Ethics and Science Quarantine Zone
  • Saboni is the surname. Nima.
    I'm still great and you still love it.
  • Well it would appear to be a different wedding then. Not so small a world after all!
    "Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." ― Terry Pratchett
  • Lol. It was fun while it lasted.
    I'm still great and you still love it.
  • JRPC wrote:
    You'd have to be a masochist...
     
    JonB wrote:
    I wonder what Harris would make of this. You've basically turned him into a kind of religion. Seems to go against everything he purports to stand for. And no fucking wonder a proper discussion has been impossible from the start. If only you'd declared your bias then...

    This is a simple misreading of what I'm saying there, but even given that you're a little fast and loose with the use of "bias" there fella.

    Take (the book) Free Will for example, as it's easier to pin down.  I've claimed this is now "core software running on my brain" right? The thesis of that book is simple - free will doesn't exist. That's a simple truth claim. It's not an ideology or a political agenda. It is every bit as much of a simple truth claim as, say, that the earth goes around the sun. 

    All I was saying there is that the concept of the book, that free will doesn't exist, is now running in my brain in a much same way that the idea the earth goes around the sun does. We don't need to step outside every morning and reason afresh from first principles that we're currently orbiting the sun, and not doing so doesn't mean we're harbouring some sort of "Copernicus bias" (googled it). 

    Of course, that doesn't mean I couldn't be persuaded out of it, any more than I couldn't be persuaded that the sun actually rotates around us. But I think at this stage, both are fairly unlikely. 

    hunk wrote:
    The way I see it is Face can frame the Harris/Klein discussion much better than jrpc because he has so much more knowledge on the subject of science and philosophy. And the keyword here is 'frame'. This thing is this discussion (what is/isn't science, what is pseudoscience?) is not new. Kuhn and Popper already described this extensively yet Harris shows enormous ignorance on the subject. Not sure why, he is a phd afterall but if Klein's assessment is correct it's because Harris' wants to get back at the evil sjw's who threaten his career. God I hate the term sjw but there you go... To Jrpc, go out and read some more stuff on the subject and expand your horizon. There's more than just Harris' which is just one perspective on the topic. It's good to see stuff from multiple angles.


    OK so the claim here is explicitly that I'm failing to frame this properly because Face understands the relevant science and philosophy better than I do. Of course, it's certainly possible that he does. I am not a scientist or a philosopher. 

    First off, can I just quickly highlight the fact that Face has apparently only very recently caught up the idea that this myth about "IQ only measures IQ" is pop-nonsense and was something I was trying to explain about 50 pages ago. I don't notice quite the same reaction to him suggesting this now though. Strange...

    But here's my main point;

    How exactly does what you've written there square with these posts from Haier, who's framing of the Harris/Klein discussion perfectly matches my own.


    After hearing the podcast, I emailed congratulations to him and Murray for conducting an informative discussion of complex and controversial issues.

    Every point they enumerated as having broad support among intelligence researchers is correct. There is an overwhelming weight of evidence to support the ideas that intelligence is something real, it can be reliably and validly measured without bias, and the measures predict many real world variables that are important to most human beings. There also is broad agreement that one component of intelligence is a general ability (the g-factor) to reason and problem-solve across a wide range of situations. There also is overwhelming evidence that genes play a significant role in explaining differences in intelligence among individuals.
    There is not consensus on this because direct evidence from modern genetic studies of group differences is not yet available.

    Nonetheless, apparently THN view any possibility that this may be correct as inherently racist and malevolent. 
    They attacked Harris and Murray for promoting this genetic view and the genetic inferiority of some groups it implies. 
    It is a false charge. 

    There is quite a difference between discussing and promoting.

    Are you telling me that you read those quotes from the editor of the scientific journal Intelligence and the President of the International Society for Intelligence Research and think, "y'know Rich, I see you've got a lot of highly relevant qualifications and numerous publications in the specific field of interest over there, but the way I see it is the reason you're struggling to frame this properly is that you just don't have same kind of grasp of the science and philosophy as this guy from a gaming forum and his BuzzFeed articles".

    Again...


    Gamgertag: JRPC
    PSN: Lastability95
  • JRPC wrote:
    ...
    ...
    Nonetheless, apparently THN view any possibility that this may be correct as inherently racist and malevolent. 
    ...
    I mean, you keep coming back to this pearl-clutching as if that original Vox piece was shouting the Harris /Murray interview down with just “that’s racist and these people should be silenced and driven out of the scientific community!” - but it absolutely didn’t, it’s absolutely fair critique and is particularly even-handed in its conclusions.

    https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/5/18/15655638/charles-murray-race-iq-sam-harris-science-free-speech

    Or maybe this was the phantom “original” version that you claim to have read that edited out all those “inflammatory bits”? Lol at the moral panic about moral panic.
  • djchump wrote:
    ...
    ... Nonetheless, apparently THN view any possibility that this may be correct as inherently racist and malevolent. 
    ...
    I mean, you keep coming back to this pearl-clutching as if that original Vox piece was shouting the Harris /Murray interview down with just “that’s racist and these people should be silenced and driven out of the scientific community!” - but it absolutely didn’t, it’s absolutely fair critique and is particularly even-handed in its conclusions. https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/5/18/15655638/charles-murray-race-iq-sam-harris-science-free-speech Or maybe this was the phantom “original” version that you claim to have read that edited out all those “inflammatory bits”? Lol at the moral panic about moral panic.

    Well that's what we're debating I guess, and I'm firmly with Haier (as well as the "broad support amoung intellegence researchers" that he brings), Harris and Reich and not on the side of Vox media.

    I guess it's as simple as that.

    You know that one of the authors of the Vox piece has apologised for title of the article btw, Charles Murray is once again peddling junk science about race and IQ admitting that it was "name calling" and unhelpful? 

    Fair critique and even-handed?
    Gamgertag: JRPC
    PSN: Lastability95
  • Browsing over these 11 pages, I don't think we ever managed to crawl out the ditch we very quickly fell into.

    I don't at all think I'm blameless in that.

    I also don't think I have really anything else to add that hasn't been said already.

    I think I'm going to call it day, at least on this topic.

    Peace out.

    tenor.gif
    Gamgertag: JRPC
    PSN: Lastability95
  • JonB wrote:
    JRPC wrote:
    Moral philosophy and ethics is my jam (with a good dash of medical ethics), or at least it has been for the last 3 or 4 years, and I have come out the other end of that a hard Harrisian. The Moral Landscape, Free Will and Lying are now pretty much core software running on my brain.
    I wonder what Harris would make of this. You've basically turned him into a kind of religion. Seems to go against everything he purports to stand for. And no fucking wonder a proper discussion has been impossible from the start. If only you'd declared your bias then...

    He's a moral positivist, what a surprise.
  • JRPC wrote:
    ...
    Well that's what we're debating I guess, and I'm firmly with Haier (as well as the "broad support amoung intellegence researchers" that he brings), Harris and Reich and not on the side of Vox media.
    No it’s not - you have repeatedly stated that you “have no interest in the IQ thing” and are only concerned about the treatment that you think Harris and Murray have been on the receiving end of.

    Stop flip-flopping all over the place.
    JRPC wrote:
    I guess it's as simple as that.
    No, really, what’s your fucking point?
    JRPC wrote:
    You know that one of the authors of the Vox piece has apologised for title of the article btw, Charles Murray is once again peddling junk science about race and IQ admitting that it was "name calling" and unhelpful? 
    Source? And sure, “junk science” and the implicit accusations in “peddling” are a bit clickbaity for a title on the internet (well gosh, welcome to the internet, I suppose) but the article is fine imho, and even explicitly calls out the campus protest and attempts to silence as unhelpful.
    JRPC wrote:
    Fair critique and even-handed?
    Which parts of it again did you think were “inflammatory” and “factual errors” that got edited out?

    I’m really started to get the impression you haven’t read it at all, let alone the multiple times you claim. If you read nothing of it, read the last few paragraphs and see what you think about this supposed “witch hunt name calling smear attempt to silence” you’re so panicked about.
  • Yossarian
    Show networks
    Xbox
    Yossarian Drew
    Steam
    Yossarian_Drew

    Send message
    I’m pretty gobsmacked that that is the Vox article which has been complained about so vociferously. Genuinely stunned that something so reasonable has caused so much angst.

    As for the title, that will have been added by a subeditor after the piece was written, it can and should be separated from the rest of the arguments that were put forward.
  • I don't believe in free will either. It was preordained by a series of educational/lifestyle mishaps that JRPC would come to make so many very bad posts.
  • JRPC wrote:
    JonB wrote:
    I wonder what Harris would make of this. You've basically turned him into a kind of religion. Seems to go against everything he purports to stand for. And no fucking wonder a proper discussion has been impossible from the start. If only you'd declared your bias then...
    This is a simple misreading of what I'm saying there, but even given that you're a little fast and loose with the use of "bias" there fella. 

    Take (the book) Free Will for example, as it's easier to pin down.  I've claimed this is now "core software running on my brain" right? The thesis of that book is simple - free will doesn't exist. That's a simple truth claim. It's not an ideology or a political agenda. It is every bit as much of a simple truth claim as, say, that the earth goes around the sun.  

    All I was saying there is that the concept of the book, that free will doesn't exist, is now running in my brain in a much same way that the idea the earth goes around the sun does. We don't need to step outside every morning and reason afresh from first principles that we're currently orbiting the sun, and not doing so doesn't mean we're harbouring some sort of "Copernicus bias" (googled it).  

    Of course, that doesn't mean I couldn't be persuaded out of it, any more than I couldn't be persuaded that the sun actually rotates around us. But I think at this stage, both are fairly unlikely.
    No, that's precisely what I thought you were saying, hence the comment. I agree with your final sentence.

    As for free will, it's never as clear cut as saying 'it doesn't exist'. But, hey, your mind's been made up, so not much point going through that.
  • Yossarian wrote:
    I’m pretty gobsmacked that that is the Vox article which has been complained about so vociferously. Genuinely stunned that something so reasonable has caused so much angst.
    ...
    It’s kinda hilarious how much mileage they can get out of their moral panic about this supposed “moral panic censorship PC gone mad it’s Winterval all over again!”

    I guess those podcasts, books and public appearances won’t promote themselves.
  • I wish it was easy to defang fucking ghouls just by calling them on their bullshit but people seem to have nudged them into positions of high political and economic power instead, d'oh.
  • I don't know where this fits but I finally heard Jordan Peterson speak last night and he sounds like Kermit the Frog

    Chapo do a reading of his 12 rules (all hilariously banal) but they put on Kermit voices for i.
  • Lol @Jrpc; the Bell curve is pseudoscience exactly in light of Kuhn and Popper. Not to mention face's points. This is a discussion that's been done many, many times before yet Harris seems blissfully unaware which makes him look like a tool. Stop shoving significant 'conservative' scientists forward and start thinking for yourself.

    See the BC for what it is, right wing propaganda to drive home socio-economic policies. It's not science and by Popper's standard the BC would indeed be considered lazy junk science. Essentially it assumes a lot yet scientifically it doesn't prove anything. But still, policy recommendations. Because, why not? Who doesn't like tax breaks?

    As for all the expert opinions you've posted I'll believe it when I see it. So far none of the 'research' is convincing to me. I seriously doubt that time will come either considering how fluid race is as a social construct. If after 30 years the Bell curve is still the best case they have for the concept of racial based iq than Murray's camp is shit at science.
    Steam: Ruffnekk
    Windows Live: mr of unlocking
    Fightcade2: mrofunlocking
  • acemuzzy
    Show networks
    PSN
    Acemuzzy
    Steam
    Acemuzzy (aka murray200)
    Wii
    3DS - 4613-7291-1486

    Send message
    Every point they enumerated as having broad support among intelligence researchers is correct

    Somebody has made this for claim, and JRPC is putting a lot of weight behind it. Is there any evidence for it though? "Broad support" is the kind of chat the Tories use when they're trying to talk up a minority position, it's decidedly unquantified and unverifiable.
  • acemuzzy
    Show networks
    PSN
    Acemuzzy
    Steam
    Acemuzzy (aka murray200)
    Wii
    3DS - 4613-7291-1486

    Send message
    And the grammar is weird - is each point correct, or the fact there's "broad support" correct?
  • acemuzzy wrote:
    Every point they enumerated as having broad support among intelligence researchers is correct

    Somebody has made this for claim, and JRPC is putting a lot of weight behind it. Is there any evidence for it though? "Broad support" is the kind of chat the Tories use when they're trying to talk up a minority position, it's decidedly unquantified and unverifiable.

    This is why I've shown my work. I dont want to say that you should, but you can go back through my posts in here and in CA to see different angles. I linked to a bunch of different stuff. (quoted myself with links suggested by some guy on broad stuff about IQ and race.) first post in his thread from me.
    I'm still great and you still love it.
  • acemuzzy
    Show networks
    PSN
    Acemuzzy
    Steam
    Acemuzzy (aka murray200)
    Wii
    3DS - 4613-7291-1486

    Send message
    So is the person jrpc quoted as saying there was broad consensus about some shizzle wrong then?

    Has jrpc got anything to back it up, beyond the credentials of the bloke who said it?
  • JRPC wrote:

    This is a simple misreading of what I'm saying there, but even given that you're a little fast and loose with the use of "bias" there fella.

    Lol. No it's not. It's plainly reading what you wrote. And it's a perfectly acceptable use of bias. Jesus. Are we going to have to break out dictionaries now?
    Take (the book) Free Will for example, as it's easier to pin down.  I've claimed this is now "core software running on my brain" right? The thesis of that book is simple - free will doesn't exist. That's a simple truth claim. It's not an ideology or a political agenda. It is every bit as much of a simple truth claim as, say, that the earth goes around the sun. 

    Ffs. You've cheery picked a "simple truth claim" out of a statement that covered 3 books on 3 different subjects. Retrofitting the sun comes up analogy doesn't help.
    OK so the claim here is explicitly that I'm failing to frame this properly because Face understands the relevant science and philosophy better than I do. Of course, it's certainly possible that he does. I am not a scientist or a philosopher. 

    First off, can I just quickly highlight the fact that Face has apparently only very recently caught up the idea that this myth about "IQ only measures IQ" is pop-nonsense and was something I was trying to explain about 50 pages ago. I don't notice quite the same reaction to him suggesting this now though. Strange...

    1. My claims around the science have leaned strongly towards, "I think it's a bit more complicated than that" in style for the most part. I've made no big deal of understanding the science, because I'm aware we're all fucking laymen.

    2. Gee, how did you deduce that I've only recently caught up with that? Was it the posts where I said I've not read up on this stuff previously and then linked to what I found in google? Was that what gave it away? Anyhoo.
    Are you telling me that you read those quotes from the editor of the scientific journal Intelligence and the President of the International Society for Intelligence Research and think, "y'know Rich, I see you've got a lot of highly relevant qualifications and numerous publications in the specific field of interest over there, but the way I see it is the reason you're struggling to frame this properly is that you just don't same kind of grasp of the science and philosophy as this guy from a gaming forum and his BuzzFeed articles".

    So, wow, gently prodding about arguments from authority didn't work.

    Explaining how to weigh sources didn't work.

    So I'm going to go back to explaining my joke. Even though you said not to worry.

    Yes, claiming I win 67 to 1 experts was a joke. It was a joke about arguments from authority.

    I was kind of happy that that particular open letter was from buzzfeed, because you'd already shown a weakness for dismissing arguments too quickly because of the site they were on. Now, excuse the big cut and paste, but it's as much a visual gag as a point about arguments from authority. (and highlights how silly it is to ignore stuff automatically from certain sites.)
    This doesn’t mean that genetic variation is unimportant; it is, but it does not follow racial lines. History has taught us the many ways that studies of human genetic variation can be misunderstood and misinterpreted: if sampling practices and historical contexts are not considered; if little attention is given to how genes, environments, and social conditions interact; and if we ignore the ways that sociocultural categories and practices shape the genetic patterns themselves.

    As scholars who engage with social and scientific research, we urge scientists to speak out when science is used inappropriately to make claims about human differences. The public should not cede the power to define race to scientists who themselves are not trained to understand the social contexts that shape the formation of this fraught category. Instead, we encourage geneticists to collaborate with their colleagues in the social sciences, humanities, and public health to consider more carefully how best to use racial categories in scientific research. Together, we can conduct research that will influence human lives positively.

    Jonathan Kahn, James E. Kelley Professor of Law, Mitchell Hamline School of Law

    Alondra Nelson, Professor of Sociology and Gender Studies, Columbia University; President, Social Science Research Council

    Joseph L. Graves Jr., Associate Dean for Research & Professor of Biological Sciences, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Section G: Biological Sciences, Joint School of Nanoscience & Nanoengineering, North Carolina A&T State University, UNC Greensboro

    Sarah Abel, Postdoc, Department of Anthropology, University of Iceland

    Ruha Benjamin, Associate Professor, Department of African American Studies, Princeton University

    Sarah Blacker, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Berlin

    Catherine Bliss, Associate Professor, Social and Behavioral Sciences, UC San Francisco

    Lundy Braun, Professor of Medical Science and Africana Studies, Brown University

    Khiara M. Bridges, Professor of Law, Professor of Anthropology, Boston University

    Craig Calhoun, President of Berggruen Institute Centennial Professor, London School of Economics.

    Claudia Chaufan, Associate Professor, York University Toronto

    Nathaniel Comfort, Professor, Institute of the History of Medicine, The Johns Hopkins University

    Richard Cone, Professor of Biophysics, Johns Hopkins University

    Richard Cooper, Department of Public Health Sciences, Loyola University Medical School

    Marcy Darnovsky, Executive Director, Center for Genetics and Society

    Robert Desalle, Curator, Institute for Genomics, American Museum of Natural History

    Troy Duster, Chancellor’s Professor Emeritus, University of California, Berkeley

    Anne Fausto-Sterling, Professor of Biology Emerita, Brown University, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science

    Agustin Fuentes, The Edmund P. Joyce C.S.C. Professor of Anthropology, University of Notre Dame

    Joan H. Fujimura, Professor, Department of Sociology and Holtz Center for Research on Science, Technology, Medicine, and the Environment, University of Wisconsin-Madison

    Stephanie Malia Fullerton, Associate Professor, Department of Bioethics & Humanities, University of Washington

    Duana Fullwiley, Associate Professor of Medical Anthropology, Stanford University.

    Omer Gokcumen, Assistant Professor, University at Buffalo

    Alan Goodman, Professor of Biological Anthropology. Hampshire College

    Monica H. Green, Professor of History, School of Historical, Philosophical, and Religious Studies, Arizona State University

    Erika Hagelberg, Professor, Department of Biosciences, University of Oslo

    Evelynn Hammonds, Barbara Gutmann Rosenkrantz Professor of the History of Science, Harvard University

    Helena Hansen, Assistant Professor of Anthropology and Psychiatry, New York University

    John Hartigan Jr., Professor of Anthropology, University of Texas, Austin.

    Anthony Hatch, Associate Professor, Science in Society Program, Sociology, and African American Studies, Wesleyan University

    Torsten Heinemann, Professor of Sociology and Chair of Technology and Diversity, RWTH Aachen University, Germany

    Jay Kaufman, Canada Research Chair in Health Disparities and Professor of Epidemiology, McGill University.

    Trica Keaton, Associate Professor, African and African American Studies, Dartmouth College

    Terence Keel, Associate Professor, Department of Black Studies and Department of History, University of California, Santa Barbara

    Nancy Krieger, Professor of Social Epidemiology, American Cancer Society Clinical Research Professor, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

    Sheldon Krimsky, Lenore Stern Professor of Humanities and Social Sciences, Tufts University

    Jon Røyne Kyllingstad, Associate Professor of History, University of Oslo

    Catherine Lee, Associate Professor of Sociology, Rutgers University

    Ageliki Lefkaditou, Postdoctoral Researcher, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo

    Sandra Soo-Jin Lee, Senior Research Scholar, Center for Biomedical Ethics, Stanford University

    Jonathan Marks, Professor of Anthropology, UNC-Charlotte

    Amade M’charek, Professor of the Anthropology of Science, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands

    Michael Montoya, Associate Professor of Anthropology Emeritus, University of California, Irvine

    Ann Morning, Associate Professor of Sociology, New York University

    Osagie K. Obasogie, Haas Distinguished Chair and Professor of Bioethics, Joint Medical Program and School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley

    Pilar N. Ossorio, Ph.D., JD, Professor of Law and Bioethics, University of Wisconsin-Madison

    Tony Platt, Distinguished Affiliated Scholar, Center for the Study of Law & Society, UC Berkeley;

    Robert Pollack, professor of Biological Sciences, Columbia University

    Aaron Panofsky, Associate Professor, Institute for Society and Genetics, Public Policy, and Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles

    Kimani Paul-Emile, Associate Professor, Fordham University School of Law

    Ramya M. Rajagopalan, Research Scientist, Institute for Practical Ethics, University of California, San Diego

    Rayna Rapp, Professor of Anthropology, New York University

    Jenny Reardon, Professor of Sociology and Director, Science and Justice Research Center, University of California, Santa Cruz

    Amos Morris-Reich, Professor of History, University of Haifa

    Susan M. Reverby, McLean Professor Emerita in the History of Ideas and Professor Emerita of Women’s and Gender Studies, Wellesley College

    Jennifer A. Richeson, Philip R. Allen Professor of Psychology, Yale University

    Sarah S. Richardson, Professor of the History of Science and of Studies of Women, Gender, and Sexuality Director of Graduate Studies, WGS, Harvard University

    Dorothy Roberts, George A. Weiss University Professor of Law, Sociology, and Africana Studies and Director, Penn Program on Race, Science, and Society, University of Pennsylvania

    Wendy D. Roth, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of British Columbia

    Charmaine DM Royal, Associate Professor, African & African American Studies, Biology, and Community & Family Medicine, Duke University

    Danilyn Rutherford, President of the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research

    Janet K. Shim, Professor of Sociology, University of California, San Francisco

    Karen-Sue Taussig, Chair and Associate Professor of Anthropology, University of Minnesota

    Charis Thompson, Chancellor’s Professor, UC Berkeley, and RQIF Professor, London School of Economics

    France Winddance Twine, Professor of Sociology, University of California at Santa Barbara

    Keith Wailoo, Henry Putnam University Professor of History and Public Affairs, Princeton University

    Patricia J. Williams, James L. Dohr Professor of Law, Columbia University

    Michael Yudell, Chair & Associate Professor, Dornsife School of Public Health, Drexel University

    Time for bed.

    I'm still great and you still love it.
  • lotta bad faith actors innit
  • acemuzzy wrote:
    So is the person jrpc quoted as saying there was broad consensus about some shizzle wrong then?

    Has jrpc got anything to back it up, beyond the credentials of the bloke who said it?

    This is where I'm too tired to even check my own posts.

    There's probably 3-4 specific claims you could list.

    A couple may well be consensus/uncontroversial, a couple are more controversial than haier and Harris let on. I'm completely drained of the will to go through it right now though.

    I'm still great and you still love it.
  • acemuzzy
    Show networks
    PSN
    Acemuzzy
    Steam
    Acemuzzy (aka murray200)
    Wii
    3DS - 4613-7291-1486

    Send message
    I'm asking jrpc not you, face!
  • You're using the bird person. Face is confused by this.
    I'm still great and you still love it.
  • Yossarian
    Show networks
    Xbox
    Yossarian Drew
    Steam
    Yossarian_Drew

    Send message
    Evidently.
  • Doesn't take Freud to draw a line between JPRC's waning religious belief and new-found, rock-solid certainty in some other bullshit credo.

    A good way of assessing whether you're biased about something is to think about what would happen if you're wrong. If I've got any 'core software' on my brain it's an infected version of Windows XP from the early noughties that is slow as hell, spamming everyone around me and full to the brim with grainy, low-res pornography. But apart from that it's some rough guidelines about beliefs needing some foundation of evidence. If some new piece of evidence comes out tomorrow and it proves black people are genetically less intelligent than white people, it would be a shock, have some profound implications, but then no problem. There wasn't a clear case before, now there is, so what? It's then a matter of formulating new ideas about how to deal with social policy.

    If evidence came out proving categorically that no genetic link exists, it would require a fundamental, bottom-up rewrite of JPRC's brain apparently. It's why you can't trust die-hards to be objective. They've got too much invested in things being the way they think they are. Even this mythical piece of killer evidence probably wouldn't be enough. A forum debate has no chance.
  • GooberTheHat
    Show networks
    Twitter
    GooberTheHat
    Xbox
    GooberTheHat
    Steam
    GooberTheHat

    Send message
    It's why you can't trust die-hards to be objective. They've got too much invested in things being the way they think they are.

    And also why there is little utility in debating them, because anything that threatens their core held beliefs is an existential threat to their understanding of who they are, and so they will dig in and set that belief in concrete so as to protect themselves.
  • Told ye Jrpc already made up his mind. He's a die hard Harris 'tard even though the man is flawed beyond belief and arguably has been proven wrong in the Klein/Harris-Murray podcast.

    Jrpc has sipped from the alt right kool Aid and fell down Murray's rabbit hole whilst dreaming of superior genetic IQ. He wants to believe....
    Steam: Ruffnekk
    Windows Live: mr of unlocking
    Fightcade2: mrofunlocking
  • hunk wrote:

    Jrpc has sipped from the alt right kool Aid and fell down Murray's rabbit hole whilst dreaming of superior genetic IQ. He wants to believe....

    I think he said he is a fan of Harris and approves of Harris stance that data should be viewed without bias or fear of repocusion. I don't think he actually said he was agreeing with the superior genetic IQ, just that it should be allowed to be discussed and is a possibility in his eyes.

    Haven't agreed with JRPC on his arguments and I think he deliberately ducked some stuff bit the alt-right tag feels a bit thrown too easily. And surely no need for the 'tard comment either.
    SFV - reddave360

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!