Voyager
1yr ago
It's true that with an unsympathetic audience you would want to lead with other arguments. But here on The Motte, we should be more concerned with finding the truth more than convincing the audience.
And a true argument being dismissed without consideration of the facts, worse, dismissing the person who brought it up, is an unacceptable state of being. At least here, we can do better than that.
Especially as this is a meta discussion - we're not arguing whether "HBD is true", but what it and discussing it implies. And for what it's worth, I seem to have convinced my audience - you. Your previous comment suggested that bringing up HBD implies bad motivations - you going back on that is a success.
Voyager
1yr ago
you blindly copied it from someone who did use it to mean Jews.
Suppose I did - does that imply anything? After all, the whole point of a dogwhistle is supposed to be that it's unrecognizable to non-dogs. So I read the term, take it at face value, because the implication is obscured (or because I encountered out of context), think it's a good description, and reuse it without being aware of the original speaker's meaning.
The end result is the same as coming up with it by myself: I'm using the term at face value and it's not a dogwhistle.
Voyager
1yr ago
I don't think it's signaling so much as an actual difference in world-view. If you believe in the 'colorblindness' idea of justice, all races means all, and specifically mentioning certain races is sus. If you believe that non-whites are invisible and antiracism means specifically working to improve their lot and racism against whites is impossible, it's the other way around.
Or maybe the antisemites actually mean "rootless cosmopolitan bankers" and just think they're identical with jews.
Q: "Why don't you just say jews, if you clearly mean it?"
A(ntisemite): "I don't specifically mean jews. Well, obviously they are jews, but if they weren't that wouldn't change anything, and if jews weren't attacking white christians I wouldn't have a problem with them. So I'm talking about the actual core of the issue."
But this also means one could complain about ruthless cosmopolitans without identifying them with jews - the entire position works without any reference to jews.
So we can't actually know a priori whether a given mention of "ruthless cosmopolitans" refers to jews.
And if you keep insisting "obviously it has to mean jews" it starts sounding a lot like "rootless cosmopolitans obviously are jews", and at this point you're reinforcing the narrative you're supposedly attacking.
It's like the old joke about the man who gets arrested after saying "Nicholas is an idiot" in Moscow, and when the defends himself claiming he meant a different Nicholas, not the beloved Tsar, the police responds with "Liar! When you talk about an idiot, you can only mean the Tsar!"
At the very least the connection "rootless cosmopolitans=jews" is embedded in your worldview, which is a dangerous situation, and the more you talk about and say "Please join me in fighting the popular perception that everyone from Comoros is a flaming gay", the more you're spreading the malicious meme.
So people who don't have this connection in their worldview, and don't want it to, become increasingly suspicious, while the actual antisemites are secretly gloating.
You can't very well fight against the perception that comorans are gay while calling "Man, Comorans are weird" a homophobic dogwhistle.
Voyager
1yr ago
It's also not in the interest of clarity. I wouldn't have known who "the BPD slut" is supposed to be - I'd have to (look up Gamergate and) take a guess from context. If a name is used instead, I either know who is being referred to or can easily look it up.
Voyager
1yr ago
If IQ does not exist or is not important, why does the left put so much effort into saying it does not matter. What difference would it make if blacks score lower than whites if these tests are meaningless?
That seems unfair in the exact same way as the mirror questions usually leveled in the other direction, that you're indeed arguing against right here.
If IQ is meaningless, that means there's a test that measures nothing important but people use it to judge your capability, in some cases even your moral worth as a person. People argue against helping the disadvantaged citing the meaningless number, arguing it implies they deserve their disadvantage. You also believe that disadvantage is actually due to racism.
If that reasoning is false, it seems very worthwhile to push against, just like "outcome differences between races are due to racism, therefore we need to fight this racism" is worthwhile to push against.
It's probably false, but honestly believing it's true makes speaking for it consequent, maybe even morally imperative. "If you really believed X you would shut up about it" is as unconvincing as always.
If having a low IQ is a sign of low moral worth or value, society would likely not invest so much resources into helping IQ people.
You're assuming 'society' is monolithic, which is strange when we're talking about intrasocietal political disagreement. That society puts resources into helping low IQ people only tells us which faction "won" in that specific policy question. That doesn't mean other people can't believe differently, and it doesn't mean these people can't be influential elsewhere.
Voyager
1yr ago
Reason and logic aren't properties of our world: They are absolute. You could say they are necessary properties of any world, there is no possible world where 2+2=5. They aren't empirically derived, they are what empiricism itself is built on.
It's true that entities can attempt to push false reason to gain social power. The answer to this is actual, better reason.
I believe what you call social constructivism is to some degree such an attempt: Delegitimizing logic and replacing it with an inconsistent system that elevates the viewpoints of specific people.
I agree that there are absolute truths, but how sure are you that you have direct access to them? I agree that actual, better reason will always illuminate false prophets, but seeing a true proof and seeing a false proof look very similar.
Yes, my mind could be influenced in some way making me entirely incapable of applying reason - but following that line of thought only leads to intellectual capitulation. At some point I have to axiomatically assume that I'm in principle capable of understanding logic. So far it has worked out, and my ability to navigate the world I experience has consistently improved.
I think ultimately enlightenment, reason, and empiricism are mistake theory, and require some sort of shared assumptions or shared trust in order to work in practice. Once you step outside of the narrow scientific domain, and into the wider one of relations and conflict, is reason really all that important? Would you accept an argument from an enemy?
Yes, absolutely. I would, naturally, apply increased scepticism and scrutiny, double check their arguments and critically examine the sources for their factual claims. But in the end, being my enemy doesn't reliably prevent them from being right, so I can't dismiss their argument out of hand.
Reason is important because finding the truth is important. Conflict exists, which means some people don't work towards the truth - but this just makes it more important that I do. What else am I supposed to do? Even if I were to embrace conflict and work to maximising my own gain (which I don't want because it would make me a bad person) that mostly* doesn't tell me what policies would achieve that.
*Even many classic identity politics topics. For example, gender quotas in high positions: It seems my position would derive from my gender, but most men and women aren't actually directly affected by this, and there are arguments that a quota would benefit men (not sure how to steelman this, but it could still potentially be true), as well as harm women (by introducing stereotypes of "only got in by quota").
Voyager
1yr ago
You're not forced to listen to RAID: SHADOW LEGENDS enthusiasm though: You can just skip it by forwarding the video.
Voyager
1yr ago
For what it's worth, as a horror story it's pretty good - it does a great job selling the mounting sense of dread as new information is presented.
Just that's not what The Motte is for.
Voyager
1yr ago
That's not how modular arithmetic works: 2+2=4 is still true, it's just that 4=0 mod 4, so 2+2=0 is also true.
Even if your example were true, that would just be notation confusion: The statement commonly meant by 2+2=4 is always true. So if I say 2+2=4 is always true, I'm correct, and if you say 2+2=? and the answer isn't 4 you're just communicating badly by omitting relevant information about the problem statement. In honest conversation this doesn't change anything.
Voyager
1yr ago
I'm not, neither of us was talking about the modulo operation (I was using mod 4 to denote I'm operating in the congruence class ring).
And the article about modular arithmetic agrees with me. Choice quote:
Each residue class modulo n may be represented by any one of its members
Voyager
1yr ago
Using non-standard definitions without denoting them beforehand is a semantic trick.
And if you want to do math, you absolutely need to rigorously define things.
Voyager
1yr ago
But that is the point: most people make assumptions.
Assumptions about the meaning of symbols, namely that symbols carry their conventional meaning unless denoted otherwise.
This is a necessary prerequisite of communication, and messing with it is merely a failure to communicate.
Voyager
1yr ago
Do you think Bertrand Russell was "dishonest" for asking people to suspend their belief?
No, merely exceedingly rigorous. He set out to prove 1+1=2, then after a lot of tedious work, he indeed proved that 1+1=2 is in fact true, settling the debate confirming what everyone already knew. He didn't actually doubt it, he merely wanted to put it on a formal foundation, and he did.
He wasn't an engineer who was worried bridges would fall if everyone computed 1+1 incorrectly, he wasn't a politician who got challenged on his fiscal plan and needed to double-check his assumptions. He was a nerd who wanted clarity for its own sake, operating at the intersection between pure math and philosophy. That's the field where you would doubt 1+1=2, not because you actually doubt it, but because you expect insight from dispelling that doubt. It's the same level of abstraction as wondering whether you're actually a brain in a vat. In politics or engineering, you can't do that.
Voyager
1yr ago
But your clock would read 01:00.
We use this concept in programming all the time. If the week ends in Sunday we don't say that the day after that is Monday the next week, it's Monday
That's merely convention, omitting information that can be derived from context for brevity. If you want to make a formal argument, you need to include that information again. Everyone is aware monday is next week, that's why you don't spell it out if it isn't relevant, but if you're e.g. scheduling business on a weekly base, you might have to say "Tomorrow is monday, which is next calendar week".
Voyager
1yr ago
In general? Yes. In this example? Absolutely the speaker's fault. If you're using non-standard symbols, you need to denote that.
Voyager
1yr ago
If you're omitting the information of which week it is because it's not relevant, you're omitting information, and that means you can't use the result to support your argument, because it's missing information.
Voyager
1yr ago
Not really. I can guarantee you that Russell used 1+1=2 when calculating his daily expenses even before he formally proved it. Had he failed at his attempt to prove it, he would have gone on believing and using it. I can guarantee you he didn't scold any colleagues for using 1+1=2 without proof.
He wanted a formal proof for itself, not because one was needed.
Voyager
1yr ago
In our case, informations isn't just limited, but artificially limited, i.e. omitted. The information is indeed still available, just by deriving it from context. We both know monday after sunday is next week.
You're making an argument based on information you know is incomplete, and the missing information invalidates it. Don't do that.
Voyager
1yr ago
If the speaker who brought up 2+2=4 is using standard symbols, he's unambiguously correct, so that can't be what we're talking about.
Voyager
1yr ago
I literally said "it doesn't matter if Bertrand Russell personally doubted it or not".
No one doubted it, because it wasn't actually reasonable to doubt it. Russell wanted to formalize a foundation, he wanted to prove that arithmetics derived from logic, not that arithmetics was true.
Doubt is essential in all fields.
Not doubt about math or fundamental logic. That is only reasonable in philosophy. An engineer who doubts 1+1=2 will never build any bridges, and no bridges will crash because an engineer assumed 1+1=2.
If you doubt the fundamentals, you're doing philosophy. If you want to get anything done, you need to stop doing philosophy. You need to choose some axioms, build a knowledge base and then get to work on questions that are actually in doubt.
100% certainty is extremely dangerous. And I don't see you addressing this at all.
Because right now a fallacious argument is being made for too little certainty, not too much. I'm addressing the bad arguments that are actually on the table.
Close. It's a thoroughly uninteresting topic, unless when used to refute flimsy justifications for racist practices.
Which is commendable, but only as long as you're actually dealing with people, not averages. When one is collecting statistics about racial outcomes, averages matter. If one is concluding racist discrimination from unequal outcomes while denying alternate explanations of average differences, they're likely wrong, and HBD might explain the mistake, so bringing it up corrects a mistake. HBD is only one of several possible confounders, mind, but if you actually want to make sure you're right, you need to consider all the ways you could be wrong.
And if one falsely concludes one racial group is discriminated against, and installs practices like, for example, Affirmative Action quotas while getting the target number wrong due to failing to consider average differences, that is racial discrimination, and that's why HBD can be important to prevent racial discrimination.
(And to be clear, racial discrimination is still a possibility, but you can't know that from just the statistics. You need to either ignore racial outcome statistics, or, among other confounders, consider HBD. Only when you're eliminated all possible confounders (or use an entirely differend method) you can actually conclude discrimination.)
More options
Context Copy link