= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Moss_Piglet comments on [LINK] Why I'm not on the Rationalist Masterlist - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (866)
You are absolutely correct on the facts, and in a saner world I could leave it at that, but you seem to have missed an unspoken part of the argument;
The common factor isn't genetics per se but rather an appeal to inherent nature. Whether that nature is the genetic legacy of selection for vastly different ancestral environments or due to the epigenetics of sexual dimorphism is very important in a scientific sense but not in the metaphysical sense of presenting a challenge to the ideals of "equality" or the "psychic unity of mankind."
When Dr Shalizi writes the rhetorical question "why it is so important to you that IQ be heritable and unchangeable?" in the context of "'human equality' and 'genetic identity'" his tone is not that of scientific skepticism of an unproven claim but rather an apologetic defense of an embattled creed. Really, why is it so important to you what the truth is? After all, we don't have any evidence to suggest that the doctrines are wrong, so why not just repeat the cant like everyone else? Who else but a heretic would feel need to ask uncomfortable questions?
For the most part, scientists writing against the hereditarian position don't bother debating the facts anymore; now that actual genetic evidence is starting to come out they know it'll just make them look foolish in a few years, and the psychometric evidence has survived four decades of concentrated attack already. It's all about implications and responsibility now, or in other words that the lie is too big to fail. It's hardly important to them if the truth at hand is a genetic or an hormonal inequality, they just want it to go away.
I read Shalizi differently, as asking something like, "Really, is it because you care about the truth qua truth that you find this particular alleged truth so important?" Far from apologetic, he is — cautiously, because there is a counterfactual gun to his head — going on the offensive, hinting that the people insistently disagreeing with him are motivated by more than unalloyed curiosity. It is not, of course, dispassionate scientific scepticism, but nor is it a defensive crouch.
My interpretation could be wrong. Shalizi isn't spelling things out in explicit, objective detail there. But my interpretation rings truer to my gut, and fits better with the fact that his peroration rounds off ten thousand words of blunt and occasionally snarky statistical critique.
I think you misinterpret Dr Shalizi, and do him a disservice. I think his answer is perfectly reasonable from a bayesian point of view. Basically, I see three common reasons to spend time researching difference between races:
A) People who are genuinely interested in the answer, for pragmatic or intellectual reasons
B) People who are a racist and want to hear a particular answer that fits their preconceived views
C) People who are trying to be controversial/contrarian/want to provoke people
Certainly there are people who are genuinely curious towards the answer, purely for intellectual reasons (A). I am somewhat interested myself. However, the fact of the matter is that many others are interested purely for racist reasons (B). Many racists aren't open in their racism, and as such mask their racism as honest scientific inquiry, making B indistinguishable from A. Showing interest in the subject is therefore Bayesian evidence for B as much as it is for A. Even worse is the fact that everyone knows that everyone realizes this on an intuitive level, which causes most As to shut up for fear of being identified as Bs, while Bs continue what they are doing. This serves to compound the effect. Meanwhile, Cs arise expressly because it is a hot button topic. As a result it is entirely rational to conclude that someone who is constantly yelling about race and inserting the subject into other conversations is more likely to be a racist on average than others. And of course, it's incredibly frustrating if you are an A and just want an honest conversation about the subject, which is now impossible (thanks, politics!).
I think Shalizi deals with this messed up situation admirably: Making clear what he believes while doing everything to avoid sounding controversial or giving fuel to racists. Of course this doesn't work very well because people who call others racist fall into two categories themselves:
D) People who are genuinely worried about the dangerous effects of racist claims.
E) People who realise they can win any argument by default by calling the other a racist
And people who fall under category E do not, of course, care about the truth of the matter in the slightest.
Kind of tempted to write a top-level post about this, now. Hmm...
I think that the fact that there is a debate and that the "good guys" use name-calling instead of scientific arguments, increases also the number of people in the group A.
It's a bit like telling people not to think of an elephant, and then justify it by saying that elephant-haters are most obsessed about elephants, therefore thinking of an elephant is an evidence of being an evil person. Well, as soon as told everyone not to think of an elephant, this stopped being true.
Actually, it is more like not being allowed to talk about the elephant (...in the room. See what I did there?). Not talking about a subject is much easier than not thinking about it. And because everybody knows that talking about the elephant will cause you to be called an elephant hater and nothing good whatsoever will come of it in 95% of cases, the only people who continue to talk about elephants are people who care so strongly about the subject that they are willing to be called an elephant-hater just so that they can be heard. So that leaves people who either really hate elephants, and people who really can't stand being told that they're not allowed to say something (and super-dedicated elephant scientists I guess, but there's not very many of those).
In the same sense that showing interest in medicine is Bayesian evidence for me wanting to poison my neighbors.
I'd say that the percentage of people showing interest in medicine that want to poison their neighbour is rather lower than the percentage of people talking about genetic differences between race being racist.
That depends on the definition of "racist" used.