Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
Yep. If cornered I would basically say that there are very likely some differences in intelligence between white people and black people, white people and asian people, men and women, and so on, but that these differences have almost zero practical application. I would also be willing to lay large odds that anyone who is using those differences to make some kind of grand point is doing it wrong, even though it should be theoretically possible to do it right.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about the practical applications part. Have you ever heard of MBTI? The disclaimer says that it is not to be used as a basis for job qualification (as doing so would be unethical), but that is precisely where it is the most useful and organizations that hire by type tend to be more successful (But they don't tell anybody that's what they do).

Even if someone did make the grand point in the right way, what practical use could it be? As the concept of the law stands, it is illegal to apply almost any measure to an individual to qualify them in any way (equal protection clause). The sad truth is that the knowledge would be ridiculed, the scientist blacklisted and cast out of history, and ignored by any kind of decision making process leading to public policy. So goes the pathetic commentary of human societies.

[highlife]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I understand that strictly speaking, concluding the premise is a logical fallacy. However, if intelligence is not genetically based, why can't I have a conversation with my cat?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't have a conversation with a Zulu tribesman either. What does this prove?

Also, I never said intelligence was not genetically based. Re-read my original statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason people are arguing with you is because you said that Watson talks about intelligence having a genetic basis without ever proving it. The point we are trying to make to you is that it is so self-evidently true that intelligence has some genetic basis that there is no reason for Watson to waste time proving it. If his whole argument depended on intelligence being 100% inheritable then yes, that would have been a grave oversight. But thats not what happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ughh. Google "Glenwood State School", "Milwaukee Project", "Joseph Graves" etc etc etc etc etc.

You people defending Watson, you seem to be treading the path to Eugenics/Dysgenics. That "science" has been garbage for 70+ years.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
You people defending Watson . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

I always love people who argue heatedly about the wrong thing.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yep. If cornered I would basically say that there are very likely some differences in intelligence between white people and black people, white people and asian people, men and women, and so on, but that these differences have almost zero practical application. I would also be willing to lay large odds that anyone who is using those differences to make some kind of grand point is doing it wrong, even though it should be theoretically possible to do it right.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about the practical applications part. Have you ever heard of MBTI? The disclaimer says that it is not to be used as a basis for job qualification (as doing so would be unethical), but that is precisely where it is the most useful and organizations that hire by type tend to be more successful (But they don't tell anybody that's what they do).

Even if someone did make the grand point in the right way, what practical use could it be? As the concept of the law stands, it is illegal to apply almost any measure to an individual to qualify them in any way (equal protection clause). The sad truth is that the knowledge would be ridiculed, the scientist blacklisted and cast out of history, and ignored by any kind of decision making process leading to public policy. So goes the pathetic commentary of human societies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, here is my view on racism in general, and hopefully I can explain why this applies to the specific example of variable intelligences. I understand the reasoning that racism sucks because it is so unfair to the person being discriminated against. But that is not why I am against racism. I am against racism because it is SUCH A TERRIBLE STRATEGY. In the very few instances where it is NOT a terrible strategy (and I can't really think of any good ones off the top of my head) I think we could make an argument that it is a necessary evil. But the VAST majority of instances, its just a terrible strategy. Its not totally incorrect to use race as part of your judgment, its just that it has such a microscopic impact that it is almost impossible to weight it appropriately. Some people use the thought experiment of choosing a basketball team to play a game for a million dollars (or your life or whatever) to demonstrate the foolishness of PC gone amok. The experiment goes, imagine you are going to pick a team, and you have ten players to choose from, 5 white, 5 black, and this is ALL you know about them or are able to find out. Who do you pick? The smarmy PC people make a bunch of lame arguments to explain why they would flip a coin or some other nonsense, the guy who doesnt care if he is a racist says "Black guys LDO" but the real point of this is to show exactly how stupid racism is. Racism is EXACTLY "putting yourself in this situation on purpose when you don't need to." The racist INTENTIONALLY limits himself to this information and this information only and then puts way too much weight on it. The intelligent person runs a tryout. So, in situations where ALL you have is race, its optimal to judge based on race. But this is pretty much NEVER the case. You can always ask them a question or find out some more information...and that information, WHATEVER it is, is practically guaranteed to blow race out of the water from a predictive standpoint.

So how does all that apply to this thread? Well, the point is that even if race DOES have an impact on intelligence, it still is very likely nearly the WORST POSSIBLE tool you could use. If its the only thing you have, fine, its better than a coin, but it ain't much better. And human beings are very flawed when it comes to the extremes of confidence in their estimates. People always overestimate small numbers and underestimate big numbers, so it is a recipe for disaster to try to use race to make decisions about someones intelligence. Is it optimal to ignore race completely? Probably not if you really think you can do it accurately. But since you probably can't, and because you are losing so little by ignoring it completely, its not far from optimal. And its probably recommended.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I understand that strictly speaking, concluding the premise is a logical fallacy. However, if intelligence is not genetically based, why can't I have a conversation with my cat?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't have a conversation with a Zulu tribesman either. What does this prove?

Also, I never said intelligence was not genetically based. Re-read my original statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason people are arguing with you is because you said that Watson talks about intelligence having a genetic basis without ever proving it. The point we are trying to make to you is that it is so self-evidently true that intelligence has some genetic basis that there is no reason for Watson to waste time proving it. If his whole argument depended on intelligence being 100% inheritable then yes, that would have been a grave oversight. But thats not what happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ughh. Google "Glenwood State School", "Milwaukee Project", "Joseph Graves" etc etc etc etc etc.

You people defending Watson, you seem to be treading the path to Eugenics/Dysgenics. That "science" has been garbage for 70+ years.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm honestly not sure if you posted this in the wrong thread.

[Borodog]

vhawk01,

You are once again The Man.

And not in a keeping-the-black-olives-in-a-can sort of way.

[Exsubmariner]

My view on racism is that it is universal. There is a racist to be found in every ethnicity.

Indeed, it is a very bad strategy. That is why it has been abandoned, at least by the more successful societies.

You did an awesome job of making your point. I could sum it up by asserting the premise that more choices are better than fewer choices and selecting any strategy which artifically limites your choices is unwise.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
My view on racism is that it is universal. There is a racist to be found in every ethnicity.

Indeed, it is a very bad strategy. That is why it has been abandoned, at least by the more successful societies.

You did an awesome job of making your point. I could sum it up by asserting the premise that more choices are better than fewer choices and selecting any strategy which artifically limites your choices is unwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I like to ramble on a lot because I feel more words makes me look smarter. Your way is better.

btw not that I have a perfect memory or anything but my vague impression of exsubmariner posts are that every single one of them makes me want to pound my head into a wall, but for some reason we pretty much agree on this topic and you seem to be a pretty reasonable guy. Is this a recent change or am I remembering you wrong?

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I understand that strictly speaking, concluding the premise is a logical fallacy. However, if intelligence is not genetically based, why can't I have a conversation with my cat?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't have a conversation with a Zulu tribesman either. What does this prove?

[/ QUOTE ]

That there are no Zulu tribesmen in Georgia? I could certainly have a conversation with one if one were here. Might have to resort to hand signals or something if we don't have a common language, but it's doable.

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My view on racism is that it is universal. There is a racist to be found in every ethnicity.

Indeed, it is a very bad strategy. That is why it has been abandoned, at least by the more successful societies.

You did an awesome job of making your point. I could sum it up by asserting the premise that more choices are better than fewer choices and selecting any strategy which artifically limites your choices is unwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I like to ramble on a lot because I feel more words makes me look smarter. Your way is better.

btw not that I have a perfect memory or anything but my vague impression of exsubmariner posts are that every single one of them makes me want to pound my head into a wall, but for some reason we pretty much agree on this topic and you seem to be a pretty reasonable guy. Is this a recent change or am I remembering you wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the complements. I have undergone a lot of changes of late. One of those changes is that I no longer think its funny to make posts with the goal of making someone pound their head on a wall. The internet is full of those kinds and what good is it to be part of the landscape. It's a shame, I was pretty good at it and occassionally still give it a whirl. Mostly, I owe the changes to my dogged pursuit of mastering the English language and my newly acquired intimacy with the mental traps people fall into. Graduate level critical thinking courses are truly awesome. Many of my paradigms have undergone a quantum shift. As I said, more choices is always better. I would like to think that I have always been a reasonable guy, but I may not have always given that impression.