7 ms·
IQ is one of those topics which is, unfortunately, inescapably political. If important psychometric traits, like intelligence and personality, are highly herita
by jf- 8y ago
IQ is one of those topics which is, unfortunately, inescapably political. If important psychometric traits, like intelligence and personality, are highly heritable, then one of the implicit assumptions of left-leaning points of view is undermined: that everyone is inherently equal, that anyone can achieve anything given the right education, environment and resources.
Add to this the fact that we know that other heritable traits may be ethnically distributed, and we have a particularly difficult thesis.
The solution to this for some, is that IQ cannot be allowed to be meaningful, as the idea is simply too dangerous. The article above and much of this discussion are the result.
Simply put, this is a battle of ideology masquerading as a debate over a matter of fact. This is not the kind of discourse you would get if people were discussing the precise atomic weight of hydrogen.
- iron0013 8y agoI’m not sure what this has to do with leftists, as the idea that Taleb is a leftist is absolutely risible. He’s a reactionary egomaniac who thinks all of his ideas are correct simply because they are HIS ideas, and obviously HE can never be wrong
- jf- 8y agoI never mentioned leftists, I said words to the effect of assuming a blank slate is one of the implicit assumptions of left-leaning world views. Taleb can share such a belief without explicitly being on the left.
- api 8y agoThis is a straw man, sort of akin to asserting that all right leaning people believe that might makes right.
- jf- 8y agoVery well, maybe not everyone who would describe themselves as on the left would have this belief, but in my experience it is very common.
- api 8y agoI think you may be confusing the assumption that people are equal (blank slate) with treating people equally (not misapplying aggregate statistics to individuals and not being an asshole). The latter doesn't require the former. Some leftists might argue for a blank slate but I'm not even sure this is the majority view.
- SZJX 8y agoI had a discussion on this topic a while ago, and IMO a reasonable stance to take could be that, yeah, there might be some congenital differences among people in terms of their abilities to perform certain tasks. However, this doesn't mean that people should be treated way too differently just based on that factor. Isn't the ultimate left-wing dream "everybody doing whatever they enjoy/are good at, but treated absolutely equally"? Obviously we can't really be there yet due to a limitation on the total amount of available resources, and we do have to reward people more who hold important positions and make big impacts. However the point is if somebody is born without that much resources/luck/congenital abilities or whatnot, it's not their fault and they should still be totally respected and well treated. That could be a more sensible way to approach this instead of being absolutist. Also I still believe that luck and resources far outstrip so-called "raw talent" in the vast majority of cases/jobs, unless you are to be Usain Bolt or something. So the importance of IQ or not doesn't really change their point that much.
- warp_factor 8y agoyou are being downvoted but what you are describing is unfortunately exactly what is going on. There is that political push to pretend everyone is exactly equal. Following that doctrine, Every difference would only be to blame on your environment. Over the last couple years, this trend is going over well established scientific proofs. That ideology is getting very dangerous and I think we are getting into a dark age of science for those controversial subjects where political correctness and playing nice will be seen as more important than scientific proofs.
- wahnfrieden 8y agoYou’re painting a picture that every social justice-aware person is pushing for equality, while ignoring calls for equity and how that’s distinctly different.
- jesssse 8y agoCan you share what "equity" means in the context of social justice? Over the years I have tried to understand what "equity" means. I have been unable to comprehend "equity", despite reading many articles and definitions and listening to many discussions, I do not understand what "equity" is.
- talebreturns 8y agoThe OP you are replying to doesn't seem to get that left never claimed everyone as Equal. Treating everyone equal is a different topic altogether which isn't bad. I don't read anything -jt posts, his post are usually ego driven, politically charge, based on false asusmptions to outright lies.
- mike00632 8y agoThe leftist position isn't that everyone is inherently equal but that everyone should be valued equally and afforded equal opportunity regardless of their race/gender/ability. The idea of an "IQ" measure is too close to the idea of measuring inherent value, which shouldn't be contingent on things like how much nutrition you had as a child. Furthermore, the idea of "IQ" could be considered dangerous because it often serves to mask the harmful biases that actually inform our impressions of people.
- jf- 8y agoI think individuals on the left have a variety of beliefs on the subject.
- mike00632 8y agoYes, and almost none of the beliefs on the Left are akin to "everyone is equal in all measurements, therefore IQ is dangerous." Even Karl Marx acknowledges inherent differences in people when he writes, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
- leereeves 8y agoThe left uses any inequality of outcome, like the unequal representation of minorities and women in the software development industry, as evidence of discrimination without allowing for the possibility these differences are due to different abilities, choices, or desires. And if anyone challenges the belief that all outcomes should be equal, they retreat behind the very different argument you've just made, which nearly everyone agrees with. The motte and bailey tactic.
- api 8y agoYou could also say it undermines a major tenant of right wing politics too: that wealth is earned. If your wealth results from a genetic lotto ticket, you didn't earn anything. You just got lucky. This could be an argument for wealth redistribution. If true, strong heritability of ability could undermine much of present day politics.
- jf- 8y agoPotentially, but you would need to define what is meant by earning. Is earning defined by subjective difficulty? Is ability already part of the concept of earning, such that what we find virtuous about earning is in part the capacity to do a thing? There is also a more fundamental difference between the two propositions, the first is empirically measurable: people have the same or broadly similar potential, or they do not. The second is a value judgement regarding who deserves what, which is ultimately a moral or aesthetic matter. This seems to me somehow more difficult to decide upon and somewhat weaker in its force. (I upvoted you by the way because I think that’s an interesting point)
- api 8y agoI made that argument largely to show the versatility of sophistry. You can take a proposed fact, like strong heritability of ability, and weave many arguments around it. I have in fact heard people argue for strong socialism on the basis of heritable inequality. This would assume the definition of "earn" as to acquire through individual goal directed action. If most of the ability behind that action was not itself acquired through anything but luck, then this could undermine the notion of a moral claim to outcome.