3 ms·

So you want to reject someone's will to collect more empirical observations and data on a certain issue... based on empirical observations and data you already

by pnako 6y ago

So you want to reject someone's will to collect more empirical observations and data on a certain issue... based on empirical observations and data you already have? This makes absolutely no sense. Either we can investigate some issues, or we can't. @markdown is a bit more honest when they say we should not research the issue at all, because the answer is very unpleasant. But note that race is only the ultimate taboo in the west; researchers elsewhere, in particular in China, will continue this research. And I think it's worth having people in the west researching this area, so they understand this research and can, indeed, challenge it when necessary.

Kednicma 6y ago
Okay, please, go ahead and investigate these issues. What have you found? I am summarizing a well-understood consensus position, not exploring some novel theory. You can research the issue as much as you like, and find as many spurious "unpleasant" correlations as you like; this does not dislodge the fact that race is a social and cultural construction rather than some genetic reality. I do not want to shut down research, but I do want to point out that the research which contradicts Hsu is already done and the theories which explain why he is wrong are already understood.
- pnako 6y ago
  Your position on this issue is not based on reason or science, but on dogma. Nothing is ever really settled. And certainly not that topic in particular. How could it be, considering how controversial it is? (This very topic is another proof.) >the fact that race is a social and cultural construction rather than some genetic reality That is an absurd claim. I'm well aware of the sensitivity around this topic. I wish we could research it freely, but I can see why people get very agitated about certain findings. I can see why it's unpleasant. Still, just like you can't research dermatology, immunology and other fields of medicine without taking race into account (the idea that racial differences are only skin deep completely breaks down when it comes to finding bone marrow donors), if it turns out that there are also racial difference in cognitive or behavioral traits, it's important to know for research on diseases like Alzheimer, or indeed for research on psychology, sociology, etc.
  - bJGVygG7MQVF8c 6y ago
    >> the fact that race is a social and cultural construction rather than some genetic reality > That is an absurd claim. Indeed. Idpol/woke ideology posits one outlandish race-realist conception of race to use as a strawman in order to claim that race is but a social construct, and simultaneously advances another (implicitly race-realist) conception of race that's shallow and incoherent in order to license its moral claims. It's a mechanism of manipulation. "Race" is an ambiguous term — it has to be operationalized to be used coherently. There's a sense of the term that describes a social reality and another that describes ancestry groupings. This is a great primer for anyone who's interested: https://www.amazon.com/What-Race-Four-Philosophical-Views/dp/0190610182/ https://www.amazon.com/What-Race-Four-Philosophical-Views/dp...

by pnako 6y ago

Kednicma 6y ago

Okay, please, go ahead and investigate these issues. What have you found? I am summarizing a well-understood consensus position, not exploring some novel theory. You can research the issue as much as you like, and find as many spurious "unpleasant" correlations as you like; this does not dislodge the fact that race is a social and cultural construction rather than some genetic reality. I do not want to shut down research, but I do want to point out that the research which contradicts Hsu is already done and the theories which explain why he is wrong are already understood.

pnako 6y ago
Your position on this issue is not based on reason or science, but on dogma. Nothing is ever really settled. And certainly not that topic in particular. How could it be, considering how controversial it is? (This very topic is another proof.) >the fact that race is a social and cultural construction rather than some genetic reality That is an absurd claim. I'm well aware of the sensitivity around this topic. I wish we could research it freely, but I can see why people get very agitated about certain findings. I can see why it's unpleasant. Still, just like you can't research dermatology, immunology and other fields of medicine without taking race into account (the idea that racial differences are only skin deep completely breaks down when it comes to finding bone marrow donors), if it turns out that there are also racial difference in cognitive or behavioral traits, it's important to know for research on diseases like Alzheimer, or indeed for research on psychology, sociology, etc.
- bJGVygG7MQVF8c 6y ago
  >> the fact that race is a social and cultural construction rather than some genetic reality > That is an absurd claim. Indeed. Idpol/woke ideology posits one outlandish race-realist conception of race to use as a strawman in order to claim that race is but a social construct, and simultaneously advances another (implicitly race-realist) conception of race that's shallow and incoherent in order to license its moral claims. It's a mechanism of manipulation. "Race" is an ambiguous term — it has to be operationalized to be used coherently. There's a sense of the term that describes a social reality and another that describes ancestry groupings. This is a great primer for anyone who's interested: https://www.amazon.com/What-Race-Four-Philosophical-Views/dp/0190610182/ https://www.amazon.com/What-Race-Four-Philosophical-Views/dp...