You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

epursimuove comments on [LINK] Why I'm not on the Rationalist Masterlist - Less Wrong Discussion

21 Post author: Apprentice 06 January 2014 12:16AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (866)

Comments (866)

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

Comment author: epursimuove 29 September 2014 10:32:39AM 2 points [-]

Or writing in a manner that simply takes it for granted that black people are unintelligent and prone to crime.

If someone can't distinguish between a categorical statement ("all demographic X people have trait T") and a statement about statistical tendencies ("the demographic X average for trait T is N standard deviations below that of demographic Y") , I question their ability to contribute to any community that's based around rigorous thinking.

Comment author: gjm 29 September 2014 11:32:17AM *  -1 points [-]

Unfortunately,

  • many people, when intending to make the statistical sort of statement, will write in a way that looks exactly the same as if they were affirming the categorical statement, and
  • many people, whose actual opinions and feelings are more in line with the categorical statement, may write something more like the statistical statement because it's easier to defend, and
  • when someone writes something that could be interpreted either way, even the most rational of readers belonging to demographic X is liable to find it hurtful, and
  • even when someone writes something that sticks carefully to statements about statistical tendencies, readers belonging to demographic X (and others) may reasonably suspect that what they're actually thinking is something more like the categorical statement -- and they may well be right, especially in cases where prejudice is widespread and well entrenched.

So, although it would be nice if everyone here always thought carefully and clearly in terms of quantitative statistics, and no one here harboured any prejudices about traditionally-disfavoured groups, and everyone here knew that those things were true, and everyone could therefore take all ambiguous statements as statistical and evidence-based ... well, that isn't the world we're actually in, and I don't see any possible way we could get there.

[EDITED to clarify some poorly-written bits. No intentional changes of meaning.]

Comment author: epursimuove 30 September 2014 06:48:57AM 1 point [-]

Do you have any evidence that any of these things actually happen to a significant extent? Virtually everyone is able to distinguish claims about tendencies from absolute claims, even if they lack the knowledge to express this distinction formally. Here's Steven Pinker summarizing research on stereotypes:

Moreover, even when people believe that ethnic groups have characteristic traits, they are never mindless stereotypers who literally believe that each and every member of the group possesses those traits. People may think that Germans are, on average, more efficient than non-Germans, but no one believes that every last German is more efficient than every non-German. And people have no trouble overriding a stereotype when they have good information about an individual. Contrary to a common accusation, teachers’ impressions of their individual pupils are not contaminated by their stereotypes of race, gender, or socioeconomic status. The teachers’ impressions accurately reflect the pupil's performance as measured by objective tests.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit