Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Benevolence comments on Categorizing Has Consequences - Less Wrong

25 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 19 February 2008 01:40AM

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

Comments (13)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Benevolence 12 July 2012 02:15:23AM 0 points [-]

I think the oddness of this fad can be described by its link to the "science" literary genre.

I heard about this theory a few years ago, and looked it up on the internet, where i promptly found out it was just a myth. however at first i believed it. And i had a decent reason to do so.

I didn't know a lot about genetics (not that i do now lol). It seemed entirely reasonable that the genetics that determined your blood type would at least give a predisposition for a persons personality to slide in a certain direction from the norm.

This myths popularity can probably be explained by its believability. Only people doing further research would find out its a myth. Most would likely believe it on the spot and be satisfied because it sounds like something that came from doctors and scientists.

It may be that the original myth came about because of someone LOOKING for differences between labelled groups, but honestly it kind of makes sense to do this when those labels represent physical differences in genetics.

Theres a good reason human pattern-recognition runs in overdrive. Its damn useful.

As long as you're not trying to force yourself to find similarities, but just looking (even if its just for curiosity), I don't see the problem with trying to find similarities between different groups (labelled or otherwise). After all, so often, those similarities exist, and are very interesting. Especially where humans and psychology are concerned, if that kind of thing tickles your fancy as it does mine.