3 ms·

> Chomsky never denies the possibility of a genetic component to IQ, even IQ/race. What he denies are the ideological assumptions people make about the social c

by tomxor 5y ago

> Chomsky never denies the possibility of a genetic component to IQ, even IQ/race. What he denies are the ideological assumptions people make about the social consequences that must follow if those findings are true The identification of differences between groups seem to be commonly conflated with the act of unfairly discriminating against a group with prejudice based on differences (perceived or real), which is kind of absurd when you think of some of the more superficial and obvious yet real differences. You clarify this very succinctly, but it is still abstract, and I find many people tend not to understand until given a more concrete example... this I find challenging to do without being prejudged as some kind of racist or sexist, so unfortunately I just don't bother any more, the world has become overly sensitive to certain subjects.

wslack 5y ago
> the world has become overly sensitive to certain subjects. I'm not sure that the world has become sensitive. Rather, opinions that people didn't feel safe to express about nonsense they experienced in their earlier life are now coming out. I recall a story about a church that held an "Aunt Jemima" event in 1991 and were surprised that so many black families chose not to show up - but none of those folks protested or said what bothered them. (https://theundefeated.com/features/it-was-past-time-for-aunt-jemimas-image-to-go/ https://theundefeated.com/features/it-was-past-time-for-aunt...) Broad, sweeping statements about groups of people have been used to discriminate all over the place. They've been used to justify not teaching certain kinds of people, or to justify myths that certain groups of people "should" always be a certain way because of the majority trendline. The people that built these myths sometimes did so (or do so today) with pseudoscience. So, for some who have heard this kind of nonsense their whole lives (maybe it was used to discriminate against a parent), actually valid + careful scientific research can sound like the same old nonsense.
- imbnwa 5y ago
  The downvotes tell me how uninterested enough of HN can be to other people's experience, even when the comment is just explaining how someone would dismiss current science based on history.
- bart_spoon 5y ago
  Incidents of people being offended in the past doesn't mean that people aren't more sensitive today than they are now. I think there is a strong argument made in "The Coddling of the American Mind" that overprotective helicopter parenting after the turn of the century, combined with the rise of online echo chambers that provide instant support for any personally held opinion have resulted in a society of individuals who are extremely sensitive and take offense much more easily.

by tomxor 5y ago

wslack 5y ago

> the world has become overly sensitive to certain subjects. I'm not sure that the world has become sensitive. Rather, opinions that people didn't feel safe to express about nonsense they experienced in their earlier life are now coming out. I recall a story about a church that held an "Aunt Jemima" event in 1991 and were surprised that so many black families chose not to show up - but none of those folks protested or said what bothered them. (https://theundefeated.com/features/it-was-past-time-for-aunt-jemimas-image-to-go/ https://theundefeated.com/features/it-was-past-time-for-aunt...) Broad, sweeping statements about groups of people have been used to discriminate all over the place. They've been used to justify not teaching certain kinds of people, or to justify myths that certain groups of people "should" always be a certain way because of the majority trendline. The people that built these myths sometimes did so (or do so today) with pseudoscience. So, for some who have heard this kind of nonsense their whole lives (maybe it was used to discriminate against a parent), actually valid + careful scientific research can sound like the same old nonsense.

imbnwa 5y ago
The downvotes tell me how uninterested enough of HN can be to other people's experience, even when the comment is just explaining how someone would dismiss current science based on history.
bart_spoon 5y ago
Incidents of people being offended in the past doesn't mean that people aren't more sensitive today than they are now. I think there is a strong argument made in "The Coddling of the American Mind" that overprotective helicopter parenting after the turn of the century, combined with the rise of online echo chambers that provide instant support for any personally held opinion have resulted in a society of individuals who are extremely sensitive and take offense much more easily.