Which group is more worried? Kind of depends on who is judging the papers. > This is a huge problem with a lot of social-justice things. The above statement is the ultimate forbidden statement, isn't it ? Nope. It's not even a forbidden statement. It's not even a statement. Mistaking it for a statement seems to start with believing no one could possibly view the a sweet to the hypothetical question posed different than you do, and then build on that error. > The idea that people both are different, and that that justifies different attitudes to their statements. This is not an uncommon idea in social justice circles, though each specific versions of it is controversial with different supporting and opposing groups. Heck, the entire idea of group privilege as a basis for distrust frequently found in such circles is exactly a form of this idea. > Because of that, most of the social justice advocates I know would, perhaps after thinking on it for 5 minutes, have no trouble at all calling the above statement racist. Since, on top of not being a statement, the implicit axis of differentiation (assuming an answer other than “neither” or “it depends”) in the hypothetical has nothing to do with race, that seems improbable, and may say as much about your thought processes as about theirs.

candiodari 8y ago
> Kind of depends on who is judging the papers. That would mostly be physics phds and professors versus literature phds and professors. But if you want other examples, the group of people who keep failing to distinguish others' bullshit from "real science" thing are the social sciences [1][2][3]. And if you consider management "science" as a social science, there's roughly a century of this (most higher institutions do consider management science a social science) [4] At least French literature is studying fiction, whereas the social sciences claim that they're a valid science studying real, repeating (non-fiction) phenomena. > It's not even a statement. Unless a statement is very different from what Google answers when I type in "define:statement" I'm going to go with that it is a statement And judging by the downvotes, it's indeed not allowed. > Mistaking it for a statement seems to start with believing no one could possibly view the a sweet to the hypothetical question posed different than you do, and then build on that error. This sentence does not parse. Could you perhaps rephrase it ? I find the statement by Paul Graham obviously defines a "total order" [5], which means I could even translate that statement into logical symbols if you like. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair [2] https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2018/10/03/33299646/academic-hoax-reveals-deep-problems-in-social-sciences https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2018/10/03/33299646/academi... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility_Project [4] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/10/12/not-so-fast https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/10/12/not-so-fast [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_order https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_order

superhuzza 8y ago

Honestly speaking, I think the physicists would be more worried. Writing original papers about French literature would probably require being able to read French, which few people do. The French professors have almost definitely had basic introductions to physics, the scientific method and mathematics.

leetcrew 8y ago
touche, but you seem to be deliberately missing the point of the thought experiment. what if we substitute english for french?
- superhuzza 8y ago
  Then yes, I supposed the English professors would be more concerned. They likely have less experience with physics than physicists have with English literature. I still doubt either group would actually write anything publishable, so it's a strange proxy for intelligence. Being able to write publishable academic works has much more to do with experience and domain specific knowledge than anything else. Why not just ask which group would score higher on an IQ test? Because then I'd have no problem guessing that the physicists would, on average, have higher IQ scores. I don't think that's a controversial statement though - Stephen Hawking was often touted as the smartest man alive for his accomplishments in physics.