|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
 Posted - 10/22/2007 : 17:52:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chaloobi
Originally posted by dv82matt
Why do you think that is a negative? |
Because the ethnic group found to be of average lower intelligence is going to be descriminated against. There is no question about it. And how do you combat descrimination founded on the basis of reproducible scientific fact? How do you insist or convince a company to hire from a minority group when it's been proven that minority group has on average lower intelligence? |
Unless people start hiring based purely on statistical averages, I can't see it being any different to the discrimination we have now.
The key point is that the statistical variation within a population (race) is much larger than the variation between the averages of different populations (races).
To use an admittedly extreme example, if you were looking to hire hiring a librarian, couldn't afford a ladder, and wanted to make sure the person was tall enough to put the books on the top shelf away, would you automatically exclude Chinese applicants as they are statistically likely to be shorter than, say, Russian applicants? Of course, you might end up with a potential member of the Chinese basketball team applying.
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
| Edited by - JohnOAS on 10/22/2007 17:54:14 |
 |
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2007 : 05:21:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Originally posted by chaloobi
Originally posted by dv82matt
Why do you think that is a negative? |
Because the ethnic group found to be of average lower intelligence is going to be descriminated against. There is no question about it. And how do you combat descrimination founded on the basis of reproducible scientific fact? How do you insist or convince a company to hire from a minority group when it's been proven that minority group has on average lower intelligence? |
Unless people start hiring based purely on statistical averages, I can't see it being any different to the discrimination we have now.
The key point is that the statistical variation within a population (race) is much larger than the variation between the averages of different populations (races).
To use an admittedly extreme example, if you were looking to hire hiring a librarian, couldn't afford a ladder, and wanted to make sure the person was tall enough to put the books on the top shelf away, would you automatically exclude Chinese applicants as they are statistically likely to be shorter than, say, Russian applicants? Of course, you might end up with a potential member of the Chinese basketball team applying.
|
Perception is everything. Consider the research done with teachers and school children - when teachers were told certain average school children were gifted, those children showed improved performance in school. Now, imagine the results when teachers know the student is from an ethnic group scientifically proven to be less intelligent on average.
The same is likely in job interviews. Would someone bother interviewing black people to work in their company when they know research has proven blacks are generally less intelligent than whites? And if they did interview them, they would still have some level of preconception against that person right from the beginning.
Now, if that person performs extraordinary in the interview, perhaps they'll get the job. But what if they just perform as good as the white or Asian candidates? Or maybe they won't perform as good as the white candidates because the interviewer is operating under the scientifically supported assumption they are less intelligent than the white candidates. And perhaps the candidate believes the same about themselves.
The knowledge that lower intelligence has been proven would likely poison the well of perception for most in that ethnic group; how they perceive themselves and how others perceive them. The exceptional will get past that - but the majority will not. How do you compete in life when you and everyone else start with the assumption those you are competing against are more intelligent than you? |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2007 : 05:33:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dv82matt
Originally posted by chaloobi
Because the ethnic group found to be of average lower intelligence is going to be descriminated against. There is no question about it. |
The corollary to this is that under the status quo the ethnic groups perceived to be of lower intelligence will continue to be discriminated against. There is no question about this either. |
Scientific proof is more powerful by far than unsupported perception.
| And how do you combat descrimination founded on the basis of reproducible scientific fact? How do you insist or convince a company to hire from a minority group when it's been proven that minority group has on average lower intelligence? |
Point out that the average is not indicative of any particular individual's intelligence so if one is screening individuals for intelligence then race is not a useful factor. |
Yeah, I'm sure that'll work.
| Make laws enforcing equal treatment if need be. But we do that already. |
Equal treatment for unequal people? You are going to force companies to hire the candidates proven less intelligent? Quotas today are based on the assumption that minorities are equal to the majority, it's just that unfounded perception has led to unfair treatment. Take out the unfounded qualifier and you have a dilema.
| There is currently no scientific basis for claiming one ethnic group is inferior to another. If you prove on average a certain ethnicity is less intelligent, then we'll have achieved a quantum leap in the justification for prejudice. You're kidding yourself if you don't think that will have major consequences. |
In that case there is also little scientific basis for disproving the racist's claims of superiority. You're kidding yourself if you don't think that also has major consequences. |
In my case, the proof is there. In your case, there is no proof. There's a big difference.
| The thing is the scenario where one race has clearly superior or inferior overall native intelligence to another race isn't particularily likely anyway. |
So? Does that make a difference to you? What if it was very likely, would you be less idealistic about no-limit scientific research? Even if this is true, is it relevant? |
Of course it is relevant. If it was very likely I'd rethink my position. |
So you actually agree with me in principle. It's just that you don't believe the evidence is there, or if it is, it's weak. And you're willing to roll the dice based on your pre-conception.
| So you don't have any positives relating to this specific research. You're more concerned with the practice of science itself. Don't limit science to be 'politically correct' and so forth. |
That's correct. I'd leave it to the experts in the field to decide whether there was merit in pursuing it. |
Merit as in what? Will they take into consideration the likely social consequences before they pursue it? Or will they be more interested in the pursuing the pure science?
|
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2007 : 07:51:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chaloobi
Originally posted by dv82matt
Originally posted by chaloobi
Because the ethnic group found to be of average lower intelligence is going to be descriminated against. There is no question about it. |
The corollary to this is that under the status quo the ethnic groups perceived to be of lower intelligence will continue to be discriminated against. There is no question about this either. |
Scientific proof is more powerful by far than unsupported perception. |
So do you think if we had scientific proof of equal intelligence of races that it would help to greatly reduce racism then? If that were the case then we would be sacrificing the opportunity to reduce racism rather than avoiding the danger of increasing racism.
| Point out that the average is not indicative of any particular individual's intelligence so if one is screening individuals for intelligence then race is not a useful factor. |
Yeah, I'm sure that'll work. |
You just said, "Scientific proof is more powerful by far than unsupported perception." why is that so unconvincing all of a sudden?
| Make laws enforcing equal treatment if need be. But we do that already. |
Equal treatment for unequal people? You are going to force companies to hire the candidates proven less intelligent? Quotas today are based on the assumption that minorities are equal to the majority, it's just that unfounded perception has led to unfair treatment. Take out the unfounded qualifier and you have a dilema. |
The employer who uses race as a gauge of intelligence wouldn't have a leg to stand on. There just isn't any potential that race would be a useful indication of an individual's intelligence.
| In my case, the proof is there. In your case, there is no proof. There's a big difference. |
The proof is there in both cases. Your case just assumes the proof favors the racists and mine does the opposite.
| So you actually agree with me in principle. It's just that you don't believe the evidence is there, or if it is, it's weak. And you're willing to roll the dice based on your pre-conception. |
I suppose. Does the fact that it is unlikely not reduce the risk subtantially in your view?
| That's correct. I'd leave it to the experts in the field to decide whether there was merit in pursuing it. |
Merit as in what? Will they take into consideration the likely social consequences before they pursue it? Or will they be more interested in the pursuing the pure science? |
I'd hope they give some thought to the social consequences in general. If say the country was just recovering from or on the brink of a civil war having to do with race and such information were likely to bring about massive unrest. Generally though scientists should do what they do best and focus on the science. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2007 : 09:19:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dv82matt
Originally posted by chaloobi
Originally posted by dv82matt
Originally posted by chaloobi
Because the ethnic group found to be of average lower intelligence is going to be descriminated against. There is no question about it. |
The corollary to this is that under the status quo the ethnic groups perceived to be of lower intelligence will continue to be discriminated against. There is no question about this either. |
Scientific proof is more powerful by far than unsupported perception. |
So do you think if we had scientific proof of equal intelligence of races that it would help to greatly reduce racism then? If that were the case then we would be sacrificing the opportunity to reduce racism rather than avoiding the danger of increasing racism. |
But you can't know the outcome of the research before it is done. My position is that if there is no substantial benefit to the research, then the risk should not be taken. And the possibility that the research might find no difference isn't benefit enough to undertake the exercise.
| Point out that the average is not indicative of any particular individual's intelligence so if one is screening individuals for intelligence then race is not a useful factor. |
Yeah, I'm sure that'll work. |
You just said, "Scientific proof is more powerful by far than unsupported perception." why is that so unconvincing all of a sudden? |
Read your suggestion again - you're asking people to disregard the findings and give every random individual the benefit of the doubt that he's not less intelligent the way science has proved the average of his ethnic group is. Nobody's going to do that.
| Make laws enforcing equal treatment if need be. But we do that already. |
Equal treatment for unequal people? You are going to force companies to hire the candidates proven less intelligent? Quotas today are based on the assumption that minorities are equal to the majority, it's just that unfounded perception has led to unfair treatment. Take out the unfounded qualifier and you have a dilema. |
The employer who uses race as a gauge of intelligence wouldn't have a leg to stand on. There just isn't any potential that race would be a useful indication of an individual's intelligence. |
Um, the whole premise of this discussion is that race IS a leg to stand on. Recall, it's about scientific proof that one ethnic group is less intelligent, on average, than another.
| In my case, the proof is there. In your case, there is no proof. There's a big difference. |
The proof is there in both cases. Your case just assumes the proof favors the racists and mine does the opposite. |
No it doesn't. Read your case again.
| So you actually agree with me in principle. It's just that you don't believe the evidence is there, or if it is, it's weak. And you're willing to roll the dice based on your pre-conception. |
I suppose. Does the fact that it is unlikely not reduce the risk subtantially in your view? |
No. I'm thinking right now that unless there's a compelling benefit to be gained, the risk of finding differences isn't worth it. |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 10/23/2007 09:20:56 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2007 : 10:31:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chaloobi
But you can't know the outcome of the research before it is done. My position is that if there is no substantial benefit to the research, then the risk should not be taken. And the possibility that the research might find no difference isn't benefit enough to undertake the exercise. |
How do you know that the outcome where research finds no substantial difference wouldn't be beneficial enough to justify the exercise?
| Read your suggestion again - you're asking people to disregard the findings and give every random individual the benefit of the doubt that he's not less intelligent the way science has proved the average of his ethnic group is. Nobody's going to do that. |
You're misunderstanding. Even in your worst case scenario where an particular ethnic group has lower average intelligence, a person making such an assumption on an individual basis is disregarding the science not being guided by it. If an employer is selecting employees based on intelligence, race would be a useless factor to consider. It would be trivial to show that an employer who gave it any consideration whatsoever is giving it massively undue weight in their selection criteria.
| The employer who uses race as a gauge of intelligence wouldn't have a leg to stand on. There just isn't any potential that race would be a useful indication of an individual's intelligence. |
Um, the whole premise of this discussion is that race IS a leg to stand on. Recall, it's about scientific proof that one ethnic group is less intelligent, on average, than another. |
An employer who screened out a particular ethnic group on that basis would be acting irrationally. Even in the worst case scenario intelligence just isn't strongly correlated with race.
| In my case, the proof is there. In your case, there is no proof. There's a big difference. |
The proof is there in both cases. Your case just assumes the proof favors the racists and mine does the opposite. |
No it doesn't. Read your case again. |
Well, I've lost the thread of this then.
| No. I'm thinking right now that unless there's a compelling benefit to be gained, the risk of finding differences isn't worth it. |
I'd say we shouldn't hamstring science unless there's a compelling and imminent danger to be avoided. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2007 : 11:10:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dv82matt
| The employer who uses race as a gauge of intelligence wouldn't have a leg to stand on. There just isn't any potential that race would be a useful indication of an individual's intelligence. |
Um, the whole premise of this discussion is that race IS a leg to stand on. Recall, it's about scientific proof that one ethnic group is less intelligent, on average, than another. |
An employer who screened out a particular ethnic group on that basis would be acting irrationally. Even in the worst case scenario intelligence just isn't strongly correlated with race. |
#1. How do you know the results of the study would show a low correlation with race? Arn't we discussing under the premise it IS or could be found to be highly correlated???? And if you already know there's no or low correlation, then why study it further???
#2. And for that matter, who said they would act rationally anyway? I think scientific findings would be used to substantiate all manner of prejudices, rational or not. People who might ordinarily dismiss racial prejudice will not be able to argue with the evidence...
| No. I'm thinking right now that unless there's a compelling benefit to be gained, the risk of finding differences isn't worth it. |
I'd say we shouldn't hamstring science unless there's a compelling and imminent danger to be avoided.
|
I think that A. since there is no clear benefit to doing the research and B. the great potential for harm is very clear, the research ought not be done. If in time a better A. is found or some convincing argument against B. is made, then it should be reconsidered. But as is .... |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 10/23/2007 11:11:15 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2007 : 12:42:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chaloobi
#1. How do you know the results of the study would show a low correlation with race? Arn't we discussing under the premise it IS or could be found to be highly correlated???? |
I meant low in comparison to other factors such as education, age, social status, and such.
| And if you already know there's no or low correlation, then why study it further??? |
Correlation with race or the lack of it is largely incidental to the scientific value researching intelligence would have. It's not to study correlation for it's own sake but to increase our understanding of the role of genetics in human intelligence and brain function. We risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater because there is no practical way to completely separate such research from race without reducing it to a sham.
| #2. And for that matter, who said they would act rationally anyway? I think scientific findings would be used to substantiate all manner of prejudices, rational or not. People who might ordinarily dismiss racial prejudice will not be able to argue with the evidence... |
For the irrational ones it will make no difference as they are not persuaded by reason anyway. As for making it more difficult to argue against them I can see your point. It would make the argument against prejudice more nuanced and thus vunerable to certain debating tactics.
| I think that A. since there is no clear benefit to doing the research and B. the great potential for harm is very clear, the research ought not be done. If in time a better A. is found or some convincing argument against B. is made, then it should be reconsidered. But as is .... |
Yeah, we just disagree on this. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2007 : 12:44:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dv82matt
Yeah, we just disagree on this.
|
Yeah. And I'm getting bored with this discussion anyway... |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2007 : 13:11:44 [Permalink]
|
Well, I tried posting.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/does-darwinism-lead-to-racism/
So far, my comment shows up. Note that it's not in the same post, but the topic is the same. It's more recent, and I've got a link to the original post.
Yes, I've got my comment saved, just in case. |
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
| Edited by - the_ignored on 10/23/2007 13:13:00 |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2007 : 19:00:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chaloobi
Perception is everything. Consider the research done with teachers and school children - when teachers were told certain average school children were gifted, those children showed improved performance in school. Now, imagine the results when teachers know the student is from an ethnic group scientifically proven to be less intelligent on average. |
Even if perception is everything, it can be changed. I believe it's more honest, and better in the long term to have the knowledge and make sensible decisions based upon it than to deliberately remain ignorant.
Originally posted by chaloobi
The same is likely in job interviews. Would someone bother interviewing black people to work in their company when they know research has proven blacks are generally less intelligent than whites? |
This is only a valid argument if you're going to pick at random from within the two population types. Even if you're a really bad interviewer, you could do better than to select by race. Hell, a spelling test would be better than selecting by race.
The data shown below was generated randomly in OpenOffice Calc.
If you threw away the population with the lowest average intelligence, it turns out you just lost your two best candidates.
Sure, people are going to make bad choices based on prejudices, misunderstanding or irrationality. We fix that with more education, not pretending that the real information doesn't exist.
Originally posted by chaloobi
The knowledge that lower intelligence has been proven would likely poison the well of perception for most in that ethnic group; how they perceive themselves and how others perceive them. The exceptional will get past that - but the majority will not. How do you compete in life when you and everyone else start with the assumption those you are competing against are more intelligent than you? |
You adjust your attitude by getting better information or learning to understand it better. The problem isn't the difference in average, the problem is that this individual doesn't understand that they're not constrained in any absolute fashion by statistical analysis.
If it turns out the result shows something unexpected, then we'll have to deal with it. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2007 : 17:00:36 [Permalink]
|
| Well, they haven't taken me off yet! I was able to post a half-assed reply again. |
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 07:36:56 [Permalink]
|
Here's a piece from the NY Times on the subject of renowned scientists going off half-cocked out of their expertise. Looks like Crick, the other half of Watson & Crick, was a bit of a loon too. It's big head syndrome in a medium where you're taken very seriously as a matter of course. Kinda sad at the end there about Dr. Watson...
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/weekinreview/28johnson.html?_r=1&ex=1351396800&en=2fdf72509d4a02e4&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss&oref=slogin
Bright Scientists, Dim Notions
AT a conference in Cambridge, Mass., in 1988 called “How the Brain Works,” Francis Crick suggested that neuroscientific understanding would move further along if only he and his colleagues were allowed to experiment on prisoners. You couldn't tell if he was kidding, and Crick being Crick, he probably didn't care. Emboldened by a Nobel Prize in 1962 for helping uncoil the secret of life, Dr. Crick, who died in 2004, wasn't shy about offering bold opinions — including speculations that life might have been seeded on Earth as part of an experiment by aliens.
The notion, called directed panspermia, had something of an intellectual pedigree. But when James Watson, the other strand of the double helix, went off the deep end two Sundays ago in The Times of London, implying that black Africans are less intelligent than whites, he hadn't a scientific leg to stand on.
Since the publication in 1968 of his opinionated memoir, “The Double Helix,” Dr. Watson, 79, has been known for his provocative statements (please see “Stupidity Should be Cured, Says DNA Discoverer,” New Scientist, Feb. 28, 2003), but this time he apologized. Last week, uncharacteristically subdued, he announced his retirement as chancellor and member of the board of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, where he had presided during much of the genetic revolution.
Though the pronouncements are rarely so jarring, there is a long tradition of great scientists letting down their guard. Actors, politicians and rock stars routinely make ill-considered comments. But when someone like Dr. Watson goes over the top, colleagues fear that the public may misconstrue the pronouncements as carrying science's stamp of approval.
....
There is a difference of course between bold speculations and Dr. Watson's reckless remarks. In announcing his retirement, in an oddly oblique e-mailed dispatch, he expressed hope that the latest biological research, at Cold Spring Harbor and elsewhere, would lead to treatments for mental illness and cancer. Invoking his “Scots-Irish Appalachian heritage” and a faith in reason and social justice passed on by his parents, he sounded sad and confused, as though this time he had succeeded in dumbfounding even himself.
|
|
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 10/29/2007 07:39:32 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 08:07:17 [Permalink]
|
The article quotes a spokeswoman for the Royal Mail as saying, about Josephson, “But if he has won a Nobel Prize for his work, that should give him some credibility.”
And therein lies the problem. If people didn't give experts credibility outside their field, Crick and Watson and the rest would probably have been more circumspect.
That article also mentions David Deutsch, but seems to categorize his ideas as "bold speculation." However, in a Discover Magazine article some years ago, Deutsch not only discussed the Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, but told the interviewer directly that he tries to behave well so that a larger proportion of his other selves in the other universe will also behave well. In saying so, Deutsch went straight from "bold speculation" to "unmitigated woo-woo," not least because he ought to know that with infinite universes, the number of his well-behaving selves must always be on the same order as the number of his evil selves: infinite (and further, if he's acting to spread goodness, then there's some evil version of him acting to spread evil).
But my favorite example of people speaking outside their area of expertise has got to be double Nobel laureate Linus Pauling, who went on to promote the idea that megadoses of vitamin C can cure diseases, including cancer (from which he ironically died). There was an "Institute of Orthomolecular Medicine" named after him, where research into this "anti-homeopathy" went on, but it's moved on and seems to have become somewhat more mainstream. The man was undoubtedly brilliant, but that certainly doesn't mean that every idea he had was correct. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 12:04:42 [Permalink]
|
On a further thought, I highlighted Crick's comments about prisoner experimentation because the idea is so wacked out. But Crick was probably right in saying neuroscience would advance faster if they were allowed to experiment on human beings. Being right scientifically doesn't mean you're right morally, however.
Originally posted by Dave W.
But my favorite example of people speaking outside their area of expertise has got to be double Nobel laureate Linus Pauling, who went on to promote the idea that megadoses of vitamin C can cure diseases, including cancer (from which he ironically died). There was an "Institute of Orthomolecular Medicine" named after him, where research into this "anti-homeopathy" went on, but it's moved on and seems to have become somewhat more mainstream. The man was undoubtedly brilliant, but that certainly doesn't mean that every idea he had was correct.
|
Was his cancer related to chronic Vitamin C overdose? That would be irony. |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 10/29/2007 12:08:25 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Watson Says Africans Less Intelligent
