The background knowledge for genetic racial intelligence differences
I have been revising a list of arguments for the racial hereditarian theory of intelligence.
Here’s a list of some arguments(?) made by some white folks.
Some people use the correct science for evil ends, and none of us are those people. Beware of the moralistic fallacy. Good people need to know the correct science so they can use it for better ends.
I don’t think overt racists rely to any extent on pseudo science for their ethos. No moralistic fallacy involved, they just hate people of color and anyone whom they view as sympathizers. I can’t think of a circumstance that would elicit from me a description of a “good” racist.
I must commend the Admin/Mod who put this thread in this particular forum; a better fit I cannot imagine. I dare say all of the threads started by you would be equally at home in this forum.
I have been revising a list of arguments for the racial hereditarian theory of intelligence.
Here’s a list of some arguments(?) made by some white folks.
Some people use the correct science for evil ends, and none of us are those people. Beware of the moralistic fallacy. Good people need to know the correct science so they can use it for better ends.
I don’t think overt racists rely to any extent on pseudo science for their ethos. No moralistic fallacy involved, they just hate people of color and anyone whom they view as sympathizers. I can’t think of a circumstance that would elicit from me a description of a “good” racist.
I must commend the Admin/Mod who put this thread in this particular forum; a better fit I cannot imagine. I dare say all of the threads started by you would be equally at home in this forum.
Do you accept both of these two premises, as follows?
(1) A set of beliefs about objective reality can make someone a racist.
(2) Racists are evil no matter what.
I ask because such an affirmation would be an affirmation of the moralistic fallacy, and I think we should be aware of it. We really need to parse out the science from the morals. They are two different domains. Whatever our probability judgments about the objective realities of differential psychologies among groups of people, none of those judgments mean we must hate anyone.
Do you accept both of these two premises, as follows?
How about these?
(1) A set of beliefs can make someone a racist.
(2) Racism is not beneficial no matter what.
Do you accept both of these two premises, as follows?
How about these?
(1) A set of beliefs can make someone a racist.
(2) Racists are not beneficial no matter what.
I am maintaining the distinction between between beliefs about objective reality from beliefs generally, because the moralistic fallacy concerns what causes our beliefs about objective reality. If we decide our beliefs about objective reality for the sake of avoiding evil, then it is the moralistic fallacy. Do you agree?
Here is an expression of the fallacy that builds on your expression of it, and maybe it will be clear:
(1) A set of beliefs about objective reality can be racism.
(2) Racism is not beneficial no matter what.
(3) Therefore, I will not accept such beliefs about objective reality.
Do you accept both of these two premises, as follows?
How about these?
(1) A set of beliefs can make someone a racist.
(2) Racists are not beneficial no matter what.I am maintaining the distinction between between beliefs about objective reality from beliefs generally, because the moralistic fallacy concerns what causes our beliefs about objective reality. If we decide our beliefs about objective reality for the sake of avoiding evil, then it is the moralistic fallacy. Do you agree?
I don’t play the “Do you agree?” game. Mr. Ron can verify.
“Beliefs about objective reality” can be, and in a great many cases are, subjective beliefs not necessarily connected to “objective reality”. Many people claim that the earth is flat. Many people believe that god created all that exists in 6 days, and rested on the 7th. Many people believe that the moon landings were elaborate fakes. Many people believe that the CIA conspired to destroy the twin towers. I could go on, but perhaps you get the picture in that all of these beliefs are loosely based on “objective reality”.
Your pseudoscience is by no means “objective reality”, but definitely is “a set of beliefs”.
Here is an expression of the fallacy that builds on your expression of it, and maybe it will be clear:
(1) A set of beliefs about objective reality can be racism.
(2) Racism is not beneficial no matter what.
(3) Therefore, I will not accept such beliefs about objective reality.
Do you not realize that you are continually hoist by your own petard in consistently referring to “beliefs”?
Perhaps “beliefs” seem to imply something ideological? Let’s replace that word with “conclusions.”
(1) A set of conclusions about objective reality can be racism.
(2) Racism is not beneficial no matter what.
(3) Therefore, I will not accept such conclusions about objective reality.
It may help to further isolate the moralistic fallacy and the dogmatism with this question. Suppose that a claim about objective reality were both racist and demonstrably correct; if so, would you be willing to accept such a claim?
It is a dilemma, but no such dilemma exists with other wrong beliefs, such as flat-Eartherism or young-Earth creationism or moon-landing conspiracism. We strongly believe that the Earth is roughly spherical, and yet such a belief is available to be disproved in light of sufficient evidence. If the Earth cast a long thin shadow on the moon during an eclipse, or if the sun set at the same time all over the world, or if photos from space showed that the Earth is flat, then we would believe that the Earth is flat with little trouble, because moral ideology and dogmatism have nothing to do with it. It is a different situation with scientific racism. Many people in the world, including the people who we most respect as intelligent critical thinkers, explicitly use arguments that are variants of the moralistic fallacy to reject scientific racism. Absolutely no sort of empirical evidence can convince them, regardless of whether scientific racism is wholly correct, partly correct, or wholly incorrect. If scientific racism is incorrect, then we can rightly know it only by abandoning the many popular fallacies.
Your claims are firmly in this camp:
Climate change denial strongly linked to right-wing nationalism
“Scientific Racism” is without legitimate foundation, is rejected by the scientific community at large, and not worth disputing.
Your claims are firmly in this camp:
Climate change denial strongly linked to right-wing nationalism
“Scientific Racism” is without legitimate foundation, is rejected by the scientific community at large, and not worth disputing.
Trusting authorities has its limitations, but often we have no choice, and on this matter about half of the relevant authorities agree with the “racial hereditarian” camp, which you may call the “scientific racist” camp, apparently because the empirical evidence is sufficiently strong. They are not far-right nationalists. They are just academics. See the relevant slide of the presentation by Rindermann, Coyle & Becker, “2013 survey of expert opinion on intelligence.” One way or the other, supposing that we have no idea what the relevant experts think, neither the moralistic fallacy nor dogmatism has any rightful place in our thinking, and I suggest we let go of it. We should not be dogmatic either about that nor about anything else, including climate change (and I agree with you on the matter of climate change).
Your claims are firmly in this camp:
Climate change denial strongly linked to right-wing nationalism
“Scientific Racism” is without legitimate foundation, is rejected by the scientific community at large, and not worth disputing.
Trusting authorities has its limitations, but often we have no choice, and on this matter about half of the relevant authorities agree with the “racial hereditarian” camp, which you may call the “scientific racist” camp, apparently because the empirical evidence is sufficiently strong. They are not far-right nationalists. They are just academics. See the relevant slide of the presentation by Rindermann, Coyle & Becker, “2013 survey of expert opinion on intelligence.” One way or the other, supposing that we have no idea what the relevant experts think, neither the moralistic fallacy nor dogmatism has any rightful place in our thinking, and I suggest we let go of it. We should not be dogmatic either about that nor about anything else, including climate change (and I agree with you on the matter of climate change).
I suggest that your assertion about “half the relevant authorities” is seriously exaggerated.
It seems surprising to outsiders, because the opposing doctrine is universal everywhere else, but my assertion is backed up not only by the cited expert survey but by my own familiarity with the scientific community. For example, the only academic organization for intelligence researchers (the International Society for Intelligence Research) was founded by Arthur Jensen, credited as the greatest proponent of racial hereditarianism. He was and is loved even by his academic opponents within the field. The opponents of racial hereditarianism, in their writing, sometimes call Jensen’s position mainstream, though this may be an exaggeration. The field is about evenly divided.
Excuse me, Arthur Jensen did NOT found the ISIR, as I had previously believed. They merely awarded him a Lifetime Achievement Award.