parrhesia
User ID: 910
parrhesia
1yr ago
This argument is also made against genetic enhancement and cochlear implants. From my article:
Singer (2003) excellently critiques these sorts of arguments:
If the use of cochlear implants means that there are fewer Deaf people, is this ‘genocide’? Does our acceptance of prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion mean that we are ‘drifting toward a eugenic resurgence that differs only superficially from earlier patterns’. If the use of the term ‘genocide’ is intended to suggest a comparison with the Holocaust, or Rwanda, it overlooks the crucial fact that cochlear implants do not have victims. On balance, it seems that they benefit the people who have them; if this judgment is contestable, it is at least not clear that they are worse off for having the implant. Imagine a minority ethnic group in which all the parents reach separate decisions that their children will be better off if they marry a member of the majority group, and hence urge them to do so. Is this encouraging ‘genocide’? If so, it is genocide of such a harmless form that the term should be divorced from all its usual moral associations.
parrhesia
1yr ago
The reason we don't do this is that transactivists would not be satisfied if we shifted language. They do not want us all to use terms like "female" or "biological female." They want full integration. If we replaced "woman" with "female" everywhere, they would insist that transwomen are female and should be treated accordingly. It is not actually a semantic debate, it is an ethical debate.
parrhesia
1yr ago
Yes, I believe that is the point of this rhetoric either consciously or subconsciously. Some might intentionally do this while others find this argument persuasive because it conforms to their desire to be inclusive toward transwomen.
parrhesia
1yr ago
Who have you seen saying “IQ is everything!” and “The race is all that matters”? I don’t actually see that attitude from people who talk about this. Perhaps you’ve seen different people from me. I’ll take your word for it. But I want to mention that often I see people say “IQ is very important” and that is strawmanned as “IQ is everything.” I see “IQ is highly heritable” become “IQ is genetically determined.” I just don’t see this among the more sophisticated people talking about IQ. Maybe it’s common among people I don’t interact with.
parrhesia
1yr ago
Alfred Binet created a test of cognitive ability for French school children. IQ was previously a quotient of scores that correspond to mental age over chronological age for children times 100. That doesn’t work well for adults. They changed it to the standard deviation method where the norm was just 100. I think the reason was likely that 100 was already the norm for a child of perfectly average mental age. I’m not certain though.
parrhesia
1yr ago
As repugnant as you find his stance, he does not say people should be hunted for sport or broken down for parts.
parrhesia
1yr ago
It seems fine to ask questions without explaining in fully your own opinions in other contexts. The reason it seems wrong here is because you believe (probably correctly) that OP is concealing problematic beliefs. I think your real issue is with what you believe that he thinks. As distasteful as the analogy is, “JAQing off” seems fine.
I think that it’s okay for Jews to be overrepresented on JRE. They’re overrepresented in intellectual movements. What matters is the content of what they’re saying rather than them being Jewish.
parrhesia
1yr ago
Liquid IV + 100% tequila pretty much does it for me. Water wasn’t enough.
parrhesia
1yr ago
That’s a bad idea. Also don’t bring or buy illegal drugs into a foreign country, that’s an even worse idea. I think you have a sense that it is and that’s why you need to ask. Things will probably be okay but there’s a non trivial chance of something very bad happening.
parrhesia
1yr ago
Thanks. Makes sense. I also didn’t lay out all my beliefs because they aren’t all on the right or common among rationalist or ratadjacent people. I like some of those things too.
She has undergone at least 6 rounds of IVF according to the article.
parrhesia
1yr ago
Thanks for your thoughts MathWizard. Let me clarify something: I do not say "this thing is useless" or that history classes have "no value to give." Those are not quotations from the article.
That sort of absolute statement would be unmeasured. However, I do defend the thesis that "History Classes Are Mostly Useless." When I am critical of education, I try to be critical of practices as they currently exist. Of course I agree that "improved" classes that "deliver more value per time" is better than the current arrangement.
parrhesia
1yr ago
I think a more unstructured education system where we just gather a bunch of history that is beautiful and let students pursue their interests would be more ethical. If it has to be structured, it needs to improve students critical thinking about the future, curent events, geopolitics, etc. I am skeptical that this is the case to any large extent.
parrhesia
1yr ago
I think that history classes are "mostly useless" but not entirely useless. I think history can unify people behind a culture, but unfortunately narrative style history can reinforce ideologies without rigorous checking on hypotheses. For example, elites now history now but their history would be often be framed as a class struggle between oppressors and oppressed. There is a lot of truth to this, to be fair, but I think selective exclusion of examples might give overconfidence.
parrhesia
1yr ago
Ideologically motivate curriculum creators can also make narratives. I did not learn that picnic is a slur, but if that was a popular opinion, it wouldn't be surprising to see this belief inserted into education.
Those interested parties can gain control over what is taught. If you want to defend the idea that we should teach history in a non-ideological and rigorous way so as to prevent manipulation by politicians, then yes. That's a great idea. But I still accept the viewpoint that history classes as they stand today in USA, are mostly useless.
parrhesia
1yr ago
I don't think I insisted that history classes are "only ever" taught one way. Furthermore, I don't exactly know what you mean by Schoolhouse Rock version.
"This view of some past era where American students were only ever taught a mythic version of American history"
I did not say American students were "only ever" taught a mythical version. I said:
Furthermore, not only is the sample of historical examples not necessarily random, but it is also often curated to tell a specific narrative that is flattering to one’s nation or appeals to the ideology of the curriculum makers. Given a vast expanse of history, with millions of historical events, it becomes possible to create a curriculum that tells almost any narrative you want. In America, one of the most dominant historical narratives is that history is a struggle between the oppressor classes—men, whites, heterosexuals, the rich—and the oppressed class—ethnic minorities, women, LGBTQ+, and the poor. Another possible curated narrative might highlight all the good actions of the American government or the oppressor class without describing any atrocities and failures.
Which, I think is a more measured statement that most would agree with.
Perhaps, but modeling the way the world works and likely consequences of political actions based on historical evidence (even at a very basic level of "Has this ever been tried before, and what happened?") is very useful.
I argued in the article that Phil Tetlock found that superficial historical analogies didn't aid in reasoning about predicting the future. I argue that taking a more data-driven approach to history is better.
Not if they are well taught. (If they're poorly taught, well, a poorly taught math or reading or science class is also mostly useless.)
I agree that history courses would be much better if they were well taught and used a more data-driven approach. I critique the current system as it is. You would still have the problem of information retention that I discussed.
parrhesia
1yr ago
I have an article coming soon arguing that this applies to all areas. I think education is tremendously wasteful. I would be more in favor of history if it was taught in a rigorous and more scientific way rather than in a more narrative form.
parrhesia
1yr ago
This makes my argument look worse because it changes a word in my premise. But changing a word drastically alters the argument. For example:
Article:
Title: Eating animals is wrong
Subtitle: Animals are in inhumane conditions. Animals suffer a lot! Do not eat them.
Comment:
Eating plants is wrong
Plants are in inhumane conditions. Plants suffer a lot! Do not eat them.
Obviously, you cannot refute my argument by changing the meaning/words in the argument.
I did not say 'history classes are useless.' I said "history classes are mostly useless."
parrhesia
1yr ago
I explicitly say in this article that one of my concerns about history is the creation of ideological narratives, including the social justice narrative. If my argument is used for the opposite conclusion as I argue, it is not my fault.
parrhesia
1yr ago
There will be overlap of course but I think I’ll bring new ideas. This article wasn’t very well-received but at least it generated some discussion.
parrhesia
1yr ago
https://benthams.substack.com/p/hordes-of-vultures-descend-on-bostrom
Bentham’s Bulldog discusses a recent apology letter from Nick Bostrom for saying the n-word as well as saying that blacks have lower average intelligence in an offensive way in the mid-nineties. Bostrom also says in the apology letter that he’s not really a supporter of eugenics as some claim. Despite apologizing, Bostrom is attacked still for reiterating he believes in IQ gaps and “handwaving” about eugenics.
parrhesia
1yr ago
Critical Social Justice in the Era of Large Language Models
https://parrhesia.substack.com/p/critical-social-justice-in-the-era
Many anticipate that AI will have the ability to engage in novel and complex philosophical reasoning or contribute to scientific progress. While AI has yet to achieve this level of sophistication, models like ChatGPT demonstrates an impressive ability to generate meaningful text. I am skeptical about the usefulness and meaningfulness of articles from certain disciplines falling under the banner of Critical Social Justice. Finding connections between abstractions or interpreting text through a postmodern critical lense isn't particularly difficult. Nor does it lend itself to error or falsification. I think traits that allow CSJ scholarship to be hoaxed will put it at risk of domination by AI-generated articles. Scholars in the future will be highly prolific, but all their work will be generated trough computers. This will become a sort of open secret. All this scholarship produced will not advance humankind because CSJ scholarship is, at best, rather useless, and, at worst, socially harmful. In other disciplines more tethered to reality, AI generating acceptable papers would mean genuine progress.
I've written an article in which I discuss a somewhat common idea regarding the idea of trans people "existing" [1]. Some trans rights activists (TRAs) refer to denying the statement "transwomen are women" as denying the existence of trans people. Another manifestation of this is when people argue that denying that transwomen are women is threatening to transwomen's existence. The same applies to transmen of course. I argue that these arguments rely on ambiguity in language about "existence." Denying the existence of transwomen seems very silly because that is an unusual way to describe rejecting that a transwoman actually is a woman. Phrasing this as a threat to existence evokes thoughts of genocide. I think this is another case of language being used in an unusual way that is misleading, although perhaps not intentionally. This description of "anti-trans" attitudes should be avoided as it is not accurate and morally charged in a misleading way.
[1] https://parrhesia.substack.com/p/do-transgender-people-exist
More options
Context Copy link