4 ms·
Perhaps "everybody can see" was a bit offhand, since I don't specialize in these matters. But the point I was trying to make actually was this: In general in da
by HSO 18y ago
Perhaps "everybody can see" was a bit offhand, since I don't specialize in these matters. But the point I was trying to make actually was this: In general in daily life, we should not care about the average but about the individual. I'm East Asian born in Europe so I've been aware of all kinds of stereotypes from both sides, good and bad. And you know what: It's just a blur and too broad a brush to paint the picture of my life or my decisions or capabilities etc. Same for other people. Of course I make snap judgments about them if I don't know them but they usually have to do with demeanor, language, clothing, anything and race is no factor usually (unless on a basketball court ;)
As for your last paragraph, however, I've grappled with that too and actually did not come to any conclusion. Obviously, you build filters as you go through life. In fact, if you face the same type of decision problem over and over, it's probably better to make it on a statistical basis rather than evaluate always fresh. But where is the line to discrimination and actually pushing people (who unlike most things adapt) into your framework, I don't know. Positively, statistical decision-making is "accumulating experience" faster; negatively, it's stereotyping. I don't know where the line is.
Still, I hold the line that the fact and truth is what it is, and should not be influenced by "what happens if the conclusion is A?". If we're afraid of truth, whatever it is, then something deeper is wrong and we better try to repair this rather than doctor the truth or our perception of the world.
- Tichy 18y agoI am definitely in favor of not letting political correctness get in the way of research. Just thinking certain claims should be extremely well validated before they are being blurted out. And just because there is opposition to some "research" because of political correctness also doesn't imply the correctness of that research. A flashback in history: some decades ago it was believed that the form of the skull could predict whether you are a criminal or not. Harmless research? Surely not, if you had the wrong kind of skull. P.S.: I take it with Asian family background you are on the safe side of the race IQ debate, as Asians are deemed to have an higher IQ than Caucasians on average.
- HSO 18y agoCome on, I don't see why the original authors were "blurting out" their hypothesis. From the article, it sounded like a normal, legitimate way to come up with something in the scientific research process. Science needs communication and as they themselves put it, they expect other researchers to examine the evidence more closely. Just to clarify this: I don't actually have an opinion on this issue; my problem is with the argument that somehow there is legitimate "overhead" to science in terms of social or political consequences or even people's personal pride. We are not in the middle ages anymore.
- Tichy 18y agoSorry, didn't refer specifically to the research from that article, just to the general research surrounding race/IQ. I read the Bell Curve years ago (didn't find it as shocking as expected), and even bothered to dig up some of the articles on twin studies in the libraries (most not being that convincing after all, it is hard to find a lot of twins that were separated as kids). As for the article linked here it is hard to judge it based on the facts given in the article alone. Just wanted to say that it doesn't become more likely just because people are opposed to it out of political motivation. Don't get your middle age reference: are you claiming that people don't have prejudices anymore? What about your "everyone can see" statement? People still have prejudices, and they affect peoples lives, often in a bad way. You think something like "recognising criminals by their skulls" could not happen anymore today? I think it could - just think of the immunisation/autism debate. Edit Re "blurting out": there are so many silly claims with respect to genetics, it is so easy to claim things must be so and so because of genetics. Hence my "blurting out" blurt.
- HSO 18y agoThe middle age thing was just a reference to the general struggle between the church representation of the world and the emerging scientific approach. I agree with you on the racial prejudices. They are definitely not dead; many people seem to need them somehow. I suspect, though, that genetic profiling will become a more potent issue in the future.