7 ms·

Relevant quote from him: "I've always said that I'm agnostic on whether... so there are observed test score differences between groups, I think that's clear, y

Relevant quote from him: "I've always said that I'm agnostic on whether... so there are observed test score differences between groups, I think that's clear, you can't deny that. The causality of that, whether it's partially due to genetics, I've always been agnostic on. Not because I think it's impossible, but because it's such a charged thing we should really make sure the science is solid before we speculate. We shouldn't randomly speculate on something that sensitive. But even just not being willing to categorically rule out that God could have created us with average group differences has gotten me into trouble. And I think that's just absurd. So for someone to attack me for saying 'We don't know the answer to this question, let's do the science first and then talk about it.' Even that position is actually not tenable in the current social justice warrior political climate." https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=58&v=XHUSl9FLAmE&feature=emb_title https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=58&v=XHUSl9FLAmE... https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2020/06/twitter-attacks-and-defense-of.html?m=1 https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2020/06/twitter-attacks-and-de...

tuna-piano 6y ago
Another quote from him: "My personal opinion about it is: A) I hope it's not true. I would much rather live in a world where there are not big group differences. Number 2) I understand why it's a sensitive issue. Because it was used in a way to oppress people for a long time. So I'm not blind to that. Number 3) I am a scientist. So when I say something like 'The results of the studies do not allow us to come to a high confidence conclusion about it.' That's what I'm going to say. So I've been attacked because I haven't been willing to categorically rule something out, which I think is absurd..." "The scores are, as you say, you do the tests, you find differences. However there are differences in average environment that these people experience. So the really difficult statistical question is, is it the difference in average environment these people experience, or is it genes. And it's a very difficult question..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGQdq8mOEd8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGQdq8mOEd8 https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2020/06/twitter-attacks-and-defense-of.html?m=1 https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2020/06/twitter-attacks-and-de...
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  > I hope it's not true. I would much rather live in a world where there are not big group differences. This is why these questions are deemed dangerous. They have the possibility of challenging and upsetting deeply held beliefs and narratives. What is there to fear but an observation and the data it’s based on?
  - markdown 6y ago
    > What is there to fear but an observation and the data it’s based on? There is everything to fear. This is one issue for which a definitive answer (if not the correct one) could be catastrophically damaging to relations between humans forever. In this matter, ignorance is bliss.
    - toomuchtodo 6y ago
      I disagree. A group’s lack of emotional fortitude is inhibiting the search for truth and progress as a species. Life is unfair, full stop. I’m unsure how learning it’s genetic changes the situation. If anything, it gives us a better understanding about how to approach the situation. The ignorant may keep the bliss. We are not served by putting our heads in the sand for the sake of political correctness.
      - dx87 6y ago
        One thing to keep in mind, is whether the difference is big enough to matter. I used to think the same as you, then I talked to my wife about a study I'd read that said the top end of male IQ is higher than the top end of female IQ, even if they are the same on average. She pointed out how even though there is a difference at the top end, it's not significant enough to matter (which is true). So there is no upside to publishing the research, but there is a definite downside of sexists/racists using the research to say "See, X is genetically inferior to us, that's why we shouldn't treat them the same". I don't think any particluar research should be banned, but the researchers should have the moral integrity to think about the impact of their research.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Miner49er 6y ago
Anyone who unironically says "social justice warrior" doesn't deserve a leadership position, IMO.
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
  Herein lies the problem. A person can say any number of things we find ok or agreeable. But make even one tiny slip... And you’re fucked.
  - tuna-piano 6y ago
    The thing is, in private we have almost all said and done things which if shown on video to the world would get us fired (or arrested!). But yet the same people who know they have said+done bad things wish to ruin the lives of others for slips in otherwise respectable lives.
  - Miner49er 6y ago
    Yes, that's how it should be. Power should be constantly challenged, and taken away extemely easily. Eventually maybe people will stop talking it and we can decentralize society more.
- therealdrag0 6y ago
  What term would you suggest instead?
bloaf 6y ago
>Not because I think it's impossible, but because it's such a charged thing we should really make sure the science is solid before we speculate. We shouldn't randomly speculate on something that sensitive. I think he doesn't go far enough. Its not enough to just "not speculate," you have to also be responsible with how you use your reputation as a researcher in the field. As an analogy, it doesn't matter how principled or academic a political philosopher's belief in state's rights is, he'll lose his credibility if he agrees to speak at a bunch of racist confederate organizations. Even if he sticks to a boring non-racist script. There is a movement out there seeking to drape their racist ideas in the trappings of science and reason. This researcher knows this. He ought to view it as his responsibility to make sure his good name is not attached to that movement. He could stay completely inside his ivory tower until he has the solid science, or he could heavily screen the media he speaks to. He has very clearly failed in that responsibility by going on Mr. "Humanity is not a single species[1]" Molyneux's show and saying that he thinks appealing to the environment as an explanation for group differences in IQ is a-scientific. [1] https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/stefan-molyneux https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/indi...
- threatofrain 6y ago
  Noam Chomsky also interviewed the same man. Should Noam Chomsky have known better?
  - bloaf 6y ago
    Yes. To be fair to Noam Chomsky, he very directly attacked Stefan's ideas, so I don't think there can be quite as much perception of support.
- karaterobot 6y ago
  Guilt by association is wrong in a logical sense, as well as in a moral one, and even if it's so commonly practiced that we forget that, we shouldn't go the extra step and enshrine it into our laws or culture.
  - 6y ago

tuna-piano 6y ago

Another quote from him: "My personal opinion about it is: A) I hope it's not true. I would much rather live in a world where there are not big group differences. Number 2) I understand why it's a sensitive issue. Because it was used in a way to oppress people for a long time. So I'm not blind to that. Number 3) I am a scientist. So when I say something like 'The results of the studies do not allow us to come to a high confidence conclusion about it.' That's what I'm going to say. So I've been attacked because I haven't been willing to categorically rule something out, which I think is absurd..." "The scores are, as you say, you do the tests, you find differences. However there are differences in average environment that these people experience. So the really difficult statistical question is, is it the difference in average environment these people experience, or is it genes. And it's a very difficult question..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGQdq8mOEd8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGQdq8mOEd8 https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2020/06/twitter-attacks-and-defense-of.html?m=1 https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2020/06/twitter-attacks-and-de...

toomuchtodo 6y ago
> I hope it's not true. I would much rather live in a world where there are not big group differences. This is why these questions are deemed dangerous. They have the possibility of challenging and upsetting deeply held beliefs and narratives. What is there to fear but an observation and the data it’s based on?
- markdown 6y ago
  > What is there to fear but an observation and the data it’s based on? There is everything to fear. This is one issue for which a definitive answer (if not the correct one) could be catastrophically damaging to relations between humans forever. In this matter, ignorance is bliss.
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    I disagree. A group’s lack of emotional fortitude is inhibiting the search for truth and progress as a species. Life is unfair, full stop. I’m unsure how learning it’s genetic changes the situation. If anything, it gives us a better understanding about how to approach the situation. The ignorant may keep the bliss. We are not served by putting our heads in the sand for the sake of political correctness.
    - dx87 6y ago
      One thing to keep in mind, is whether the difference is big enough to matter. I used to think the same as you, then I talked to my wife about a study I'd read that said the top end of male IQ is higher than the top end of female IQ, even if they are the same on average. She pointed out how even though there is a difference at the top end, it's not significant enough to matter (which is true). So there is no upside to publishing the research, but there is a definite downside of sexists/racists using the research to say "See, X is genetically inferior to us, that's why we shouldn't treat them the same". I don't think any particluar research should be banned, but the researchers should have the moral integrity to think about the impact of their research.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Miner49er 6y ago

Anyone who unironically says "social justice warrior" doesn't deserve a leadership position, IMO.

TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
Herein lies the problem. A person can say any number of things we find ok or agreeable. But make even one tiny slip... And you’re fucked.
- tuna-piano 6y ago
  The thing is, in private we have almost all said and done things which if shown on video to the world would get us fired (or arrested!). But yet the same people who know they have said+done bad things wish to ruin the lives of others for slips in otherwise respectable lives.
- Miner49er 6y ago
  Yes, that's how it should be. Power should be constantly challenged, and taken away extemely easily. Eventually maybe people will stop talking it and we can decentralize society more.
therealdrag0 6y ago
What term would you suggest instead?

bloaf 6y ago

>Not because I think it's impossible, but because it's such a charged thing we should really make sure the science is solid before we speculate. We shouldn't randomly speculate on something that sensitive. I think he doesn't go far enough. Its not enough to just "not speculate," you have to also be responsible with how you use your reputation as a researcher in the field. As an analogy, it doesn't matter how principled or academic a political philosopher's belief in state's rights is, he'll lose his credibility if he agrees to speak at a bunch of racist confederate organizations. Even if he sticks to a boring non-racist script. There is a movement out there seeking to drape their racist ideas in the trappings of science and reason. This researcher knows this. He ought to view it as his responsibility to make sure his good name is not attached to that movement. He could stay completely inside his ivory tower until he has the solid science, or he could heavily screen the media he speaks to. He has very clearly failed in that responsibility by going on Mr. "Humanity is not a single species[1]" Molyneux's show and saying that he thinks appealing to the environment as an explanation for group differences in IQ is a-scientific. [1] https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/stefan-molyneux https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/indi...

threatofrain 6y ago
Noam Chomsky also interviewed the same man. Should Noam Chomsky have known better?
- bloaf 6y ago
  Yes. To be fair to Noam Chomsky, he very directly attacked Stefan's ideas, so I don't think there can be quite as much perception of support.
karaterobot 6y ago
Guilt by association is wrong in a logical sense, as well as in a moral one, and even if it's so commonly practiced that we forget that, we shouldn't go the extra step and enshrine it into our laws or culture.
- 6y ago