monkey wrote:Changed that placeholder OP. Bit provocative.
You can ask a simple question: why do we want to know this stuff?JRPC wrote:OK hang on, this is going in a good direction.OK I understand that this is the perspective that lots of people seem to be taking, including Klein. But this is a completely wrong idea and can clearly be demonstrated as such by simply swapping around the topics a little bit. Would you say that the genetic contribution to mean adult height between racial groups can also not discussed without such prejudicial-bias creeping in? What about with skin tone? Shoe size? Blood group? Does this problem only apply to topics related to race I wonder?This is really the core of your problem with this subject. There is no separate conversation. The 'science' doesn't emerge in a bubble.Klien's clear bias repeatedly and consistently leads him to conflate the science being discussed (which is absolutely not controversial at this stage) and what should be completely separate conversations about the history of racial abuses and policy.
Yossarian wrote:I absolutely imagine that. DNA testing is an exact science, IQ testing is not.
Nicely dodged. We're not talking about chance discoveries here, we're talking about comparing the genetics of race via IQ measurements. How is that going to 'emerge anyway'?JRPC wrote:OK sure I agree, the motives are absolutely important. But Harris addresses this point well in the podcast; this stuff is going to emerge eventually anyway. As we delve deeper into how we tick we are going to stumble repeatedly into the hard facts about the ways in which we are similar and the ways we are not - perhaps entirely by accident. The question then becomes whether or not we can deal with this information rationally and maturely as it presents or are we going to resort again to what Vox are doing here - smearing the people involved and distorting the science with a political bias?
Dark Soldier wrote:Am waiting on ozno's inability to debate without aggression and personal slurs, then its time to pull up a chair
During our email exchange, let me use this as an example. You wrote to me, again quoting here, “If James Flynn is right, if Flynn is right, than the mean IQs of African-American children, who are second- and third-generation upper middle class, should have converged with those of the children of upper middle class whites. But as far as I understand they haven’t.”
I think that sentence right there, that is not having enough experience, or having thought hard enough, or dug into the literature. I mean, there are different ways of learning about the world, of course, but about people who’s experience is different than yours.
I mean, I’ll give one example that I actually said to you in these emails. African American families making $100,000 a year tend to live in neighborhoods with the same income composition as white families making $30,000 a year. To say that you have an African-American family that is middle class or upper middle class and that their experience is now so similar to that of whites that somehow the environmental atmosphere around them has equalized, I think that is something that is being missed and that, the way you—
Sam Harris
But Ezra what’s being missed—
Ezra Klein
I’ll just finish on this point. The way you leverage identity politics here is a way of not forcing yourself to see some of that.
legaldinho wrote:Dark Soldier wrote:Am waiting on ozno's inability to debate without aggression and personal slurs, then its time to pull up a chair
You're in the wrong thread, cunt
Racist.Dark Soldier wrote:Am touching me nips now
No it doesn’t but it needed to be removed from current affairs.legaldinho wrote:
This definitely does not warrant its own thread.
Yep.trippy wrote:Chomsky really does shit on the whole idea perfectly.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!