PTSOTL's resident
He asked, "Equality versus science. Who you got?"
Men and women really are different, according to a study – and while the differences between them may not come as a shock, the scale of them might...
The fairer sex, for example, tend to display higher levels of sensitivity and warmth, while men are generally more emotionally stable and dominant...
The researchers concluded that there were ‘extremely large’ personality differences between the sexes which could have implications in the workplace.
OK, fine, I said. Maybe that sort of thing can be proved. But my real question is, why do you get such a boner for this type thing? Why would someone have a dog in this race?
He answered at length.
He answered at length.
"Because the entire premise of contemporary American society is false. And because, again, it is an example of liberal hypocrisy. Liberals poo-poo creationists and other anti-science types, but like with everything else, leftists heed science only when it is convenient. A liberal will read this study and accept that the findings are true, and then still pour scorn on someone for having an opinion that is consistent with that science."
Our email exchange goes on from there. TLDR, bro, but that's the basic jist. There's a big twist at the end though that may be worth sticking around for, or just skipping ahead to more likely. I find this sort of conversation fascinating myself, however, so maybe you will too. I think its important to think about why it is we think the things we do, and to have someone challenge you on them from time to time. I'll show you where to come back in if you're easily bored by two boners who think they're smart trying to win with their words.
FRESH went on:
"The idea that men and women are 'equal' intellectually and emotionally is literally false, they are different and have different and complementary strengths. I don't get a boner when I see that blindingly obvious fact reflected in science, because it always has been and always will be."
"But if people didn't point to these studies, to the mountains and mountains of scientific evidence demonstrating egalitarianism to be as scientifically valid as Flat Earthism, when would liberals ever entertain the notion that their assumptions might be incorrect? Here we have mighty Science, before which all the old myths had to fall. And here we have a mythology that contradicts science. That is the sort of thing liberals love to explore, usually. But not in this case. Like scholarship on race and IQ, these are avenues that lead to politically incorrect conclusions, and so to even bring up the subject is 'in bad taste,' but to contemplate adjusting one's worldview to science and truth and the real world is literally inconceivable."
"But if people didn't point to these studies, to the mountains and mountains of scientific evidence demonstrating egalitarianism to be as scientifically valid as Flat Earthism, when would liberals ever entertain the notion that their assumptions might be incorrect? Here we have mighty Science, before which all the old myths had to fall. And here we have a mythology that contradicts science. That is the sort of thing liberals love to explore, usually. But not in this case. Like scholarship on race and IQ, these are avenues that lead to politically incorrect conclusions, and so to even bring up the subject is 'in bad taste,' but to contemplate adjusting one's worldview to science and truth and the real world is literally inconceivable."
--
Ok, let's assume what you say is true, I said. There's a very practical reason for liberals to be invested in the scientific disproof of creationism, which any thinking person in the world will agree with, and that is that our government and its lawmakers should have nothing to do with the folktales and ancient mythologies of Christianity (save for the places they coincidentally overlap: don't kill; don't steal etc).
That serves a larger good, a society of reason, not superstition.
On the other hand, what purpose do scientific studies about gender, race IQ etc actually serve? They have the opposite effect of the anti-religion bias, in that they bring us backward, toward more tribal and animalistic ways of thinking. Man strong. Woman soft.
If you can point to studies that say xyz about race and gender, to what ends will those be used? Are people going to say "Oh, see, I told you we were different. OK, let's carry on living together as we do now all the same anyway." Or will they more likely use that information to further drive us apart?
There is literally no practical beneficial application of studies like these. And there is nothing to be lost by equating races and gender save for an academic point. So, even assuming that those differences may theoretically be indentifiable, there is no reason to identify them, unless you have a vested interest inregressing toward a time when woman=weak, black = etc etc.
I'm not saying you have to be racist to promote these type of studies, and I know FRESH isn't literally a sexist and racist IRL, but I can't help but notice how weird it is that people who are always talking about these Bell Curve type things also happen to racist and sexist. Someone should do a scientific study on the correlation there.
That serves a larger good, a society of reason, not superstition.
On the other hand, what purpose do scientific studies about gender, race IQ etc actually serve? They have the opposite effect of the anti-religion bias, in that they bring us backward, toward more tribal and animalistic ways of thinking. Man strong. Woman soft.
If you can point to studies that say xyz about race and gender, to what ends will those be used? Are people going to say "Oh, see, I told you we were different. OK, let's carry on living together as we do now all the same anyway." Or will they more likely use that information to further drive us apart?
There is literally no practical beneficial application of studies like these. And there is nothing to be lost by equating races and gender save for an academic point. So, even assuming that those differences may theoretically be indentifiable, there is no reason to identify them, unless you have a vested interest inregressing toward a time when woman=weak, black = etc etc.
I'm not saying you have to be racist to promote these type of studies, and I know FRESH isn't literally a sexist and racist IRL, but I can't help but notice how weird it is that people who are always talking about these Bell Curve type things also happen to racist and sexist. Someone should do a scientific study on the correlation there.
Furthermore, the entire premise he's putting forth isn't even sound. Someone who adheres to one of the most widely believed tenets of science, ie that the world is not a few thousand years old, does not therefor handcuff themselves to the results of every study that comes down the pike, just because it falls under the heading Science. I may like the genre of Science rap but that doesn't mean I need to buy every track from every emcee that ever gets dropped, in other words.
--
That sounds like something FRESH would agree with. It's important that we look into these things, because to do otherwise would fly in the face of everything that grounds us as rational, liberal-thinking people.
A few more details from the story:
--
He responded:
"You write that 'the scientific disproof of creationism,' is something 'any thinking person in the world will agree with,' but that is a wild untruth. It is simply false, but the fact that it is false will not effect the way you think. Thinking people disagree with your idea right now, and at one point the opposite was true, nearly all thinking people in the world disagreed with the idea that religion should play no part in public life. Even today, most of the peoples of the world still worship the religions of their fathers, and most governments are not entirely secular. The Middle East in its entirety would reject this idea -- read any poll of any Muslim country. Thus, by your standards, all Muslims are 'unthinking.' By your own standards that makes you a racist. One logically follows from the other."
"You make these arguments on your blog all the time that rely on these subjective value judgments that are based on nothing more than the cultural biases of a white, middle-class American liberal. Do you not know that most of the world doesn't want the way of life you want to force on them? Do you not know that most peoples in the world prefer their own ways of life to one in which men and women are interchangeable, which has been stripped of mystery and the supernatural and sacred, which is anti-religious and anti-tradition, in which 'marriage' does not describe an institution involving a man and at least one wife, and in which the violation of their traditional morality must always be tolerated? Berber tribesman and Mongol herdsmen and Turks and Zulu and Ghanaian and Ukranian peasants, they don't take it for granted that the atheist sex-soaked MTV pop-culture capitalistic PC egalitarian world you want to force on them is an improvement. How is it that you know how they should live?"
"Your line of thinking seems to be that A) all peoples are equal to the extent that they are equally interchangeable, and so therefore B) one way of life can be right for all peoples, and C) you are part of the enlightened world elite (keep in mind that Europeans make up I think nine percent of the world, and only part of that number are liberal anti-traditionalist egalitarians) that has privileged knowledge of that way of life, the way that is the right way of life for the entire world, unlike the ways Zulus and Berbers and Mongols and Texans currently live (and wish to continue to live), who like their old ways and gender roles and gods."
"It is of course merely a coincidence that the right way of life for everyone in the world is the way of life professed the 'right way' by the people in the region in which you happen to live, at the time you happen to live in. Which is to say that the One True Way Of Life just happens to be the one you arbitrarily inherited by virtue of having been born in New England in the age of mass communication.'
"It is of course merely a coincidence that the right way of life for everyone in the world is the way of life professed the 'right way' by the people in the region in which you happen to live, at the time you happen to live in. Which is to say that the One True Way Of Life just happens to be the one you arbitrarily inherited by virtue of having been born in New England in the age of mass communication.'
"My belief, on the other hand, is that A) human populations have differing cultural and hereditary strengths and weaknesses and biases, and so B) all peoples should be allowed a place to develop those strengths and correct those weaknesses in peace via self government. I do not propose any one way of life is the right way for everyone for all time and proclaim that anyone who disagrees doesn't 'think.' And I point to studies like these because they scientifically demonstrate that the idea upon which PC egalitarianism rests -- that all peoples and men and women are equal to the extent that they are interchangeable, is false. And if it's false, then all of the ideas opinions and recommendations and laws that spring from those false assumptions are entirely baseless."
"Do you believe all the peoples of the world are interchangeable? Because frankly they are not, but recognizing that fact means you are an evil Nazi who is filled with a mysterious substance known as "hate" (to society at large, I mean)."
"Liberals do not argue that studies in group IQ differences demonstrate that everyone has equal intelligence -- you will never see that. A liberal will explain away the results as racism or some such, but the results are there. Group IQ differences exist and persist, whatever we do, regardless of whether the country is majority white or black. If we get a school district's grades to rise, they rise, but the gaps persist: Asians outscore Euros, Euros outscore Africans. When that happens in a school district, liberals start hunting racists. But a racist-hunt isn't going to change that reality. It may be that, things being what they are and the problems in African-America being what they are, blacks may require more money set aside for education. They may need longer school days with a more rigid curriculum and moral instruction, or with more strong male leaders, or a boarding-school type of atmosphere where they can have access to and inspiration from male leaders that so many lack at home. Bottom line is if you're pretending the problem is racism, rather than inherent group differences, any attempt to fix the problem cannot work."
--
The leap in logic there he made from equal to interchangeable is a big problem I have with engaging in academic exercises like this. He then proceeded to argue from a point I didn't make because of a twist in semantics he created. Everything that followed was tainted by that. Equal can often mean interchangeable, but it doesn't always. One chooses the definition of the word that suits the argument. I appreciate my car. I appreciate my computer, (or any other object I own, just examples). They are of equal value to me. They are not the same thing. I cannot drive my computer to work. I can't look at porn in my car all day.
How one gets from my saying that there's no benefit to scientifically proving differences between races to saying I want the entire world to shop at Walmart and watch reality TV or what have you, I have no idea. That's another example of what I mean by these types of things usually being logic games. "You don't think people should govern by religion, therefore you must obviously believe the polar opposite, ie this strawman world I just created to make your point seem extremely illogical." That's what people do when they are trying to win arguments, not when they are expressing ideas they actually believe and conversing with someone who has a differing opinion. It's politician bullshit.
"Thinking people" may not be the right way for me to have put it. But I am fine saying that if you think your specific government should be run according to magic heroes and folk tales and so on, then there is something wrong with you. Believe what you want in private life, have your ceremonies, do whatever makes you happy, I have no problem with religion, or believing whatever you want to get you through this shitty life, just don't ever construct a society in which others are compelled to believe those things under penalty of force.
In regards to "all peoples should be allowed a place to develop those strenghts and correct those weaknesses in peace via self government." Yes, of course. Unless that rises to a level of monstrous bad behavior. I dont know where that line is. If people in these radically diverse cultural examples want to live as they live, then I will never advocate doing anything about that through official US government action (again, except in case of genocide etc.). That doesn't mean I can't criticize them for being what I consider backwards though. It's like I often say, just because I support your right to be religious, that doesn't absolve you of my judgment that your decision is ridiculous.
--
"Do you not see that it's not that only racists and sexists talk about group intelligence, it's that everyone who talks about it is branded a racist, and because of that, most decent people are afraid to talk about such. Andrew Sullivan caught a ration of shit about it recently, and he's a famous and well-established journalist with PC bona-fides."
"Much of what you think of as logical 'games' are really just explorations or exploitations of these overused and under-defined terms. Like 'bigot' or 'white supremacist.' If I openly recognize that studies in group intelligence demonstrate that European Jews have higher average intelligence than European whites, or that negroid Africans are in certain areas physically superior to whites, or that east Asians are better at math than whites, I will be inexplicably be called a 'white supremacist.'"
The leap in logic there he made from equal to interchangeable is a big problem I have with engaging in academic exercises like this. He then proceeded to argue from a point I didn't make because of a twist in semantics he created. Everything that followed was tainted by that. Equal can often mean interchangeable, but it doesn't always. One chooses the definition of the word that suits the argument. I appreciate my car. I appreciate my computer, (or any other object I own, just examples). They are of equal value to me. They are not the same thing. I cannot drive my computer to work. I can't look at porn in my car all day.
How one gets from my saying that there's no benefit to scientifically proving differences between races to saying I want the entire world to shop at Walmart and watch reality TV or what have you, I have no idea. That's another example of what I mean by these types of things usually being logic games. "You don't think people should govern by religion, therefore you must obviously believe the polar opposite, ie this strawman world I just created to make your point seem extremely illogical." That's what people do when they are trying to win arguments, not when they are expressing ideas they actually believe and conversing with someone who has a differing opinion. It's politician bullshit.
"Thinking people" may not be the right way for me to have put it. But I am fine saying that if you think your specific government should be run according to magic heroes and folk tales and so on, then there is something wrong with you. Believe what you want in private life, have your ceremonies, do whatever makes you happy, I have no problem with religion, or believing whatever you want to get you through this shitty life, just don't ever construct a society in which others are compelled to believe those things under penalty of force.
In regards to "all peoples should be allowed a place to develop those strenghts and correct those weaknesses in peace via self government." Yes, of course. Unless that rises to a level of monstrous bad behavior. I dont know where that line is. If people in these radically diverse cultural examples want to live as they live, then I will never advocate doing anything about that through official US government action (again, except in case of genocide etc.). That doesn't mean I can't criticize them for being what I consider backwards though. It's like I often say, just because I support your right to be religious, that doesn't absolve you of my judgment that your decision is ridiculous.
--
"Do you not see that it's not that only racists and sexists talk about group intelligence, it's that everyone who talks about it is branded a racist, and because of that, most decent people are afraid to talk about such. Andrew Sullivan caught a ration of shit about it recently, and he's a famous and well-established journalist with PC bona-fides."
"Serious question: what does 'racist' mean? What is 'racism'? An old definition was that racism is the belief that race can account for differences in character and/or ability. But that cannot be the definition to which you subscribe, because when you use the word it is clearly meant to imply a moral component or failing, and there is no moral component to the belief that different human populations have differences in character and/or ability."
--
I can't help but come back to what I said earlier about what we'll potentially do with those types of findings, assuming that the means we've used to determined them aren't in themselves racist, or biased, or manipulated to conform to a desired result.
Writing on this very topic in regards to the Sullivan controversy mentioned above, Rod Dreher made the point I was trying to get across pretty well:
I can't help but come back to what I said earlier about what we'll potentially do with those types of findings, assuming that the means we've used to determined them aren't in themselves racist, or biased, or manipulated to conform to a desired result.
Writing on this very topic in regards to the Sullivan controversy mentioned above, Rod Dreher made the point I was trying to get across pretty well:
Sullivan understands that just because the Nazis made bad use of this stuff doesn’t make it untrue, or unimportant. I get that. But I keep coming back to a point that seems to be the one TNC is making: of what use is this field of study, anyway? Where do we propose to go with it? Andrew’s view is that it’s worth knowing for the reason all truth is worth knowing, and pursuing. In an abstract world, that makes sense. But we don’t live in a world of pure disinterestedness. If I were a geneticist, I doubt I would want to work in this field, only because the experience of the 20th century, especially the Holocaust, makes me deeply mistrustful of what human beings will do with the scientific knowledge that this race is intellectually inferior to that race, and we can prove it genetically.
Like Dreher, I simply see no benefit coming from anything like this. Perhaps that's misguided of me. I think the central controversy here is one that not only shouldn't exist, but doesn't even exist.
--
--
"How can you not see how profoundly important the subject is? Rather, how can a liberal not see how important the subject of human equality is? More importantly, how can a liberal - of all people - not see how significant it is that science (may) debunk the idea at the heart of PC egalitarianism? You argue for open borders because all peoples are equal to the extent that they are interchangeable, and so it doesn't matter if we invite a million east Asians or a million African pygmies (literal pygmies I mean) or a million Europeans - BUT IT DOES MATTER. You see that more than fifty percent of all captains of industry are men and cry 'sexism!' - BUT IT'S NOT THE RESULT OF ANY ISM. If Sullivan is correct, all liberal solutions are solutions to problems that do not exist, or are not the problem at hand.
"If your position was that the law should not keep women or minorities out of positions that they can rightfully earn, that's great. That's the Old Liberal position, and I agree with it. But, because you are ideologically compelled to pretend all peoples and genders are equal to the extent that they are equally interchangeable - you are compelled to expect that all peoples will be equally represented in all positions and roles. And when inherent group differences prevent that from happening, then you demand that government force the real world - in which all people are NOT equally interchangeable - to conform to your ideology, instead of doing away with the ideology because it does not resemble the real world."
"The good it would do is obvious, and self-evident: You cannot argue that the causes of inequality in the United States are vital and important issues and then ask what good can come of scientific inquiry into the nature of inequality in the United States. If one honestly is concerned about the causes of inequality in the United States (rather than concerned with simply remaining PC) then one simply must support scientific inquiry into the nature of that inequality. Seriously – think about that. Doesn’t it seem silly when you think about it, to declare that inequality must be combated, and then wish to cease scientific inquiry into inequality? You’re asking – it seems, at least – aren’t you? – really 'What good is scientific inquiry into a subject of profound importance, if the conclusions drawn are inconsistent with my ideology?'"
IT'S SAFE TO COME BACK NOW.
"I mean, if science confirmed hereditary group differences to the extent that it now confirms evolution -- if you delved into the subject and found that to be the case -- would that effect your worldview and/or politics?"
--
Maybe it would effect my world view. In fact, beginning today, I am going to start giving more credence to 'scientific reports.' , for example, which proves that racists are stupid.
Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice
There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.
The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward , the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience.
"Prejudice is extremely complex and multifaceted, making it critical that any factors are uncovered and understood," he said.
That sounds like something FRESH would agree with. It's important that we look into these things, because to do otherwise would fly in the face of everything that grounds us as rational, liberal-thinking people.
A few more details from the story:
As suspected, corresponded with racism in adulthood. But the factor that explained the relationship between these two variables was political: When researchers included social conservatism in the analysis, those ideologies accounted for much of the link between brains and bias.
People with lower cognitive abilities also had less contact with people of other races.
Nonetheless, there is reason to believe that strict right-wing ideology might appeal to those who have trouble grasping the complexity of the world.
"Socially conservative ideologies tend to offer structure and order," Hodson said, explaining why these beliefs might draw those with low intelligence. "Unfortunately, many of these features can also contribute to prejudice."
And there you have it people, the world explained. There are in fact differences between races, but anyone who thinks so is stupid.
brought to you by
10 comments:
This post should be a good study about where men and women fall on the TLDR scale.
Ha. Yes, also whether or not you read it probably has something to do with your libertarian-leanings. Surprisingly there is a decent libertarian readership here, probably born out of my affiliation with Street Carnage for a while.
Also if you read the whole thing you're racist.
There needs to be a word for something that's even longer than TLDR.
i couldn't make it all the way through. can you summarize in like 8 words?
Sure:
And there you have it people, the world explained. There are in fact differences between races, but anyone who thinks so is stupid.
Isn't the pretty obvious answer that any differences some study can identify between genders are a product of a society that insists there are differences between genders? I mean, duh.
Yeah, exactly. Believe it or not there was a whole other tangent involved that went into the idea of environment being responsible for these supposed inherent differences, but I mercifully edited that part out.
Minty just goes on doesn't he? The picture is better than the story in this case.
Doesn't it also matter when you do these studies? 100 years ago, Men and Women probably shared 3% personality traits. Both sides are gradually becoming more like the other because social mores are falling by the wayside, sort of like Zach said. Same with IQ tests among races.
Also, regarding the last study, region probably plays far more into that than intelligence. Maybe this is my coastal bias, but we're probably smarter and more accepting than the middle states, right? But I think if you compared the dumb people in Boston with the equally dumb people of Kansas, you'd find the ones in Boston are more accepting of other cultures.
Okay, maybe Boston was a bad example...
Post a Comment