It implies that people who reject their claims are not being real. I want to be a realist, but I certainly have seen no evidence that any particular race is more likely to commit unscrupulous acts if you control for environment (if that was even possible). It’s a propaganda term, like ‘[my cause] realist.’
This might or might not be so, however, if you suddenly saw strong evidence to the contrary, would you hold the genetically afflicted race in disgust and contempt, treating it as having less moral worth than the more fortunate races? Or would you try to help its members eliminate the unwanted cultural/behavioral differences (without necessarily harming yourself in any way)?
I might subjectively feel like I would. But believing that I would is flattering to me, and the two convictions appear to be quite negatively correlated. And for the great majority of things that fit this pattern, for a great majority of people the subjective feeling would be wrong.
Then I confess that we must be different in this regard: I already believe a weak form of that thing about genetic affliction predisposing its victims for destructive behavior, and because of that I feel more sympathetic to e.g. poor people of African descent who can’t handle modern society, not less.
Well, you already believe it, so you have access to better information!
I suppose I could extrapolate from my intuitions on individual differences: I don’t really care that someone’s genes predispose them to want to do certain things; if they do things because they want to do them, they’re responsible (as long as they remain in the range where they care about other people’s opinions and reactive behaviors.) We’re all determined by our genes and social conditioning, not as external forces but as contributors to who we are; the relevant difference with social influences is whether other people are responsible as well. On the other hand, people aren’t responsible for their abilities, except to the extent that they work to develop them or not. It seems to me that (although my earlier reservations about the validity of self-prediction may apply here) if I learned that the stuff that gets called intelligence was more (less) innate than I thought, I’d be more (less) sympathetic to conspicuous idiocy. If I learned that more (less) of it was regulated (whether genetically, culturally, meteorologically, whatever) by the desire to learn more I’d be less (more) sympathetic. So if e.g. looking at the evidence without preconcieved notions convinced me that Europeans were naturally stupid, I might be more sympathetic, but if it showed they were naturally violent I’d be less—is my guess, anyway.
WHAT? “Subtlety understanding”? You’re over-reading me, I meant no more than I just said; even when I disagree with people who hold your views (alt-right, “racial realists”, etc) in other regards, I’ve always found your line on the racial question mostly solid and decent.
I don’t think the questions even make much sense. We don’t live in the world that we once thought we did, where genotype to phenotype results from DNA->RNA->protein model. The real action is in the switches, which are affected by the environment (and so on).
It implies that people who reject their claims are not being real. I want to be a realist, but I certainly have seen no evidence that any particular race is more likely to commit unscrupulous acts if you control for environment (if that was even possible). It’s a propaganda term, like ‘[my cause] realist.’
Something can be an applause light for some people and be a boo light for others. Look at how “capitalist” and “communist” were used for much of the Cold War. Also, sometimes a word can have content in some circumstances and be an applause light in other contexts. It seems that “realist” may have both issues in play.
The two usages of “real” are slightly different: Race realism is asserting some testable-in-the real-world hypothesis; moral and scientific anti-realism are just arguing about the ontological status of some phenomenon which they otherwise agree about.
I’m not opposed to ever using terms like “realist.” I’m opposed to it as it was used in the main post, where people who agree my views are realists, and people who do not are denialists.
I didn’t interpret the original post that way. “X realist” on this site doesn’t typically mean “person whose views about X are realistic” but rather “person who believes X is a real thing.” In this case, a “race realist” would be someone who believes that there are real, significant differences between races, presumably on a genetic basis. A race anti-realist would be someone who does not believe that. Both of these are categories of positions, into which a variety of different particular viewpoints might fall.
I would expect the implicit opposite of “race realist” to be “race idealist”; i.e. the opposition is roughly between focusing on things as they are, vs. things as they should be.
“Race idealist” sounds so cool to me, I think I’m seriously gonna start using it for self-identification! I’m indeed more interested in how things should be in regards to racial issues, and how we should act to change them, than in the miserable details of our current plight.
(Tangent: Are you a moral anti-realist? If so… how?)
I have been in the past and I still assign a significant (but currently less than 0.5) probability to the proposition. I was actually referring to my stance towards scientific theories, which is heavily influenced by Bas van Fraassen.
What are your moral anti-realist fall back arguments? I ask because I don’t really understand moral anti-realism and would like pointers towards any of the better arguments for it.
Re scientific anti-realism, I’m surprised that van Fraassen’s approach didn’t gain popularity until van Fraassen in 1980; I figured something like it would’ve become the standard position directly following the fall of logical positivism. I don’t understand why it can take decades for certain clearly reasonable, clearly under-represented perspectives to gain any footing in academic philosophy. Is there really a dearth of proponents, or is the Matthew effect very strong, or...? Anyway, Scientific realism seems clearly naive—so I suppose there must arguments in its favor that I’m just not aware of...? Then again I’m really not impressed by the philosophers of mind who make scientific-realist-like arguments, so maybe I shouldn’t expect to like scientifc realist philosophers of science either? (E.g. at first blush I really don’t like the miracle argument.)
To be fair, my understanding of the term is that it’s meant to mean “realism about the existence of races” rather than “realistic views on race;” compare moral, modal, scientific, speculative, Platonic &c. realisms. (And ignore the aesthetic and IR uses of the word, I guess.) So read charitably it’s not the equivalent of Scientology, Factology, &c., at least in that particular sense.
It implies that people who reject their claims are not being real. I want to be a realist, but I certainly have seen no evidence that any particular race is more likely to commit unscrupulous acts if you control for environment (if that was even possible). It’s a propaganda term, like ‘[my cause] realist.’
This might or might not be so, however, if you suddenly saw strong evidence to the contrary, would you hold the genetically afflicted race in disgust and contempt, treating it as having less moral worth than the more fortunate races? Or would you try to help its members eliminate the unwanted cultural/behavioral differences (without necessarily harming yourself in any way)?
I might subjectively feel like I would. But believing that I would is flattering to me, and the two convictions appear to be quite negatively correlated. And for the great majority of things that fit this pattern, for a great majority of people the subjective feeling would be wrong.
Then I confess that we must be different in this regard: I already believe a weak form of that thing about genetic affliction predisposing its victims for destructive behavior, and because of that I feel more sympathetic to e.g. poor people of African descent who can’t handle modern society, not less.
Well, you already believe it, so you have access to better information!
I suppose I could extrapolate from my intuitions on individual differences: I don’t really care that someone’s genes predispose them to want to do certain things; if they do things because they want to do them, they’re responsible (as long as they remain in the range where they care about other people’s opinions and reactive behaviors.) We’re all determined by our genes and social conditioning, not as external forces but as contributors to who we are; the relevant difference with social influences is whether other people are responsible as well. On the other hand, people aren’t responsible for their abilities, except to the extent that they work to develop them or not. It seems to me that (although my earlier reservations about the validity of self-prediction may apply here) if I learned that the stuff that gets called intelligence was more (less) innate than I thought, I’d be more (less) sympathetic to conspicuous idiocy. If I learned that more (less) of it was regulated (whether genetically, culturally, meteorologically, whatever) by the desire to learn more I’d be less (more) sympathetic. So if e.g. looking at the evidence without preconcieved notions convinced me that Europeans were naturally stupid, I might be more sympathetic, but if it showed they were naturally violent I’d be less—is my guess, anyway.
And given that I’m one of those incredibly evil people—what is my attitude towards blacks?
Almost seems like I give a shit about them...
I actually did this video because one of my black subscribers challenged me; I needed to take a stance. He’s in complete agreement, from his comments.
Sure, sure, I believe you. I never played the racism card on any of you HBD people.
I fail at subtelty understanding.
If you read the comments on the video, it’s pretty clear who I’m talking about.
WHAT? “Subtlety understanding”? You’re over-reading me, I meant no more than I just said; even when I disagree with people who hold your views (alt-right, “racial realists”, etc) in other regards, I’ve always found your line on the racial question mostly solid and decent.
I read unintentional sarcasm.
Your response: Appreciated. :)
I’m not a complete bastard!
I don’t think the questions even make much sense. We don’t live in the world that we once thought we did, where genotype to phenotype results from DNA->RNA->protein model. The real action is in the switches, which are affected by the environment (and so on).
If “realism” is just an applause light, then why do people (including me) refer to themselves (non-ironically) as anti-realists (like moral anti-realists or scientific anti-realists)?
Something can be an applause light for some people and be a boo light for others. Look at how “capitalist” and “communist” were used for much of the Cold War. Also, sometimes a word can have content in some circumstances and be an applause light in other contexts. It seems that “realist” may have both issues in play.
The two usages of “real” are slightly different: Race realism is asserting some testable-in-the real-world hypothesis; moral and scientific anti-realism are just arguing about the ontological status of some phenomenon which they otherwise agree about.
I’m not opposed to ever using terms like “realist.” I’m opposed to it as it was used in the main post, where people who agree my views are realists, and people who do not are denialists.
I didn’t interpret the original post that way. “X realist” on this site doesn’t typically mean “person whose views about X are realistic” but rather “person who believes X is a real thing.” In this case, a “race realist” would be someone who believes that there are real, significant differences between races, presumably on a genetic basis. A race anti-realist would be someone who does not believe that. Both of these are categories of positions, into which a variety of different particular viewpoints might fall.
I would expect the implicit opposite of “race realist” to be “race idealist”; i.e. the opposition is roughly between focusing on things as they are, vs. things as they should be.
That’s not what “realist” means in philosophy.
“Race idealist” sounds so cool to me, I think I’m seriously gonna start using it for self-identification! I’m indeed more interested in how things should be in regards to racial issues, and how we should act to change them, than in the miserable details of our current plight.
Still not neutral. Do you think the people who are not “race realists” call themselves “race idealist”?
(Tangent: Are you a moral anti-realist? If so… how?)
I have been in the past and I still assign a significant (but currently less than 0.5) probability to the proposition. I was actually referring to my stance towards scientific theories, which is heavily influenced by Bas van Fraassen.
What are your moral anti-realist fall back arguments? I ask because I don’t really understand moral anti-realism and would like pointers towards any of the better arguments for it.
Re scientific anti-realism, I’m surprised that van Fraassen’s approach didn’t gain popularity until van Fraassen in 1980; I figured something like it would’ve become the standard position directly following the fall of logical positivism. I don’t understand why it can take decades for certain clearly reasonable, clearly under-represented perspectives to gain any footing in academic philosophy. Is there really a dearth of proponents, or is the Matthew effect very strong, or...? Anyway, Scientific realism seems clearly naive—so I suppose there must arguments in its favor that I’m just not aware of...? Then again I’m really not impressed by the philosophers of mind who make scientific-realist-like arguments, so maybe I shouldn’t expect to like scientifc realist philosophers of science either? (E.g. at first blush I really don’t like the miracle argument.)
OMG, you’re serious! Or an epic troll.