4 ms·

What bothers me about this sort of idea is more the follow-up. Let's imagine for the sake of discussion that we prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that some gro

by Bakary 4y ago

What bothers me about this sort of idea is more the follow-up. Let's imagine for the sake of discussion that we prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that some groups are, on average, less intelligent than others. What then would the people advancing this argument suggest we do as a society? My gut feeling tells me they won't stop at just removing some current measures in the name of meritocracy, but will also gradually impose restrictions and it'll get real somber real fast.

hotpotamus 4y ago
I'll put on my elite conservative hat to answer your question. Is concern for the consequences worth it to suppress the truth - being that some races are simply less intelligent than others (on average). If that is true, then there is no need to make any changes - each race has already assumed their proper place in our meritocratic society. And taking off that hat, I agree with your thoughts and concerns. I will say that it's uncontroversial that there are IQ differences in race, but it's far from proven that those differences are purely genetic and can't be attributed to societal differences.
- Bakary 4y ago
  I'm not entirely sure what elite conservatism is or whether you endorse this view or not, but there's no civilizational context where meritocracy can exist given first mover advantages, resource accumulation, and institutional capture. What meritocracy usually ends up meaning in a practical sense is a deeply hierarchical society that happens to be pleasing in a certain way to the groups defining what meritocracy is in the local context. The search for objective truth isn't the main concern but rather the premise from which we jump to justifying prescriptive claims, which are by definition outside of the purview of the scientific method. In this case, using the idea that certain groups are more intelligent than average than others to push forward highly culturally specific modes of societal organization.

by Bakary 4y ago

hotpotamus 4y ago

I'll put on my elite conservative hat to answer your question. Is concern for the consequences worth it to suppress the truth - being that some races are simply less intelligent than others (on average). If that is true, then there is no need to make any changes - each race has already assumed their proper place in our meritocratic society. And taking off that hat, I agree with your thoughts and concerns. I will say that it's uncontroversial that there are IQ differences in race, but it's far from proven that those differences are purely genetic and can't be attributed to societal differences.

Bakary 4y ago
I'm not entirely sure what elite conservatism is or whether you endorse this view or not, but there's no civilizational context where meritocracy can exist given first mover advantages, resource accumulation, and institutional capture. What meritocracy usually ends up meaning in a practical sense is a deeply hierarchical society that happens to be pleasing in a certain way to the groups defining what meritocracy is in the local context. The search for objective truth isn't the main concern but rather the premise from which we jump to justifying prescriptive claims, which are by definition outside of the purview of the scientific method. In this case, using the idea that certain groups are more intelligent than average than others to push forward highly culturally specific modes of societal organization.