6 ms·

>> He appears to agree with Murray that some class differences reduce to heredity. > So? When did that became illegal? Or news? What does illegality have to d

by ardy42 6y ago

>> He appears to agree with Murray that some class differences reduce to heredity. > So? When did that became illegal? Or news? What does illegality have to do with anything in this context? I mean holding an idea can be both legal and abhorrent/wrong at the same time. And isn't bringing up legality here kind of a Motte & Bailey fallacy? (I'm genuinely asking, I only learned about that the other day.) People condemn Murray's ideas because they're distasteful and wrong, but it's certainly far easier to defend their legality.

vinger 6y ago
Abhorrent facts are still truthful. If you feel it's distasteful and wrong that men can be attracted to other men how far should the world go to defend your worldview
- ardy42 6y ago
  "Wrong" can mean both factually untrue and immoral. I was using it with both senses.
manfredo 6y ago
> I mean holding an idea can be both legal and abhorrent/wrong at the same time. Then rephrase the above question: since when did that become abhorrent or wrong? We know that IQ is hereditary. This is a simple statistical fact: there is positive correlation between the IQ of children and their parents. And if cognitive ability translates into higher incomes, this would mean income is hereditary I think what people find abhorrent are the perceived implication rather than the message itself. I'm going to hazard the guess that you're perceiving the implication that saying class differences are hereditary is implying that inequality isn't a problem, or some social groups won't ever have high incomes, or something else. In reality saying these differences are hereditary is saying nothing about that. Saying IQ is hereditary isn't saying some people will never be smart. Obesity is hereditary, too. That doesn't mean the children of obese parents can never be a healthy weight. Nobody's body cheats thermodynamics. Likewise people's IQ can be improved by exercising mental tasks.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  As far as in know, murray claims that the hereditary nature is [primarily] due to genetics, which is certainly more controversial than observing that it is hereditary.
  - manfredo 6y ago
    We also know that obesity is in part due to genetics. That doesn't mean people are doomed to be obese. It's a fact that anyone can lose weight if they expend more calories than they consume. My point is that people are perceiving a very different implication than what Murray or SSC are actually saying. E.g. saying cognitive ability is genetic evokes images of Gattaca-like society where people's fate is determined by their genome. In reality, IQ is far more malleable and can be developed through exercise or atrophy through lack of it.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      > E.g. saying cognitive ability is genetic evokes images of Gattaca-like society where people's fate is determined by their genome This does seem to be murray's contention. I don't think SSC agrees though. And this is actively harmful if you subscribe to the view that it is malleable: claiming that it can't be changed and that someone is "inferior", as Murray does, probably isn't going to set them up for success. Taking a step back though, I'll trust you on obesity, but we do t have hard evidence that I'm aware of that intelligence is genetic. For example, cognitive ability and IQ aren't the same, and even if they were, there are all kinds of things (like language) that are clearly heritable but obviously not genetically so.
      - manfredo 6y ago
        Cognitive ability is an abstract thing, IQ is a form of measuring it. It's like using 10k running time, amount of weight lifted in a deadlift, bench press, and squat as a measurement of athleticism. Regardless, > This does seem to be murray's contention. I don't think SSC agrees though. And this is actively harmful if you subscribe to the view that it is malleable: claiming that it can't be changed and that someone is "inferior", as Murray does, probably isn't going to set them up for success. This statement seriously makes me doubt whether you've read Murray . The central thesis of his book The Bell Curve is that society needs to do a better job helping people on the lower end of cognitive ability lead fulfilling and productive lives. The notion that less intelligent people are inferior is the complete opposite of what he actually wrote.

by ardy42 6y ago

vinger 6y ago

Abhorrent facts are still truthful. If you feel it's distasteful and wrong that men can be attracted to other men how far should the world go to defend your worldview

ardy42 6y ago
"Wrong" can mean both factually untrue and immoral. I was using it with both senses.

manfredo 6y ago

> I mean holding an idea can be both legal and abhorrent/wrong at the same time. Then rephrase the above question: since when did that become abhorrent or wrong? We know that IQ is hereditary. This is a simple statistical fact: there is positive correlation between the IQ of children and their parents. And if cognitive ability translates into higher incomes, this would mean income is hereditary I think what people find abhorrent are the perceived implication rather than the message itself. I'm going to hazard the guess that you're perceiving the implication that saying class differences are hereditary is implying that inequality isn't a problem, or some social groups won't ever have high incomes, or something else. In reality saying these differences are hereditary is saying nothing about that. Saying IQ is hereditary isn't saying some people will never be smart. Obesity is hereditary, too. That doesn't mean the children of obese parents can never be a healthy weight. Nobody's body cheats thermodynamics. Likewise people's IQ can be improved by exercising mental tasks.

joshuamorton 6y ago
As far as in know, murray claims that the hereditary nature is [primarily] due to genetics, which is certainly more controversial than observing that it is hereditary.
- manfredo 6y ago
  We also know that obesity is in part due to genetics. That doesn't mean people are doomed to be obese. It's a fact that anyone can lose weight if they expend more calories than they consume. My point is that people are perceiving a very different implication than what Murray or SSC are actually saying. E.g. saying cognitive ability is genetic evokes images of Gattaca-like society where people's fate is determined by their genome. In reality, IQ is far more malleable and can be developed through exercise or atrophy through lack of it.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    > E.g. saying cognitive ability is genetic evokes images of Gattaca-like society where people's fate is determined by their genome This does seem to be murray's contention. I don't think SSC agrees though. And this is actively harmful if you subscribe to the view that it is malleable: claiming that it can't be changed and that someone is "inferior", as Murray does, probably isn't going to set them up for success. Taking a step back though, I'll trust you on obesity, but we do t have hard evidence that I'm aware of that intelligence is genetic. For example, cognitive ability and IQ aren't the same, and even if they were, there are all kinds of things (like language) that are clearly heritable but obviously not genetically so.
    - manfredo 6y ago
      Cognitive ability is an abstract thing, IQ is a form of measuring it. It's like using 10k running time, amount of weight lifted in a deadlift, bench press, and squat as a measurement of athleticism. Regardless, > This does seem to be murray's contention. I don't think SSC agrees though. And this is actively harmful if you subscribe to the view that it is malleable: claiming that it can't be changed and that someone is "inferior", as Murray does, probably isn't going to set them up for success. This statement seriously makes me doubt whether you've read Murray . The central thesis of his book The Bell Curve is that society needs to do a better job helping people on the lower end of cognitive ability lead fulfilling and productive lives. The notion that less intelligent people are inferior is the complete opposite of what he actually wrote.