Definitely aimed at the hegemonic ideology and not me, since I relate intensely to this paragraph:
If I had had to suffer through a few more skeptics calling me racist because I wanted to know why there were giant underwater pyramids, I probably would have believed in Atlantis even harder, out of spite, and never talked myself out of it. And then when ivermectin came along, I would have thought “Scientists? Experts? They’re the guys who are so dumb they can’t even figure out Atlantis existed when there are giant underwater pyramids right in front of their eyes. Screw them, I’m listening to Bret Weinstein."
I often find myself leaning into weird or unsubstantiated beliefs due solely to resentment at how much scorn is poured on people who dare question the relevant orthodoxy. I'm probably a lot more willing to entertain HBD or even JQ stuff simply because asking a good faith question about either topic (and others like them) gets you shouted down, ostracized, blacklisted etc.
It's actually worse than Scott's example, because unlike the the guy Scott is beefing with, who apparently knows something about ivermectin, most people aren't even capable of arguing the "orthodox" positiom but still wouldn't hesitate to puff up and self-righteously shout some string of load catchphrases at you to score social points for being a Doubleplus Goodthinker "LMAO HORSE DEWORMER INJECTING BLEACH LOL" It's all so tiresome.
Speaking of HBD, here's an interesting, very typical recent exchange on Twitter between a bunch of race realists and a certain Dialectical Biologist (self-identified Lewontin fan), with laymen chiming in too. The crux of the argument is, as always: can races have differences in average cognitive ability? The refutation, cutting aside fluff like «IQ tests have culture bias», is twofold: first, intelligence is always adaptive, and Africans also had to plan for the future in the ancestral environment (equivalently, «would have benefitted from long-term planning for e.g. droughts and... doing something about it). Second, races aren't even a thing, so the point is moot (human groups aren't species, aren't subspecies, aren't breeds, and so he just dismisses examples of cognitive differences within such subsets in non-human animals). E.g. here's an insane bit:
DB: 'Race realists' have never provided a coherent explanation for why/how different environments supposedly selected for high or low intelligence alleles during evolutionary history. High intelligence would be advantageous in all environments!
some guy: So is strength, speed, and height. Do those vary by race?
DB: Do you have reliable data showing those traits do actually vary by race?
DB: I don't, race is synonymous with subspecies, and humans don't have subspecies
So,
pygmies aren't a «race», seeing as «race»=subspecies =an invalid concept to begin with,
so there, by definition, cannot be reliable data relating to pygmies (or anyone) showing that strength, speed and height actually vary by race;
so the example of a specific lineage of humans being obviously short and weak can be safely ignored;
and this direction of attack on the core argument – inherent implausibility of differences in selection pressure on «more is always better traits» – remains guarded.
Obviously there are more layers to it: if this line of defense were somehow breached, he could concede that maxing out height isn't always better (even though I'd expect bigger pygmies to still be more successful in their environment) but intelligence is different, or some such. But he plays to maintain maximum optionality, not to score points in a rational debate, so even non-damning attacks must be deflected.
On the surface, such mental gymnastics, with rapid jumps between abstraction layers and revealed intelligence, seems to require explicit reasoning. I always wonder if these people understand what they're doing, or if they're RLHF'd into mentally circling the drain like ChatGPT is RLHF'd into incoherently preferring an H-bomb to the N-word, and are no more conscious than most folks imagine ChatGPT is. Or if there even is any substance to the idea that there could be difference. @Chrisprattalpharaptr, what say you?
Population differences aren't perfectly continuous tho. Genetic distances between clusters are larger than what would be predicted from geographic distance
Yes I know. There is population structure as the papers you cite prove. This isn't evidence that the 4chan interpretation of the left PCA is correct. Also, I always find it astonishing how hereditarians cite papers by Rosenberg/Novembre and somehow miss points such as these:
As 0.0153 is not a large value of genetic distance, and because the addition of the B term produces only a modest increase in Rˆ2, the discontinuities that give rise to genetic clusters – as we have stated previously [3] – constitute a relatively small fraction of human genetic variation.
Our evidence for clustering should not be taken as evidence of our support of any particular concept of "biological race."
That's cute. Meanwhile, I cite papers for their results, not for their authors' hopes and dreams.
Couple things.
A) That's an R^2 statistic, which should always be thought of as more impressive than people intuit them to be (squared apples n such)
B) This is a test for incremental validity; the discontinuities are part of the reason why genetic distance increases with geographic distance (this controls for that; you're bragging that A has no effect on B after controlling for the effect of A). Similarly disappointing would be the effect of geographic distance on genetic distance when controlling for the discontinuities. The proper place for this is binary hypothesis testing, which this passes.
C) Red Winged Black Birds have recognized subspecies despite said subspecies having FST distances of only 0.9%, which the incremental validity here is singlehandedly stronger than.
D) The meaningfulness of FST values differs among species (Remember, percent of variance; 100% of 10 is smaller than 10% of 1000). As it turns out, humans actually have an unusually-high amount of heterozygosity.
Wait, your argument is that you understand the meaning and extensions of scientists' work better than they do? On what basis do you denigrate their research-based conclusions about the meaning of their own work, calling them hopes and dreams rather than research-driven positions?
[…] Ah, working scientific researchers, peer reviewers & journal editors don't understand simple things about statistics. It must be nice to be so much better educated, or naturally smarter, than active researchers. But, of course, human beings are like red winged black birds, so...
Basically, a layman's understanding of science is that it's a thing when special people do certain rituals and write some really hard stuff, and then their special credentials entitle them to recite a politically appropriate conclusion that receives Science Has Shown label. It's pure divination: priestly credentials + wordcel proof of work = Credible Truth that the Sovereign can appeal to when declaring a war of conquest, an early harvest or a tax hike.
But there's sad rationality, learned helplessness, underneath it all. A layman knows that he can be Eulered and confounded, so there is no point to examining whether those conclusions follow from the results, whether they even are conceptually in the same plane, and whether that interpretation is germane to the empirical issue that's being discussed. He can only hope The Experts are deserving of his trust.
But he plays to maintain maximum optionality, not to score points in a rational debate, so even non-damning attacks must be deflected.
My reading of his view is that he (correctly) understands the inherent weakness of his position. Those attacks might look non-damning at the outset, but the moment he gives ground on them the rest of his position inevitably crumbles into dust. When you allow for a group of humans like the pygmies to exist at all, you open up a line of attack on the "scientific consensus" where the only two counters are to either give up or speak power to truth.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Definitely aimed at the hegemonic ideology and not me, since I relate intensely to this paragraph:
I often find myself leaning into weird or unsubstantiated beliefs due solely to resentment at how much scorn is poured on people who dare question the relevant orthodoxy. I'm probably a lot more willing to entertain HBD or even JQ stuff simply because asking a good faith question about either topic (and others like them) gets you shouted down, ostracized, blacklisted etc.
It's actually worse than Scott's example, because unlike the the guy Scott is beefing with, who apparently knows something about ivermectin, most people aren't even capable of arguing the "orthodox" positiom but still wouldn't hesitate to puff up and self-righteously shout some string of load catchphrases at you to score social points for being a Doubleplus Goodthinker "LMAO HORSE DEWORMER INJECTING BLEACH LOL" It's all so tiresome.
Speaking of HBD, here's an interesting, very typical recent exchange on Twitter between a bunch of race realists and a certain Dialectical Biologist (self-identified Lewontin fan), with laymen chiming in too. The crux of the argument is, as always: can races have differences in average cognitive ability? The refutation, cutting aside fluff like «IQ tests have culture bias», is twofold: first, intelligence is always adaptive, and Africans also had to plan for the future in the ancestral environment (equivalently, «would have benefitted from long-term planning for e.g. droughts and... doing something about it). Second, races aren't even a thing, so the point is moot (human groups aren't species, aren't subspecies, aren't breeds, and so he just dismisses examples of cognitive differences within such subsets in non-human animals). E.g. here's an insane bit:
So,
pygmies aren't a «race», seeing as «race»=subspecies =an invalid concept to begin with,
so there, by definition, cannot be reliable data relating to pygmies (or anyone) showing that strength, speed and height actually vary by race;
so the example of a specific lineage of humans being obviously short and weak can be safely ignored;
and this direction of attack on the core argument – inherent implausibility of differences in selection pressure on «more is always better traits» – remains guarded.
Obviously there are more layers to it: if this line of defense were somehow breached, he could concede that maxing out height isn't always better (even though I'd expect bigger pygmies to still be more successful in their environment) but intelligence is different, or some such. But he plays to maintain maximum optionality, not to score points in a rational debate, so even non-damning attacks must be deflected.
On the surface, such mental gymnastics, with rapid jumps between abstraction layers and revealed intelligence, seems to require explicit reasoning. I always wonder if these people understand what they're doing, or if they're RLHF'd into mentally circling the drain like ChatGPT is RLHF'd into incoherently preferring an H-bomb to the N-word, and are no more conscious than most folks imagine ChatGPT is. Or if there even is any substance to the idea that there could be difference. @Chrisprattalpharaptr, what say you?
But let's dig in. As evidence for races not being a thing, he shows that there is genetic continuity.
HBD bro:
Dialectical Biologist responds with an insistence to accept authors' interpretation:
HBD bro is not impressed:
And here's what I was really leading to: a layman is indignant about him disagreeing with the interpretation:
Basically, a layman's understanding of science is that it's a thing when special people do certain rituals and write some really hard stuff, and then their special credentials entitle them to recite a politically appropriate conclusion that receives Science Has Shown label. It's pure divination: priestly credentials + wordcel proof of work = Credible Truth that the Sovereign can appeal to when declaring a war of conquest, an early harvest or a tax hike.
But there's sad rationality, learned helplessness, underneath it all. A layman knows that he can be Eulered and confounded, so there is no point to examining whether those conclusions follow from the results, whether they even are conceptually in the same plane, and whether that interpretation is germane to the empirical issue that's being discussed. He can only hope The Experts are deserving of his trust.
(brought here by @official_techsupport's post in recent comments)
My reading of his view is that he (correctly) understands the inherent weakness of his position. Those attacks might look non-damning at the outset, but the moment he gives ground on them the rest of his position inevitably crumbles into dust. When you allow for a group of humans like the pygmies to exist at all, you open up a line of attack on the "scientific consensus" where the only two counters are to either give up or speak power to truth.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link