Jandila comments on Undiscriminating Skepticism - Less Wrong

97 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 14 March 2010 11:23PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (1329)
Tags: skepticism contrarianism

Comments (1329)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: brazil84 26 September 2011 05:35:24PM 2 points [-]

But they did pretty-uniformly judge the peoples they grouped into the category "black", which just to be clear is the group I specified and the group you're talking about too.

I apologize, I thought you were referring to non-whites all over the world when you talked about distinct populations being grouped by skin color.

Who were originally grouped long ago, on the basis of the exceedingly superficial detail of skin color, a trait that turned out to be a red herring since they don't form a "natural group" in the sense that was assumed originally.

Well what is the criteria for deciding if a group of people form a "natural group"? And what difference does it make if they are a "natural group" or not?

For example, I could divide the world into 3 races as follows:

(1) Ethnic Swedes plus anyone who was born in Maine;

(2) Ethnic Japanese plus anyone who was born in Sri Lanka; and

(3) Everyone else.

Now one could observe that members of Race 1 are more likely to have blue eyes than members of Race 2 and ask whether the difference is genetic. The answer would be yes even though the races have been defined in a completely arbitrary manner.

There is a large, thus-far intractable difference in performance on IQ tests between these groups; we do not concur as to what IQ tests are measuring,

I disagree, I think it's pretty clear that IQ tests measure intelligence. But perhaps it's not something which needs to be resolved, because one can simply ask whether the IQ gap between blacks and whites is due in large part to genetic differences.

natural group as opposed to a socially-constructed one,

Again, what is the criteria for deciding whether you have a "natural group" or a "socially-constructed one"?

Comment author: [deleted] 26 September 2011 06:17:39PM -2 points [-]

I apologize, I thought you were referring to non-whites all over the world when you talked about distinct populations being grouped by skin color.

"Black" has been used to refer to indigenous peoples of Subsaharan Africa, many parts of Asia, and Australia. Even some South American groups were once classed as "black."

Well what is the criteria for deciding if a group of people form a "natural group"?

Genetic relatedness, which I hope you'll agree is kind of relevant when discussing genetics.

For example, I could divide the world into 3 races as follows:

Irrelevant; I'm talking about how different groups were actually defined in history, not about the many arbitrary ways which one could choose to split up the world's human population.

Now one could observe that members of Race 1 are more likely to have blue eyes than members of Race > 2 and ask whether the difference is genetic. The answer would be yes even though the races have been defined in a completely arbitrary manner.

One could also observe that members of Race 2 in your scheme are more likely to eat a lot of rice than members of Race 1, and ask whether the difference is genetic. The answer would be no, even if the answer to some other possible question might be yes. People in Sri Lanka plus ethnically Japanese people tend to eat more rice due to history and local circumstances (the agricultural civilizations that most influenced them were rice-farming ones), not innate characteristics that predispose them to a diet high in rice.

I disagree

You disagree that we disagree? I'm afraid I have to disagree with that.

I think it's pretty clear that IQ tests measure intelligence.

Right, as I said: we disagree on that point; if you continue to assume it in your arguments with me you will not be inherently more-convincing because I believe your argument rests on flawed premises. I might be wrong about that, but my own priors do not concur with yours, and you won't get me to update mine by merely reasserting yours.

Comment author: Jack 26 September 2011 07:01:06PM *  3 points [-]

I really recommend you look through the discussion on this subject from Spring 2010 (the ancestors and distant cousins of this thread) to make sure that a) the people you are going back and forth with are likely to argue honestly and productively on this subject and b) your contributions aren't repeating facts or myths that have already been covered many times before.

For obvious reasons, comments on this subject should be in the upper 10-20% of Less Wrong comments in terms of evidence cited, intellectual honesty, tone, grammar etc.

Comment author: brazil84 26 September 2011 07:33:57PM 3 points [-]

Genetic relatedness, which I hope you'll agree is kind of relevant when discussing genetics.

I don't understand this response. I am asking how one decides if a group is a "natural group" or a "socially-constructed" group. Simply answering "genetic relatedness" doesn't answer the question. I prefer not to guess at what you mean.

Irrelevant; I'm talking about how different groups were actually defined in history

Then I don't understand your argument. I thought you were arguing that (1) the group known as "blacks" are defined in an arbitrary manner; and therefore (2) it's not legitimate to claim that the black/white IQ gap has a large genetic component.

What exactly are you arguing?

One could also observe that members of Race 2 in your scheme are more likely to eat a lot of rice than members of Race 1, and ask whether the difference is genetic. The answer would be no, even if the answer to some other possible question might be yes.

I agree 100%. The point is that it's possible to define a "race" in a completely arbitrary manner; observe that 2 races are different; and reasonably ask whether the difference might be caused in whole or in part by genetics.

You disagree that we disagree?

I disagree with your claim about IQ tests and intelligence, but it's a separate issue.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit