As an instructive example, suppose (and let me DISCLAIM THAT I AM NOT ENDORSING THIS VIEW) that you are a racist, believe that people of certain races are objectively bad for a country because they have lower IQ and are more likely to commit crimes …
I realize that you have disclaimed any endorsement of this view, but some people might accidentally get the wrong idea of what “lower IQ” and “more likely to commit crimes” actually mean in these contexts, in the real world. Men have a “higher propensity to commit crimes” compared to women, and we don’t call them “objectively bad” for this. (Well, maybe some radfems do, actually. Not really sure about that!) People with a mere BA-level education have “lower IQ” compared to people with multiple PhD’s, and similarly, we don’t think that BA-holders are bad. In other words, to even treat this as if it were a colorable argument reveals a basic failure of rationality. I wouldn’t care about this usually, but this whole post is about making politics more rational, and pointing out these things seems like a good place to start.
Men have a “higher propensity to commit crimes” compared to women, and we don’t call them “objectively bad” for this. (Well, maybe some radfems do, actually. Not really sure about that!)
I looked for “Women are better than men” on Google, and I found a debate at debate.org debate which cited less crime as a reason that women are better then men.
Women are better. SO many reasons why: 14. It is less likely for a woman to be a serial killer, pedophile or rapist.
Guess what? women are actually superior to men! Here’s the score … women generally seem to have higher social and emotional intelligence than men, are less violent and aggressive, are almost never serial killers
Um, either the folks at debate.org and Psychology Today are secretly radfems, or I need to seriously update here. OK, I’m definitely re-assessing how common this line of argument (“Group X should be regarded as better than/superior to group Y, because of a slight difference in the average level of some psychological trait, such as propensity to commit crimes”) is in the real world. Thanks!
Men have a “higher propensity to commit crimes” compared to women, and we don’t call them “objectively bad” for this.
On the other hand we do have a “violence against women” act, and a whole section of the justice department dedicated to crimes committed by men against women.
I realize that you have disclaimed any endorsement of this view, but some people might accidentally get the wrong idea of what “lower IQ” and “more likely to commit crimes” actually mean in these contexts, in the real world. Men have a “higher propensity to commit crimes” compared to women, and we don’t call them “objectively bad” for this. (Well, maybe some radfems do, actually. Not really sure about that!) People with a mere BA-level education have “lower IQ” compared to people with multiple PhD’s, and similarly, we don’t think that BA-holders are bad.
In other words, to even treat this as if it were a colorable argument reveals a basic failure of rationality. I wouldn’t care about this usually, but this whole post is about making politics more rational, and pointing out these things seems like a good place to start.
I looked for “Women are better than men” on Google, and I found a debate at debate.org debate which cited less crime as a reason that women are better then men.
EDIT: Also Psychology Today
Um, either the folks at debate.org and Psychology Today are secretly radfems, or I need to seriously update here. OK, I’m definitely re-assessing how common this line of argument (“Group X should be regarded as better than/superior to group Y, because of a slight difference in the average level of some psychological trait, such as propensity to commit crimes”) is in the real world. Thanks!
You earn Lesswrong gold for updating!
We definitely need Lesswrong gold.
On the other hand we do have a “violence against women” act, and a whole section of the justice department dedicated to crimes committed by men against women.
I’m not quite sure I follow. What’s the failure of rationality here?