tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post2950787554457685905..comments2024-03-28T21:32:26.550+00:00Comments on Bruce Charlton's Notions: Explaining versus explaining-away: the example of group IQ differencesBruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-35885898130955167062011-02-07T23:15:05.160+00:002011-02-07T23:15:05.160+00:00In a truly diverse world (which is to be desired, ...In a truly diverse world (which is to be desired, although that word has been apportioned and ruined) complete equality is neither to be expected nor desired.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-64229508237271237272011-02-06T18:06:41.963+00:002011-02-06T18:06:41.963+00:00Jolly odd, leftism. It expects us to believe that...Jolly odd, leftism. It expects us to believe that everyone is Special but also that everyone is essentially interchangeable.deariemenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-7339738753808740572011-02-05T17:17:05.750+00:002011-02-05T17:17:05.750+00:00The elites have only poorly reversed engineered Ch...The elites have only poorly reversed engineered Christianity, in which intelligence was secondary to goodness.<br /><br />Morality is the great equalizer, not intelligence. But as evinced by the Duchamp Urinal (worth 1,800,000 dollars) the Atheists (the liberals) made a mockery of truth (and beauty) and consequently of all morality. This leaves them (unwittingly) clinging on to something they have proactively destroyed. Instead of defending a truth, they find themselves defending an indefensible lie.<br /><br />Now the ex-liberal "realists" are kicking in and they'll be even worse for their morality will be tremendously utilitarian and limited in scope. It will be "real."<br /><br />I submit that the true realists think morally: the only possible and desirable egalitarianism. Then if there are more white scholars than blacks, so be it. <br /><br />The truth of Biology creeping into politics is no substitute for the message of Christ.<br /><br />All the intelligence and IQ tests merely confirm what people have experienced all along. They will swell with the pride of science and return to Eugenics.<br /><br />But smart is not good. Good is smarter and no one is beyond good and evil.Steven Luottohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17301134725379472938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-65289153763050545972011-02-04T12:36:59.807+00:002011-02-04T12:36:59.807+00:00Addition.
I don't want to discourage anybody...Addition. <br /><br />I don't want to discourage anybody from writing or speaking about IQ differences, the message just perhaps should be directed to intelligent non- elites, and not expecting anything or much from the elites.a Finnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-20706336968940421912011-02-04T11:57:16.467+00:002011-02-04T11:57:16.467+00:00I agree. To 'engage' is at best futile and...I agree. To 'engage' is at best futile and at worst counter-productive. But it took me a long time to learn this!Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-40469968799810148542011-02-04T11:43:32.583+00:002011-02-04T11:43:32.583+00:00Part 2.
b) Power has to reproduce itself regularl...Part 2.<br /><br />b) Power has to reproduce itself regularly. PC IQ studies can be compared to stinking urea of a furry animal, which regularly marks it's territory by urination. With this it signals to the environment, that it is upholding certain rules and arrangements in it's territory. It is a matter of unconcern how worthless the IQ study is, or on the contrary, if it is shoddy, it is a good thing. In the latter case the liberal power expresses extra power. In the old times power could tear criminal to pieces in a spectacle to show everybody that "We can do this to him and he can't resist." Now the liberal power "tears" the truth apart in a public lying spectacle, and scientists and other members of the elites don't dare to resist, although at least scientists should according to scientific principles.<br /><br />c) On the other hand PC IQ studies create an illusion of public conversation to the masses (effective power always concentrates many purposes to a single function). Some people participate in this "conversation" with non-PC arguments expecting that maybe they can in roundabout and slow way correct at least some of the mistakes of the scientists of PC power. But this is like talking to a mute doll. Power is an responsive interlocutor only with other powers, and according to certain rules and definitions with workers inside power structure, and with designated people and groups outside power structures. In matter of fact, when PC organizations and processes are arranged as they are, they can't produce anything except PC. PC power can produce non-PC only by breaking down in some serious way or changing radically. This unchanging and unresponsive character of PC power is meant to discourage those who try to speak truth to power (parrhesia). Nothing parrhesists say or do seems to have an effect on PC power. Secondly, parrhesist in essence announces to the system a "fault" in the system, which can now be located and attacked by the PC power. Attack strenghtens the solidarity between PC members and sharpens the divide between "good" ingroup and "bad" outgroup. Also, it either removes the "error" in the system, or if not, it can be used regularly as a target of attack. PC power needs certain quantity of "enemies" to uphold it's solidarity. PC power just tries to keep the "enemies" quantity statistically small and/or they power weak.a Finnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-53328565920494923262011-02-04T11:42:27.699+00:002011-02-04T11:42:27.699+00:00IQ debate from the viewpoint of liberal power.
In...IQ debate from the viewpoint of liberal power.<br /><br />In the internet lives an assumption that perhaps the extensions of liberal power, PC scientists, could be partly persuaded to change their IQ views by publicizing contrary evidence; after all, PC views are false, and according to scientific principles they should change their views when given/ when they see appropriate evidence.<br /><br />But:<br /><br />a) Power has to lie. Power is distant from the people and it has to control large masses of unknown people, which can't be properly controlled, observed and assessed. Power generally can't be tailored to individual needs or cases. Organization of power and it's processes through time create inevitably situations where the organizations' and it's processes' outputs, goals and smooth functions are disrupted by the elements of masses or straying members of the elite, if power doesn't lie publicly. It is just a question how much and what kind of lies power tells, and what are their positive and negative consequences to the people. Also, whatever the content of the lie, it is meaningless and can't be understood, or it's significance evaluated without relating it to the power structure and it's processes.<br /><br />b) It is inconsequential why the extensions of power, in this case scientists, lie or "lie". Perhaps they "lie" because of stupidity, ignorance or because they for some plausible reason believe the lie. Perhaps they lie because they conform out of fear, convention or indifference. Perhaps they are opportunists, whose eyes are always fixated only on money and status. Perhaps they enjoy lying to the hated massess. Etc. <br /><br />Power cares ultimately only about the form of output, but if it is possible, prefers to control the internal processes of it's extensions to make the processes more reliable.<br /><br />Continued ...a Finnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-5837039651042698212011-02-03T18:37:22.718+00:002011-02-03T18:37:22.718+00:00Daniel - Thanks!
HOJnr - a valid point. But I am ...Daniel - Thanks!<br /><br />HOJnr - a valid point. But I am not sure about the good intentions. <br /><br />The assumption of equal heritable intelligence / same heritable personality traits between groups is in fact absolutely pivotal to mainstream left wing policies - since this assumtion underpins the assumption that unequal outcomes between groups implies discrimiantion against groups. <br /><br />This assumed prejudice then underpins the vast and growing apparatus of state-implemented group preferences (such as affirmative action, funneling resuorces to 'under-represented' groups etc) which probably is the major leftist platform of leftist policy; and indeed their main rationale for creating mass dependency on the staate hence buying leftist votes. <br /><br />So if it is indeed well-meaning to deny heritable group IQ (and personality) differences, then it is also self-serving.Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-81001663246752958852011-02-03T18:14:04.096+00:002011-02-03T18:14:04.096+00:00Bruce,
Liberals, if they were honest, would admit...Bruce,<br /><br />Liberals, if they were honest, would admit that they are actually lying about group IQ differences in order to save some groups from feeling bad about themselves and others from getting all puffed up with feelings of superiority. <br /><br />I suppose this is motivated by good intentions. It may indeed be advisable to avoid the subject in many (or even most) venues but definitely not in the area of science, which is supposed to be scrupulously honest and objective. <br /><br />In a world where all group metrics, such as height (Masai vs. Pygmy), running ability (Kenyan vs. Japanese), aptitude for basketball (black vs. white) and so reveal wide variability between different groups there is no way an honest and competent scientist could possibly believe that for the metric of intelligence ONLY every group would average 100.0, 100.0, 100.0... It strains credulity even without considering the abundant evidence that this is not in fact the case.HenryOrientJnrnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-69375378866922347812011-02-03T12:54:08.517+00:002011-02-03T12:54:08.517+00:00Mr. Charlton,
You chronicle very well the exasper...Mr. Charlton,<br /><br />You chronicle very well the exasperation I feel when trying to discuss these issues honestly with my close friends.<br /><br />My friend, A, is sharp, honest, friendly, and loyal. He is also totally gripped with liberal ideology. Over drinks one night (it took a little liquid courage to get my true thoughts out in the open, I admit) we had a long discussion on these topics. And he temporized and backtracked basically <i>exactly</i> in the manner you lay out here in your hypothetical conversation. <br /><br />And... where did it lead? Well, despite my increasing inebriation (and his), it led exactly to the only possible conclusion, which is nihilism. My friend, A, openly avowed a nihilist creed. Of course it depressed me to no end to hear him avow it. But, if I may flatter myself undeservedly, I believe I registered a note of shock in his visage as he followed the argument to its conclusion. He's smart, and honest, as I said, and the force of the conclusion was not lost on him entirely. At the end of a long night of drinking and debating, I made a brief case for God, but as a friend I let it lay there. It was late, we are friends, and our mutual loyalty counts for more (even in the eyes of God, I truly believe) than our agreement even on issues of such import. <br /><br />If A is all these things I claim he is: intelligent, honest, friendly, and loyal; then our discussion must have made some impact. I do not consider it my mission to evangelize those dear to me, but neither do I consider it right to shrink from such open debates.<br /><br />Your crystallization of this kind of talk does me a great service. Thank you.Danielnoreply@blogger.com