4 ms·

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.

by 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.
  - skeptical 15y ago
    I tell what you could do of that point. You could admit that you deliberately picked a sensitive topic (black people being oppressed in the past) as a counterexample to push the discussion in a dead end because race is a 'dangerous' topic for anyone to touch. I do not want to discuss such topic here because it will inevitably take over the original one as it always do. 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. I don't have inconvenient trues, only an inconvenient opinion, and that is: women and men won't reach a 50/50 share in many roles of society simply because women and men are significantly different both physically and psychologically. Furthermore, I think the trend of forcing men and women to be equal in all aspects doesn't help improve women rights, but rather degrades them. Many ask for scientific proof. I don't have such thing, but if you understand what 'scientific proof' really means you'll agree that is not much more than a consensus on a matter that will prevail until we find a better explanation for it, a better 'scientific proof' that will render the previous one obsolete. But on to the subject, from the age of ten if you look at people's performances in school, it's pretty much obvious that girls do consistently better across the board. On the other hand if you pick the top students of a specific subject you'll find many more boys than girls, specially in exact sciences and the like. I've live in a few european countries and this pattern is pretty obvious. Honestly I can't find an active social setup that would enforce this outcome. Sure there might be some residual gender segregation that still affects it, but in my opinion this pattern is too consistent to be solely explained by social constraints. Specially since it's observed since very young age. This is an example, one of the simplest, but there are more evidence. Do you think that this is not relevant? Why?

by jtheory 15y ago

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.
- skeptical 15y ago
  I tell what you could do of that point. You could admit that you deliberately picked a sensitive topic (black people being oppressed in the past) as a counterexample to push the discussion in a dead end because race is a 'dangerous' topic for anyone to touch. I do not want to discuss such topic here because it will inevitably take over the original one as it always do. 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. I don't have inconvenient trues, only an inconvenient opinion, and that is: women and men won't reach a 50/50 share in many roles of society simply because women and men are significantly different both physically and psychologically. Furthermore, I think the trend of forcing men and women to be equal in all aspects doesn't help improve women rights, but rather degrades them. Many ask for scientific proof. I don't have such thing, but if you understand what 'scientific proof' really means you'll agree that is not much more than a consensus on a matter that will prevail until we find a better explanation for it, a better 'scientific proof' that will render the previous one obsolete. But on to the subject, from the age of ten if you look at people's performances in school, it's pretty much obvious that girls do consistently better across the board. On the other hand if you pick the top students of a specific subject you'll find many more boys than girls, specially in exact sciences and the like. I've live in a few european countries and this pattern is pretty obvious. Honestly I can't find an active social setup that would enforce this outcome. Sure there might be some residual gender segregation that still affects it, but in my opinion this pattern is too consistent to be solely explained by social constraints. Specially since it's observed since very young age. This is an example, one of the simplest, but there are more evidence. Do you think that this is not relevant? Why?