UBB.classicTM 6.5.0
quote:And I'm minded to agree, except I'm a little more equal opportunities in who I blame. I've certainly never encountered any conversation in which the use of the term "politically correct" furthers dialog.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I have quite a thin sense of humour about these, because I think that the "Elf and Safety" and "PC gone mad" memes propagated by the right wing press are actually quite dangerous.
quote:No. In my experience it is a term used by racists/sexists/heterosexists/etc. to denigrate in advance anybody who might call them on their assholity.
Originally posted by Hart:
Has anyone ever heard the phrase 'politically correct' used usefully?
quote:I can only ever recall it being used in a dismissive way...
Originally posted by Stetson:
My understanding is that the prior to the 90s, the term was sometimes used by left-wingers themselves. sometimes as a complimentary description of their own opinions, sometimes disparagingly about others.
quote:Well, are you basing this on how the term has been used since the early 90s? Because, the connotations changed irreversibly at that point.
Originally posted by Garasu:
Really can't see it!
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Really can't see it!
quote:In personal terms, probably.
Well, are you basing this on how the term has been used since the early 90s?
quote:The article quotes William Safire as quoting a feminist as saying...
Originally posted by Stetson:
Because, the connotations changed irreversibly at that point.
I can't see that in the Wikipedia article you quoted.
quote:Presumably, being a feminist, tbis woman wants men to be non-chauvinist, and hence politically correct.
"A man cannot be politically correct and a chauvinist too".
quote:People sometimes describe themselves in ways that are meant to be simultaneously self-deprecating and self-flattering. For example, I once saw footage of Richard Nixon introducing a clean-cut singing group, and he said something like "They might be a little square, but I like it square". On the one hand, he was using a derogatory term for old-fashioned, while also signalling to his audience that he was indeed a man of old-fashioned tastes.
Originally posted by Squirrel:
I first saw the term "Politically Correct" in the Acknowledgements section of a book written by a Marxist. The author thanked his editor for making sure that his book was PC as well as factually correct. Indeed, the only folks I've met who use the term positively and with straight faces have been Marxists.
quote:No, wikipedia isn't denying that, and neither am I. All the article is saying is that prior to the appropriation of the term by right-wingers in the early 90s(maybe the late 80s, depending how you remember it), there were usages of it in English that were positive.
And in English "PC" is a slogan used by right-wingers as an insult and has been almost entirely used that way since at least the 1980s, maybe the 1970s. If Wikipedia says different, then Wikipedia is wrong.
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Hart:
Has anyone ever heard the phrase 'politically correct' used usefully?
quote:I think making jokes about MLers is a permanent fixture of left-wing self-amusement. My friends and I were still doing it in the late 1990s. There was just SO much fodder for laughs.
It was still being used with straight-faced earnestness by dogmatic Marxist-Leninists, but with eye-rolling sarcasm by everyone else on the left.
quote:Sometimes. But also sometimes it is a needed caution to as hart said, badly thought out schemes
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:No. In my experience it is a term used by racists/sexists/heterosexists/etc. to denigrate in advance anybody who might call them on their assholity.
Originally posted by Hart:
Has anyone ever heard the phrase 'politically correct' used usefully?
quote:Yes but they were using it self-consciously ironically.
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
I doubt the authors of "Politically Correct Bedtime Stories" were racists, assists, or homophobes
quote:Here's another fine example, not far from where I grew up: Negro Mountain.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
I first remember hearing the term in the early 1970s, when I hung out in radical circles. It was still being used with straight-faced earnestness by dogmatic Marxist-Leninists, but with eye-rolling sarcasm by everyone else on the left. The dogmatic M-Ls faded into obscurity shortly thereafter, and the term was adopted by right-wingers as a way of dismissing all complaints of oppression by groups other than White heterosexual male Christians.
Kaplan has a point about Huck Finn, however.
quote:Bit of a mixed bag, that mountain.
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Here's another fine example, not far from where I grew up: Negro Mountain.
I do believe that some state politicians have tried to have the name of the mountain changed. Given that it was originally supposed to be a memorial to someone who died, I'm not sure how I feel about that.
quote:What I am saying is that there is a huge spectrum.
Originally posted by Stetson:
You seem to be saying that the dviding line between basic decency and "political correctness" is when it passes into censorship or bowdlerization.
quote:Or Draniaug, or Nuagidran.
Originally posted by Galilit:
Do you mean "Grauniad"
quote:020 7527 2000
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
1) What number you dial to get the PC Brigade
quote:I'm not sure your example really addresses my question. Let's assume that issuing edited versions of Twain's works with "nigger" replaced by other words is vandalism. Then, it would seem sensible to oppose vandalism as vandalism, to give reasons why meddling with an author's text is problematic. But, do you in any way further discourse with either the editors in questions or potential purchasers of the work by labeling it 'politically correct?'
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Hart:
Has anyone ever heard the phrase 'politically correct' used usefully?
Take the term “nigger”.
Objections to its contemporary usage have nothing to do with “political correctness”, and everything to do with common decency.
However, bowdlerising it out of the works of Mark Twain can legitimately be described as political correctness – not to mention cultural vandalism.
quote:I think you've articulated what I was trying to get at earlier, ie. in discussions of PC, there is often a conflation of two things. On the one hand, censorship and bowdlerization, and on the other, oversensitivity to the supposedly offensive properties of art, texts etc.
Originally posted by Hart:
quote:I'm not sure your example really addresses my question. Let's assume that issuing edited versions of Twain's works with "nigger" replaced by other words is vandalism. Then, it would seem sensible to oppose vandalism as vandalism, to give reasons why meddling with an author's text is problematic. But, do you in any way further discourse with either the editors in questions or potential purchasers of the work by labeling it 'politically correct?'
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Hart:
Has anyone ever heard the phrase 'politically correct' used usefully?
Take the term “nigger”.
Objections to its contemporary usage have nothing to do with “political correctness”, and everything to do with common decency.
However, bowdlerising it out of the works of Mark Twain can legitimately be described as political correctness – not to mention cultural vandalism.
You haven't given any reason why use of that phrase would make your argument more persuasive. To me, it seems to substantially dilute it. For one, calling something wrong because it is, in some sense, 'correct' seems an odd perversion of the plain meaning of the English language. Vandalism, if you will.
quote:I'd suggest that the term is useful precisely insofar as it is shorthand for a particular behaviour which would otherwise be cumbersome to describe. Isn't that why new words catch on ?
Originally posted by Hart:
One way the term gets used is to denigrate well-meaning attempts (which may or may not be well thought through) at avoiding needless offence and perpetuating stereotypes...
...At other times, it's a lazy short hand for why a particular attempt is actually misguided.
quote:That's fair as far as it goes.
Originally posted by Russ:
The term mocks people who commit the philosophical error of thinking that established words or phrases that they have come to consider as demeaning to particular classes of people are objectively so. And who as a result have the bad manners to try to impose their usage on others on spurious grounds of what is or is not "socially acceptable". The sort of person who earnestly explains to others that you're not allowed to say "fireman" any more.
If there's a more accurate and natural shorthand term for this particular type of behaviour, thus making "political correctness" redundant, please do feel free to suggest what it might be.
Best wishes,
Russ
quote:That's of course one view. There's another view that says that '-man' can include both sexes. Obviously one you don't agree with, but it seems to me that decrying those who hold that view as intending to cause offence is possibly as wrong-headed (if not more wrong-headed) as saying that all who take the view that you have outlined are 'politically correct'.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
When all firefighters were men, calling them firemen was reasonable, even though it did preclude the thought that a woman might be a firefighter. When women did become firefighters, calling those that did 'firemen' was objectively wrong, and we called them 'lady firemen' or 'lady firefighters'. No reason at all not to call them collectively firefighters now, because it avoids the uglier 'firemen and women'.
In the same way, policeman has morphed into police officer, and ambulance man into paramedic. Language changes - if it changes so that it's more accurate, inclusive and less likely to give offence, the best conclusion to reach of those who don't use that language is that they want to be inaccurate, exclusive and give offence. I know to pay their ideas little attention as a consequence.
quote:In this country, at least, there is a huge difference between a paramedic and an ambulance driver/attendant. The latter did not perform any first aid nor were they trained in lifesaving procedures; their job was merely to transport.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
ambulance man into paramedic.
quote:Some time ago one of Liverpool's city councillors proposed renaming all the streets in the city that are named after slavers. Unfortunately such slavers included a certain James Penny, who gave his name to a lane somewhere or other, and this rather hampered the scheme ...
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Here's another fine example, not far from where I grew up: Negro Mountain.
I do believe that some state politicians have tried to have the name of the mountain changed. Given that it was originally supposed to be a memorial to someone who died, I'm not sure how I feel about that.
quote:No, that's such errant nonsense as to be simply pig-ignorant of the fact that women aren't men and don't want to be called that. I mean, seriously? Have you asked a woman police officer if she minds being called a policeman? I suspect you'd think it a slightly dangerous question - in which case, why not do the right thing and refer to her by her preferred title?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
That's of course one view. There's another view that says that '-man' can include both sexes. Obviously one you don't agree with, but it seems to me that decrying those who hold that view as intending to cause offence is possibly as wrong-headed (if not more wrong-headed) as saying that all who take the view that you have outlined are 'politically correct'.
quote:In the UK, I think I'm right in saying that all NHS emergency ambulance staff are paramedics. Whatever, I don't question their credentials (or their sex) while they're scraping me off the tarmac...
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:In this country, at least, there is a huge difference between a paramedic and an ambulance driver/attendant. The latter did not perform any first aid nor were they trained in lifesaving procedures; their job was merely to transport.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
ambulance man into paramedic.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
No, that's such errant nonsense as to be simply pig-ignorant of the fact that women aren't men and don't want to be called that. I mean, seriously?
quote:If one were speaking to, or about, a specific WPC then I agree one wouldn't use 'policeman'. I was thinking more about how one might refer to a class of people generally.
Have you asked a woman police officer if she minds being called a policeman? I suspect you'd think it a slightly dangerous question - in which case, why not do the right thing and refer to her by her preferred title?
quote:You're a little behind the times, old bean! Female police officers haven't used the 'W' prefix in the UK since 1999.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
If one were speaking to, or about, a specific WPC then I agree one wouldn't use 'policeman'. I was thinking more about how one might refer to a class of people generally.
quote:Thank you !
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
The act of political correctness exists.
E.g.
The word herstory is used by some people who want to focus on the history of females, because they suppose that all history is male focused. The word is used quite openly to correct a supposed gender-political wrong, across a whole field of study.
Now, does this excuse those who use the term PC as a form of get out jail free card for being unwilling to see another view point? Of course not.
But, to deny that people use language to correct supposed political wrongs is to equally attempt to use a get out of jail free card for the sake of a viewpoint.
quote:Whether one intended to cause offense is not exactly the point. What is the correct (i.e., civil) response when one finds one has unintentionally caused offense? Well, between equals it would be to apologize and to resolve not to repeat the offensive act. When one says, in effect, "I intended no offense, therefore your taking offense is not justified, and I can continue to do the same offensive thing and dismiss your objection as mere political correctness" one is implicitly stating that the offended party is not one's equal and has no standing to judge or criticize one's behavior. It amounts to White heterosexual male Christians claiming that they have the right to decide what is actually offensive, never mind what those darker-hued, female, sexually...different... non-Christian others actually find offensive. Because their opinion doesn't really count anyway.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:That's of course one view. There's another view that says that '-man' can include both sexes. Obviously one you don't agree with, but it seems to me that decrying those who hold that view as intending to cause offence is possibly as wrong-headed (if not more wrong-headed) as saying that all who take the view that you have outlined are 'politically correct'.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
When all firefighters were men, calling them firemen was reasonable, even though it did preclude the thought that a woman might be a firefighter. When women did become firefighters, calling those that did 'firemen' was objectively wrong, and we called them 'lady firemen' or 'lady firefighters'. No reason at all not to call them collectively firefighters now, because it avoids the uglier 'firemen and women'.
In the same way, policeman has morphed into police officer, and ambulance man into paramedic. Language changes - if it changes so that it's more accurate, inclusive and less likely to give offence, the best conclusion to reach of those who don't use that language is that they want to be inaccurate, exclusive and give offence. I know to pay their ideas little attention as a consequence.
quote:I'm not a priori opposed to re-naming, but I did think that that particular exemption of the Liverpool council displayed a pretty high degree of special pleading.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:Some time ago one of Liverpool's city councillors proposed renaming all the streets in the city that are named after slavers. Unfortunately such slavers included a certain James Penny, who gave his name to a lane somewhere or other, and this rather hampered the scheme ...
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Here's another fine example, not far from where I grew up: Negro Mountain.
I do believe that some state politicians have tried to have the name of the mountain changed. Given that it was originally supposed to be a memorial to someone who died, I'm not sure how I feel about that.
quote:Given the woodenness of one alternative, no doubt they are.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Lots of women are happy to be called, for example, 'Chairman'.
quote:I believe that such a person was also referred to as a PC at one time...
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
In the same way, policeman has morphed into police officer.
quote:Well put.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
When all firefighters were men, calling them firemen was reasonable, even though it did preclude the thought that a woman might be a firefighter. When women did become firefighters, calling those that did 'firemen' was objectively wrong, and we called them 'lady firemen' or 'lady firefighters'. No reason at all not to call them collectively firefighters now, because it avoids the uglier 'firemen and women'.
In the same way, policeman has morphed into police officer, and ambulance man into paramedic. Language changes - if it changes so that it's more accurate, inclusive and less likely to give offence, the best conclusion to reach of those who don't use that language is that they want to be inaccurate, exclusive and give offence. I know to pay their ideas little attention as a consequence.
quote:Or if you want to be a little less flattering the filth or the scum or pigs. All gender neutral, so there should be no problems.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Or you could just call em old bill or coppers.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
quote:Oh gawd! Are kids really using that term in England? They need a boot up their arse. Why do they have to copy the Yanks?
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
You could, but that (copper or bobby) only works if you're a crusty old geezerin a pub ~ under 20 the slang is ‘feds'
quote:What other genders are there?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Friendly reminder - more than two genders exist. Inclusive language is important for genderqueer and non-binary folk too.
quote:Hermaphrodites? I don't know.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:What other genders are there?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Friendly reminder - more than two genders exist. Inclusive language is important for genderqueer and non-binary folk too.
quote:Speaking as a white, heterosexual, male Christian, who owns a house, is married with children, and works in the public sector, I often get the impression that it's my opinion that doesn't count.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
It amounts to White heterosexual male Christians claiming that they have the right to decide what is actually offensive, never mind what those darker-hued, female, sexually...different... non-Christian others actually find offensive. Because their opinion doesn't really count anyway.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:In Liverpool it's "bizzies", unless it's changed very recently.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
You could, but that (copper or bobby) only works if you're a crusty old geezerin a pub ~ under 20 the slang is ‘feds'
quote:Replace Newspeak with Political Correctness (or whatever you want to call it), and the quote retains its meaning. PC is a very real attempt to limit the range of possible thought by controlling language. And even though I agree with the desired ends (equality between races, sexes, etc.) I cannot agree with such insidious means.
“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.”
George Orwell, 1984
quote:No one person gets heard most of the time. Too many of us shouting and not listening. When I look around, I see that media outlets are run by almost all straight white men as are advertising agencies, as are political organizations. While I have nothing against straight white men--I'm married to one--I sure don't see a lack of their perspective in western culture. Among other things, I recommend this pdf.
Originally posted by Signaller:
quote:Speaking as a white, heterosexual, male Christian, who owns a house, is married with children, and works in the public sector, I often get the impression that it's my opinion that doesn't count.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
It amounts to White heterosexual male Christians claiming that they have the right to decide what is actually offensive, never mind what those darker-hued, female, sexually...different... non-Christian others actually find offensive. Because their opinion doesn't really count anyway.
quote:It's a metonymy. Synecdoche is when you have a part of a whole or reverse; metonymy when it's a thing for something it's next to or adjacent to or so on.
Originally posted by Penny S:
It is presumably like speaking of the Crown.***
*** Is this a form of synecdoche?
quote:Sadly, experience of all that someone knows does not equal the totality of all of that are in this world both now and in the past. Which is why I am cautious attributing stodginess to all who think PC has gone too far. Some people simply just don't believe what others do.
Originally posted by leo:
It seems to me and is borne out by experience that when people say that PC has 'gone mad' they mean that they are old and set in their ways, that they have been challenged on their views and cannot bear to be challenged any further.
quote:Still "filth" in some parts of London.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:In Liverpool it's "bizzies", unless it's changed very recently.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
You could, but that (copper or bobby) only works if you're a crusty old geezerin a pub ~ under 20 the slang is ‘feds'
quote:Any time I use Safari on my phone I can use the quote function. It's an absolute cow to edit the text, but it works. We certainly haven't disabled anything at this end.
Originally posted by anteater:
Marvin: I can't quote you since I'm on an iPad with Safari. Maybe, as a Host, you know whether the Ships website has it disabled, as I know this is poss.
quote:Exactly.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
When the norm is not you, correcting of people's thoughts towards the norm is obviously going to be a bad thing.
quote:Indeed - they were challenging the status quo of those in power.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
If I might use a biblical example, the OT prophets said some very un PC things for their times.
quote:Er, the people I mentioned in the comment, genderqueer and non-binary/gender-nonconforming people. Also, a-gender people, those who are genderless.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:What other genders are there?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Friendly reminder - more than two genders exist. Inclusive language is important for genderqueer and non-binary folk too.
quote:No. Intersex people (those who were formerly called hermaphrodites, but that is an incorrect term - please don't use it) have differences regarding their sex, not gender. Sex and gender are different things.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:Hermaphrodites? I don't know.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:What other genders are there?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Friendly reminder - more than two genders exist. Inclusive language is important for genderqueer and non-binary folk too.
quote:And what if you just don't believe that? What if you consider a man who has undergone a sex-change operation to still be a man? Should such a person go against his conscience and use what he believes to be an incorrect term? If PC is, as someone claimed (if I remember correctly), about correct terminology, well, I don't buy that. It seems much more like one group trying to bully another group into using the "official" language.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:No. Intersex people (those who were formerly called hermaphrodites, but that is an incorrect term - please don't use it) have differences regarding their sex, not gender. Sex and gender are different things.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:Hermaphrodites? I don't know.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:What other genders are there?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Friendly reminder - more than two genders exist. Inclusive language is important for genderqueer and non-binary folk too.
quote:No, of course not.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Should such a person go against his conscience and use what he believes to be an incorrect term?
quote:Presumably your conscience is capable of referring to, say, the Anglican Bishop of London as a bishop, even though, according to your own Orthodox faith, he isn't one?
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
And what if you just don't believe that? What if you consider a man who has undergone a sex-change operation to still be a man? Should such a person go against his conscience and use what he believes to be an incorrect term?
quote:See, there I disagree somewhat. Unless you* believe it is a literal sin to call say M to F individuals by the gender term they prefer, then I would say that yes you should use the preferred term. So you think they're wrong? Irrelevant. I've known people who cut their hair, changed their names, or married when I thought they were making mistakes. Since they didn't ask my advice, or want it, I kept my mouth closed. If I had believed myself morally obliged to tell them, yeah I would have, but I find that usually it's more that one wants to tell other people that they are wrong than that one actually believes one must.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:No, of course not.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Should such a person go against his conscience and use what he believes to be an incorrect term?
quote:If preceeded with "Anglican", maybe, but only because "Anglican" becomes a sort of caveat, making it accurate according to my own ecclesiology. But it seems I was right. It's not about correct terminology but rather bullying people into using the "official" terminology.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:Presumably your conscience is capable of referring to, say, the Anglican Bishop of London as a bishop, even though, according to your own Orthodox faith, he isn't one?
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
And what if you just don't believe that? What if you consider a man who has undergone a sex-change operation to still be a man? Should such a person go against his conscience and use what he believes to be an incorrect term?
quote:This poster was making the rounds a while back, especially popular, as you'd expect, with people who lived the bulk of their childhoods in the era referenced.
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I think Health and Safety is a good thing. Before effective legislation, people died in totally unnecessary ways. 73* people died building something as mundane as the Forth Rail Bridge** in Scotland. Even into the 1970s, there were regular construction deaths due to the lack of basic safety gear.
Thinking about risks and making changes to reduce them is always a good idea.
*some allege this was more, the official number is less
** The Forth Road Bridge construction cost at least 7 lives..
quote:Don't most definitions of bullying include calling people names, as a kind of bullying? If a child is bullied in school because of (e.g.) their sexuality and a teacher intervenes to stop it, would you call the teacher a bully?
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
... It's not about correct terminology but rather bullying people into using the "official" terminology.
quote:Thank you. I knew it was something for which the Greeks had a word, but suspected it wasn't that one.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:It's a metonymy. Synecdoche is when you have a part of a whole or reverse; metonymy when it's a thing for something it's next to or adjacent to or so on.
Originally posted by Penny S:
It is presumably like speaking of the Crown.***
*** Is this a form of synecdoche?
The Crown isn't part of the Queen; it's something she wears.
quote:Well, OK. But ISTM that if you were at a function also attended by the Rt Revd Richard Chartres, and had to make all sorts of circumlocutions and linguistic santising to avoid referring to his purported episcopal status, then you would have no call to mock anyone else for being precious about language ...
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:If preceeded with "Anglican", maybe, but only because "Anglican" becomes a sort of caveat, making it accurate according to my own ecclesiology.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Presumably your conscience is capable of referring to, say, the Anglican Bishop of London as a bishop, even though, according to your own Orthodox faith, he isn't one?
quote:This is it in a nutshell. People who say "PC has gone mad" are people who think calling bullies on their bullying is bullying. There are people in the US (Minnesota, I think) who have made rules making it against the school policy for teachers to even mention homosexuality, or call a student out for bullying someone for being gay. And that's ugly and a sin.
Originally posted by Alwyn:
Don't most definitions of bullying include calling people names, as a kind of bullying? If a child is bullied in school because of (e.g.) their sexuality and a teacher intervenes to stop it, would you call the teacher a bully?
quote:This about boils it down.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:No, of course not.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Should such a person go against his conscience and use what he believes to be an incorrect term?
However, if you decide that your conscience is more important than extending the courtesy of calling someone by the title which they apply to themselves, they and other people are perfectly free to shun you. It is absolutely up to the individual.
quote:Correct, on both accounts.
Originally posted by mousethief:
There are people in the US (Minnesota, I think) who have made rules making it against the school policy for teachers to even mention homosexuality, or call a student out for bullying someone for being gay. And that's ugly and a sin.
)
quote:It's nothing to do with conscience, it's just not being a cock.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:And what if you just don't believe that? What if you consider a man who has undergone a sex-change operation to still be a man? Should such a person go against his conscience and use what he believes to be an incorrect term? If PC is, as someone claimed (if I remember correctly), about correct terminology, well, I don't buy that. It seems much more like one group trying to bully another group into using the "official" language.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:No. Intersex people (those who were formerly called hermaphrodites, but that is an incorrect term - please don't use it) have differences regarding their sex, not gender. Sex and gender are different things.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:Hermaphrodites? I don't know.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:What other genders are there?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Friendly reminder - more than two genders exist. Inclusive language is important for genderqueer and non-binary folk too.
quote:Exactly so. What is correct is one question. What are the best means of correction is another. Self-righteous head-bashing is not on my list of good answers to the second.
Originally posted by mousethief:
The purpose of conscience is to keep you from doing wrong, not to bash other people over the head with.
quote:That comment is exactly what I'm talking about. Keep proving me right.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:It's nothing to do with conscience, it's just not being a cock.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:And what if you just don't believe that? What if you consider a man who has undergone a sex-change operation to still be a man? Should such a person go against his conscience and use what he believes to be an incorrect term? If PC is, as someone claimed (if I remember correctly), about correct terminology, well, I don't buy that. It seems much more like one group trying to bully another group into using the "official" language.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:No. Intersex people (those who were formerly called hermaphrodites, but that is an incorrect term - please don't use it) have differences regarding their sex, not gender. Sex and gender are different things.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:Hermaphrodites? I don't know.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:What other genders are there?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Friendly reminder - more than two genders exist. Inclusive language is important for genderqueer and non-binary folk too.
quote:I didn't know that; I agree with your reaction. Those rules sound similar to the 'section 28' prohibition on 'promoting homosexuality', which reportedly left teachers "confused about what they could and could not say and do, and whether they could help pupils dealing with homophobic bullying and abuse" (source, my emphasis).
Originally posted by mousethief:
... There are people in the US (Minnesota, I think) who have made rules making it against the school policy for teachers to even mention homosexuality, or call a student out for bullying someone for being gay. And that's ugly and a sin.
quote:Thank you - that's brilliant.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
... If confrontation does appear necessary, I've found it good to look for the kind of illuminating questions which may help others towards some self-confronting. Sometimes this can produce a change of heart, thank God. Inner conviction of repentance and the need to change is a lot more valuable than mere conventional observance of social norms.
quote:At the risk of capping wisdom with mere pedantry, the prior question is whether the question is of a sort to which right and wrong answers are possible or of a sort where persons of goodwill may reasonably differ.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
What is correct is one question. What are the best means of correction is another. Self-righteous head-bashing is not on my list of good answers to the second.
Said it before here. If confrontation does appear necessary, I've found it good to look for the kind of illuminating questions which may help others towards some self-confronting.
quote:I note that you are only responding to me and not the others agreeing with me.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:That comment is exactly what I'm talking about. Keep proving me right.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:It's nothing to do with conscience, it's just not being a cock.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:And what if you just don't believe that? What if you consider a man who has undergone a sex-change operation to still be a man? Should such a person go against his conscience and use what he believes to be an incorrect term? If PC is, as someone claimed (if I remember correctly), about correct terminology, well, I don't buy that. It seems much more like one group trying to bully another group into using the "official" language.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:No. Intersex people (those who were formerly called hermaphrodites, but that is an incorrect term - please don't use it) have differences regarding their sex, not gender. Sex and gender are different things.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:Hermaphrodites? I don't know.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:What other genders are there?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Friendly reminder - more than two genders exist. Inclusive language is important for genderqueer and non-binary folk too.
quote:It is about respect, it is about recognising that your belief does not trump another's. How does using another group's self-terminology hurt your belief?
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That comment is exactly what I'm talking about. Keep proving me right.
quote:If your belief is, "It is my religious right to have my group call the shots concerning what language other people use" then it does hurt one's belief to be told to stop calling another group by a name people in that group finds hurtful. Privilege.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:It is about respect, it is about recognising that your belief does not trump another's. How does using another group's self-terminology hurt your belief?
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That comment is exactly what I'm talking about. Keep proving me right.
quote:By saying we imply that we believe, a kind of lex orandi lex credendi. Quite frankly, people can call themselves what they want but no one should be forced to refer to them in the same terms.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:It is about respect, it is about recognising that your belief does not trump another's. How does using another group's self-terminology hurt your belief?
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That comment is exactly what I'm talking about. Keep proving me right.
quote:Precisely.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by lilBuddha:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
[qb] Quite frankly, people can call themselves what they want but no one should be forced to refer to them in the same terms.
quote:But you do make value judgements about people who insist on continuing to call you a fundie rather than an evo, right?
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I find it annoying and hurtful to be called a fundamentalist instead of an evangelical, and will explain the difference when appropriate.
However, if someone fails to recognise that difference, or chooses to disregard it, that is their prerogative, and I am not going to wax moralistic, self-pitying and ideological about it.
quote:1/ How do those social norms come into being? That is the part of PC I worry about. Societal manipulation at the national (or even international) level in order to force people to be nice and polite.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
That's all a lot of us are saying: that people are at liberty to disregard usual social norms and use out-of-date and/or insulting ways of referring to some folk, and the rest of us are at equal liberty to argue with, think worse of, or ignore those same people.
quote:I'm guessing that at some point, someone said "you know what, I don't want to be called a nigger any more. Why not call me black?" Then someone else said "It's PC gone mad!", but others said "yeah, sorry about that, black it is," and others still said "it's PC gone mad!" but eventually only racists said 'nigger' and that was that. If the government want to call it "spare room subsidy" and the rest of us want to call it "bedroom tax"... who won there?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
1/ How do those social norms come into being? That is the part of PC I worry about. Societal manipulation at the national (or even international) level in order to force people to be nice and polite.
quote:I'm reasonably certain my kids know what nigger means, also kike, spic, coon, dago etc etc. The words are perfectly available - you can even cut and paste them from above if you find them under threat of extinction.
2/ Why only "some folk"? If it's bad to be insulting about anyone then surely it's bad to be insulting about everyone. Is the idea to make it so that the only insulting words available are all about a certain class of person that PC doesn't mind insulting, or to make it so that there aren't any insulting words available at all?
quote:Which is fair enough. But I'd rather have my black/foreign/gay friends and neighbours be able to conduct their daily lives without insult.
3/ I like being able to easily identify racists, sexists, homophobes and so on. If someone's going on about poofs, bitches or wogs I know they're the enemy, but if they're avoiding all the naughty words while still harbouring the same damaging ideas in their head then it becomes much harder to single them out, and thus much harder to fight against those ideas.
quote:Interesting thought!
Originally posted by Hart:
Has anyone ever heard the phrase 'politically correct' used usefully?
quote:I guess it comes down to what's more important - observable superficialities or underlying attitudes. For my money, it's the underlying attitudes that are the most harmful.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Which is fair enough. But I'd rather have my black/foreign/gay friends and neighbours be able to conduct their daily lives without insult.
3/ I like being able to easily identify racists, sexists, homophobes and so on. If someone's going on about poofs, bitches or wogs I know they're the enemy, but if they're avoiding all the naughty words while still harbouring the same damaging ideas in their head then it becomes much harder to single them out, and thus much harder to fight against those ideas.
quote:IIRC, "black" is only currently-favoured this side of the pond; it is regarded as un-PC on the other, where the preferred term is "African-American", which can cause problems as the two are not synonymous. (I am not sure whether it is true or an urban myth but I have read that a US newspaper once described Nelson Mandela as "African-American".)
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If all we teach is "you can't say nigger" then all the haters will still hate, but using different words. And so you get an ever-changing roundabout of acceptable and unacceptable words for any given ethnic group - I'm pretty sure the currently-favoured "black" was terribly un-PC not so long ago, and doubtless it will be again in the future. It's a pointless merry-go-round in which it doesn't matter what you think or do so long as you use the right words.
quote:In one sense, yes, of course. But in another, it's not all we teach. So, for example, when one kid called a black kid 'nigger' in the hearing of four classes waiting in a corridor in my daughter's school, their collective shock wasn't "you can't say that word" but "you can't say that to one of ours". This little black Y7 child had 118 allies - and by no means is this a particularly racially-mixed school.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I guess it comes down to what's more important - observable superficialities or underlying attitudes. For my money, it's the underlying attitudes that are the most harmful.
If all we teach is "you can't say nigger" then all the haters will still hate, but using different words.
quote:Depends on who you're asking - I know plenty of folks who prefer "black", plenty who prefer "African-American", and a bunch who don't really have a preference between the two, or who identify themselves more specifically as "New Orleans black", "Chicago black", etc.
Originally posted by JoannaP:
IIRC, "black" is only currently-favoured this side of the pond; it is regarded as un-PC on the other, where the preferred term is "African-American", which can cause problems as the two are not synonymous.
quote:No, it doesn't work like that. Entering into a relationship with someone involves a possibly-subtle process of negotiation as to how you will address each other and refer to each other when talking to third parties.
Originally posted by pydseybare:
It seems fairly clear to me that individuals have the right to be addressed in a way that they choose
quote:There are those who believe that the deferential society (elders and betters and all that shit) was a good thing and should be resumed asap.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Eh? What privilege? That's bollocks.
quote:That isn't true about human physiology, Marvin. It is possible to speak accurately about intersex occurrence. Appropriate treatment may be another matter. Opinions vary about how much sociological research is affected by prior beliefs, but there is both hard and soft science involved there as well.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The talk of "accuracy" concerns me slightly. "Accuracy" implies that there is a single true definition of the thing being described, but when talking about things that are largely defined by beliefs rather than facts it seems to me that one cannot demand "accuracy" without first demanding that a certain set of beliefs be held to be definitional.
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
....class, which is a less emotive subject than (for example) ordination of women...
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:I stand in awe of your cogent argumentation.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
This supposed difference between sex and gender is nonsense. I don't accept it and never will.
quote:OK then. This is what he wrote about the encounter, explaining the point that you, Doc Tor and Barnabas62 seem to have missed
Originally posted by ken:
If you can find something your bloke bothered to write down I'll read it.
quote:http://civitas.org.uk/newblog/2013/07/ideological-blindness-to-the-facts-on-social-mobility/
There is an ideological blindness on the left which seems to preclude them from acknowledging any biological basis to cognitive differences. I discuss this in Social Mobility Myths and I experienced it yet again this week when I was a guest on Radio 4′s The Moral Maze...
quote:Are you seriously suggesting that there is no difference in average intelligence levels between middle class children and working class children?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So to Saunders, 'meritocracy' is nothing more than eugenics as measured by a flawed metric?
quote:By this logic, the recent downturn in the world economy would not have happened.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:
But this is precisely what I do think. Indeed, I know it. It’s not just the evidence shows it; the logic of a meritocracy requires it to be true.
quote:Of course the public school boys who run the country don't want to admit that differences in intelligence are largely innate. They want to promote the idea that people on low incomes are that way because of their own choices, and this blame the poor for their poverty. If they were to admit that many people, though no choice or failing of their own, simply aren't bright enough to get well paid jobs it would undermine that message.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
No wonder even the public school boys and girls who run the country are embarrassed by that argument.
quote:Of course there isn't. Education is the major difference. Another is environment.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:Are you seriously suggesting that there is no difference in average intelligence levels between middle class children and working class children?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So to Saunders, 'meritocracy' is nothing more than eugenics as measured by a flawed metric?
quote:Ken, yourself and Doc Tor seemed to be unable to grasp the point that Saunders was making so rather than explaining it myself at length I linked to his explanation.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
How does a reiteration of Peter Saunders own view of his experience constitute a balanced view of the discussion?
quote:If you're white and/or male, you're privileged. You may not recognize it. Nobody says there isn't hard work involved. But it's harder if you're black.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I ain't had any privilege in my life. I come from a working class family and anything we've ever had has come from hard graft.
quote:You seriously think genetics plays no part?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Of course there isn't. Education is the major difference. Another is environment.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:Are you seriously suggesting that there is no difference in average intelligence levels between middle class children and working class children?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So to Saunders, 'meritocracy' is nothing more than eugenics as measured by a flawed metric?
quote:lilbuddha didn't say that there was no guarantee that there was a genetic component, he was saying he was sure there wasn't. Its may be possible that nurture might indeed, to a significant extent, trump nature. To suggest however the the percentage role played by nature is zero, and to state this with certainty, is rather extraordinary.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that there is a positive correlation between levels of intelligence and class. As lilbuddha points out, that is no guarantee that the link is in any way genetic. Relative educational options and environmental differences may be playing the major contributory part I.e. nurture may be trumping nature.
quote:I would agree, that's the whole point about averages.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But suppose the statistical link does indeed have a major genetic component? That would tell you precisely nothing about the potential of any particular student.
quote:
The team observed that possessing these alleles alone provided no guarantee of a person going on to higher levels of education, given that lower levels of education were more strongly linked to lower IQ levels, and that regardless of genetic effects, living in poor circumstances and 'mixing up with the wrong people' also led to lower levels of education.
quote:Ah, the old "if you understood him, you'd agree with him" canard.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Ken, yourself and Doc Tor seemed to be unable to grasp the point that Saunders was making so rather than explaining it myself at length I linked to his explanation.
quote:Where? Neither the page you linked to nor the other pages linked from there explain anything, they merely assert that Plomin's claims are true. But even if they were they are not about class (in any of its various usages) but rather dubiously about genetics.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:Ken, yourself and Doc Tor seemed to be unable to grasp the point that Saunders was making so rather than explaining it myself at length I linked to his explanation.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
How does a reiteration of Peter Saunders own view of his experience constitute a balanced view of the discussion?
quote:I would agree with this, absolutely. I don't know what proportion of intelligence is heritable but I've never heard of any study that showed it was very low, and certainly I've never heard of one that showed it was zero.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Tommy1
Fair enough re lilbuddha. In general the genetic component of any aspect of human capabilities is rarely either zero or 100%.
quote:Well I thought you didn't understand his argument because you said
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Ah, the old "if you understood him, you'd agree with him" canard. Nope, understood perfectly what he was saying, and disagreed with his argument.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Ken, yourself and Doc Tor seemed to be unable to grasp the point that Saunders was making so rather than explaining it myself at length I linked to his explanation.
quote:Now you are saying the Saunders did have an answer, you just didn't agree with it.
Matthew Taylor made the perfectly valid point - against which Saunders had no answer whatsoever - that Oxford and Cambridge are hardly a mirror of the makeup of UK society.
quote:If intelligence can't be measured then how can you know that "the link between genes and intelligence is complex and mostly overwhelmed by environmental factors"?
firstly, the link between genes and intelligence is complex and mostly overwhelmed by environmental factors, and secondly, the IQ test measures how good you are at taking an IQ test.
quote:Did the study control for the fact that in most cases the children would be genetically related to the people who bought the books in the first place?
For example, this study finds a strong correlation between educational attainment and the number of books in a house.
quote:You said you weren't interested in listening to the radio clip but you wanted a link to something Saunders had written on the subject I obliged. If you want more there's more here
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Where?
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:Ken, yourself and Doc Tor seemed to be unable to grasp the point that Saunders was making so rather than explaining it myself at length I linked to his explanation.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
How does a reiteration of Peter Saunders own view of his experience constitute a balanced view of the discussion?
quote:If 1832 and 1928 refer to the five parliamentary reform acts which those dates encompass, I would have thought that an actual Tory would regard 1832 as the end of the world.
Originally posted by ken:
For about five and a half gin-soaked gay Tory public-school-educated Anglo-Catholic nerds who think the world was created in 1832 and destroyed by Satan in 1928.
quote:So because I (and others) produce plenty of evidence that Saunders is talking out of his arse, I'm angry and driven by emotion. Okay...
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Where this relates to Political Correctness though is in the reaction of some people like Matthew Taylor or Doc Tor to the suggestion that differences in intelligent are primarily genetic. Reacting with angry denunciations that seem to be driven more by emotion than by anything else.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Evolution does not work in quite the manner people often think it does. And, very importantly, populations and classes are not as insular as theories of inherited intelligence require.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:I would agree with this, absolutely. I don't know what proportion of intelligence is heritable but I've never heard of any study that showed it was very low, and certainly I've never heard of one that showed it was zero.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Tommy1
Fair enough re lilbuddha. In general the genetic component of any aspect of human capabilities is rarely either zero or 100%.
quote:If he is saying that working class children tend to do less well academically because they tend to be less intelligent how is that not having an answer? That would clearly indicate the reasons why he thinks they are less likely than middle class children to get into Oxbridge i.e. because they are less likely to be intelligent enough.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Tommy1 - it's going to help considerably if you read for comprehension.
In order: I understood Saunders' overall argument. I found it poor. He didn't have an answer re: Oxbridge.
quote:Well there must be some studies that measure intelligence reasonably well. You stated that "the link between genes and intelligence is ... mostly overwhelmed by environmental factors". The studies that led you to this conclusion must have used some measure of intelligence.
The IQ test is a crap way of measuring intelligence. The KS2 SATS are also a crap way of measuring it, too, since the entire of Y6 is directed to passing the test. Testing intelligence is really, really hard, because smart people mainly do well in tests, but sometimes less smart people who've been trained to take the test do better.
quote:Because the desire to spend time reading books might be influenced by genetic factors perhaps? Such as, for example, a hereditary element of intelligence.
Why would it?
quote:Why would a theory stating that there is a high degree of heritability in intelligence require a high degree of insularity in the population. If someone said that height had a high degree of heritability would you say that had to be wrong for the same reasons?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And, very importantly, populations and classes are not as insular as theories of inherited intelligence require.
quote:An extreme fallacy? Really? Are you really saying that the average doctor or accountant is not much more intelligent than the average factory worker or cleaner?
As to the theory that employers only hire the best, one need only look as far as any large company or governmental agency to see that this is an extreme fallacy.
quote:Could you link to studies that show a low heritability rate for intelligence then?
Inheritance as a zero factor in intelligence? No. As strong as you imply? Not even close.
quote:Height is actually has been a more difficult thing to sort out, genetically, than even geneticists had previously thought. Environment (Nutrition) has proved to be one of the biggest contributing factors. And height appears to have multiple factors, not merely one gene. So the jury is out on this, at the moment.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
If someone said that height had a high degree of heritability would you say that had to be wrong for the same reasons?
quote:Absodamnlutely I am saying this. Having real experience with people in those professions and more.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
An extreme fallacy? Really? Are you really saying that the average doctor or accountant is not much more intelligent than the average factory worker or cleaner?
quote:That is problematic. Most reference IQ, which is heavily linked to education. And the genes which contribute to intelligence are many. It is easy to do studies on single-gene traits, but not so much on multis. And did you read the link on books in the home? Here is a salient point from the article.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:Could you link to studies that show a low heritability rate for intelligence then?
Inheritance as a zero factor in intelligence? No. As strong as you imply? Not even close.
quote:
But, strikingly, this massive study showed that the difference between being raised in a bookless home compared to being raised in a home with a 500-book library has as great an effect on the level of education a child will attain as having parents who are barely literate (3 years of education) compared to having parents who have a university education (15 or 16 years of education). Both factors, having a 500-book library or having university-educated parents, propel a child 3.2 years further in education, on average.
Being a sociologist, Evans was particularly interested to find that children of lesser-educated parents benefit the most from having books in the home. She has been looking for ways to help Nevada's rural communities, in terms of economic development and education.
quote:Factory workers and cleaners are often women from poor backgrounds, often non-white. Intelligence is not the reason they are doing those jobs. It's why women are disproportionately affected by public sector cuts, because they form most of the 'disposable' workforce that get made redundant.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:Why would a theory stating that there is a high degree of heritability in intelligence require a high degree of insularity in the population. If someone said that height had a high degree of heritability would you say that had to be wrong for the same reasons?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And, very importantly, populations and classes are not as insular as theories of inherited intelligence require.
quote:An extreme fallacy? Really? Are you really saying that the average doctor or accountant is not much more intelligent than the average factory worker or cleaner?
As to the theory that employers only hire the best, one need only look as far as any large company or governmental agency to see that this is an extreme fallacy.
quote:Could you link to studies that show a low heritability rate for intelligence then?
Inheritance as a zero factor in intelligence? No. As strong as you imply? Not even close.
quote:Actually, the research shows that the greater one's income, the more likely one is to believe in biological determinist accounts of socioeconomic inequality. Those public schoolboys believe they're on top because they were born to rule, not because Daddy bought them their place in society.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:Of course the public school boys who run the country don't want to admit that differences in intelligence are largely innate. They want to promote the idea that people on low incomes are that way because of their own choices, and this blame the poor for their poverty. If they were to admit that many people, though no choice or failing of their own, simply aren't bright enough to get well paid jobs it would undermine that message.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
No wonder even the public school boys and girls who run the country are embarrassed by that argument.
quote:What I think Tommy1 means is the ability to succeed academically. That I guess includes an aptitude for abstract thought and problem solving amongst other things. I guess, also, that such aptitudes may indeed correlate with IQ to some extent. But that is hardly all there is to say about the subject.
The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
quote:These guys actually identified a number of genes - well specific alleles of genes - that they thought linked to intelligence and then looked at outcomes. I've quoted their conclusions above. They said that lower education levels were more strongly linked to lower IQ levels than any genetic influences. They also gave other factors that could lead to lower education levels.
Here is a paper from July 2012 trying to link genetics and intelligence.
They found some genes, well specific alleles of genes, that they think link to better outcomes but:
quote:
The team observed that possessing these alleles alone provided no guarantee of a person going on to higher levels of education, given that lower levels of education were more strongly linked to lower IQ levels, and that regardless of genetic effects, living in poor circumstances and 'mixing up with the wrong people' also led to lower levels of education.
quote:If I don't reply to every single post that replies to a post of mine that does not meant to be a sign of disrespect.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Tommy1, you completely ignored this post from earlier:
quote:These guys actually identified a number of genes - well specific alleles of genes - that they thought linked to intelligence and then looked at outcomes. I've quoted their conclusions above. They said that lower education levels were more strongly linked to lower IQ levels than any genetic influences. They also gave other factors that could lead to lower education levels.
Here is a paper from July 2012 trying to link genetics and intelligence.
They found some genes, well specific alleles of genes, that they think link to better outcomes but:
quote:
The team observed that possessing these alleles alone provided no guarantee of a person going on to higher levels of education, given that lower levels of education were more strongly linked to lower IQ levels, and that regardless of genetic effects, living in poor circumstances and 'mixing up with the wrong people' also led to lower levels of education.
quote:I hadn't really intended to get into a discussion about the nature/nurture debate on intelligence. All of the reasearch I am aware of indicates that there is a significant degree of heritability with intelligence. What I am intending to illustrate is how some people react emotionally to the suggestion that the heritability of intelligence is anything other than very low and how this is an example of political correctness.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I was a bit bothered about this tangent taking over the whole thread, but I guess in many ways it illustrates the thread theme very well.
quote:A very good example of the complexity of the subject, a case of an innate ability not being able to fully show itself because of an innate disability.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
That's also helpful; thanks, Jade.
I know a very young person who is significantly dyspraxic. He was helped considerably in his early writing, drawing and figuring by a teacher who had the gumption to give him a pencil with a triangular cross-section rather than the usual round one. It turned out to be much easier for him to grip and use.
His dyspraxia does seem to be an innate issue, but he is a very bright child. Just needed a bit of understanding and help with some innate obstacles to learning.
(obvious xpost with CK)
quote:But you are ignoring the societal impact. Our society is inherently ableist and is set up to favour able-bodied people, and disadvantage disabled people. Those are obstacles constructed by people within society as a whole - they are not innate. There is no reason why innate ability cannot show itself fully, if those obstacles were removed. A choice of writing instruments according to need is just one example. Using a triangular pencil is not inherently less intelligent or good than a round one.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:A very good example of the complexity of the subject, a case of an innate ability not being able to fully show itself because of an innate disability.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
That's also helpful; thanks, Jade.
I know a very young person who is significantly dyspraxic. He was helped considerably in his early writing, drawing and figuring by a teacher who had the gumption to give him a pencil with a triangular cross-section rather than the usual round one. It turned out to be much easier for him to grip and use.
His dyspraxia does seem to be an innate issue, but he is a very bright child. Just needed a bit of understanding and help with some innate obstacles to learning.
(obvious xpost with CK)
quote:Not sure if this was a reply to me or cross-posted. But yes, taking into account the beliefs and feelings of both parties in a relationship is exactly what I was arguing for.
Originally posted by mousethief:
What I continue to see in this thread is a lot of privileged people saying... ..."well you have to take MY feelings/beliefs/rights into account too."
In other words, defending their privilege.
quote:I don't know about the reasearch into Chinese height but to a great extent this is obviously likely to be true. Most people posting here will remember people of their parents or grandparents generation (depending how old they are) being shorter because they grew up with a poor diet.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I suspect that the best we will ever be able to say about genetic influence on either height or intelligence is that genetics will provide a (reasonably soft) limit or impose a law of diminishing returns on both. To choose a crude example, most Chinese people are short by western standards. Chinese immigrants to the US of average Chinese height have frequently produced very tall offspring. It is widely theorised that the difference is due to diet. So it's not that Chinese people are genetically predisposed to being shorter, but that their diet means they don't reach their genetically determined maximum height.
quote:I am not say politicians actually believe that genetics does not play a major role in intelligence, just that they claim to believe that it doesn't. That's a different thing entirely.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Actually, the research shows that the greater one's income, the more likely one is to believe in biological determinist accounts of socioeconomic inequality.
quote:This is ignoring the fact that it's not a level playing field. Privilege is being shielded from certain experiences due to belonging to a particular group - for example, as a white person I am protected from the racism that non-white people experience, and I cannot know what those experiences are like or speak for those who experience it. Of course I am as significant as a non-white person, but since I live in a society where whiteness is valued over other skin colours, there is an inherent lack of mutuality there. It's my role as a white person to listen and to not make it about me, because I already have an unfair advantage because of my skin colour.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Not sure if this was a reply to me or cross-posted. But yes, taking into account the beliefs and feelings of both parties in a relationship is exactly what I was arguing for.
Originally posted by mousethief:
What I continue to see in this thread is a lot of privileged people saying... ..."well you have to take MY feelings/beliefs/rights into account too."
In other words, defending their privilege.
And no, that's nothing to do with defending "privilege" - what it's defending is the significance of every human being.
It's defending mutuality against a strange view that seems to say that consideration as a human being has to be earned by proof of socio-economic victim-status.
When did you become a materialist, Mousethief ?
Russ
quote:I did indeed see that. The study found that when parents education was controlled for the number of books in the home correlated with educational outcome. Given that everyone agrees that intelligence in not the only determinant of educational outcome, given that more intelligent people are more likely to read for pleasure that the number of books bought may be a very good indicator of intelligence.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:In your experience then what kind of work are people with low intelligence more likely to do?
Absodamnlutely I am saying this. Having real experience with people in those professions and more.
quote:
And did you read the link on books in the home? Here is a salient point from the article.
quote:
But, strikingly, this massive study showed that the difference between being raised in a bookless home compared to being raised in a home with a 500-book library has as great an effect on the level of education a child will attain as having parents who are barely literate (3 years of education) compared to having parents who have a university education (15 or 16 years of education). Both factors, having a 500-book library or having university-educated parents, propel a child 3.2 years further in education, on average.
Being a sociologist, Evans was particularly interested to find that children of lesser-educated parents benefit the most from having books in the home. She has been looking for ways to help Nevada's rural communities, in terms of economic development and education.
quote:I appreciate that. I don't think the reactions on this thread have been governed by emotion or any particular preconceptions.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
All of the reasearch I am aware of indicates that there is a significant degree of heritability with intelligence. What I am intending to illustrate is how some people react emotionally to the suggestion that the heritability of intelligence is anything other than very low and how this is an example of political correctness.
quote:Wow - assume much?
Originally posted by Tommy1:
<snip> For example two children at a school get the same exam results. One is a bit smarter and a bit lazier. One is a bit less intelligent and a bit more hard working. In later life the smarter one is more likely to read for pleasure and will therefore probably have more books in his home. <snip>
quote:Correlation is not causation.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:I did indeed see that. The study found that when parents education was controlled for the number of books in the home correlated with educational outcome. Given that everyone agrees that intelligence in not the only determinant of educational outcome, given that more intelligent people are more likely to read for pleasure that the number of books bought may be a very good indicator of intelligence.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:In your experience then what kind of work are people with low intelligence more likely to do?
Absodamnlutely I am saying this. Having real experience with people in those professions and more.
quote:
And did you read the link on books in the home? Here is a salient point from the article.
quote:
But, strikingly, this massive study showed that the difference between being raised in a bookless home compared to being raised in a home with a 500-book library has as great an effect on the level of education a child will attain as having parents who are barely literate (3 years of education) compared to having parents who have a university education (15 or 16 years of education). Both factors, having a 500-book library or having university-educated parents, propel a child 3.2 years further in education, on average.
Being a sociologist, Evans was particularly interested to find that children of lesser-educated parents benefit the most from having books in the home. She has been looking for ways to help Nevada's rural communities, in terms of economic development and education.
For example two children at a school get the same exam results. One is a bit smarter and a bit lazier. One is a bit less intelligent and a bit more hard working. In later life the smarter one is more likely to read for pleasure and will therefore probably have more books in his home. If intelligence is more heritable than hard work then the children of the one with more books will tend to do better when parents education is controlled for.
Now this is not necessarily the reason why children in homes with more books do better but equally its quite wrong to think that the book study disproves genetic influence.
quote:My understanding of the word is "the ability to cope with new problems and to use the power of reasoning and inference effectively" Now of course intelligence is a complex issue and there are all kinds of skill sets that may vary in strength amongst individuals. Other people's understanding of the word may differ from mine but I suspect that our understandings of the word are broadly similar.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Any analysis will depend centrally on how intelligence is defined, Tommy1. Asking again, how do you define it? There may be a good deal of cross-purposing in these exchanges, simply because we are using different understandings of what intelligence is.
quote:Exactly. There may be any number of factors that link number of books in the household to educational outcome. Some of these may be directly linked to genetic factors. I don't know what the exact causes are but to suggest that the book correlation must necessarily be purely caused by nurture rather than nature is wrong.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Correlation is not causation.
quote:I think they have. To give examples of some of the replies
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:I appreciate that. I don't think the reactions on this thread have been governed by emotion or any particular preconceptions.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
All of the reasearch I am aware of indicates that there is a significant degree of heritability with intelligence. What I am intending to illustrate is how some people react emotionally to the suggestion that the heritability of intelligence is anything other than very low and how this is an example of political correctness.
quote:From Doc Tor at first he said
I'm not going to waste my time watching some video about it. If you can find something your bloke bothered to write down I'll read it. Otherwise I'll continue to assume its the sort of mendacious Tory propaganda it almost certainly is, and either uses a deliberately obfuscated measure of "class" to make its lies seem plausible, or, more likely, doesn't even bother but just asserts crap
quote:Doc Tor later admitted that Saunders did have an answer to Taylor's point it was just one he didn't agree with. Also from Doc Tor "eugenics" "even the public school boys and girls who run the country are embarrassed" "bollocks" "crap" "flag-bearers from the right, neo-con faction of the Conservative party and beyond". The entire tone of his comments suggests that he is offended the idea that intelligence is highly heritable.
Matthew Taylor made the perfectly valid point - against which Saunders had no answer whatsoever - that Oxford and Cambridge are hardly a mirror of the makeup of UK society.
quote:I'm offended when people talk damaging nonsense. Eugenics is possibly the very worst idea of the late 19th/ early 20th Century, and Saunders buys right into that. Calling him a eugenicist is probably one of the more politer epithets I could have wheeled out, but if the cap fits...
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Doc Tor later admitted that Saunders did have an answer to Taylor's point it was just one he didn't agree with. Also from Doc Tor "eugenics" "even the public school boys and girls who run the country are embarrassed" "bollocks" "crap" "flag-bearers from the right, neo-con faction of the Conservative party and beyond". The entire tone of his comments suggests that he is offended the idea that intelligence is highly heritable.
quote:Because they have no workable definition of "class".
Originally posted by Tommy1:
If he is saying that working class children tend to do less well academically because they tend to be less intelligent how is that not having an answer?
quote:Why must there? I' ve never heard of one.
Well there must be some studies that measure intelligence reasonably well.
quote:You do realise, I hope, that if this is true it tends to support Doc Tor's arguments and contradict yours?
Originally posted by Tommy1:
The study found that when parents education was controlled for the number of books in the home correlated with educational outcome.
quote:Note the last sentence which I emboldened. Peter Saunders strikes me as a Right Wing libertarian, so I suspect he's not much in favour of any remaking of society by politically coercive means. But he does seems to me to be giving aid and comfort to those who believe there may be "superior groups (race or classes)". I don't like that. I hope he is not a fellow-traveller with any modern day supporters of eugenics. It is a pernicious doctrine. I hope you and I can agree on the pernicious nature of eugenics.
A common criticism of eugenics is that "it inevitably leads to measures that are unethical". A hypothetical scenario posits that if one racial minority group is perceived on average less intelligent than the racial majority group, then it is more likely that the racial minority group will be submitted to a eugenics program rather than the least intelligent members of the whole population. H. L. Kaye wrote of "the obvious truth that eugenics has been discredited by Hitler's crimes". R. L. Hayman argued "the eugenics movement is an anachronism, its political implications exposed by the Holocaust".
Steven Pinker has stated that it is "a conventional wisdom among left-leaning academics that genes imply genocide". He has responded to this "conventional wisdom" by comparing the history of Marxism, which had the opposite position on genes to that of Nazism:
'But the 20th century suffered "two" ideologies that led to genocides. The other one, Marxism, had no use for race, didn't believe in genes and denied that human nature was a meaningful concept. Clearly, it's not an emphasis on genes or evolution that is dangerous. It's the desire to remake humanity by coercive means (eugenics or social engineering) and the belief that humanity advances through a struggle in which superior groups (race or classes) triumph over inferior ones.'
quote:You don't have a role as a white person. Your role as a human being is to be a good human being and treat your fellow human beings with humanity. If you let difference in skin colour affect the way you treat others then you're keeping racism alive.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Privilege is being shielded from certain experiences due to belonging to a particular group - for example, as a white person I am protected from the racism that non-white people experience, and I cannot know what those experiences are like or speak for those who experience it. Of course I am as significant as a non-white person, but since I live in a society where whiteness is valued over other skin colours, there is an inherent lack of mutuality there. It's my role as a white person to listen and to not make it about me, because I already have an unfair advantage because of my skin colour.
quote:Any wonder? It takes away one's responsibility to others.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Prejudices die hard. And the eugenic view has many flaws.
quote:You are starting with the assumption that people find work to suit their level of intelligence. This is not how the real world works. Opportunity is the unequal factor, not intelligence.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:In your experience then what kind of work are people with low intelligence more likely to do?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Absodamnlutely I am saying this. Having real experience with people in those professions and more.
quote:I think this post of yours illustrates exactly the point I was making about Political Correctness. You associate the theory that the heritability of intelligence is high with eugenics which you identify with forced eugenics.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Tommy1
I agree with Doc Tor that Eugenics is "the elephant in the room". Is Peter Saunders a supporter of Eugenics?[...]
Peter Saunders strikes me as a Right Wing libertarian, so I suspect he's not much in favour of any remaking of society by politically coercive means. But he does seems to me to be giving aid and comfort to those who believe there may be "superior groups (race or classes)". I don't like that. I hope he is not a fellow-traveller with any modern day supporters of eugenics. It is a pernicious doctrine. I hope you and I can agree on the pernicious nature of eugenics.
quote:This post illustrates my point perfectly. You think that the idea that intelligence is highly heritable is dangerous. It makes you angry, you associate it with the horrors of forced sterilisation and 'euthanasia' (although its not the same thing at all). This prevents you from being objective about the subject and causes you to have a reaction that is, as you illustrate clearly here, driven by emotion. Incidentally since you yourself admit intelligence has at least some degree of heritability at what point do you think it becomes eugenics? If someone say that for most of the population intelligence is 90% heritable is that eugenics. What if they said it was 50% or 10% where would you draw the line?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm offended when people talk damaging nonsense. Eugenics is possibly the very worst idea of the late 19th/ early 20th Century, and Saunders buys right into that. Calling him a eugenicist is probably one of the more politer epithets I could have wheeled out, but if the cap fits...
quote:He was asked why University students are less likely to be from working class backgrounds. He answered that the reason was that working class children are, on average, innately less intelligent than middle class children. How is that not an answer?
(also I'm still not saying that Saunders had an answer to Taylor's question, so I'd appreciate if you stop saying I did. Common courtesy and all that.)
quote:Why do you think a working definition can't be used for a study?
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Because they have no workable definition of "class".
Originally posted by Tommy1:
If he is saying that working class children tend to do less well academically because they tend to be less intelligent how is that not having an answer?
quote:This was said in reply to Doc Tor. He had claimed that "the link between genes and intelligence is ... mostly overwhelmed by environmental factors" and then suggested that intelligence couldn't be measured. I pointed out that both of these things cannot be true. If you claim to know that intelligence is mostly determined by environment then the studies that lead to that conclusion must have had a measure for intelligence. If you cannot measure intelligence then it is simply not possible to test how much or little environment influences it.
quote:Why must there? I' ve never heard of one.
Well there must be some studies that measure intelligence reasonably well.
quote:I don't think anyone thinks the intelligence levels are caused by a single gene mutation. Are you suggesting that anyone who thinks its possible that the heritability of intelligence is higher than zero doesn't understand genetics?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Further to all this, I'm reasonably certain that Saunders doesn't actually understand genetics.
If his thesis is that a) intelligence is a beneficial and inheritable mutation
quote:You must have met some people with noticeably below average intelligence in your life. What jobs did they do?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:You are starting with the assumption that people find work to suit their level of intelligence. This is not how the real world works. Opportunity is the unequal factor, not intelligence.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
In your experience then what kind of work are people with low intelligence more likely to do?
quote:That view also predates the emergence of political correctness by at least a decade. As a matter of analysis, I do not find the current evidence all that convincing, but even if convincing evidence emerged, it would not affect my underlying beliefs about fair treatment and decent social policy. I am not bothered about what research may reveal about group correlations. The issue of what is fair overrides that.
Fair enough re lilbuddha. In general the genetic component of any aspect of human capabilities is rarely either zero or 100%. (Actually, I think lilbuddha believes that too, but the post does say otherwise).
Anyway, it appears that we agree that averages say nothing about individuals. Which I think is significant for all sorts of social policies. Back to my usual variation on Martin Luther King. I have this dream that one day everyone and everyone's children will NOT be judged by the colour of their skin, or their class, or their nationality, or indeed anything other than their character and abilities
quote:I think that attitude of political correctness long predates that actual word.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
You are misreading me, Tommy1. My view of the immorality of eugenics views predates the emergence of political correctness by two decades. Which should have been clear from my earlier posts.
quote:There is nothing that I have said or indeed that Saunders said in the clip that would indicate that either of us are supporters of eugenics so its striking that the mention of the subject of heritability of intelligence would trigger a fear that eugenics were being advocated. Such a fear does make some people close minded. However your comments do not indicate close mindedness on that topic and it is unfair of me to imply otherwise so I apologise for that.
And in one of my earlier posts, I observed that it does not matter to me whether the correlation between intelligence and heritability is significant. Here is the post.
quote:That view also predates the emergence of political correctness by at least a decade. As a matter of analysis, I do not find the current evidence all that convincing, but even if convincing evidence emerged, it would not affect my underlying beliefs about fair treatment and decent social policy. I am not bothered about what research may reveal about group correlations. The issue of what is fair overrides that.
Fair enough re lilbuddha. In general the genetic component of any aspect of human capabilities is rarely either zero or 100%. (Actually, I think lilbuddha believes that too, but the post does say otherwise).
Anyway, it appears that we agree that averages say nothing about individuals. Which I think is significant for all sorts of social policies. Back to my usual variation on Martin Luther King. I have this dream that one day everyone and everyone's children will NOT be judged by the colour of their skin, or their class, or their nationality, or indeed anything other than their character and abilities
quote:What does this question have to do with anything I have stated?
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:You must have met some people with noticeably below average intelligence in your life. What jobs did they do?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:You are starting with the assumption that people find work to suit their level of intelligence. This is not how the real world works. Opportunity is the unequal factor, not intelligence.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
In your experience then what kind of work are people with low intelligence more likely to do?
quote:CK and others
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Tommy1 - can you point to the research Peter Saunders is using to come to his views? I have had a look at some of his site and can find links to articles on social mobility in Sociology journals, but not to intelligence. For those of us with science backgrounds, peer reviewed scientific journals would be preferable.
quote:Thanks for finding that. An interesting read. I noted the link in the article to this blog post which argues that even studying a link between genetics and intelligence is immoral in itself, which for me is a very politically correct attitude.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And the controversy continues ..
quote:Prior to WWII many of the progressive left were enthusiastic proponents of eugenics.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I do think you may underestimate the relationship between eugenics thoughts and coercive social policies. Analogous arguments can be applied to proponents of Far Left philosophies as the Eugenics article
quote:I did mean regarding conversations specifically about race - not a general relationship. However, the experiences of different intersecting oppressive systems (racism, homophobia, classism, sexism etc) are different. I experience sexism differently to a black woman, and a straight woman would also experience sexism differently than me. It's about not making assumptions about things I have not experienced and listening to others' lived experiences. That is what intersectionality is about. Sexism, homophobia, transphobia etc are human-constructed societal structures of oppression, not just prejudice that feels a bit nasty. As Audre Lorde says, the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Jade
Russ makes the point well. Here is a personal observation.
There is a Solzhenitsyn quote of great power. "To taste the sea needs only one gulp." He was talking about the varieties of suffering experienced by those sent to the Gulags.
Prejudice is like a sea; whether its waters taste of racism, or sexism, or classism, etc, they taste pretty much the same if you have been on the receiving end. The taste is that you have been demeaned for reasons that have nothing to do with your character or abilities.
quote:Personally? The least intelligent person I have ever met is a very well-paid private speech therapist. I've also met some very unintelligent (and very rich) financiers.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:You must have met some people with noticeably below average intelligence in your life. What jobs did they do?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:You are starting with the assumption that people find work to suit their level of intelligence. This is not how the real world works. Opportunity is the unequal factor, not intelligence.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
In your experience then what kind of work are people with low intelligence more likely to do?
quote:Okay, so I know now you're engaged on not so much a straw man, as a wicker man.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
My purpose is raising this is not to discuss at length whether the heritability of IQ or of g is 0.85 or 0.5 or 0.1, although it s a very interesting topic. What is more interesting however is the reaction to some people to this topic. Declaring that it is wrong to even investigate, declaring that to think that the heritability is high is morally wrong because it might lead to eugenics. The Nature article Barnabas62 linked to estimated the heritability of IQ to be 50%. That not the highest estimate but its still quite high. Is nature being dangerous and immoral in saying such a thing?
quote:That quote, from S P Rose's 2006 paper which is footnoted in "Heritability of IQ" suggests to me that there are analytical reasons, not dogmatic ones, for being cautious about the value of studies of population variances. Even if you do not buy Lewontin's insistence, he makes a good general point. Population variance studies are, for general reasons, of limited value without some underlying evidence of causal links.
Biological systems are complex, non-linear, and non-additive. Heritability estimates are attempts to impose a simplistic and reified dichotomy (nature/nurture) on non-dichotomous processes. Real progress in genetics, developmental and behavioural biology will come from paying attention to Lewontin's insistence that we attempt to analyse causes, not variances.
quote:I didn't say that you had said such a thing. I had noted that you had said that there was a low level of heritability for intelligence (although you did however react angrily to the suggestion that it might be high euquating such a thought with eugenics). In comment you replied to I was thinking not of your comments but those in the Mermaid's Tale blogpost I linked to earlier which advocated that studies into the link between genes and intelligence should be neither funded nor published because they were 'dangerously immoral'.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Okay, so I know now you're engaged on not so much a straw man, as a wicker man.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
My purpose is raising this is not to discuss at length whether the heritability of IQ or of g is 0.85 or 0.5 or 0.1, although it s a very interesting topic. What is more interesting however is the reaction to some people to this topic. Declaring that it is wrong to even investigate, declaring that to think that the heritability is high is morally wrong because it might lead to eugenics. The Nature article Barnabas62 linked to estimated the heritability of IQ to be 50%. That not the highest estimate but its still quite high. Is nature being dangerous and immoral in saying such a thing?
I haven't at any point said that intelligence isn't in part inheritable. I haven't at any point said that investigating the inheritability of intelligence wrong. I have never at any point said that saying that the inheritability of intelligence an immoral or dangerous thing.
quote:I don't think there is anything 'beneficent' about meritocracy. In order to illustrate this point imagine you are an early 19th century Russian aristocrat. You own an estate which has 1000 serfs. You need various jobs done on the estate- farm labourers, overseers, blacksmiths, butchers, bakers and candlestick makers. What is the most efficient way of running the estate? Is it to have hereditary labourers, butchers, blacksmiths etc. Or is it to have a meritocratic system whereby each serf is given a position that makes best use of their talents. Clearly the latter is more efficient and so it is with the modern economy.
I would, in fact, suit me perfectly that my brilliant children are a result of their brilliant parents, and that we live in a lovely house filled with nice things simply because we were smart enough and diligent enough to take the many and varied opportunities presented to us by a beneficent, meritocratic state.
I am, however, used to going about with my eyes and ears open, and am not so wildly naive or hopelessly arrogant as to believe that insidious propaganda.
quote:Not sure what you mean by that. I'm happy to take constructive criticism so please explain what you mean.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Amongst the dangerously immoral things going on here is your debating technique. Sort it out, will you?
quote:First, tests can only determine ability within a particular group.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
then the studies that lead to that conclusion must have had a measure for intelligence. If you cannot measure intelligence then it is simply not possible to test how much or little environment influences it.
quote:Meritocracy is a lie created by the people who rigged the system to "explain" why their victims don't rise above their current station.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
I don't think there is anything 'beneficent' about meritocracy.
quote:I'm sure there are a number of reasons for being sceptical of theories that put a definite figure to the nature/nurture debate about intelligence. Its certainly an area of science where more work needs to be done. What I am commenting on is the way some people get very hostile to theories that put a higher value on the nature side whilst not having that reaction to theories that put a higher value on nurture.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There may be others, Tommy1. Here is a powerful quote from one of the Wiki links.
quote:That quote, from S P Rose's 2006 paper which is footnoted in "Heritability of IQ" suggests to me that there are analytical reasons, not dogmatic ones, for being cautious about the value of studies of population variances. Even if you do not buy Lewontin's insistence, he makes a good general point. Population variance studies are, for general reasons, of limited value without some underlying evidence of causal links.
Biological systems are complex, non-linear, and non-additive. Heritability estimates are attempts to impose a simplistic and reified dichotomy (nature/nurture) on non-dichotomous processes. Real progress in genetics, developmental and behavioural biology will come from paying attention to Lewontin's insistence that we attempt to analyse causes, not variances.
quote:Alright then, let us explore this. First, people use the nature end of it to justify discrimination. Second, the strongest factors demonstrated thus far are education and opportunity. There arose middle classes as opportunities were created and allowed.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
I'm sure there are a number of reasons for being sceptical of theories that put a definite figure to the nature/nurture debate about intelligence. Its certainly an area of science where more work needs to be done. What I am commenting on is the way some people get very hostile to theories that put a higher value on the nature side whilst not having that reaction to theories that put a higher value on nurture.