Jiro comments on Rationality Quotes November 2013 - Less Wrong

5 Post author: malcolmocean 02 November 2013 08:35PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (388)

CC Licenced

Tags: quotes

Comments (388)

Sort By: Best

Show:

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

Comment author: Jiro 14 November 2013 04:43:47PM 2 points [-]

That would still mean that if I say "convert to Christianity or I won't hire you" and you refuse, that wouldn't count as discrimination. It would also mean that refusing to hire gay people would not be discrimination, as long as you only refused to hire people who participated in some activity, whether having gay sex, wearing rainbow flags, having a gay wedding, etc.

Comment author: [deleted] 15 November 2013 12:58:09AM * 1 point [-]

That would still mean that if I say "convert to Christianity or I won't hire you" and you refuse, that wouldn't count as discrimination.

So what? I'm not particularly outraged that atheists aren't allowed into the Swiss Guards.

It would also mean that refusing to hire gay people would not be discrimination, as long as you only refused to hire people who participated in some activity, whether having gay sex, wearing rainbow flags, having a gay wedding, etc.

For some reason, this sounds more problematic to me; not sure why.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier comment score below threshold [+] (27 children)

Comment author: [deleted] 17 November 2013 03:20:29AM * 1 point [-]

Actually I think it's the other way round, at least in the last few years. (There are many more atheists than gay people in my social circles.)

Comment author: JoshuaZ 18 November 2013 05:08:11AM * -1 points [-]

Alternate hypothesis: one has a choice and the other one does not.

Comment author: Vaniver 21 November 2013 05:49:30AM 2 points [-]

You realize this is circling back around, right? The issue is that the two are both defined by choices, because the second group is not gay men but men who have consensual sex with men, and the second group's membership is voluntary regardless of whether or not the first's is.

Eugine_Nier responded, in effect, that the most likely reason to see those restrictions as being in different classes is the "who--whom?" of religious hiring restrictions being 'okay' and sexual-behavior-based hiring restrictions being 'not okay' because of status alignments of religion and sexual behavior.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 21 November 2013 05:51:52AM 1 point [-]

That's a good point.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier comment score below threshold [+] (22 children)

Comment author: JoshuaZ 18 November 2013 02:56:01PM 0 points [-]

I'm not sure there's a coherent one here. But for issues such as this, what people, or society are comfortable with is a to a large extent a function of what intuitions they have. In this sort of context, the distinction is likely connected to intuitions of free will, whether or not that makes any sense.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier comment score below threshold [+] (20 children)

Comment author: JoshuaZ 19 November 2013 01:46:14AM * 1 point [-]

How a priori reason do you want it to be? There's at this point a general consensus that sexual orientation, while culturally mediated, has a large genetic component. I don't think that anyone thinks there's say a gene for Christianity or the like. And while self-identified sexual orientation can change, that's substantially less common an occurrence as changes in one's religious self-identification. For example, in the US about half of all adults have changed their religion at least once in their lives. See here. Some of those people are people changing from one version of Protestantism to another, but even when you take them out, one is still talking about around a third of the population. And this is fairly well known- people understand that religious beliefs can change: indeed, many major religions have specific rules about how to handle conversions, and many forms of major religions (especially in Christianity and Islam) have active commandments to go and convert people.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier comment score below threshold [+] (11 children)

Comment author: JoshuaZ 20 November 2013 02:35:54AM 4 points [-]

And near as I can tell the only things underlying this consensus are the "we can get it to show up on brain scans, therefore it must be genetic" fallacy and the accusation of being an EVIL HOMOPHOBE!!1!! hurled against anyone who questions it.

Twin studies show a strong genetic component. There's also (weak) evidence for epigenetic effects. See here. There's also circumstantial evidence of a link to female fertility.

The brain evidence is interesting, but it goes more to a lack of choice, rather than a genetic aspect. Of course, as with any complicated behavioral trait with some variation, it is likely that at least part of the trait is due to environmental effects at a young age, possibly including womb environment.

The fact that the kind of people responsible for these kinds of consensuses believe it is perfectly acceptable to promote falsehoods under the name of science for the "greater good" doesn't exactly increase my confidence in it.

And you are A) Linking to a discussion where you and I already discussed exactly this and why your response didn't make sense, and B) making a massive leap that from some political groups presenting selective evidence, that one should therefore doubt scientific studies. This does not follow.

continue this thread »

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 20 November 2013 10:48:47AM 1 point [-]

I didn't relaise that "falsehood" meant "not necessarily true". I also remain unclear why a statment as guarded "believed to have a genetic component" would need to be qualiied with a further "maybe".

Comment author: [deleted] 20 November 2013 09:42:45PM 0 points [-]

Let me get this straight... Are you trying to evaluate the truth of a statement by its position in a signaling game?

Comment author: passive_fist 20 November 2013 10:24:25PM * 1 point [-]

I'm not aware of any 'consensus' that sexual orientation has a 'large' genetic component. Some research suggests there is a genetic component, and it is known that there are developmental factors as well (i.e. what happens in the womb and afterwards) and also environmental factors. It is widely accepted that homosexuality is 'not a (conscious) choice' but that's most definitely not the same as saying "it's genetic".

Comment author: JoshuaZ 20 November 2013 11:38:17PM 0 points [-]

See other discussion in this subthread for evidence that there's a large genetic component and that most papers in this context matter. I agree that there's likely developmental and environmental issues at play, as well as stochastic effects.

Comment author: [deleted] 20 November 2013 09:46:27PM 1 point [-]

I don't think that anyone thinks there's say a gene for Christianity or the like.

Well, atheism is correlated with IQ and (ISTM) Openness to Experience, which are both somewhere around 50% inheritable.

Look at what I found by googling for atheism twin studies!

Comment author: Lumifer 20 November 2013 10:10:25PM 3 points [-]

Well, atheism is correlated with IQ and (ISTM) Openness to Experience, which are both somewhere around 50% inheritable.

Yeah, well, Judaism is correlated with IQ as well :-D and I bet any non-mainstream religious beliefs will be correlated with Openness to Experience.

continue this thread »

Jiro comments on Rationality Quotes November 2013 - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (388)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (388)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login