weren't you the dude who was semi-defending the Bell Curve on grounds of "well, it's wrong, but you're misrepresenting it. it's actually wrong in a different way that supports many of the same...
weren't you the dude who was semi-defending the Bell Curve on grounds of "well, it's wrong, but you're misrepresenting it. it's actually wrong in a different way that supports many of the same conclusions yet is inconsistent with the author's policy proposals/political objectives -- even though the people citing it happen to share the exact same misinterpretation as you" earlier?
it seems like your general theme has been "examining the ignorance of others who happen to support the status quo, which coincidentally is great for white people." and occasionally tepidly defending their ignorance. in another thread you've brought out a ton of the "the left is polarizing people" meme, like, up to the point of bringing up race before other people brought up race so you could talk about the problem of the left alienating people on grounds like that.
sorry, i'll watch the video later -- i legitimately read all your other posts, but i can't watch a video while I'm at work. i think you are trying to fight for the side of good but i feel like a lot of your other posts just reflexively give away a ton of ground to pseudoscientists, race nutters, etc, because you adopted their framing.
I'm not saying Bell Curve is wrong, only that I disagree with the policy proposals will I agree with the assessment of the state of the art in the field of intelligence and heredity. The person I...
well, it's wrong, but you're misrepresenting it.
I'm not saying Bell Curve is wrong, only that I disagree with the policy proposals will I agree with the assessment of the state of the art in the field of intelligence and heredity. The person I was talking to was misrepresenting how the book was describing the science.
in another thread you've brought out a ton of the "the left is polarizing people"
Not the left, only a small chunk of the left, the radical ideology driven left obsessed with identity politics.
bringing up race before other people brought up race so you could talk about the problem of the left alienating people on grounds like that.
The chunk of the left I'm referring to is alienating many people in my view.
i think you are trying to fight for the side of good but i feel like a lot of your other posts just reflexively give away a ton of ground to pseudoscientists, race nutters, etc, because you adopted their framing.
If I'm wrong, I want to know it. I care more about updating my model of reality than being right in a debate. Also, I'm not an ideologue, I know that views are something I have not something I am.
why do you identify the "identity politics" contingent of the left as an enormous seething mass when it comes to explaining the public's reaction and why it's justified, but a "small chuck of the...
why do you identify the "identity politics" contingent of the left as an enormous seething mass when it comes to explaining the public's reaction and why it's justified, but a "small chuck of the left" when explaining why we can do better? what does "identity politics" even mean and how is the right wing not doing it?
You're citing a 20-year-old book everyone in the field other than the author disagrees with, and calling it "state of the art." in environmental science what you're doing would be climate change denialism.
I believe that the chunk to the left I'm referring to is disproportionately influential but still only a small minority. The right wing is definitely doing it, Trump is the most identity politics...
why do you identify the "identity politics" contingent of the left as an enormous seething mass when it comes to explaining the public's reaction and why it's justified, but a "small chuck of the left" when explaining why we can do better?
I believe that the chunk to the left I'm referring to is disproportionately influential but still only a small minority.
what does "identity politics" even mean and how is the right wing not doing it?
The right wing is definitely doing it, Trump is the most identity politics prone American politician since at least the segregation and the GOP is turning into a white identity politics party.
You're citing a 20-year-old book everyone in the field other than the author disagrees with, and calling it "state of the art." in environmental science what you're doing would be climate change denialism.
I'm not saying it's currently the state of the art don't get me wrong, only that the time of publication their assessment of the science of intelligence and heredity was.
what makes you think these people are influential? i think it's interesting that the right wing has taken loud online conversations by teenagers -- not normal teenagers, weird ones, only the ones...
I believe that the chuck to the left I'm referring to is disproportionately influential but still only a small minority.
what makes you think these people are influential? i think it's interesting that the right wing has taken loud online conversations by teenagers -- not normal teenagers, weird ones, only the ones who advocate crazy things -- and somehow convinced everyone that this is what leftists actually think. and also convinced them there's no difference between this and ex. mainstream antiracism.
The right wing is definitely doing it, Trump is the most identity politics prone American politicians since at least the segregation and the GOP is turning into a white identity politics party.
this is really inconsistent with the idea that otherwise reasonable people are getting offended into it by a shrill minority of people whose methodology (identity politics) is offensive but their viewpoints (don't be racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic) is not. (given that the people they end up siding with have the same methodology, to an even greater extent)
I'm not saying it's currently the state of the art don't get me wrong, only that the time of publication their assessment of the science of intelligence and heredity was.
i mean, it's a popsci book written by a pundit and the first refutations started coming out within months of its being published? i'm not saying the racial IQ gap doesn't exist -- it objectively does -- nor am I saying that IQ doesn't explain social outcomes -- it objectively does -- but afaict nearly everyone replied to the book almost immediately by replying that its methodology was whack and presupposed that racial background was predictive.
Do you think you could sum up the video in few points? Just few lines what's going on. This video might be interesting, but there's no wifi here, I have only 40MB of mobile data remaining and as...
Do you think you could sum up the video in few points? Just few lines what's going on. This video might be interesting, but there's no wifi here, I have only 40MB of mobile data remaining and as others pointed out, there's no transcript.
America is deeply polarized along a left-right divide. One side wants “social justice”; the other sees social justice as a heavy-handed way of enforcing unfairness in the name of equality. Both sides claim that the other side denies science, reality, and common sense. In this talk Professor Haidt will give an overview of moral psychology and of his research findings on the left-right divide. He’ll focus on disagreements over fairness and liberty, which constitute the new (post-Tea Party) culture war. And he’ll show how both sides deny science whenever it conflicts with their sacred values.
Jonathan Haidt is a social psychologist at the NYU-Stern School of Business. His research examines the intuitive foundations of morality, and how morality varies across cultures. In recent years he has examined the moral cultures of liberals, conservatives, and libertarians. Haidt is the author of more than 90 academic articles and two books: The Happiness Hypothesis, and The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and ReligionHe has spoken twice at the TED conference—once on politics, once on religion. He was named a “top 100 global thinker” of 2012 by Foreign Policy magazine.
Staying current with the scientific consensus is extremely hard, although the best tool I've found for helping with that is the skeptical community. It has it's quirks, but resources like...
Staying current with the scientific consensus is extremely hard, although the best tool I've found for helping with that is the skeptical community. It has it's quirks, but resources like neurologica blog, Science based Medicine, and the SGU podcast are all very useful. Now all of these involve Steven Novella, who is an incredibly intelligent man. But finding other sources is also encouraged simply on principle.
Sorry, but why is anyone even engaging ~/Raphael at this point? He's like a one man brigade dedicated to virtue signalling logic and reason in bad faith, and attempting to normalize racism here.
Sorry, but why is anyone even engaging ~/Raphael at this point? He's like a one man brigade dedicated to virtue signalling logic and reason in bad faith, and attempting to normalize racism here.
Did you even try to look past the title? The lecture is given by a centrist (formerly leftist) with a respectable social psychology background, to an audience that's 90%+ liberals. I don't think...
Did you even try to look past the title? The lecture is given by a centrist (formerly leftist) with a respectable social psychology background, to an audience that's 90%+ liberals. I don't think it's worth brushing aside so quickly.
I don't like the term "race realism". Some people are using this as a slur against researchers and academics studying and discussing the relation between intelligence and heredity. I know that...
I don't like the term "race realism". Some people are using this as a slur against researchers and academics studying and discussing the relation between intelligence and heredity. I know that some racists are using the field for pushing a racist agenda and justifying their ideology, but putting this lot in the same bag as the people who are just working (or are interested) in the field because you disagree with them is unethical.
I don't know what according to you is "debunked pseudo-science", but the relation (very strong correlation) between intelligence and heredity is the scientific consensus. There have been dozens of...
I don't know what according to you is "debunked pseudo-science", but the relation (very strong correlation) between intelligence and heredity is the scientific consensus. There have been dozens of meta-analysis in the field.
Nobody's saying you can't post long videos without transcripts that consist of some dude talking for fifty-nine minutes, but if you do I'm going to ask, "Where's the transcript?" for one simple...
Nobody's saying you can't post long videos without transcripts that consist of some dude talking for fifty-nine minutes, but if you do I'm going to ask, "Where's the transcript?" for one simple reason: I can read faster than this dude can talk.
You're welcome. It seemed more constructive than saying that tone and body language don't mean much to me, and points out a wider problem: vlogs and lecture videos that aren't accompanied by text...
You're welcome. It seemed more constructive than saying that tone and body language don't mean much to me, and points out a wider problem: vlogs and lecture videos that aren't accompanied by text versions tend to be ableist in the way that text is not, because text-to-speech is a lot easier to implement with acceptable results than speech-to-text.
Also, are there any technological cultures that get by with only oral communication?
It was a good post OP; don't let the pendants get you down. EDIT: Crap. The people complaining about the lack of a transcript was all that registered with me. On a second glance, the actual...
It was a good post OP; don't let the pendants get you down.
EDIT: Crap. The people complaining about the lack of a transcript was all that registered with me. On a second glance, the actual content is terrible. I need to slow down. Thanks @spit-evil-olive-tips.
This guy's background according to Wikipedia: Serious question: On what grounds are you so quickly dismissing this guy's research and experience? Do you cherry pick which experts you think are...
This guy's background according to Wikipedia:
He earned a BA in philosophy from Yale University in 1985, and a PhD in psychology from the University of Pennsylvania in 1992. He then studied cultural psychology at the University of Chicago as a post-doctoral fellow. His supervisors were Jonathan Baron and Alan Fiske (at the University of Pennsylvania) and cultural anthropologist Richard Shweder (University of Chicago). During his post-doctoral appointment, Haidt won a Fulbright fellowship to fund three months of research on morality in Orissa, India. In 1995, Haidt was hired as an assistant professor at the University of Virginia, where he worked until 2011, winning four awards for teaching, including a statewide award conferred by the Governor of Virginia.[7]
Serious question: On what grounds are you so quickly dismissing this guy's research and experience? Do you cherry pick which experts you think are credible by how well they adhere to your beliefs?
You're free to do that, but it's intellectually lazy and lacks integrity. Funny how a lot of the meta Tildes threads seem to champion the idea of "Be the change you want to see here! If you don't...
You're free to do that, but it's intellectually lazy and lacks integrity.
Funny how a lot of the meta Tildes threads seem to champion the idea of "Be the change you want to see here! If you don't want this place to be an echo chamber, submit different content!" But when it happens...
So in order to be intellectually not-lazy and have integrity, you have to read every scientific paper out there by anybody with a degree? No I think it's good judgement to examine whether a...
You're free to do that, but it's intellectually lazy and lacks integrity.
So in order to be intellectually not-lazy and have integrity, you have to read every scientific paper out there by anybody with a degree?
No I think it's good judgement to examine whether a particular scientist gets a lot of replies to their work, especially within such a short period of time. It shows they may not be acting in good faith.
I guess "bad faith" is going to be the new "troll" here. Seems we're done having an actual discussion, so I'll just leave this here: It's possible to accept the possibility of real differences...
I guess "bad faith" is going to be the new "troll" here.
Seems we're done having an actual discussion, so I'll just leave this here:
It's possible to accept the possibility of real differences between ethnicities without compromising on dignity and humanity for all. The only way it'd be incompatible is if you believe IQ and intellect is the truest and only measure of a person, which says more about you than anything really.
weren't you the dude who was semi-defending the Bell Curve on grounds of "well, it's wrong, but you're misrepresenting it. it's actually wrong in a different way that supports many of the same conclusions yet is inconsistent with the author's policy proposals/political objectives -- even though the people citing it happen to share the exact same misinterpretation as you" earlier?
it seems like your general theme has been "examining the ignorance of others who happen to support the status quo, which coincidentally is great for white people." and occasionally tepidly defending their ignorance. in another thread you've brought out a ton of the "the left is polarizing people" meme, like, up to the point of bringing up race before other people brought up race so you could talk about the problem of the left alienating people on grounds like that.
sorry, i'll watch the video later -- i legitimately read all your other posts, but i can't watch a video while I'm at work. i think you are trying to fight for the side of good but i feel like a lot of your other posts just reflexively give away a ton of ground to pseudoscientists, race nutters, etc, because you adopted their framing.
I'm not saying Bell Curve is wrong, only that I disagree with the policy proposals will I agree with the assessment of the state of the art in the field of intelligence and heredity. The person I was talking to was misrepresenting how the book was describing the science.
Not the left, only a small chunk of the left, the radical ideology driven left obsessed with identity politics.
The chunk of the left I'm referring to is alienating many people in my view.
If I'm wrong, I want to know it. I care more about updating my model of reality than being right in a debate. Also, I'm not an ideologue, I know that views are something I have not something I am.
why do you identify the "identity politics" contingent of the left as an enormous seething mass when it comes to explaining the public's reaction and why it's justified, but a "small chuck of the left" when explaining why we can do better? what does "identity politics" even mean and how is the right wing not doing it?
You're citing a 20-year-old book everyone in the field other than the author disagrees with, and calling it "state of the art." in environmental science what you're doing would be climate change denialism.
I believe that the chunk to the left I'm referring to is disproportionately influential but still only a small minority.
The right wing is definitely doing it, Trump is the most identity politics prone American politician since at least the segregation and the GOP is turning into a white identity politics party.
I'm not saying it's currently the state of the art don't get me wrong, only that the time of publication their assessment of the science of intelligence and heredity was.
what makes you think these people are influential? i think it's interesting that the right wing has taken loud online conversations by teenagers -- not normal teenagers, weird ones, only the ones who advocate crazy things -- and somehow convinced everyone that this is what leftists actually think. and also convinced them there's no difference between this and ex. mainstream antiracism.
this is really inconsistent with the idea that otherwise reasonable people are getting offended into it by a shrill minority of people whose methodology (identity politics) is offensive but their viewpoints (don't be racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic) is not. (given that the people they end up siding with have the same methodology, to an even greater extent)
i mean, it's a popsci book written by a pundit and the first refutations started coming out within months of its being published? i'm not saying the racial IQ gap doesn't exist -- it objectively does -- nor am I saying that IQ doesn't explain social outcomes -- it objectively does -- but afaict nearly everyone replied to the book almost immediately by replying that its methodology was whack and presupposed that racial background was predictive.
I'm going to sleep now, I will edit this comment with an answer tomorrow.
Do you think you could sum up the video in few points? Just few lines what's going on. This video might be interesting, but there's no wifi here, I have only 40MB of mobile data remaining and as others pointed out, there's no transcript.
Staying current with the scientific consensus is extremely hard, although the best tool I've found for helping with that is the skeptical community. It has it's quirks, but resources like neurologica blog, Science based Medicine, and the SGU podcast are all very useful. Now all of these involve Steven Novella, who is an incredibly intelligent man. But finding other sources is also encouraged simply on principle.
Thank you
Sorry, but why is anyone even engaging ~/Raphael at this point? He's like a one man brigade dedicated to virtue signalling logic and reason in bad faith, and attempting to normalize racism here.
Did you even try to look past the title? The lecture is given by a centrist (formerly leftist) with a respectable social psychology background, to an audience that's 90%+ liberals. I don't think it's worth brushing aside so quickly.
I don't like the term "race realism". Some people are using this as a slur against researchers and academics studying and discussing the relation between intelligence and heredity. I know that some racists are using the field for pushing a racist agenda and justifying their ideology, but putting this lot in the same bag as the people who are just working (or are interested) in the field because you disagree with them is unethical.
I don't know what according to you is "debunked pseudo-science", but the relation (very strong correlation) between intelligence and heredity is the scientific consensus. There have been dozens of meta-analysis in the field.
Thanks God it's only primarily text-based or else I couldn't post a video of a lecture that doesn't have a transcript.
Nobody's saying you can't post long videos without transcripts that consist of some dude talking for fifty-nine minutes, but if you do I'm going to ask, "Where's the transcript?" for one simple reason: I can read faster than this dude can talk.
What about people with hearing difficulties? Tone doesn't mean anything to the deaf, and the camera might not get close enough for lip-reading.
You're welcome. It seemed more constructive than saying that tone and body language don't mean much to me, and points out a wider problem: vlogs and lecture videos that aren't accompanied by text versions tend to be ableist in the way that text is not, because text-to-speech is a lot easier to implement with acceptable results than speech-to-text.
Also, are there any technological cultures that get by with only oral communication?
It was a good post OP; don't let the pendants get you down.
EDIT: Crap. The people complaining about the lack of a transcript was all that registered with me. On a second glance, the actual content is terrible. I need to slow down. Thanks @spit-evil-olive-tips.
This guy's background according to Wikipedia:
Serious question: On what grounds are you so quickly dismissing this guy's research and experience? Do you cherry pick which experts you think are credible by how well they adhere to your beliefs?
You're free to do that, but it's intellectually lazy and lacks integrity.
Funny how a lot of the meta Tildes threads seem to champion the idea of "Be the change you want to see here! If you don't want this place to be an echo chamber, submit different content!" But when it happens...
Edit: That's ad hominem, by the way.
So in order to be intellectually not-lazy and have integrity, you have to read every scientific paper out there by anybody with a degree?
No I think it's good judgement to examine whether a particular scientist gets a lot of replies to their work, especially within such a short period of time. It shows they may not be acting in good faith.
I guess "bad faith" is going to be the new "troll" here.
Seems we're done having an actual discussion, so I'll just leave this here:
It's possible to accept the possibility of real differences between ethnicities without compromising on dignity and humanity for all. The only way it'd be incompatible is if you believe IQ and intellect is the truest and only measure of a person, which says more about you than anything really.
Locking (and removing) this thread for now while I go through it and make some decisions.
Too long; didn't watch. Where's the transcript?
I don't believe this lecture has a transcript.