I’ve also expressed open-mindedness (though not acceptance) towards the idea that genetically determined behavioral differences could conceivably exist.
That amounts to “human group differences are not ruled out a priori”, which is an incredibly low bar. Even SJ Gould, who was enough of a PC policeman to falsify claims of bias against a 19th century biologist who examined cranial capacity, admitted that “equality is not an a priori truth”.
If I thought that what happened to Summers was a really common thing, I’d be using an anon handle to even discuss reactionary thought.
It’s pretty common for public figures. I don’t know who you are, but my guess is you’re not a public figure. Hence, your protection (and mine) largely consists in being small fry.
It’s pretty common for public figures. I don’t know who you are, but my guess is you’re not a public figure. Hence, your protection (and mine) largely consists in being small fry.
Certain right-wing Italian politicians who say things that seem optimized for maximum offensiveness whom I cannot reliably tell apart from their parodies surely should count as public figures too?
While I wouldn’t want to see too many of those good, solid digs on Less Wrong, this comment made my day. I made a special exception ;-) and upvoted it.
IIRC he went farther, suggesting (as one hypothesis among several) that low female representation in STEM fields could be due to lower female IQ variance.
That amounts to “human group differences are not ruled out a priori”, which is an incredibly low bar. Even SJ Gould, who was enough of a PC policeman to falsify claims of bias against a 19th century biologist who examined cranial capacity, admitted that “equality is not an a priori truth”.
It’s pretty common for public figures. I don’t know who you are, but my guess is you’re not a public figure. Hence, your protection (and mine) largely consists in being small fry.
Certain right-wing Italian politicians who say things that seem optimized for maximum offensiveness whom I cannot reliably tell apart from their parodies surely should count as public figures too?
I’m pretty sure all laws of science and human action contain special exception clauses for Berlusconi.
While I wouldn’t want to see too many of those good, solid digs on Less Wrong, this comment made my day. I made a special exception ;-) and upvoted it.
No, remember reality is normal. If Berlusconi breaks your model of reality, you would do well to update your model.
Isn’t that, in a nutshell, exactly what Summers was saying?
IIRC he went farther, suggesting (as one hypothesis among several) that low female representation in STEM fields could be due to lower female IQ variance.