3 ms·

And conservatives are flat-out wrong, as usual, because they're arguing against strawmen they've invented. No one is talking about individuals. The discussion i

And conservatives are flat-out wrong, as usual, because they're arguing against strawmen they've invented. No one is talking about individuals. The discussion is about group statistics. Individuals are irrelevant to the discussion. If there is a statistical difference in outcomes, why? Is one group inherently inferior? Or is there maybe not the equality of opportunity that they claim?

visarga 4y ago
.. groups might differ in how they set goals and what they consider valuable
sandstrom 4y ago
"Is one group inherently inferior?" It's reasonable to think that there is (A) some correlation between parental income and intelligence. Also, it's reasonable to think there is (B) correlation between parental intelligence and their children's intelligence, which in turn (C) correlate with school performance. Source on B: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ Sources on A and C: https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/ses/2007-strenze.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/ses/2007-strenze.pdf So yes, maybe people in the low income group are "inferior" in the sense that they'll have a harder time in school, because they are (on average) less bright. Everyone knows that some kids have an easy time in school because they are quick-witted, and others will have a harder time. That's not saying we shouldn't try to help them, we certainly should! But I think we'll make less progress on that goal if we cannot admit that some kids will have a more difficult time than others.
bendbro 4y ago
> No one is talking about individuals. The discussion is about group statistics. Sweeping group level decisions ultimately affect individuals. > If there is a statistical difference in outcomes, why? Is one group inherently inferior? Why not? Progress isn't exclusive to the left, and people offering progress often destroy rather than improve. Progress doesn't necessarily require sacrificing meritocratic ideals to satisfy some sludge of totally-not-marxist, totally-not-postmodern, totally-not-intersectional, totally-not-critical-theory thought. We can make everyone's life better through other methods. I'm happy to see the zeitgeist finally getting over this fixation that politics is described by "The Good Guys vs the right wing". My idea: Judge people on their individual merits and whatever happens is fair game. Implement a social safety net to prevent people from suffering. Reparate historical violations of the first tenet. Aggressively target monopolies. Increase environmental protections. Increase transparency in business and government. Increase education about our financial system, personal finance, and contemporary topics. These ideas can be easily composed onto the ideas we already have, will result in benefit for everyone, and the political distance between them and the common man is much less than it is between all the woke stuff.
rhino369 4y ago
They are talking about individuals because that is what they value. That's not wrong, you just don't see the value in it. They don't see the value in hyping up ethnic/racial identifies. It's a difference of values / philosophy. And inferior is loaded language. Success in something does not mean those that aren't are inferior.

visarga 4y ago

.. groups might differ in how they set goals and what they consider valuable

sandstrom 4y ago

"Is one group inherently inferior?" It's reasonable to think that there is (A) some correlation between parental income and intelligence. Also, it's reasonable to think there is (B) correlation between parental intelligence and their children's intelligence, which in turn (C) correlate with school performance. Source on B: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ Sources on A and C: https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/ses/2007-strenze.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/ses/2007-strenze.pdf So yes, maybe people in the low income group are "inferior" in the sense that they'll have a harder time in school, because they are (on average) less bright. Everyone knows that some kids have an easy time in school because they are quick-witted, and others will have a harder time. That's not saying we shouldn't try to help them, we certainly should! But I think we'll make less progress on that goal if we cannot admit that some kids will have a more difficult time than others.

bendbro 4y ago

> No one is talking about individuals. The discussion is about group statistics. Sweeping group level decisions ultimately affect individuals. > If there is a statistical difference in outcomes, why? Is one group inherently inferior? Why not? Progress isn't exclusive to the left, and people offering progress often destroy rather than improve. Progress doesn't necessarily require sacrificing meritocratic ideals to satisfy some sludge of totally-not-marxist, totally-not-postmodern, totally-not-intersectional, totally-not-critical-theory thought. We can make everyone's life better through other methods. I'm happy to see the zeitgeist finally getting over this fixation that politics is described by "The Good Guys vs the right wing". My idea: Judge people on their individual merits and whatever happens is fair game. Implement a social safety net to prevent people from suffering. Reparate historical violations of the first tenet. Aggressively target monopolies. Increase environmental protections. Increase transparency in business and government. Increase education about our financial system, personal finance, and contemporary topics. These ideas can be easily composed onto the ideas we already have, will result in benefit for everyone, and the political distance between them and the common man is much less than it is between all the woke stuff.

rhino369 4y ago

They are talking about individuals because that is what they value. That's not wrong, you just don't see the value in it. They don't see the value in hyping up ethnic/racial identifies. It's a difference of values / philosophy. And inferior is loaded language. Success in something does not mean those that aren't are inferior.