5 ms·

>I actually think you could use his methodology to basically destroy all social sciences. You can indeed, which is why I judge peoples sincerity on this subjec

>I actually think you could use his methodology to basically destroy all social sciences. You can indeed, which is why I judge peoples sincerity on this subject based on if they reject the social sciences entirely as pseudoscientific drivel or apply this reasoning to IQ heritability specifically because they don't like it. If I'm being honest, deep down, I have to think "the social sciences are pseudoscientific drivel" is the more sound argument. The science is pretty bad which is why the replication crisis hit the social sciences harder than virtually anything else.

tptacek 4y ago
You cannot, in fact, use any of the logic in Ned Block's heritability piece to "basically destroy all social sciences". If you disagree, I'd challenge you to formulate any kind of argument based on what Block actually wrote, which is a straightforward explication of the concept of heritability, and not a philosophical treatise on epistemology. My counterclaim is that "this proves too much, as it implies all of social science is faulty" is a shallow dismissal based on a presumption about what the article says, rather than a close reading of it. If the previous commenter would like to rebut that argument, they too could come up with any argument based on what Block actually wrote to support their original claim. I knew nothing at all about that commenter at the start of this discussion, but what I've learned since makes me skeptical of their ability to draw sweeping conclusions from any work on this subject. It's not clear that they understand how cog. psych works, or what the implications of IQ actually are, and it is manifestly the case that they don't understand what heritability means.
- sfblah 4y ago
  I'm not interested in formulating an argument against, say, the efficacy of secondary education using the same methodology as Ned Block, because to do so would take something like 20,000 words, and then you'd just reject it anyway. What you're doing is just standard trolling. You're making an argument in 100 words that requires 10,000 words to refute (i.e. timewasting). Ned Block's argument is absolutely a selective demand for rigor which at its core just argues that in social sciences nothing is "certain" therefore nothing can be known at all. I find it sort of amazing that folks will twist themselves into pretzels to argue that IQ's genetic basis shouldn't be the prior. The majority of smart people I've talked to in life had a similar experience to me growing up. Namely, they remember very well just being "better" at school than other kids, even though their environments were similar and they didn't honestly try that hard. I specifically remember teachers lauding me in 2nd grade for how hard I worked, when honestly I was and am pretty lazy. I remember very well sitting in class in 7th grade, watching the same presentations by the teacher that all the other kids watched and then with zero studying getting 100% correct on the test while many of them struggled. And I remember going to many of their houses and seeing that their home environments were either equivalent or superior to mine. Athletic kids have a very similar experience, by the way, when it comes down to running or jumping or other sports. They're just "better". At base, the environmental argument boils down to something like this: "Anyone in the world could have beaten Magnus Carlsen to become world chess champion if they'd just had the proper environment." Such an argument is so obviously preposterous that the prior should absolutely be that it's false. Another point: We already know IQ is genetic. Witness that the housecat and humans have vastly different IQs, and no cat will ever perform better on an IQ test than the median human. Again, the prior obviously should be that IQ is genetic. And again, note that I'm simply pointing out what the PRIOR should be. Thus, it should be on YOU to provide evidence that the prior is wrong. It is insufficient to simply argue that not enough evidence exists to prove IQ is genetic, because that is the prior. The burden of proof is on YOU. Your arguments boil down to simply gaslighting smart people that their life experience is somehow completely inaccurate, unrepresentative, or misinterpreted. If you really are making it in good faith, it leaves me wondering what in your life experience leads you to believe the genetic explanation should not be the prior. Did you do poorly in school? Did you grow up in such a privileged environment that you can't believe that people like me exist?
  - tptacek 4y ago
    This is a lot of words, none of which use anything Block actually wrote to "destroy all of social science".
    - sfblah 4y ago
      No, I succeeded.
      - tptacek 4y ago
        Ok. I'm comfortable about what this thread says about our respective arguments. Thanks!
        sfblah 4y ago
        It says I know not to feed trolls, and you're a troll.

tptacek 4y ago

You cannot, in fact, use any of the logic in Ned Block's heritability piece to "basically destroy all social sciences". If you disagree, I'd challenge you to formulate any kind of argument based on what Block actually wrote, which is a straightforward explication of the concept of heritability, and not a philosophical treatise on epistemology. My counterclaim is that "this proves too much, as it implies all of social science is faulty" is a shallow dismissal based on a presumption about what the article says, rather than a close reading of it. If the previous commenter would like to rebut that argument, they too could come up with any argument based on what Block actually wrote to support their original claim. I knew nothing at all about that commenter at the start of this discussion, but what I've learned since makes me skeptical of their ability to draw sweeping conclusions from any work on this subject. It's not clear that they understand how cog. psych works, or what the implications of IQ actually are, and it is manifestly the case that they don't understand what heritability means.

sfblah 4y ago
I'm not interested in formulating an argument against, say, the efficacy of secondary education using the same methodology as Ned Block, because to do so would take something like 20,000 words, and then you'd just reject it anyway. What you're doing is just standard trolling. You're making an argument in 100 words that requires 10,000 words to refute (i.e. timewasting). Ned Block's argument is absolutely a selective demand for rigor which at its core just argues that in social sciences nothing is "certain" therefore nothing can be known at all. I find it sort of amazing that folks will twist themselves into pretzels to argue that IQ's genetic basis shouldn't be the prior. The majority of smart people I've talked to in life had a similar experience to me growing up. Namely, they remember very well just being "better" at school than other kids, even though their environments were similar and they didn't honestly try that hard. I specifically remember teachers lauding me in 2nd grade for how hard I worked, when honestly I was and am pretty lazy. I remember very well sitting in class in 7th grade, watching the same presentations by the teacher that all the other kids watched and then with zero studying getting 100% correct on the test while many of them struggled. And I remember going to many of their houses and seeing that their home environments were either equivalent or superior to mine. Athletic kids have a very similar experience, by the way, when it comes down to running or jumping or other sports. They're just "better". At base, the environmental argument boils down to something like this: "Anyone in the world could have beaten Magnus Carlsen to become world chess champion if they'd just had the proper environment." Such an argument is so obviously preposterous that the prior should absolutely be that it's false. Another point: We already know IQ is genetic. Witness that the housecat and humans have vastly different IQs, and no cat will ever perform better on an IQ test than the median human. Again, the prior obviously should be that IQ is genetic. And again, note that I'm simply pointing out what the PRIOR should be. Thus, it should be on YOU to provide evidence that the prior is wrong. It is insufficient to simply argue that not enough evidence exists to prove IQ is genetic, because that is the prior. The burden of proof is on YOU. Your arguments boil down to simply gaslighting smart people that their life experience is somehow completely inaccurate, unrepresentative, or misinterpreted. If you really are making it in good faith, it leaves me wondering what in your life experience leads you to believe the genetic explanation should not be the prior. Did you do poorly in school? Did you grow up in such a privileged environment that you can't believe that people like me exist?
- tptacek 4y ago
  This is a lot of words, none of which use anything Block actually wrote to "destroy all of social science".
  - sfblah 4y ago
    No, I succeeded.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      Ok. I'm comfortable about what this thread says about our respective arguments. Thanks!
      - sfblah 4y ago
        It says I know not to feed trolls, and you're a troll.