4 ms·

For me it is crystal clear. I have no problem stating that because I am not disrespecting nor discriminating anyone based on gender. What you mean by "it's not

For me it is crystal clear. I have no problem stating that because I am not disrespecting nor discriminating anyone based on gender. What you mean by "it's not clear" is "there's no scientific proof", which is a totally different thing. You may argue that it's just something I believe in, but I'm ok everyone else's skepticism, I don't want to convince anybody of anything, but heck, don't disregard my opinion because of your taboos. Either way, even it wouldn't be clear, it wouldn't be clear that I'm wrong either. I agree with you that culture matters, and indeed people have been victim of discrimination countless times throughout mankind history. But you are afraid to admit that other aspects might matter too, because it touches your taboos. You pick the example of black people being thrown to the bottom of the social structure of north american society because you know that arguing with that is unethical by pretty much any current standard. But just recently James Watson stated precisely that the average black person is less intelligent than the average white. Now, quite frankly, I don't care about that subject, but would dare to discuss it or would you just claim that discussion is out of your ethical boundaries? It's not a nice topic to discuss, but because of that you can't just pretend there's nothing to discuss. I'm just saying: If your arguments are limited by taboos then your opinion can't be of much value.

jtheory 15y ago
If any of this is "crystal clear", then you need to revisit your username choice. It's fine to form an opinion based on limited and partial data; you have to. But the strength of your opinion should be based on how much data you have to support it, and you should revisit it when someone presents you with data that contradicts it (as the grandparent post attempted to do). I'm not sure what to make of your "average black person is less intelligent" point. Are you seriously arguing that a debatable genetic difference was the principle reason antebellum blacks were picking cotton? You can, and most people could discuss it, but it's an extremely weak point. (E.g., individual != average, and in-population range is very large, so you'd expect to see the appropriate percentage of black landowners, successful business owners, etc.). Hmm. On the subject of skepticism -- it's perhaps worth mentioning that James Watson is an accomplished scientist, but he's not considered an expert on the study & measures of human intelligence any more than you are. Arguments from authority should at least offer an authority in that field, not just from any field.
- skeptical 15y ago
  If any of this is "crystal clear", then you need to revisit your username choice. Well observed, but no. What makes me skeptical about many things is having a clear opinion/view about other things. For me that's the true essence of skepticism. I'm not sure what to make of your "average black person is less intelligent" point. Are you seriously arguing that a debatable genetic difference was the principle reason antebellum blacks were picking cotton? I didn't make any such point. And no, I'm not arguing that. But the phrasing of your question does prove my point about how afraid people is about some debates. That is particularly ironic because they seem to be so certain about it, why should they be afraid to debate it? You can, and most people could discuss it, but it's an extremely weak point. I don't think you really mean it, sorry. (E.g., individual != average, and in-population range is very large, so you'd expect to see the appropriate percentage of black landowners, successful business owners, etc.). Hmm. Yep, I really don't think you mean it. Starting by the 'individual != average' is a common symptom of such taboos. By doing so you try to nullify any consideration about a group of people, but you go on and do just that to prove your point whenever necessary. For the record, I share the same opinion as you about the topic. I might be wrong here, of course, but I'm getting the feeling that you are assuming I'm 'white' and that that is strongly affecting your reasoning. You might stop to re-think for a little while. Just saying.
  - jtheory 15y ago
    I had a vague idea you were Indian, but no strong sense, FWIW. I also can't imagine how it would affect what I wrote. These are not new topics I'm only considering now. I didn't know what to make of this point: "You pick the example of black people being thrown to the bottom of the social structure of north american society [example in the post you're responding to was more blacks picking cotton historically in the US] because you know that arguing with that is unethical by pretty much any current standard. But just recently James Watson stated precisely that the average black person is less intelligent than the average white." Can you clarify your point, then? Or less tangentially, return to your original points about the topic at hand, and present research that's too taboo to discuss? If you claim your opinion is too taboo to discuss, that's pretty much just blowing smoke; people who disagree (and explain why) aren't shying away from a taboo; they're disagreeing. If you have "inconvenient truths" that seem to contradict common opinions, that's far more interesting (and yes, is worth discussing), though if you don't entertain the possibility that you're misinterpreting the data (because you're already crystal clear...), it's all a waste of breath.
zasz 15y ago
The point is, intelligent people at the time thought that it was biologically predetermined that some men should enslave others. For a more recent, horrific example, it used to be legal to sterilize people without their permission if they failed an IQ test. A Supreme Court justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, endorsed this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_Board_of_North_Carolina http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_Board_of_North_Carolin... It is entirely possible to be an intelligent person too blinded by the social norms of the time to give people the benefit of the doubt, the justice, and the mercy that they deserve. And a true skeptic ought to recognize that, and be afraid of embracing any belief that feels natural or true. You are not a good skeptic if you are willing to consider beliefs that are bizarre or taboo. Religious fundamentalists do the same thing, too. You are a good skeptic if you're willing to question your own intuitions.
- skeptical 15y ago
  The examples you pick and the way you present them are very relevant. your observations are also very well made and in my opinion very reasonable. In fact i agree with you. I just think your conclusion is undermined by your unwillingness to question yourself, even if you state that everybody should do just that. To pick up on your example, castration. I recently red about swedish history and found out that some decades ago the Swedish government forced castration on a rather high amount of people through criminal law. Sure, the reason was supposedly not the same as in North Carolina, but if 1 to 3 percent of the population got the penalty, one may ask if the criteria were really all that well defined and legit. Personally, I also consider this horrific. The truth is, the developed and tolerant swedish society we all know basically started after the castration trend. I will not say it's a consequence of it, I sincerely hope it's not. But will I disregard that possibility just because I don't like it? No, never. I dare to look at those facts and try to understand them. I don't like that possibility, it is brutal, but I will not censor my critical thinking. We have gender distinction in sports because it's obvious that men and women are physically different. No one objects that. But no one dares to admit the possibility of man being different than women intellectually/psychologically/mentally, because that's a taboo. It's not obvious, there is no scientific evidence, etc. but why does everybody gets so angry if that possibility is even talked about? I'm tired of this fake morals. You are not more respectful towards woman rights simply by staying away from sensitive topics. Most importantly, I don't mind if you think I respect women rights less than you because of my opinions. I know I how much I respect women rights, I could care less about proving it.

jtheory 15y ago

If any of this is "crystal clear", then you need to revisit your username choice. It's fine to form an opinion based on limited and partial data; you have to. But the strength of your opinion should be based on how much data you have to support it, and you should revisit it when someone presents you with data that contradicts it (as the grandparent post attempted to do). I'm not sure what to make of your "average black person is less intelligent" point. Are you seriously arguing that a debatable genetic difference was the principle reason antebellum blacks were picking cotton? You can, and most people could discuss it, but it's an extremely weak point. (E.g., individual != average, and in-population range is very large, so you'd expect to see the appropriate percentage of black landowners, successful business owners, etc.). Hmm. On the subject of skepticism -- it's perhaps worth mentioning that James Watson is an accomplished scientist, but he's not considered an expert on the study & measures of human intelligence any more than you are. Arguments from authority should at least offer an authority in that field, not just from any field.

skeptical 15y ago
If any of this is "crystal clear", then you need to revisit your username choice. Well observed, but no. What makes me skeptical about many things is having a clear opinion/view about other things. For me that's the true essence of skepticism. I'm not sure what to make of your "average black person is less intelligent" point. Are you seriously arguing that a debatable genetic difference was the principle reason antebellum blacks were picking cotton? I didn't make any such point. And no, I'm not arguing that. But the phrasing of your question does prove my point about how afraid people is about some debates. That is particularly ironic because they seem to be so certain about it, why should they be afraid to debate it? You can, and most people could discuss it, but it's an extremely weak point. I don't think you really mean it, sorry. (E.g., individual != average, and in-population range is very large, so you'd expect to see the appropriate percentage of black landowners, successful business owners, etc.). Hmm. Yep, I really don't think you mean it. Starting by the 'individual != average' is a common symptom of such taboos. By doing so you try to nullify any consideration about a group of people, but you go on and do just that to prove your point whenever necessary. For the record, I share the same opinion as you about the topic. I might be wrong here, of course, but I'm getting the feeling that you are assuming I'm 'white' and that that is strongly affecting your reasoning. You might stop to re-think for a little while. Just saying.
- jtheory 15y ago
  I had a vague idea you were Indian, but no strong sense, FWIW. I also can't imagine how it would affect what I wrote. These are not new topics I'm only considering now. I didn't know what to make of this point: "You pick the example of black people being thrown to the bottom of the social structure of north american society [example in the post you're responding to was more blacks picking cotton historically in the US] because you know that arguing with that is unethical by pretty much any current standard. But just recently James Watson stated precisely that the average black person is less intelligent than the average white." Can you clarify your point, then? Or less tangentially, return to your original points about the topic at hand, and present research that's too taboo to discuss? If you claim your opinion is too taboo to discuss, that's pretty much just blowing smoke; people who disagree (and explain why) aren't shying away from a taboo; they're disagreeing. If you have "inconvenient truths" that seem to contradict common opinions, that's far more interesting (and yes, is worth discussing), though if you don't entertain the possibility that you're misinterpreting the data (because you're already crystal clear...), it's all a waste of breath.

zasz 15y ago

The point is, intelligent people at the time thought that it was biologically predetermined that some men should enslave others. For a more recent, horrific example, it used to be legal to sterilize people without their permission if they failed an IQ test. A Supreme Court justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, endorsed this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_Board_of_North_Carolina http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_Board_of_North_Carolin... It is entirely possible to be an intelligent person too blinded by the social norms of the time to give people the benefit of the doubt, the justice, and the mercy that they deserve. And a true skeptic ought to recognize that, and be afraid of embracing any belief that feels natural or true. You are not a good skeptic if you are willing to consider beliefs that are bizarre or taboo. Religious fundamentalists do the same thing, too. You are a good skeptic if you're willing to question your own intuitions.

skeptical 15y ago
The examples you pick and the way you present them are very relevant. your observations are also very well made and in my opinion very reasonable. In fact i agree with you. I just think your conclusion is undermined by your unwillingness to question yourself, even if you state that everybody should do just that. To pick up on your example, castration. I recently red about swedish history and found out that some decades ago the Swedish government forced castration on a rather high amount of people through criminal law. Sure, the reason was supposedly not the same as in North Carolina, but if 1 to 3 percent of the population got the penalty, one may ask if the criteria were really all that well defined and legit. Personally, I also consider this horrific. The truth is, the developed and tolerant swedish society we all know basically started after the castration trend. I will not say it's a consequence of it, I sincerely hope it's not. But will I disregard that possibility just because I don't like it? No, never. I dare to look at those facts and try to understand them. I don't like that possibility, it is brutal, but I will not censor my critical thinking. We have gender distinction in sports because it's obvious that men and women are physically different. No one objects that. But no one dares to admit the possibility of man being different than women intellectually/psychologically/mentally, because that's a taboo. It's not obvious, there is no scientific evidence, etc. but why does everybody gets so angry if that possibility is even talked about? I'm tired of this fake morals. You are not more respectful towards woman rights simply by staying away from sensitive topics. Most importantly, I don't mind if you think I respect women rights less than you because of my opinions. I know I how much I respect women rights, I could care less about proving it.