tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post7194964996455705389..comments2023-06-09T14:31:42.016+01:00Comments on Philosophy Metametablog: August Plow RustPhilosophy Metametabloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04323470189556733345noreply@blogger.comBlogger256125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-56843347724181170522015-08-14T19:31:12.645+01:002015-08-14T19:31:12.645+01:00Fuck you 1:02, you dissembling asswipe. Obviously,...Fuck you 1:02, you dissembling asswipe. Obviously, the existence of discussion entirely cloaked in anonymity on a disreputable philosophy blog is not evidence that a topic is acceptable for discussion in any context that any honest non-dissembling shithead cares about you. You fucking loser.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-90390685466812757882015-08-14T10:11:23.135+01:002015-08-14T10:11:23.135+01:00I get the strong sense that "dawkins" do...<i>I get the strong sense that "dawkins" doesn't know what he's talking about. (Hint: anyone who thinks the hereditarian side is committed to there being "a gene" for intelligence is either dumb or dishonest). </i><br /><br />Replace there being a gene for intelligence with whatever sense you prefer in which IQ differences might be 'genetic'. The argument works exactly the same way.dawkinsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-80455782940395896592015-08-14T09:02:33.573+01:002015-08-14T09:02:33.573+01:00You have an odd notion of 'verboten' if, a...You have an odd notion of 'verboten' if, as you say, the existence of a long thread discussing the very topic you wanted to discuss counts as evidence confirming that the topic is not allowed to be discussed. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-76553754715552558022015-08-14T07:59:27.161+01:002015-08-14T07:59:27.161+01:00Being mean to people because you're too caught...Being mean to people because you're too caught up in your own emotions to be civil is also terrible. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-39515207846013684012015-08-14T06:50:33.452+01:002015-08-14T06:50:33.452+01:00I think it's worth asking why it's terribl...I think it's worth asking why it's terrible. Here's what I say:<br /><br />Ruining people's lives and killing them is terrible. Racism (institutional and individual) enables this and that's the most prominent reason why racism is terrible. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-35950231960071880632015-08-14T05:45:54.692+01:002015-08-14T05:45:54.692+01:00I'm the one who started this thread with the i...I'm the one who started this thread with the invitation to do some verboten philosophy. And boy did this ever confirm that these topics are verboten philosophy. Thanks thought policers! Although you are a bunch of pernicious douchebags who constitute a terrible plague on philosophy, at least you are reliable!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-4804307941483810712015-08-14T04:37:38.850+01:002015-08-14T04:37:38.850+01:00Sorry for being mean earlier. Racism makes me real...Sorry for being mean earlier. Racism makes me really emotional- because it's terrible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-83503804909723688112015-08-14T04:22:06.023+01:002015-08-14T04:22:06.023+01:00Most male metaphysicans' mammaries meet medial...Most male metaphysicans' mammaries meet medially. For female philosophers, found fupa forgo fun.I am much better than you at this gamenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-67170341058306111622015-08-14T04:17:29.945+01:002015-08-14T04:17:29.945+01:00https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/erein...https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/erein/my_personal_experience_with_daniel_dennett/?<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-53490170654836675912015-08-14T03:57:33.294+01:002015-08-14T03:57:33.294+01:00No dog in the fight about the race thing. But I a...No dog in the fight about the race thing. But I am angry!<br /><br />I have learned from this thread that we don't know anything about intelligence, or even if there is such a thing. Maybe you could feed your kid Wigwags and it might make her "smarter": <br /><br />https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8062/8214025619_8d1a465bbd_b.jpg<br /><br />Or not! You could have her stare at the walls. Or watch Beachcombers reruns. Again, we have no idea "at all" what intelligence is, or how to measure it, and so we have no idea at all how to nurture it or improve it. <br /><br />However, as we DO all know some ways to nurture it, we all agree it's real, we have some grasp of what it is, and how to measure it. In other words, environmentalists about IQ are realists about IQ.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-17438919890833984712015-08-14T02:06:38.976+01:002015-08-14T02:06:38.976+01:004:04,
Obviously if IQ -- or, say, SAT -- is a ver...4:04,<br /><br />Obviously if IQ -- or, say, SAT -- is a very good predictor of academic success, than that's an important fact, given that academic success is so tied in with success in life. And if IQ and SAT are likewise correlated with success in life -- as measured, for example, by income -- then that too is quite important. Linda Gottfredson of U Delaware has done many studies to make this point; the IQ test used by the military is highly predictive of success in jobs in the military. I don't know why you think these correlations are of no real importance. I don't know anyone who studies these issues who wouldn't be overwhelmed with joy to find a way to increase IQ so that the outcomes we care about would be improved.<br /><br />As for the claim that gene environment interaction is a major factor in cases in which SES is very low, there have been a few studies -- some by Turkheimer in particular -- that show some degree of such an effect. But, as I indicated, those studies have mostly been contradicted by further studies with much larger numbers of subjects (eight times as large):<br /><br />http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10519-014-9698-y<br /><br />This study found only a very modest increase in heritability across SES, from .55 at the lowest level of SES up to .63 at the very upper end. From a societal point of view, that's not a very important difference.<br /><br />And I don't know why you have a problem with saying that either SES or IQ is more predictive of outcomes. Each makes a prediction, based on a regression equation, and one can easily be better than the other at the prediction. <br /><br />Moreover, one can control for SES and see how well IQ predicts, or the other way around, and see which does a better job (usually the two approaches will give the same answer). <br /><br />As for Nisbett, his work is unfortunately at this point quite deliberately and embarrassingly misleading, involving quite massive cherry picking of evidence. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-27653668694794038252015-08-14T01:54:02.786+01:002015-08-14T01:54:02.786+01:00I get the strong sense that "dawkins" do...I get the strong sense that "dawkins" doesn't know what he's talking about. (Hint: anyone who thinks the hereditarian side is committed to there being "a gene" for intelligence is either dumb or dishonest). Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-8838804606750372452015-08-14T01:20:20.274+01:002015-08-14T01:20:20.274+01:00Please break it down because I don't understan...<i>Please break it down because I don't understand what you are saying.</i><br /><br />Honestly, if you don't understand what I've written already, I don't think there's much point in my saying any more.<br />I'm content that at least a couple of people who have commented in this thread got my point.dawkinsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-75428152410344547692015-08-14T01:19:52.012+01:002015-08-14T01:19:52.012+01:00"it's to show whether more of the variati..."it's to show whether more of the variation is due to genetics or environment, and I'm arguing for environment."<br /><br />This is patently not the argument as you show just a few lines later. The argument is whether there is *any* genetic influence at all that is statistically related to race. It is an existential claim against a universal claim. You say later: "[blah, blah] then these obvious characteristics are due to environment, not genetics." You go on to say that genetics may have a "tiny role down the line" but don't specify why you think it's tiny or why you think it's "down the line" (as opposed to, I guess, up it?).<br /><br />You need to get clear on what your actual position is and how you think you're proving it. This is an anonymous blog. You're not winning any political correctness points with sloppy argumentation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-48992331384940098302015-08-14T01:16:11.948+01:002015-08-14T01:16:11.948+01:004:04, why do you have to say that other guy is not...4:04, why do you have to say that other guy is not intelligent or call this discussion thread "dumb". It sounds, from your recent post, that you have some actual grounds for thinking that the genetic case is not that strong. I, and I think, others here are quite open to hearing them and, speaking for myself, I'd be happy to thoroughly convinced either way when it comes to this issue. But what makes me suspect of the environmentalist side is the way that they act as though anyone entertaining the nativist side is stupid or racist. 3:25 seems neither stupid nor racist. So, when you attack him as such, it does make me suspicious of your ability to fairy critique his arguments and to fairly assess the evidence that you claim to have assessed. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-77533337646832919222015-08-14T01:07:03.765+01:002015-08-14T01:07:03.765+01:00Yeah, I know, 4:03. Ugh. What could be interesting...Yeah, I know, 4:03. Ugh. What could be interesting about that? There's no behavioral or vocational challenges or problems that might be explained by those difference. I mean, that is crazy talk.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-55525466408573924732015-08-14T00:04:06.375+01:002015-08-14T00:04:06.375+01:003:25 your reply makes me doubt your own intelligen...3:25 your reply makes me doubt your own intelligence. What kind of argument is it to say that IQ tests are predictive of academic success? That proves nothing. They are a pencil and paper test of facility in abstract reasoning, so obviously they are going to have some correlation with other forms of test-measured success in abstract reasoning, like academics. And it's simply false to claim that IQ predicts workplace success better than SES. It doesn't, SES alone (including both parental income and education) appears to be a stronger predictor of adult income than IQ alone. (And note that in an absolute sense childhood IQ is not a strong predictor of overall adult earnings -- an extra year or two of education seems to bring rewards just as great as a SD increase in IQ).<br /><br />Your example is bizarre by the way -- saying that 'siblings with higher IQs will perform more in accordance with their IQ than their SES' is an incomprehensible statement. IQ and SES each appear to have an independent effect, so obviously if you've matched a pair for SES then IQ will have an impact, just like if you matched pairs for IQ then SES would have an impact. But that tells you nothing about the relative impact of SES and IQ.<br /><br />And waving away the gene-environment interaction can't be true a priori, since clearly gene-environment actions always hold the potential of having a huge impact. Some environments make genetic potential impossible to develop. Empirically, heritability of IQ does appear to vary significantly by social class, indicating a gene-environment interaction, and adoption from lower-class to middle-class homes appears to increase IQ even among identical twins, again indicating significant gene-environment interaction.<br /><br />Finally, I'm not saying you engage in racist pseudo-science because you disagree with me, but because based on your understanding of the issues you seem motivated not by intellectual inquiry but instead by making claims about the genetic inferiority of other races. So I call it like I see it. I suggest you check out Nisbet et al 2012, "Intelligence", in the American Psychologist for an update on the literature. (Although I think that paper too overstates what we know about the biological components of intelligence).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-7159118741627083902015-08-14T00:03:46.491+01:002015-08-14T00:03:46.491+01:00Okay, fair enough 3:18. Why are you so interested ...Okay, fair enough 3:18. Why are you so interested in knowing why there could be such a difference in standard deviation [ugh] of IQ?3:11noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-59086338883659686282015-08-13T23:28:10.326+01:002015-08-13T23:28:10.326+01:00I'm bored. Later dorks.I'm bored. Later dorks. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-34220469859010672562015-08-13T23:25:57.684+01:002015-08-13T23:25:57.684+01:002:45,
What kind of arguments are these?
In fact ...2:45,<br /><br />What kind of arguments are these?<br /><br />In fact the reason people use IQ tests -- or similar tests such as the SAT -- is that they are predictive of outcomes we care about, such as success in school and in the work place. There have been endless studies to prove this predictability. IQ predicts better than SES, since, for example, siblings with higher IQs will perform more in accordance with their IQ than with their SES (which is of course the same for their siblings).<br /><br />As far as the gene-environment interaction, it has been investigated in many ways to determine its contribution as well as possible. The evidence that it plays a significant role is quite unimpressive, and generally contradicted by other evidence. <br /><br />But of course it's good that you would describe those who disagree with you as engaging in racist pseudo-science, because that's a very convincing argument, and puts us on notice that we are dealing with a very deep thinker whom we should hesitate to challenge.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-27102850322063321332015-08-13T23:23:01.641+01:002015-08-13T23:23:01.641+01:00You know, this discussion really has been depressi...You know, this discussion really has been depressing, but not for the reasons that the thought-policing losers say it has. It's depressing because it shows that either (a) our field is deeply infected with thought policing losers or (b) there really exist these psychotic, troll, weirdos who get their jollies taunting and derailing obscure intellectual blog discussions so much so that virtually every other post is from one of them. Either way, this is depressing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-42483800972589883402015-08-13T23:20:48.307+01:002015-08-13T23:20:48.307+01:00Troll here. When I made those knee-jerk rhetorical...Troll here. When I made those knee-jerk rhetorical questions, here was my (again, extremely quick) train of thought:<br /><br />There are several assumptions beneath this argument, and they are the following:<br /><br />1) People have different characteristics, an obvious truth. This could be because of one of two reasons, genetics, environment, or both. I can't go for both because that's not the point of this discussion, it's to show whether more of the variation is due to genetics or environment, and I'm arguing for environment. If the environment hypothesis is true, then black athletic superiority and the alcoholism of Europeans (is this a contingent social fact or hard-wired psychological truth??) are contingent social facts. It could be that in different environments (eg Black communities care more about academics than sports, and Asian communities drink as much as the Irish) then these obvious characteristics are due to environment, not genetics. <br /><br />2) With that in mind, these differences are not due to evolution but historical and cultural circumstance. So, how do we get evolution into the picture, because I definitely agree with evolutionary theory; it's biology's best confirmed construct (and even then, it has very many holes).<br /><br />3) Much like finches and the subspecies of (some) other animals, there are physical changes without what anyone would consider substantiative, deep biological changes. We see this in the evolution of sexual selection, for example in peacockes, where males evolve bright attention getting feathers to attract females. Since they are still able to reproduce and communicate with each other, we don't consider them different species. <br /><br />4) The historical record of human migration is a mess, every couple of months there is a new discovery that humans migrated somewhere and had sex with some people that no one was expecting them to have sex with. So it's not clear just how isolated human communities were, such that traits didn't propogate between communities, even if the phenotypic characteristics stayed the same (due to higher percentages of people with those physical traits in that area). So we could also rationally expect that the change in human phenotypes, has occured without a corresponding 'deep' change.<br /><br />5)All of these things, informally suggest that it is more likely that environmental factors play a bigger role than genetics, even if genetics play a tiny role somewhere down the line.<br /><br />Now that it is written out, you can see there are obvious issues with this train of thought, but that was beside the point. The point was to point out the problems in the other person's train of thought. I personally don't care much for this topic one way or the other, because I think it doesn't matter policy-wise, but I do think that the argument above and the ones I chose to respond to, are for the most part, terrible (and it's easy to see that the arguments are terrible even without knowing very much about the content of those arguments).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-50833570162333682522015-08-13T23:18:29.877+01:002015-08-13T23:18:29.877+01:00"Any real difference in average intelligence ..."Any real difference in average intelligence is so insignificant that the only reason to talk about it is to propagate some terrifying neo nazi type ideology."<br /><br />Yes, a strong, well-supported argument if I've ever seen one. So, e.g., an average standard deviation difference in IQ really must really be insignificant for any practical purposes. I mean, how could be it otherwise? From the armchair, that just seems clear. The only possible reason to even care about knowing why there could be such difference is a sinister, racist motivation, probably involving a motive for genocide.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-3375769447773252262015-08-13T23:11:38.087+01:002015-08-13T23:11:38.087+01:00Look, a border collie might track squirrels better...Look, a border collie might track squirrels better than a pitbull, and a pitbull might be more snuggly than a cane corso or Scottie terrier, but at the end of the day, they all get really excited about sniffing each other's butts and gulping down dog food. Humans are like that. Only unlike dogs, we aren't bred to be heard sheep, or point at ducks, or guard houses, or kill rats during the plague (as collies, retrievers , mastives, and terriers were respectively), so the differences between us are pretty blurred. Any real difference in average intelligence is so insignificant that the only reason to talk about it is to propagate some terrifying neo nazi type ideology. I'm sorry, but if you're really going for the whole "you have to be way smarter to live in the snow than the desert" thing, then I really have to think you're pranking us. Nobody can be that... Nobody can be that, dare I say, dumb? I just can't believe it. <br /><br /><br />Oh wait, it is a prank isn't it?TightyWhiteynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-65206383304696528802015-08-13T23:09:42.776+01:002015-08-13T23:09:42.776+01:00No, 3:02, you benighted shithead. The person's...No, 3:02, you benighted shithead. The person's point was that there are actual people - in this case, Peter Singer, a very well-regarded person - who hold the admittedly unusual position that it is morally permissible. And he is not vilified in the philosophical community for holding that position. But, if you take up the idea that IQ is primarily genetically determined, you are not greeted with the same acceptance in the philosophical community. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com