This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
This is just an arrogant demand to close ones eyes.
And yet you can look at a man with purely sub-Saharan African ancestry and one with purely Scandinavian ancestry for at least several millennia, and you will be able to tell the difference.
I checked Wikipedia.
Emphasis mine.
Furthermore:
and
So we can reject a 7000-year-ago Identical Ancestors Point as being both wholly unproven and irrelevant even if true.
This is simply a non sequitur, though I will note that the usual separation is "sub-Saharan Africa", not Africa as a whole.
This is just blowing smoke. And the discovery that self-reported race can be robustly predicted from medical images, with many different modalities, demonstrates that race is physical. Race may sometimes be hard to categorize, but there's a real thing there and we've at least done an OK job of categorizing it.
Construct validity is a property of a measurement, not of the thing measured.
It's Gaussian because studies done by Terman and others based on the IQ of children using earlier tests (which were not forced to a Gaussian) came out reasonably close to Gaussian. And yes, g is an output of factor analysis, though whether it is a mere artifact or not is not known -- claiming it to be a mere artifact is simply assuming away its relevance. Anyway, for this and the previous claim to be able to debunk HBD, you have to reject the concept that some people are more intelligent than others and that we have ways of measuring that. Without that, you haven't debunked HBD, you're just complaining about the crudity of the tools.
I'm pretty sure HBD proponents do care about genes. But just because determining the actual mechanisms behind HBD is difficult doesn't mean HBD is false; it's not even evidence for the proposal. Mendel didn't know shit about DNA either.
Non sequitur
Yes, this just means HBD is anathema, not that it's wrong.
Ditto, even if true.
Even if true, fraudulent evidence for a proposition is not evidence against it.
None of this erases e.g. the difference in various standardized test scores between black and white Americans, nor demonstrates a non-heritable (or even heritable non-genetic) explanation for them.
More options
Context Copy link