The New York Times which serves intellectuals who want to inform themselves about the world
It doesn’t serve people who are interested in debates going on online, within academia, or within the scientific community. Not very well at least.
The term “HBD” I think has popped up mostly recently to refer to a collection of ideas, mostly surrounding the idea of genetic determinism or related issues. I am not sure if it has ever referred to anything else or if there used to be other terms to describe those issues. From the way I understand most of the conversations about it, it’s usually used in the context of the heritability of intelligence or IQ.
This is an important topic, and definitely not something that will always be constrained to “tiny internet bubbles” like Scott’s blog. It has huge repercussions for how we discuss things like education, income inequality, employment, etc. If the fights over this topic really were constrained to internet subcultures, you wouldn’t see violent riots popping up at various universities throughout America in response to speakers wanting to present their case for it, or the SPLC claiming that people like Charles Murray are white nationalists when that’s not really the case.
The fact that this issue is so core to social debate is precisely why it incites negative emotions and why people tend to immediately move to absolute certainty over it one way or the other.
It doesn’t serve people who are interested in debates going on online,
Online debates are driven by filter bubbles. It’s a mistake to assume that the conflict in your own filter bubble reflects the core underlying social conflict of the US.
Especially if it isn’t newsworthy enough for a New York Times journalist to explain to his readers what the conflict is even about, so that his readers understand what the phrase is supposed to mean.
The term “HBD” I think has popped up mostly recently to refer to a collection of ideas, mostly surrounding the idea of genetic determinism or related issues.
Scott didn’t ban any of the collection of ideas but the term itself: “I am banning the terms “human biodiversity” and “hbd” – this doesn’t necessarily mean banning all discussion of those topics, but it should force people to concentrate on particular claims rather than make sweeping culture-war-ish declarations about the philosophy as a whole. ”
You can discuss specific claims in that field on this blog.
you wouldn’t see violent riots popping up at various universities throughout America in response to speakers wanting to present their case for it
There’s a conflict but the conflict isn’t about “human biodiversity” and some of the protestors might not even know what the phrase means.
Peter Singer got his speech squelched for ableism even when we agree that disabled people are per definition biologically different. People on the left don’t deny human biodiversity on that point.
It doesn’t serve people who are interested in debates going on online, within academia, or within the scientific community. Not very well at least.
Which specific debates within the scientific community are held under the label of human biodiversity?
If I type “human biodiversity” into Google Scholar most of the papers aren’t recent. The first recent paper I find is “Human Biodiversity Conservation: A Consensual Ethical Principle”. It’s about the case for conserving human disability.
That’s not the kind of writing that was found at Scott’s comment section.
Especially if it isn’t newsworthy enough for a New York Times journalist to explain to his readers what the conflict is even about, so that his readers understand what the phrase is supposed to mean.
There has been a lot of important events that New York Times journalists didn’t see fit to explain to their readers. The failure of Soviet collective agriculture is probably the most infamous historical example.
Scott didn’t ban any of the collection of ideas but the term itself: “I am banning the terms “human biodiversity” and “hbd” – this doesn’t necessarily mean banning all discussion of those topics, but it should force people to concentrate on particular claims rather than make sweeping culture-war-ish declarations about the philosophy as a whole. ”
Imagine trying to discuss the history of life on a forum that bans the term “evolution”.
There has been a lot of important events that New York Times journalists didn’t see fit to explain to their readers. The failure of Soviet collective agriculture is probably the most infamous historical example.
The failure of Soviet agriculture wasn’t very salient to Americans. If a topic would be the center of a culture war in the US they would notice and in today’s traffic driven times feel like it’s a good idea to write an article that ranks decently on the keyword.
The US culture war isn’t secular in nature. Many people on the right care about issues like the War on Christmas even when the kind of people in online discussions like Scott’s log don’t.
In other matters, was there a single time Trump uttered the words human biodiversity? He did have some pollsters who tried to understand what the US Republican public cares about.
Imagine trying to discuss the history of life on a forum that bans the term “evolution”.
Getting people to say natural selection instead of evolution has its benefits given that plenty of people think the terms are interchangeable and use the term wrongly.
Additionally, Scott blog isn’t a forum for discussing US culture wars. It isn’t even forum in the first place but the blog of a person who wants to be employed in an industry that doesn’t happen to be anti-fragile.
The failure of Soviet agriculture wasn’t very salient to Americans.
Yes it was. The “success” of Soviet collectivization compared to the apparent failure of capitalism was being used as an argument to justify leftwing/collectivist economic policies.
If a topic would be the center of a culture war in the US they would notice and in today’s traffic driven times feel like it’s a good idea to write an article that ranks decently on the keyword.
The NYT isn’t going to publish an article that would offend the world view of it’s liberal readers. Any description of HBD that conceptualizes it as an empirical scientific hypothesis that could be tested and potentially confirmed would certainly fit the bill.
So in the space of two comments you’ve gone from arguing:
Scott didn’t ban any of the collection of ideas but the term itself: “I am banning the terms “human biodiversity” and “hbd” – this doesn’t necessarily mean banning all discussion of those topics, but it should force people to concentrate on particular claims rather than make sweeping culture-war-ish declarations about the philosophy as a whole. ”
to justifying Scott’s decision by saying:
Additionally, Scott blog isn’t a forum for discussing US culture wars.
This looks like a straightforward example of what Eliezer calls logical rudeness.
It doesn’t serve people who are interested in debates going on online, within academia, or within the scientific community. Not very well at least.
The term “HBD” I think has popped up mostly recently to refer to a collection of ideas, mostly surrounding the idea of genetic determinism or related issues. I am not sure if it has ever referred to anything else or if there used to be other terms to describe those issues. From the way I understand most of the conversations about it, it’s usually used in the context of the heritability of intelligence or IQ.
This is an important topic, and definitely not something that will always be constrained to “tiny internet bubbles” like Scott’s blog. It has huge repercussions for how we discuss things like education, income inequality, employment, etc. If the fights over this topic really were constrained to internet subcultures, you wouldn’t see violent riots popping up at various universities throughout America in response to speakers wanting to present their case for it, or the SPLC claiming that people like Charles Murray are white nationalists when that’s not really the case.
The fact that this issue is so core to social debate is precisely why it incites negative emotions and why people tend to immediately move to absolute certainty over it one way or the other.
Online debates are driven by filter bubbles. It’s a mistake to assume that the conflict in your own filter bubble reflects the core underlying social conflict of the US.
Especially if it isn’t newsworthy enough for a New York Times journalist to explain to his readers what the conflict is even about, so that his readers understand what the phrase is supposed to mean.
Scott didn’t ban any of the collection of ideas but the term itself: “I am banning the terms “human biodiversity” and “hbd” – this doesn’t necessarily mean banning all discussion of those topics, but it should force people to concentrate on particular claims rather than make sweeping culture-war-ish declarations about the philosophy as a whole. ”
You can discuss specific claims in that field on this blog.
There’s a conflict but the conflict isn’t about “human biodiversity” and some of the protestors might not even know what the phrase means.
Peter Singer got his speech squelched for ableism even when we agree that disabled people are per definition biologically different. People on the left don’t deny human biodiversity on that point.
Which specific debates within the scientific community are held under the label of human biodiversity? If I type “human biodiversity” into Google Scholar most of the papers aren’t recent. The first recent paper I find is “Human Biodiversity Conservation: A Consensual Ethical Principle”. It’s about the case for conserving human disability. That’s not the kind of writing that was found at Scott’s comment section.
There has been a lot of important events that New York Times journalists didn’t see fit to explain to their readers. The failure of Soviet collective agriculture is probably the most infamous historical example.
Imagine trying to discuss the history of life on a forum that bans the term “evolution”.
The failure of Soviet agriculture wasn’t very salient to Americans. If a topic would be the center of a culture war in the US they would notice and in today’s traffic driven times feel like it’s a good idea to write an article that ranks decently on the keyword.
The US culture war isn’t secular in nature. Many people on the right care about issues like the War on Christmas even when the kind of people in online discussions like Scott’s log don’t.
In other matters, was there a single time Trump uttered the words human biodiversity? He did have some pollsters who tried to understand what the US Republican public cares about.
Getting people to say natural selection instead of evolution has its benefits given that plenty of people think the terms are interchangeable and use the term wrongly. Additionally, Scott blog isn’t a forum for discussing US culture wars. It isn’t even forum in the first place but the blog of a person who wants to be employed in an industry that doesn’t happen to be anti-fragile.
Yes it was. The “success” of Soviet collectivization compared to the apparent failure of capitalism was being used as an argument to justify leftwing/collectivist economic policies.
The NYT isn’t going to publish an article that would offend the world view of it’s liberal readers. Any description of HBD that conceptualizes it as an empirical scientific hypothesis that could be tested and potentially confirmed would certainly fit the bill.
So in the space of two comments you’ve gone from arguing:
to justifying Scott’s decision by saying:
This looks like a straightforward example of what Eliezer calls logical rudeness.