(the word “race”, using that word for humans is very offensive—technically speaking, there are races of dogs and cows, but not of humans (features in humans are much continuous and spread, while in domesticated animals they tend to be more discrete and clustered) - see below ) ;
“number of partners” should be precised, I’m not sure it’s clear how to compute it for all kind of relations ;
“work status” : being employed or independent could be an interesting information too ;
“degree” : the names of diploma is quite US-centric, why not just ask for number of years of university study (after end of high school) ?
“political”: that can easily lead to troll, but the labels you put don’t match to the description in my opinion, for example Scandinavia is social democracy, not socialism, and communism doesn’t mean “complete state control”, but under theoretical communism, there is no state anymore; I would suggest leaving only the example, and removing the label.
what is “religious background” and how is it different from “family religion” ? My family is atheist since generations (my grandparents were all atheists), but I’m in France, a traditionally catholic country, what should I answer ?
SAT : too US centric, I don’t think it should be included.
Hum, it seems I made a language mistake—what I said about “race” definitely applies in French, but it seems it doesn’t hold in English (while I was quite sure it was the same). So you can forget that part (but I left it and made the correction afterward for the posterity).
If I can ask : are the down votes only for that reason, or are they for my other remarks too ?
In French, is there a polite way to refer to what would be called “race” in English?
Yes, the politically-correct word is usually “ethnicités” and sometimes (in more formal or governmental contexts) “minorités visibles”, at least in Québec (province). Someone is usually referred to as “d’ethnie (latino-américaine)” (for latino-americans, as an example) when their race is relevant / being discussed.
A thing that bothers me when using “ethnicity” and cognates as euphemisms for “race” and cognates is that in my mental lexicon the former are cultural clusterings and the latter genetic ones, so the biological children of a sub-Saharan couple adopted at a very young age and raised in (say) Denmark by a Danish couple would count has having “black” race but “white” ethnicity.
Well, yeah, that’s always a problem. In more sophisticated texts where using the french word “race” is unacceptable, you’d have to find some more specific and specialized term (probably from genetics jargon) if you want to avoid the conflation with linguistic and cultural clustering.
In common usage, “ethnicité” is used and context allows us to infer that it refers to visible genetic variations rather than just cultural ones—it’s rare that we’ll refer to Americans as being from a different “ethnie”, for example, unless in scientific contexts that pertain to populations. The usage is such that the context will usually make it very obvious which meaning is intended.
For unusual characters, googling some sort of vague description and then copy-pasting from one of the first 5 results often works, e.g. ‘e accent’ or (as a purely contrived example) an eth (ð).
Or you can use a site like this which allows you to draw the character and then copy paste.
Ubuntu does the same with the Italian keyboard, only it’s AltGr and , (comma) for the acute accent (which I use when I need one on a vowel other than E in languages other than Italian). I think it can be made to do the same with a US keyboard (where the right Alt becomes the AltGr).
Yours is the first claim I’ve seen that using “race” to refer to humans is very offensive. Are you hanging out with people who agree with that, and if so, where?
I don’t think I’ve seen “race” applied to animals—“breed” or “subspecies” is what I’m used to?
This seems to be due to kilobug’s self-reported language mistake. “race” in French actually means what “species” means in English, at least in common usage. I recall this as one of many particularly confusing examples for people learning English as a second language in more academic environments.
This is the first time you’ve seen the claim, expressed as follows?
(1) “race” does not divide humanity according to any biologically justifiable criteria, (2) “race” is used to provide a scientific halo effect to justify current social organization
(2) is obviously true—and is morally positive so long as the first assertion is false. (1) is controversial—but I’ve seen it expressed many times on LW and other places.
Offensiveness relies in the implicit premise that use of the halo effect when the underlying science is faulty is itself irrational / socially hurtful. That’s isomorphic to asserting that the “Noble Lie” is immoral—which I thought was the consensus here.
I don’t think I’ve seen “race” applied to animals—“breed” or “subspecies” is what I’m used to?
I agree—I’ve never heard “race” used to categorize animals.
the word “race”, using that word for humans is very offensive—technically speaking, there are races of dogs and cows, but not of humans (features in humans are much continuous and spread, while in domesticated animals they tend to be more discrete and clustered)
I’m pretty sure race is a thing. Source?
Agree with all your other points.
EDIT: In fact, race is for humans only. You’re probably thinking of “breed”.
I think SAT could be valuable as an alternative to IQ tests or similar, even if it mostly only applies to those in the US. Having something that gives us some information for those in the US is better than not getting that information from anyone.
Do other major countries have analogues of that, BTW? If so, we could ask similar questions applicable to a couple more countries, such as the UK or Canada.¹ (The closest analogue I can think of in Italy is the score (out of 100) on one’s high-school diploma.)
There’s been a standardization process establishing equivalent degrees in pretty much all of Europe.
The basic framework adopted is of three cycles of higher education qualification. As outlined in the Bergen Declaration[7] of 2005, the cycles are defined in terms of qualifications and European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) credits:
1st cycle: typically 180–240 ECTS credits, usually awarding a bachelor’s degree. The European Higher Education Area did not introduce the Bachelor with Honours programme, which allows graduates with a “BA hons.” degree (e.g. in UK, USA, Canada) to undertake doctoral studies without first having to obtain a master’s degree.
2nd cycle: typically 90–120 ECTS credits (a minimum of 60 on 2nd-cycle level). Usually awarding a master’s degree.
3rd cycle: doctoral degree. No ECTS range given.
In most cases, these will take 3, 2, and 3 years respectively to complete. The actual naming of the degrees may vary from country to country.
Indeed. When I’m speaking in English, I normally just refer to the degree I got in 2009 as a Bachelor’s, the degree I got last week as a Master’s, and the one I’ll hopefully get in three years as a PhD, without even mentioning their Italian names unless I have some kind of reason to do that.
My notes :
(the word “race”, using that word for humans is very offensive—technically speaking, there are races of dogs and cows, but not of humans (features in humans are much continuous and spread, while in domesticated animals they tend to be more discrete and clustered) - see below ) ;
“number of partners” should be precised, I’m not sure it’s clear how to compute it for all kind of relations ;
“work status” : being employed or independent could be an interesting information too ;
“degree” : the names of diploma is quite US-centric, why not just ask for number of years of university study (after end of high school) ?
“political”: that can easily lead to troll, but the labels you put don’t match to the description in my opinion, for example Scandinavia is social democracy, not socialism, and communism doesn’t mean “complete state control”, but under theoretical communism, there is no state anymore; I would suggest leaving only the example, and removing the label.
what is “religious background” and how is it different from “family religion” ? My family is atheist since generations (my grandparents were all atheists), but I’m in France, a traditionally catholic country, what should I answer ?
SAT : too US centric, I don’t think it should be included.
Hum, it seems I made a language mistake—what I said about “race” definitely applies in French, but it seems it doesn’t hold in English (while I was quite sure it was the same). So you can forget that part (but I left it and made the correction afterward for the posterity).
If I can ask : are the down votes only for that reason, or are they for my other remarks too ?
I can’t answer about the downvotes because I didn’t vote on your comment.
In French, is there a polite way to refer to what would be called “race” in English?
Yes, the politically-correct word is usually “ethnicités” and sometimes (in more formal or governmental contexts) “minorités visibles”, at least in Québec (province). Someone is usually referred to as “d’ethnie (latino-américaine)” (for latino-americans, as an example) when their race is relevant / being discussed.
A thing that bothers me when using “ethnicity” and cognates as euphemisms for “race” and cognates is that in my mental lexicon the former are cultural clusterings and the latter genetic ones, so the biological children of a sub-Saharan couple adopted at a very young age and raised in (say) Denmark by a Danish couple would count has having “black” race but “white” ethnicity.
Well, yeah, that’s always a problem. In more sophisticated texts where using the french word “race” is unacceptable, you’d have to find some more specific and specialized term (probably from genetics jargon) if you want to avoid the conflation with linguistic and cultural clustering.
In common usage, “ethnicité” is used and context allows us to infer that it refers to visible genetic variations rather than just cultural ones—it’s rare that we’ll refer to Americans as being from a different “ethnie”, for example, unless in scientific contexts that pertain to populations. The usage is such that the context will usually make it very obvious which meaning is intended.
Maybe if there are enough people of color who’ve grown up in Denmark, then Danish is no longer a white ethnicity.
Also, I don’t know whether the connotations of “ethnicite’” are the same as the connotations of “ethnicity”.
How do you get the accent? I tried typing alt-0233, and my computer just beeped at the numbers.
For unusual characters, googling some sort of vague description and then copy-pasting from one of the first 5 results often works, e.g. ‘e accent’ or (as a purely contrived example) an eth (ð).
Or you can use a site like this which allows you to draw the character and then copy paste.
I copy the character from a character map.
I have an Italian keyboard. ;-) The Alt-nnnn thing only works with the left Alt key, the number keypad and only under Windows, AFAIK.
Mac laptops have alt+keyboard keys, so é would be alt+e then e if you’re on a mac.
Ubuntu does the same with the Italian keyboard, only it’s AltGr and , (comma) for the acute accent (which I use when I need one on a vowel other than E in languages other than Italian). I think it can be made to do the same with a US keyboard (where the right Alt becomes the AltGr).
Yours is the first claim I’ve seen that using “race” to refer to humans is very offensive. Are you hanging out with people who agree with that, and if so, where?
I don’t think I’ve seen “race” applied to animals—“breed” or “subspecies” is what I’m used to?
This seems to be due to kilobug’s self-reported language mistake. “race” in French actually means what “species” means in English, at least in common usage. I recall this as one of many particularly confusing examples for people learning English as a second language in more academic environments.
This is the first time you’ve seen the claim, expressed as follows?
(2) is obviously true—and is morally positive so long as the first assertion is false. (1) is controversial—but I’ve seen it expressed many times on LW and other places.
Offensiveness relies in the implicit premise that use of the halo effect when the underlying science is faulty is itself irrational / socially hurtful. That’s isomorphic to asserting that the “Noble Lie” is immoral—which I thought was the consensus here.
I agree—I’ve never heard “race” used to categorize animals.
I’ve seen both (1) and (2), but with a tone of “factually wrong” rather than “very offensive”.
I think “landrace” applies to animals, though.
I have quite a bit, but it tends to be in writings from the 19th century or earlier (Darwin, Spencer, etc...).
I’m pretty sure race is a thing. Source?
Agree with all your other points.
EDIT: In fact, race is for humans only. You’re probably thinking of “breed”.
I think SAT could be valuable as an alternative to IQ tests or similar, even if it mostly only applies to those in the US. Having something that gives us some information for those in the US is better than not getting that information from anyone.
Do other major countries have analogues of that, BTW? If so, we could ask similar questions applicable to a couple more countries, such as the UK or Canada.¹ (The closest analogue I can think of in Italy is the score (out of 100) on one’s high-school diploma.)
I’m assuming that LW’s readership is distributed more-or-less like the English Wikipedia’s.
I suspect we have more people from Finland, for example, and fewer from India.
I still guess (probability 70%) that the top three countries will be the US, the UK and Canada in this order.
Bachelor’s / Master’s / Ph. D / MD/JD/other equivalent professional degree is standard in the UK, Australia, etc. as well.
And even though the names may differ, there are obvious equivalents in Italy (and I guess most of Europe) too.
There’s been a standardization process establishing equivalent degrees in pretty much all of Europe.
Indeed. When I’m speaking in English, I normally just refer to the degree I got in 2009 as a Bachelor’s, the degree I got last week as a Master’s, and the one I’ll hopefully get in three years as a PhD, without even mentioning their Italian names unless I have some kind of reason to do that.