Yeah, the “judge people as individuals” is obviously the ideal, but in many scenarios, information is limited, and you have no choice but to make probabilistic judgments based on known relevant data about group averages etc. I get mildly annoyed when people like Murray don’t point this out. I think Nathan is write that there’s too much tiptoeing around obvious truths like this.
Yeah, the “judge people as individuals” is obviously the ideal, but in many scenarios, information is limited, and you have no choice but to make probabilistic judgments based on known relevant data about group averages etc. I get mildly annoyed when people like Murray don’t point this out. I think Nathan is write that there’s too much tiptoeing around obvious truths like this.
I agree. It’s the ideal, but sometimes we have to stereotype. Still one should not overdo it and be compassionate about it. For example I would try to be extremely careful about assuming black people or women at professional events are staff; they are more likely than the base rate but a false positive is awkward and offensive. Of course in life or death situations are different.
As a man I have no problem with women being more scared of men at night based on statistical truths about men and crime, but the idea that upper-class women are in constant danger from upper-clsss men because every man is a potential rapist is absurd and offensive.
I feel that many hereditarians are GLEEFUL at the lower IQ of blacks. I understand the joy of discovering something suppressed, I understand the anger at Kendi types and so on. I understand that politically it's good for fighting the wokes. But no, it's not really a good thing, I wish it weren't so, of course I would wave a wand to increase the average Black IQ to 100. Who wouldn't?
Yeah I’m pretty much a basic bitch normiecon from the 90s, so I actually think colorblindness and the MLK quote are pretty noble goals, and eugenics is a great evil.
That said, I’m perfectly happy to discuss the heritability of IQ and the group averages, but I also detect a certain GLEE at the topic from many. And also an assumption that “low IQ = low morals and high crime”, which is insulting to all the non criminal stupid people.
Do you support polygenic embryo selection and "liberal eugenics"?
I agree with you with that the caveat that I support liberal “eugenics”, like selecting for intelligence and health in IVF. I don’t want the government to forcibly sterilize people for being “imbeciles” or anything like that.
no, as a basic bitch normiecon, I'm extremely pro-life. All humans have equal rights, dignity, and value, from conception. Eugenic choices are made before breeding occurs, not after
if God (or nature, if you prefer) sees fit to have an unfit child miscarry, so be it. If they are born, so be it.
Yeah, the “judge people as individuals” is obviously the ideal, but in many scenarios, information is limited, and you have no choice but to make probabilistic judgments based on known relevant data about group averages etc. I get mildly annoyed when people like Murray don’t point this out. I think Nathan is write that there’s too much tiptoeing around obvious truths like this.
I agree. It’s the ideal, but sometimes we have to stereotype. Still one should not overdo it and be compassionate about it. For example I would try to be extremely careful about assuming black people or women at professional events are staff; they are more likely than the base rate but a false positive is awkward and offensive. Of course in life or death situations are different.
As a man I have no problem with women being more scared of men at night based on statistical truths about men and crime, but the idea that upper-class women are in constant danger from upper-clsss men because every man is a potential rapist is absurd and offensive.
I feel that many hereditarians are GLEEFUL at the lower IQ of blacks. I understand the joy of discovering something suppressed, I understand the anger at Kendi types and so on. I understand that politically it's good for fighting the wokes. But no, it's not really a good thing, I wish it weren't so, of course I would wave a wand to increase the average Black IQ to 100. Who wouldn't?
Yeah I’m pretty much a basic bitch normiecon from the 90s, so I actually think colorblindness and the MLK quote are pretty noble goals, and eugenics is a great evil.
That said, I’m perfectly happy to discuss the heritability of IQ and the group averages, but I also detect a certain GLEE at the topic from many. And also an assumption that “low IQ = low morals and high crime”, which is insulting to all the non criminal stupid people.
Do you support polygenic embryo selection and "liberal eugenics"?
I agree with you with that the caveat that I support liberal “eugenics”, like selecting for intelligence and health in IVF. I don’t want the government to forcibly sterilize people for being “imbeciles” or anything like that.
just saw this comment
no, as a basic bitch normiecon, I'm extremely pro-life. All humans have equal rights, dignity, and value, from conception. Eugenic choices are made before breeding occurs, not after
if God (or nature, if you prefer) sees fit to have an unfit child miscarry, so be it. If they are born, so be it.