Vela wrote:Out of respect for you I've not quoted you in case you want to edit. I sincerely wish you well whatever is up, and as much as it might sound like I'm having a go, I like you and I just disagree with your interpretation. Youre not harming anyone by it, and hell, I'd be happier if you were correct.
dynamiteReady wrote:I'm not editing that... It's somewhat relevant. But appreciate the sensitivity. As for our debate, if I ruled the world, I'd enforce 20 years of environmental austerity, just to see if any of the models matched, citing the cleanly proven economical and medical benefits along the way. Just to prove to everyone that the whole journey was a good idea, no matter which way you slice it.Vela wrote:Out of respect for you I've not quoted you in case you want to edit. I sincerely wish you well whatever is up, and as much as it might sound like I'm having a go, I like you and I just disagree with your interpretation. Youre not harming anyone by it, and hell, I'd be happier if you were correct.
This.AJ wrote:So, in short and without any links, what is this "Harris/Klein thing" then?
monkey wrote:The weather is determined by the genes of the people in the country. Black people = hot weather. It’s not racist, just simple science. It’s why global temperature is rising, because of all the migration. Simple. And gays make it flood.
Yossarian wrote:This is the best post in this thread.monkey wrote:The weather is determined by the genes of the people in the country. Black people = hot weather. It’s not racist, just simple science. It’s why global temperature is rising, because of all the migration. Simple. And gays make it flood.
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.
JRPC wrote:...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...
JRPC wrote:Quick question on that point about politics and science - do you agree that the ideal would be to have no political bias in data interpretation
JRPC wrote:I don't understand. It's a simple question - why no answer?
To suggest that these race differences in traits might matter, though, offends many of our colleagues desperately — some of whom persist in bizarre notions that traits like general intelligence don’t even exist, or that it doesn’t capture anything meaningful, or that the instruments used to probe its existence are biased; as well as several other popular misconceptions. Proposing that we should account for race differences in these relevant traits when examining differences in behavioral outcomes is often met with baffled stares; bald incredulity that someone could suggest something so barbaric and distasteful. Returning quickly to the issue of the role that genetic differences between groups might play in creating the differences we observe for violence, cognitive ability, executive functioning, so on and so forth.
As folks before me have noted, there are three possibilities: genes explain all of the difference, they explain none of the difference, or genetic differences account for some of the differences, in some (but not all) traits. The answer to that question is not up for political grabs. It is empirical, subject to scientific inquiry, quantifiable, and in short, answerable. Researchers in the first camp need to stop punishing us for trying to answer something that is an answerable question. That is our job.
I’ll end with a short note about “social justice.” It is a deeply lamentable term, because it means nothing. It could have meant something, and likely did mean something at some point, but recently is seems to have been co-opted, now used to refer to anything politically correct and to identify the “righteous” among us. There is a disconcerting push, moreover, to drag it into science. You must either seek social justice, or reside among the unclean masses. Being a biosocial scholar of race differences has been twisted to represent the inverse of social justice. The biological underpinnings of race differences will exist or not, though, regardless of how the prevailing political winds are blowing. It is every bit as reasonable to explore the role that biology plays in creating those differences as it is to explore the possibility that social biases entirely explain those differences. The demonization has to stop.
CONSERVATIVES LOVE PLAYING THE VICTIMThe best way to get a sense of the typical Quillette reader is by perusing the comments section under any essay, especially those about feminism and the leftist threat to western civilization. Quillette’s readers see themselves as inheritors of the western tradition of dispassionate, boring debate instead of what they likely are: people trying to kill time at work by sounding off in the comments. They hate “leftist identitarians” and “corrosive marxists” who ruin this dispassionate, boring debate by deigning to have an emotional stake in the subjects they study. They resent writers who inject politics and ideology into fields that should be studied objectively, like neuroscience and classical studies, because after all, there is only one objective truth and those shrill social justice warriors should just accept it. They love using really big words, because really big words make you sound smart.
Facewon wrote:JRPC wrote:Quick question on that point about politics and science - do you agree that the ideal would be to have no political bias in data interpretationOk, I'll answer the silly question, and pre-empt where you're heading. Yes it would be ideal if data interpretation would be free of bias (political is pointless there, except as the usual Harris is being objective everyone else is doing Identity Politics.) But since you're talking interpretation, it's impossible for there not to be some bias in there. That doesn't mean we throw out all interpretation and data and science, it just means a little humility and care is required when trying to follow the science on whatever subject. I am not a post modernist, I am happy to call some things true. But the more complex the thing you're trying to study, the more careful you need to be of strong claims to truth, IMO.JRPC wrote:I don't understand. It's a simple question - why no answer?
Facewon wrote:http://quillette.com/2017/01/17/saints-sinners-a-dialogue-on-the-hardest-topic-in-science/There you go, J, I went and found you a source.... Meanwhile, this made me chuckle...To suggest that these race differences in traits might matter, though, offends many of our colleagues desperately — some of whom persist in bizarre notions that traits like general intelligence don’t even exist, or that it doesn’t capture anything meaningful, or that the instruments used to probe its existence are biased; as well as several other popular misconceptions. Proposing that we should account for race differences in these relevant traits when examining differences in behavioral outcomes is often met with baffled stares; bald incredulity that someone could suggest something so barbaric and distasteful. Returning quickly to the issue of the role that genetic differences between groups might play in creating the differences we observe for violence, cognitive ability, executive functioning, so on and so forth. As folks before me have noted, there are three possibilities: genes explain all of the difference, they explain none of the difference, or genetic differences account for some of the differences, in some (but not all) traits. The answer to that question is not up for political grabs. It is empirical, subject to scientific inquiry, quantifiable, and in short, answerable. Researchers in the first camp need to stop punishing us for trying to answer something that is an answerable question. That is our job. I’ll end with a short note about “social justice.” It is a deeply lamentable term, because it means nothing. It could have meant something, and likely did mean something at some point, but recently is seems to have been co-opted, now used to refer to anything politically correct and to identify the “righteous” among us. There is a disconcerting push, moreover, to drag it into science. You must either seek social justice, or reside among the unclean masses. Being a biosocial scholar of race differences has been twisted to represent the inverse of social justice. The biological underpinnings of race differences will exist or not, though, regardless of how the prevailing political winds are blowing. It is every bit as reasonable to explore the role that biology plays in creating those differences as it is to explore the possibility that social biases entirely explain those differences. The demonization has to stop.CONSERVATIVES LOVE PLAYING THE VICTIMThe best way to get a sense of the typical Quillette reader is by perusing the comments section under any essay, especially those about feminism and the leftist threat to western civilization. Quillette’s readers see themselves as inheritors of the western tradition of dispassionate, boring debate instead of what they likely are: people trying to kill time at work by sounding off in the comments. They hate “leftist identitarians” and “corrosive marxists” who ruin this dispassionate, boring debate by deigning to have an emotional stake in the subjects they study. They resent writers who inject politics and ideology into fields that should be studied objectively, like neuroscience and classical studies, because after all, there is only one objective truth and those shrill social justice warriors should just accept it. They love using really big words, because really big words make you sound smart.
Ok, I'll answer thesillyquestion,and pre-empt where you're heading.Yes it would be ideal if data interpretation would be free of bias (political is pointless there, except as the usual Harris is being objective everyone else is doing Identity Politics.) But since you're talking interpretation, it's impossible for there not to be some bias in there. That doesn't mean we throw out all interpretation and data and science, it just means a little humility and care is required when trying to follow the science on whatever subject. I am not a post modernist, I am happy to call some things true. But the more complex the thing you're trying to study, the more careful you need to be of strong claims to truth, IMO.
We're at a point where asking a simple yes/no question for clarity is responded to with evasion, suspicion and hostility. Instead of a simple good faith reply, I get links to Wikipedia articles about Plato and Nietzsche.
RedDave2 wrote:I'm still not sure where you stand. But I'll take a stab... You are worried that political/ personal/ whatever beliefs mean that we can't have hard discussions on 'pure science' especially if the 'empirical data' might point to something that makes people uncomfortable (you sited the example of 'what if' the neanderthal link was found only in Black people and not in whites and that this would be jumped on as a racist finding and I can see the point both you and Harris were making in the podcast)
RedDave2 wrote:If the above is true, the only problem is that when the data is called into question (and it clearly was in relation to the Bell curve stuff) and surely that data cant be seen as a pure data. I suppose there is always the potential for this and I take the point that ideally it should not be this way but if we take a stance that once data is presented it should be considered as automatically flawless because it is data than I think that is a system that is open for huge abuse.
RedDave2 wrote:Also, and I may be stretching but a very base example, but data on its own doesn't paint anything close to a clear picture. The example could be taken with sports. A football striker scores a huge number of goals and that single data on its own implies he is the best striker in a league - but it doesnt take into fact the 'environment' around him - at it's base the quality of the players around him in the squad and their ability to provide the assists, how many starts he makes, the overall style of the teams play (he could be scoring loads as they cavalier forward but conceded lots of goals), it also takes ways the other factors - does he have a particular strike partner who he works well with, the quality of the manager who motivates him and the financials that he will benefit from if he performs well. So, ok, I've gone off point a lot there but you get my point that data on its own isn't a clear indicator ?
Face has the patience of a saint.JRPC wrote:Ok this is informative. I know I've addressed a lot of my criticisms towards you, but that's actually because you've seemed to me to be one the very few reasonable folks involved here.
Yup, as pointed out, Face has been doing that from the very start, but you've mostly been completely ignoring him - thus far totally disproving your claim to "want to have a good faith discussion".JRPC wrote:You'd have to be a masochist to try and engage with dj or legaldinho, but I got the sense with you there was at least an actual desire to discuss something.
Hoo boy. You were so close.JRPC wrote:I'm now thinking that maybe I've misjudged that.
JRPC wrote:We're back to the most uncharitable readings of what I'm saying and apparently mind-reading what my actual intentions are (hint: they were not what you think). We're at a point where asking a simple yes/no question for clarity is responded to with evasion, suspicion and hostility. Instead of a simple good faith reply, I get links to Wikipedia articles about Plato and Nietzsche. This is just no way to have a conversation. Its just not possible.
The irony is people are actually trying to help you out here. The question was flawed - it didn't have a simple yes/no answer. Why not try and think about that rather then just dismiss it?JRPC wrote:We're at a point where asking a simple yes/no question for clarity is responded to with evasion, suspicion and hostility. Instead of a simple good faith reply, I get links to Wikipedia articles about Plato and Nietzsche. This is just no way to have a conversation. Its just not possible.
Brooks wrote:Free and open includes the possibility of being repeatedly owned in the discourse. Suck it up.
It’s tomorrow now.JRPC wrote:So my grand plans to watch The Last Jedi tonight have succumbed to the lure of the wrongness.
I'm gonna reply to your thing about Buzzfeed and then the political bias thing (although my tired brain has already forgotten the point I wanted to make), and then probably Hunk's quote. After that maybe I'll call it a day there. I think I can probably get everything I have left to say out of those things.
This will be tomorrow though coz I am now going to bed.
...
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!