This does not addresses my question. The implication is ”… shouldn’t it follow that different races could have different brains—such that these differences are generalizable according to race?” [...] I think this implication was obvious.
In highly politically charged subjects it’s very important to be explicit about your questions and not hiding your meaning in implications of your statements.
But apart from that it’s not clear what the notion of generalizable differences that are not significant is supposed to mean. The standard way you would declare that a difference is generalizable is showing a stastically significant effect.
It’s part of scientific reasoning to make claims that are in principle falsifiable. To do that you actually need to be precise over what you mean.
There are contexts where it’s okay not to practice high standards but if you want to discuss a topic like race differences that’s politcally charged I think you have to practice high standards.
I guess I don’t think that the meaning of my question was hidden in any significant way. This is leads me to interpret your response less as a genuine concern for specificity that lead to constructive criticism, and more as “I don’t like this subject—therefore I will express disagreement with something you did to indicate that.” It feels to me as if you’re avoiding the subject in favor of nitpicking.
I know you knew what the actual question is because you pointed out vagueness. You knew the question you answered [Literally: Do different races have different brains?] was not the question I intended. Regardless, you didn’t attempt to answer the question or really address it at all. Instead, you pointed out a way it could be misinterpreted if someone took the effort to avoid all context and assume I was asking a nonsensical question (which people do not usually do, unless there’s some political-esque intent behind it).
My apologies if you have a genuine concern regarding the specificity of my question—but I implore you to try to answer the actual question, anyway.
This is leads me to interpret your response less as a genuine concern for specificity that lead to constructive criticism, and more as “I don’t like this subject—therefore I will express disagreement with something you did to indicate that.”
The subject of LW is refining the art of human rationality. Telling people to be more precise when discussing political issues is on that subject.
This isn’t reddit and I wouldn’t like LW to become like reddit.
To do that it’s important to defend a certain level of posting quality and speak up when that’s violated.
We have recent discussions about whether to ban political posts. I’m not in favor of banning but I’m in speaking up to have those discussions on a higher quality level.
If you would ask the same question on http://skeptics.stackexchange.com it would be closed as being too vague and to have questions like this on LW without being criticized.
In highly politically charged subjects it’s very important to be explicit about your questions and not hiding your meaning in implications of your statements.
But apart from that it’s not clear what the notion of generalizable differences that are not significant is supposed to mean. The standard way you would declare that a difference is generalizable is showing a stastically significant effect.
It’s part of scientific reasoning to make claims that are in principle falsifiable. To do that you actually need to be precise over what you mean. There are contexts where it’s okay not to practice high standards but if you want to discuss a topic like race differences that’s politcally charged I think you have to practice high standards.
I guess I don’t think that the meaning of my question was hidden in any significant way. This is leads me to interpret your response less as a genuine concern for specificity that lead to constructive criticism, and more as “I don’t like this subject—therefore I will express disagreement with something you did to indicate that.” It feels to me as if you’re avoiding the subject in favor of nitpicking.
I know you knew what the actual question is because you pointed out vagueness. You knew the question you answered [Literally: Do different races have different brains?] was not the question I intended. Regardless, you didn’t attempt to answer the question or really address it at all. Instead, you pointed out a way it could be misinterpreted if someone took the effort to avoid all context and assume I was asking a nonsensical question (which people do not usually do, unless there’s some political-esque intent behind it).
My apologies if you have a genuine concern regarding the specificity of my question—but I implore you to try to answer the actual question, anyway.
The subject of LW is
refining the art of human rationality. Telling people to be more precise when discussing political issues is on that subject.This isn’t reddit and I wouldn’t like LW to become like reddit. To do that it’s important to defend a certain level of posting quality and speak up when that’s violated.
We have recent discussions about whether to ban political posts. I’m not in favor of banning but I’m in speaking up to have those discussions on a higher quality level. If you would ask the same question on http://skeptics.stackexchange.com it would be closed as being too vague and to have questions like this on LW without being criticized.
You do realize that’s a problem with skeptics.stackexchange not with AmagicalFishy’s question.
That’s a matter of perspective/values. I agree with Christian on this one.