But even aside from that, if it’s personal, we’re talking about one job and one high IQ person.
No, you’re talking about jobs.
I’m not. I’m talking about society as a whole. Hence “societal organization.” You’re free to have the conversation about jobs with somebody who cares to engage you on it, however.
But we’re not going to restrict voting rights based on IQ, because that’s not the discussion. No, we’re going to restrict voting rights based on how we partition you into groups (you don’t get to decide what group you belong to, incidentally, we decide that as well).
I’ve decided you belong to the “racist” group, and are therefore part of a group whose average IQ falls below our minimum IQ. Sorry, you’re not allowed to vote.
You don’t think that grouping is fair? Indeed, you never made any racist arguments at all here, and only made an unrelated point about in-group bias and that it might just be a good thing? Well, you’re not in my group, and I prefer to favor myself and my group, so it doesn’t really matter how I classify you, the important thing to me is that I classify you as a lower-ranked “other”, the specifics of which don’t really matter as long as I have relative advantage over you in the classification.
I mean, you were arguing this is a useful way to behave. So why shouldn’t I behave this way?
I don’t think the post you were replying to was saying that we should restrict voting rights based on either IQ or group partitions that are correlated with IQ (or at all, for that matter).
No, you’re talking about jobs.
I’m not. I’m talking about society as a whole. Hence “societal organization.” You’re free to have the conversation about jobs with somebody who cares to engage you on it, however.
Jobs are a well known example of things we think society should be organized to regulate. If you have something else in mind, feel free to suggest it.
Okay. Voting rights.
But we’re not going to restrict voting rights based on IQ, because that’s not the discussion. No, we’re going to restrict voting rights based on how we partition you into groups (you don’t get to decide what group you belong to, incidentally, we decide that as well).
I’ve decided you belong to the “racist” group, and are therefore part of a group whose average IQ falls below our minimum IQ. Sorry, you’re not allowed to vote.
You don’t think that grouping is fair? Indeed, you never made any racist arguments at all here, and only made an unrelated point about in-group bias and that it might just be a good thing? Well, you’re not in my group, and I prefer to favor myself and my group, so it doesn’t really matter how I classify you, the important thing to me is that I classify you as a lower-ranked “other”, the specifics of which don’t really matter as long as I have relative advantage over you in the classification.
I mean, you were arguing this is a useful way to behave. So why shouldn’t I behave this way?
I don’t think the post you were replying to was saying that we should restrict voting rights based on either IQ or group partitions that are correlated with IQ (or at all, for that matter).
It didn’t say we should do anything at all.