I am not the original poster, but most people advocating for the idea that races have genetic differences in IQ are racists, because non-racists don’t dare say so in most contexts.
This may also apply in Europe to people opposing immigration—only racists would dare say so because they’re so marginalized that they don’t take additional hits from it.
most people advocating for the idea that races have genetic differences in IQ are racists, because non-racists don’t dare say so in most contexts.
Well, actually most people advocating for the idea that races have genetic differences in IQ are racists because that idea falls under the standard definition of racism.
Let’s ask the hive mind :-) Google, what is the definition of racism? Google says:
rac·ism /ˈrāˌsizəm/ noun the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
Note that this is a subject so fraught with subjectivity that Wiktionary had to include half a page of usage notes. I don’t think arguing semantics is going to get anyone very far.
As with many other words — such as “liberal” and “set” — it has rather a lot of meanings and if you are either ① unsure of which one someone means, or ② think you know which one someone means but that meaning makes their sentence ridiculously false, then you are better off asking for clarification than guessing.
The problem is not that “racism” has no coherent meaning. No word carries inherent meaning; and many words quite safely carry multiple or ambiguous meanings without causing problems, because hearers don’t panic and throw elementary principles of decent communication out the window when they hear them.
When someone says “set” and a hearer isn’t sure whether they mean “set” in the Zermelo-Fraenkel sense or the game sense), the hearer typically asks.
But when someone says “racism”, many hearers are likely to react incredibly poorly, even exhibiting the physiological responses of a person who is threatened or becoming enraged.
We might better ask, “Why do they respond so badly to this particular word?” I suspect the answer has a lot to do with fear of being accused of something vile. And I suggest that the poor rationality practice is at least as much on the part of hearers who let this reaction run away with them instead of finding out what is meant, as on the part of speakers who use the word without further explanation.
The problem is not that “racism” has no coherent meaning.
I thought the definition that someone got from Google elsewhere in the thread was fine. The only thing that definition leaves out is what people believe about the claim that “racism” labels. Some believe that it is true and some believe that it is false, the strength of their belief either way varying in proportion to their desire to exclude from discussion the question, “is this true or false?”
We might better ask, “Why do they respond so badly to this particular word?” I suspect the answer has a lot to do with fear of being accused of something vile.
Generally, they are being accused of a belief that their accuser thinks is vile, so vile that the very question of whether it is true is also vile, so vile that it must never be discussed, and it is quite clear without further explanation that that is what is meant.
Genetic IQ differences clearly qualify as something that ALL members of EACH race possess that is SPECIFIC to that race?
That definition is really quite strong. Not even a belief that all black people suffer from some degree of mental retardation would satisfy it. The belief that there are genes correlated with lower IQs that are more prevalent among black people certainly would not.
Yeah this is definitely false. Reality is ‘racist’ I refuse to fall under such a negative category. Most people in the sensical camp of individuals who can respect individual genetic differences would also seek to abolish it and give every one a fair chance if we can somehow engineer a superior outcome.
This in-group/out group stuff gets very tiresome when it is used in a sloppy fashion. It does not correct for the percentage of people who “don’t give a fuck”. There’s a difference between LessWrong language use in a decent form and mere abuse.
What are you talking about? I meant once you accept it, we can do somerthing about it. There’s no reason to be destructive just because we can recognize reality. Please stop linking to articles, every one has developed this poor habit. I already accept most of the conclusions you believe.
I was trying to get across that you can be sanguine, while ackowledging the reality that exists and looking for ways around this. Such as countering dysgenics, etc.
Calling people who recognize racial correlations with intelligence racist is an incorrect appropriation of the term and is stretching ‘racist’ to mean something it shouldn’t it’s a weird trivial sort of technical correctness that is mostly irrelevant. I also think Jiro makes a wildly incorrect claim that most people “wouldn’t dare say so in some contexts”. Every one is abusing this in-group/out-group idea, it’s a defective tool in this example. There’s no reason to have a huge discussion about “Unpopular idea’s attract poor advocates”. The original post stands on largely nothing and there’s no reason for every one to accept it on a whim and be applying it everywhere.
It’s like there’s some sophisticated markov generator that makes you speak less-wrongesque that aims to maximize insular language while being devoid of content.
Calling people who recognize racial correlations with intelligence racist is an incorrect appropriation of the term
I think a lot of people will disagree.
it’s a weird trivial sort of technical correctness that is mostly irrelevant.
So, try declaring in a mainstream public forum that races have significantly different gene-based IQ (I recommend a disposable nym for that). Listen to the names you will be called, see how many commenters will be inclined to exhibit the “weird trivial sort of technical correctness”...
I have done this. People are unskilled at execution. It’s not simple and it takes a bit of care, you have to display empathy that you are uncomfortable with the conclusions, and that it isn’t something that you are happy or want to believe, and that if any one is ever going to provide a solution to give every one a better chance, then we will not get there with making it a crime to think this and organize around it. They just want assurance that you’re not the person they read about in the history books.
They just want assurance that you’re not the person they read about in the history books.
The problem is that many of the people “they read about in the history books” did indeed have accurate views on race. Which means the only way to reassure them that you’re not that person is to either lie to them about your beliefs or have inaccurate beliefs.
I am not the original poster, but most people advocating for the idea that races have genetic differences in IQ are racists, because non-racists don’t dare say so in most contexts.
This may also apply in Europe to people opposing immigration—only racists would dare say so because they’re so marginalized that they don’t take additional hits from it.
Taboo “racist”.
Do you believe it’s unclear from context what I meant?
No, actually I don’t. In fact I still don’t understand what you meant.
Well, actually most people advocating for the idea that races have genetic differences in IQ are racists because that idea falls under the standard definition of racism.
It falls under a definition of racism, but another definition is “hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.”
Let’s ask the hive mind :-) Google, what is the definition of racism? Google says:
Genetic IQ differences clearly qualify.
Note that this is a subject so fraught with subjectivity that Wiktionary had to include half a page of usage notes. I don’t think arguing semantics is going to get anyone very far.
Agreed, I would argue that at this point the word “racism” has no coherent meaning, whether it ever had a coherent meaning is open to debate.
As with many other words — such as “liberal” and “set” — it has rather a lot of meanings and if you are either ① unsure of which one someone means, or ② think you know which one someone means but that meaning makes their sentence ridiculously false, then you are better off asking for clarification than guessing.
The problem is not that “racism” has no coherent meaning. No word carries inherent meaning; and many words quite safely carry multiple or ambiguous meanings without causing problems, because hearers don’t panic and throw elementary principles of decent communication out the window when they hear them.
When someone says “set” and a hearer isn’t sure whether they mean “set” in the Zermelo-Fraenkel sense or the game sense), the hearer typically asks.
But when someone says “racism”, many hearers are likely to react incredibly poorly, even exhibiting the physiological responses of a person who is threatened or becoming enraged.
We might better ask, “Why do they respond so badly to this particular word?” I suspect the answer has a lot to do with fear of being accused of something vile. And I suggest that the poor rationality practice is at least as much on the part of hearers who let this reaction run away with them instead of finding out what is meant, as on the part of speakers who use the word without further explanation.
I thought the definition that someone got from Google elsewhere in the thread was fine. The only thing that definition leaves out is what people believe about the claim that “racism” labels. Some believe that it is true and some believe that it is false, the strength of their belief either way varying in proportion to their desire to exclude from discussion the question, “is this true or false?”
Generally, they are being accused of a belief that their accuser thinks is vile, so vile that the very question of whether it is true is also vile, so vile that it must never be discussed, and it is quite clear without further explanation that that is what is meant.
I think “mindkill” is a better term here.
Genetic IQ differences clearly qualify as something that ALL members of EACH race possess that is SPECIFIC to that race?
That definition is really quite strong. Not even a belief that all black people suffer from some degree of mental retardation would satisfy it. The belief that there are genes correlated with lower IQs that are more prevalent among black people certainly would not.
Anyone want to explain what they found wrong with my comment?
Yeah this is definitely false. Reality is ‘racist’ I refuse to fall under such a negative category. Most people in the sensical camp of individuals who can respect individual genetic differences would also seek to abolish it and give every one a fair chance if we can somehow engineer a superior outcome.
This in-group/out group stuff gets very tiresome when it is used in a sloppy fashion. It does not correct for the percentage of people who “don’t give a fuck”. There’s a difference between LessWrong language use in a decent form and mere abuse.
What do you mean by “abolish it”? Do you mean replace all people with identical clones so that no one is smarter (or stronger or has more willpower) than anyone else? Or are individual differences only a problem as long as they correlate with race?
What are you talking about? I meant once you accept it, we can do somerthing about it. There’s no reason to be destructive just because we can recognize reality. Please stop linking to articles, every one has developed this poor habit. I already accept most of the conclusions you believe.
I was trying to get across that you can be sanguine, while ackowledging the reality that exists and looking for ways around this. Such as countering dysgenics, etc.
Calling people who recognize racial correlations with intelligence racist is an incorrect appropriation of the term and is stretching ‘racist’ to mean something it shouldn’t it’s a weird trivial sort of technical correctness that is mostly irrelevant. I also think Jiro makes a wildly incorrect claim that most people “wouldn’t dare say so in some contexts”. Every one is abusing this in-group/out-group idea, it’s a defective tool in this example. There’s no reason to have a huge discussion about “Unpopular idea’s attract poor advocates”. The original post stands on largely nothing and there’s no reason for every one to accept it on a whim and be applying it everywhere.
It’s like there’s some sophisticated markov generator that makes you speak less-wrongesque that aims to maximize insular language while being devoid of content.
I think a lot of people will disagree.
So, try declaring in a mainstream public forum that races have significantly different gene-based IQ (I recommend a disposable nym for that). Listen to the names you will be called, see how many commenters will be inclined to exhibit the “weird trivial sort of technical correctness”...
I have done this. People are unskilled at execution. It’s not simple and it takes a bit of care, you have to display empathy that you are uncomfortable with the conclusions, and that it isn’t something that you are happy or want to believe, and that if any one is ever going to provide a solution to give every one a better chance, then we will not get there with making it a crime to think this and organize around it. They just want assurance that you’re not the person they read about in the history books.
Seems to me they would want much more, starting with your head on a stick.
The problem is that many of the people “they read about in the history books” did indeed have accurate views on race. Which means the only way to reassure them that you’re not that person is to either lie to them about your beliefs or have inaccurate beliefs.