JRPC wrote:

I've seen this clip. This is a really good example. From where I'm sat, you lot are the guy on the right. I mean seriously, you're doing exactly the same thing.

Did you read all the links and articles Face just posted for you? Or are you ignoring them?

Let me guess, you're busy at work and you'll get back to them later, amirite?

@GurtTractor - Total respect.

Should've just merged this with the comedy thread.

What's your opinion on quantum mechanics and differential equations, dyno?

If IQ was based on hereditary genetic traits, how can you train yourself to be better at IQ tests?

*it's a trap gif* (too lazy to bother...)

Oh, ffs, too slow. Shouldn't have paused to spell check Ackbar.

Moving too fast! can't keep up!!

There's too many strands already now and they're all getting tangled up again. 

Yossarian wrote:

I've seen this clip. This is a really good example. From where I'm sat, you lot are the guy on the right. I mean seriously, you're doing exactly the same thing.

As far as I can work out, your position is this: Political correctness shouldn’t get in the way of science. By ignoring IQ test results, political correctness is getting in the way of science. Is that about right?

 
No.

Maybe the first part. 

AJ wrote:

@JRPC, I never saw what the actual point you're arguing for was, would you mind summing it up for me, please?

Right here an now, what I'm trying to do I guess is defend Harris and his arguments in the whole Harris/Murray/Vox thing. 

The background to all this is summed up by Harris in this podcast which is about a 30-minute preamble to the later Harris-Klein podcast that's being discussed here. 

What I'd love this not to be about is whether or not IQ is a good measure of intelligence or even about the state of the science of race and intelligence. Unfortunately the conversation keeps getting dragged in that direction anyway and I've stupidly risen to the bait when people are just confidently spouting pure nonsense about it.

But that stuff isn't really the point of the podcast. 

The broader point that Harris cares about and the one that I care about is the ability to have good faith debates around charged subjects like racial differences without resorting to sliming or defaming those involved in it. 

I'm interested in the ethics here more than the science. The way that Murray and Harris have been treated and the way that the state of the science has been distorted by vox and others I find super interesting (and seriously troubling). Although it's of a different political flavour, it's absolutely a piece with right-wing denial of climate change.

It's about ethics in genetics journalism innit.

JRPC wrote:

Moving too fast! can't keep up!! There's too many strands already now and they're all getting tangled up again.

 
Aaaah, so this is your excuse for not following up with Facewon's good faith post again? And for ignoring all the counter-factuals? 
Ok, shooor.

JRPC wrote:

@JRPC, I never saw what the actual point you're arguing for was, would you mind summing it up for me, please?

Right here an now, what I'm trying to do I guess is defend Harris and his arguments in the whole Harris/Murray/Vox thing.  The background to all this is summed up by Harris in this podcast which is about a 30-minute preamble to the later Harris-Klein podcast that's being discussed here.

Tellingly, all you ever seems to link to is Harris podcasts/sources...?

JRPC wrote:

What I'd love this not to be about is whether or not IQ is a good measure of intelligence or even about the state of the science of race and intelligence.

Shut up about it then.

JRPC wrote:

Unfortunately the conversation keeps getting dragged in that direction anyway

Stop it then.

JRPC wrote:

and I've stupidly

Yup.

JRPC wrote:

risen to the bait when people are just confidently spouting pure nonsense about it.

Nope.

JRPC wrote:

But that stuff isn't really the point of the podcast.  The broader point that Harris cares about and the one that I care about is the ability to have good faith debates around charged subjects like racial differences without resorting to sliming or defaming those involved in it.

And what you have *absolutely* demonstrated is your complete inability or desire to actually engage in a good faith debate by actually bothering to read/listen to and respond to Face's good faith posts. Tellingly, you only "take bait".

Lead by example. Do what you claim you want and show everyone how to do it.

JRPC wrote:

I'm interested in the ethics here more than the science.

In what way? You want everyone to be nice to everyone? 

But what if "the science" is done badly, or with bad intentions, or used to justify some horrible things? That, in itself, is surely the primary ethical concern about scientific endevours?

Or is your primary concern only that everyone is always nice to everyone and only ever looks at the surface of claims and no-one ever points out troubling aspects of things?

JRPC wrote:

The way that Murray and Harris have been treated and the way that the state of the science has been distorted by vox and others I find super interesting (and seriously troubling).

Or maybe they're dicks?

/shrug 

I don't know, nor care.

JRPC wrote:

Although it's of a different political flavour, it's absolutely a piece with right-wing denial of climate change.

I'm trailing off here because I just don't know or care what you're on about now.

I'm not convinced racial difference in intelligence exists. Maybe some physical traits have been selected for in terms of heat and cold tolerance. Some bacterial gut strains and immunity. But intelligence? No. 

I bet you could take any child from one part of the earth to any other cultural setting and assuming they were raised by surrogates as they would their own their intellectual profile would be identical within the range of their adopted culture. You would still see natural variation on individual scale, but you would not find evidence for higher intellect for one race than any other.

Hell, you don't even need ethical approval to get this data. International adoption is widespread.

@dj

Right.

You expecting a response to that?

JRPC wrote:

or even about the state of the science of race and intelligence. Unfortunately the conversation keeps getting dragged in that direction anyway and I've stupidly risen to the bait when people are just confidently spouting pure nonsense about it.

But that stuff isn't really the point of the podcast. 

The broader point that Harris cares about and the one that I care about is the ability to have good faith debates around charged subjects like racial differences without resorting to sliming or defaming those involved in it. 

I'm interested in the ethics here more than the science. .

1. You've yet to actually lay out a good counter to any of the claims on IQ being a good measure or the further claims about racial differences. You've just restated, again, almost verbatim, Harris. Maybe you want to hang your hat on the haier piece, I dunno, but it troubles me that I've found and linked to more stuff you could have used to defend IQ than you have.

2. Klein is having a good faith debate. It's there for all to read. And as I mentioned in the depth of the ca part of his, Murray and Harris never addressed any of the best counters to his stuff, they just characterised it all as defamation and moral panic. Weaksauce.

Currently, Harris's idea of good faith is anything that falls within his boundaries of what the debate is about. That's bad faith arguing from the jump.

Just because he likes to rip on ip, I have to accuse him of virtue signalling.

Good times.

Possibly splitting hairs, but that doesn’t sound race-based to me.

Yossarian wrote:

Possibly splitting hairs, but that doesn’t sound race-based to me.

Not in a global world no. Its geographical. If the populations had been switched at the time, you would probably have the same outcome (unless a specific gene mutation eg sickle cell anemia was at play, which contributes to protection against malaria, for example.)