5 ms·

> 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 impl

by ardy42 6y ago

> 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. I think there's something there. I'd add to that the kinds of ideologies that latch on to the idea that IQ is heritable are another reason to treat the idea as abhorrent. It would be one thing if the question was just one of intellectual curiosity, but it's very much not that. The idea has a looong history of being used to justify racial prejudices. Irrespective of the correctness or incorrectness of the idea, it's totally legitimate to make it taboo for the above reason alone. Sort of like it's legitimate to make garden-variety political flamebait taboo. Everyone knows where it leads. That is, everyone except sometimes people who imagine themselves to be "above it all" due to their identification with "reason," or "intelligence," etc.

manfredo 6y ago
No I don't believe it is just to make it taboo. It's not only unjust it's counterproductive. To do this is to build an argument with it's foundation laid in falsehood. And that makes for a very weak argument, as well as making others doubt your integrity as they see you try and deny sometimes you know is true. At it's most benign this just results in people making fools of themselves as they try and deny reality. At it's worst this results in the likes of Lysenkoism - false beliefs that become entrenched and have real negative impact on society. If some people take a true fact and abuse it to push unjust claims, the focus on addressing the abuse of facts. Not the facts themselves. And Slate Star Codex has done a good job of this. His explorations of these controversial ideas almost invariably entail refutations of abusive use of those ideas.
- FeepingCreature 6y ago
  Moreover, if you tar an idea that aids racists, it means that it means that racists will have better arguments than you. This is not a good thing for egalitarianism!

by ardy42 6y ago

manfredo 6y ago

No I don't believe it is just to make it taboo. It's not only unjust it's counterproductive. To do this is to build an argument with it's foundation laid in falsehood. And that makes for a very weak argument, as well as making others doubt your integrity as they see you try and deny sometimes you know is true. At it's most benign this just results in people making fools of themselves as they try and deny reality. At it's worst this results in the likes of Lysenkoism - false beliefs that become entrenched and have real negative impact on society. If some people take a true fact and abuse it to push unjust claims, the focus on addressing the abuse of facts. Not the facts themselves. And Slate Star Codex has done a good job of this. His explorations of these controversial ideas almost invariably entail refutations of abusive use of those ideas.

FeepingCreature 6y ago
Moreover, if you tar an idea that aids racists, it means that it means that racists will have better arguments than you. This is not a good thing for egalitarianism!