3 ms·
A control group is kind of unimaginable right? And even if you could be sure of this conclusion, is it helpful or beneficial to promote it in public discourse?
by alex_young 3y ago
A control group is kind of unimaginable right? And even if you could be sure of this conclusion, is it helpful or beneficial to promote it in public discourse?
- logicchains 3y ago>And even if you could be sure of this conclusion, is it helpful or beneficial to promote it in public discourse? It's absolutely helpful for mental health, to show people that there's not some conspiracy out to disenfranchise and oppress them, rather the distribution of outcomes is a natural result of the distribution of genetic characteristics.
- astrange 3y agoThis is not an accurate description of causation and can't be, because there are more steps after "genetics" in the causal chain. It's also unimaginative; having a variety of traits is itself good for society, which means you don't need variation in genetics to cause it. It's adaptive behavior for the same genes to simply lead to random outcomes. But people who say "genes cause X" probably wouldn't like this because they want to also say "and some people have the best genes".
- TMWNN 3y agoSorry, you don't get to decide which thoughts are wrongthink and verboten.
- alex_young 3y agoI’m not suggesting that I get to decide or whatever, and I am absolutely happy there is reasoned discussion of cognition. I do however expect the boards of directors of important companies to avoid publicly supporting obviously regressive ideas such as this gem.
- mvdtnz 3y agoYou're happy there is reasoned discussion, but the idea is, in your view, "regressive" whether it's true or not?
- alex_young 3y agoTrue is a bit of a stretch here right?