|
hackbunny posted:Look, Trump supporters are incredibly sheltered and averse to debate. Like, to an unreasonable degree, excessively, fully through the looking glass. They are total contrarians in the best case, and unreachable without protective equipment. Non-Trump supporters (which Trump supporters demonize to a degree way, way beyond mean feefee-hurting words) are under no obligation to them whatsoever, they should look at their own people and their needs instead We don't even need to win Trump supporters specifically - Trump got roughly the same voters that Romney did, we lost because turnout was low and Hillary didn't get the same numbers of voters that Obama was able to energize (also because of voter suppression shenanigans but nobody wants to acknowledge that right now so whatever). I agree that the left probably needs to be less smug and dismissive since up until now the tactics have basically just been "we're obviously morally right and the rest of the world sees that so all we have to do is keep on truckin'" though
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 20:47 |
|
|
Cingulate posted:I don't know if you've ever read actual Scientology manuals, but they read exactly like that. I don't really mind the actual content - this is something I try to do myself. Hell, Socrates tried to do it all the time. But the way it's phrased screams "DIANETICS: THE SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH" to me. Oh man I love scientology ideas, EIT did a supercut of one of their videos (that I can't seem to find now but whatever) and it kept focusing on this incredibly simple sounding but totally meaningless concept about "cycles" that they played up to sound like it was some super deep truth to the universe. "Everything is cycles, let's observe: say you want to get the newspaper. First, you walk towards the curb. Then you pick up the newspaper. Then you return to your house. The cycle is complete."
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
hackbunny posted:Look, Trump supporters are incredibly sheltered and averse to debate. Like, to an unreasonable degree, excessively, fully through the looking glass. They are total contrarians in the best case, and unreachable without protective equipment. Non-Trump supporters (which Trump supporters demonize to a degree way, way beyond mean feefee-hurting words) are under no obligation to them whatsoever, they should look at their own people and their needs instead "But I still can't debate with them!" I know you are incapable of doing that, and that's a problem, and you're not even trying to solve it. Worse: in here, you're actively entrenching those aspects of your personality that make you incapable of doing that. ate all the Oreos posted:We don't even need to win Trump supporters specifically - Trump got roughly the same voters that Romney did, we lost because turnout was low and Hillary didn't get the same numbers of voters that Obama was able to energize (also because of voter suppression shenanigans but nobody wants to acknowledge that right now so whatever). I agree that the left probably needs to be less smug and dismissive since up until now the tactics have basically just been "we're obviously morally right and the rest of the world sees that so all we have to do is keep on truckin'" though I want to be surrounded by people whose value sets I can at least feel moderately comfortable with. The thought of a Clinton presidency where you know it might just as well have turned out differently, and 45% of the population is foaming at the mouth in barely contained rage, is still very scary. They won't simply go away, or stop being what they are. They're citizens, and human beings, and over one hundred million people. They can't be "the enemy". If they're the enemy, it's game over. They can't be beaten - not in the sense that it'd be impossible to beat them, but in the sense that beating them makes you worse than them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
Guys, we just need to come to embrace literal Nazis with love and understanding and everything will turn out just fine. Why can't you all see that?!
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
tbf he's German. I mean, it worked the first time, for very specific values of worked.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
divabot posted:Those posts are by Anna Salamon, who originated "eight lives saved per dollar donated" at SIAI as it was. (Original phrasing: "You can divide it up, per half day of time, something like 800 lives. Per $100 of funding, also something like 800 lives.") Cingulate posted:I don't know if you've ever read actual Scientology manuals, but they read exactly like that. I don't really mind the actual content - this is something I try to do myself. Hell, Socrates tried to do it all the time. But the way it's phrased screams "DIANETICS: THE SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH" to me. Could either of you go into a little more detail about this? I have no experience with cults so it all just reads as bloated and tedious to me rather than somehow sinister.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
Compare http://www.scientology.org/faq/background-and-basic-principles/what-is-the-mind.html http://rationality.org/resources/updates/2016/double-crux What's striking to me (I'm obviously not a cult expert): * secret language, inside basketball terms. Compare: CFAR posted:Double crux is one of CFAR’s newer concepts, and one that’s forced a re-examination and refactoring of a lot of our curriculum (in the same way that the introduction of TAPs and Inner Simulator did previously). It rapidly became a part of our organizational social fabric, and is one of our highest-EV threads for outreach and dissemination, so it’s long overdue for a public, formal explanation. I thought I knew what focusing is, but here it's one of many "resonance checks", whatever that is ... Scientology posted:A person trained and qualified to better individuals through auditing is called an auditor. Auditor is defined as “one who listens,” from the Latin audire, meaning “to hear or listen.” An auditor is a minister or minister-in-training of the Church of Scientology. * new antrophology, a novel understanding of Man - a story about You where you're not just a stupid meat machine like the rest of the sheeple, but a spiritual thought being, like the energy things on Star Trek CFAR posted:To a first approximation, a human can be thought of as a black box that takes in data from its environment, and outputs beliefs and behaviors (that black box isn’t really “opaque” given that we do have access to a lot of what’s going on inside of it, but our understanding of our own cognition seems uncontroversially incomplete). Scientology posted:The mind is basically a communication and control system between the thetan—the spiritual being that is the person himself—and his environment. It is composed of mental image pictures which are recordings of past experiences. * a promise to unlock a better, purer you by learning the inside techniques and secret concepts CFAR posted:We think double crux is super sweet. To the extent that you see flaws in it, we want to find them and repair them, and we’re currently betting that repairing and refining double crux is going to pay off better than try something totally different. In particular, we believe that embracing the spirit of this mental move has huge potential for unlocking people’s abilities to wrestle with all sorts of complex and heavy hard-to-parse topics (like existential risk, for instance), because it provides a format for holding a bunch of partly-wrong models at the same time while you distill the value out of each. Scientology posted:The goal of Operating Thetan is to overcome the travails of existence and regain the certainty and abilities of one’s native spiritual beingness. At this level one knows that they are separate and apart from such material things as physical form or the physical universe. Do you see what I mean? E: also a preoccupation with "outreach" - missionary work and indoctrination of novel recruits so they can join, and pay for, your courses. E2: http://rationality.org/workshops/upcoming Four Thousand Dollars. Also compare these two: http://rationality.org/resources/rationality-checklist http://www.oxfordcapacityanalysis.org/questions.html It's both times a long list of questions that make you doubt yourself. It's just "do you sometimes do the human think, instead of the perfect thing?" Tens and hundreds of questions like that. And at the end, they offer you a course to fix you. Cause, you know. You're broken, and need to be fixed. With one of our E3: haha, I kept calling them CIFAR, which is the famous AI vision competition that launched deep learning. Relevant Tangent posted:tbf he's German. I mean, it worked the first time, for very specific values of worked. vvv Now imagine how pissed off I am at you guys! vvv Cingulate has a new favorite as of 00:28 on Dec 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Donald Trump is your president-elect. Gooooooooooooooooooooooo gently caress yourself
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Donald Trump is your president-elect. No, actually, he isn't; my Prime Minister is Justin Trudeau. If you're going to keep announcing it to the thread, at least remember there are non-Americans reading it. (Yes, I am aware that a lot of the Dark Enlightenment people are American and integrated with American politics. It's not exclusive, though, and the first time you brought that up was in a post about AI.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
Prism posted:No, actually, he isn't; my Prime Minister is Justin Trudeau. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Donald Trump is your president-elect. 60 million (?) people voted for him. He has the finger on the button for the bomb. "You can't debate with them" is a suicidal statement. Worse, a murderous statement, cause you might end up taking the rest of the world down with you. (Us Europeans have a similar thing with anti-immigrant sentiments and the dissolution of the EU of course.) 45% of the country is not foaming at the mouth white nationalists just waiting for their chance to murder all the darkies. Most of the people who voted for trump are people like my evangelical uncle, who is completely fine with big gay me and my big trans lover existing yet can't really connect that to "maybe I should vote for the person who doesn't want them lined up against the wall and shot." He's a pretty standard republican who genuinely believes he's voting against transpeople because of bathroom rapists or voting for voter ID laws because voting fraud is a genuine problem. The (much smaller) amount of actual chomping at the bit white nationalists have managed to corral the republican party into thinking they represent everyone but even that is rapidly falling apart as trump alienates more and more people. Construing the entirety of the republican party as homogenous and equal to Trump supporters is really naive. So what should we do? Frankly I think if we try to argue back against the trump supporters directly we're legitimizing them in the minds of all the milquetoast republicans like my uncle - "hey look the liberals really hate these guys so I better rally round them and protect them since we gotta stick together!" Trump will undoubtably gently caress himself so publicly that even a majority of republicans will come to hate him (hell look at what he's done so far and he's not even president yet), and he will do this entirely by himself, and all the white nationalist hatred that has tied itself to him will be taken down with him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
ate all the Oreos posted:45% of the country is not foaming at the mouth white nationalists just waiting for their chance to murder all the darkies. Most of the people who voted for trump are people like my evangelical uncle, who is completely fine with big gay me and my big trans lover existing yet can't really connect that to "maybe I should vote for the person who doesn't want them lined up against the wall and shot." He's a pretty standard republican who genuinely believes he's voting against transpeople because of bathroom rapists or voting for voter ID laws because voting fraud is a genuine problem. The (much smaller) amount of actual chomping at the bit white nationalists have managed to corral the republican party into thinking they represent everyone but even that is rapidly falling apart as trump alienates more and more people. Construing the entirety of the republican party as homogenous and equal to Trump supporters is really naive. My impression is however that most people talk, and think and act, very unlike what you're doing here. ate all the Oreos posted:So what should we do? Sorry divabot, I'll really try to shut up about this now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:That sounds perfect to me. If everyone talked this nuanced about this as you're doing here about that half of your country, I wouldn't be so miffed. You're impression is also very limited, but having almost no first-hand experience hasn't stopped you from running your mouth and acting like an expert before.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
I have a hypothesis, but I don't if I can articulate it clearly enough for now. It relates to my experiences over the past year, my awakening process. It seems like meta-(meta)-contrarians are always the ones driving forward the progress of the world. Without Scott Adams's blog, I don't think I would have had the courage of daring to express my meta-contrarian views. And without Trump, I don't think Adams would have written about all the topics regarding rationality he wrote this year. And without Adams, many people like me would have never found out about Scott Alexander, who's blog was linked to from his blog. I still don't have a clear opinion on anyone's policies, but I see this meta picture of a ton of new meta-contrarians coming out of the closet due to Trump. It's the so-called "red pill". The first step is libertarianism, but then if you take a step further, you realize that people who only dogmatically nag about the NAP are stupid. Then you take that a step further and realize that Mencius Moldbug is way smarter than your typical anarcho-capitalist. And then you take it another step further and realize that Scott Alexander and The Yud have many good points against Moldbug. I think meta-contrarians just naturally gravitate towards the most intelligent arguments they can find for anything and move on quickly to update their mental models as soon as they discover new information that better represents reality. And this is also connected to a sense of aesthetic appreciation for the dankest memes and this group is the closest I've encountered to the Dankularity so far. But I question if I would have ever arrived here if it weren't for Scott Adams's analysis of Trump, and I think the same would apply to many other people for years to come. I have a corollary to Adams's Law of Slow Moving Disasters and this kinda fits Moldbug's theories as well, but I believe that it's beneficial to Effective Altruism. In a few years, the current "liberals" will become the "conservatives". The current "libertarians" will become the new "liberals". The current Moldbuggians would become the new "libertarians". Not literally, but rather the sentiments and social signaling among people who think that they are smart. This would make Effective Altruism the next fad among edgy meta-contrarians. All the people who become bored of the Alt Right memes over the next few years will be seeking danker memes and stumble upon Effective Altruism. If Trump had lost the election, I think the duration of the Alt Right fad at the meta-contrarian cutting edge would have been much longer and many people would be pondering "what if" rather than moving on the next thing is that newer and better. This is why I believe that it was a good thing that Trump was elected president but we should do every to minimize any potential damage he could cause. There's a function we need to maximize: the number of meta-contrarians who are aware of more rationally directed philosophy. Without some big crazy event where people can notice contradictions in their mental models, people get stuck in the ideology that they think is the smartest. Key examples are the cult followings around Sam Harris and Stefan Molyneux, who both think themselves as at the epitome of logical thought. I've read Superforecasting and Nassim Taleb's stuff earlier this year and have always hated Spock-like rationality. The Yud has the best critique of Spock-like rationality and explanation of a less wrong way to define rationality that I've ever seen. This is helping with my transition from rebellion against Spock-IYIs to the next more optimal step. It's a difficult step to take for the ego to move from hating on people who rely too much on System 2 thinking and terrible system 1 skills to consciously optimizing the balance of the two. There needs to be something crazy that happens, like Trump, to break smart people who are open to new and better ideas out of their mental boxes. Now, back to Adams's Law of Slow Moving Disasters: I believe that Trump is a Slow Moving Disaster that we can now easily prevent now that we have broken more people out of their mental boxes. Had he not been elected, there would have been a crazy pressure cooker effect that would have been much harder to prevent. After the initial romance fades in a few more months, smart people will stop supporting him just for the sake of being edgy meta-contrarians and hate him like any other politician. That will be the optimal time to drive them towards Effective Altruism with Dank Meme Marketing strategies that maximize the turn-over flow rate. I think I'm the first of that wave and many more like me will follow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:That sounds perfect to me. If everyone talked this nuanced about this as you're doing here about that half of your country, I wouldn't be so miffed. Less than 20% of the states population voted for Trump. Saying that half the country did is a grave disservice to children that may have to grow up under his regime, people who lost their right to vote like prisoners and people who were unable to vote due to voter suppression measures enacted by the GOP. Additionally, Hillary won the popular vote by a huge margin and Trump would have lost had 39,000 of his voters swung for Hillary instead. He has the weakest presidential mandate of all time and characterizing his voters as representative of half of americans is outright wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
Improbable Lobster posted:Less than 20% of the states population voted for Trump. Saying that half the country did is a grave disservice to children that may have to grow up under his regime, people who lost their right to vote like prisoners and people who were unable to vote due to voter suppression measures enacted by the GOP. Additionally, Hillary won the popular vote by a huge margin and Trump would have lost had 39,000 of his voters swung for Hillary instead. He has the weakest presidential mandate of all time and characterizing his voters as representative of half of americans is outright wrong. But according to forums poster Cingulate, we're the ones who are wrong, because Trump won, and we need to reexamine our beliefs because we hold them and we're wrong, because Trump won.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
eschaton posted:But according to forums poster Cingulate, we're the ones who are wrong, because Trump won, and we need to reexamine our beliefs because we hold them and we're wrong, because Trump won. Because we are the ones living in a bubble and not him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 03:55
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Because we are the ones living in a bubble and not him. And Trump is the president-elect, has anyone pointed that out at all in this thread yet ever
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
Holy poo poo shut the gently caress up about things that aren't hilarious DE internet postings.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 04:06
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Holy poo poo shut the gently caress up about things that aren't hilarious DE internet postings. I'm the implication that the shrinking middle class is solely due to taxes I'm also the implication that affirmative action is targeted towards immigrants for some reason I mean i guess blacks are sort of involuntary immigrants?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
ate all the Oreos posted:I'm the implication that the shrinking middle class is solely due to taxes Also, I'm the Positivist crisis and I'm entirely due to the frankfurt school, not at all related to the nazis murdering Moritz von Schlick, Karl Popper developing falsificationism and fallibilism, or the fact that relativity and quantum theory are really weird. It's me, I'm the reason CERN never was funded.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 11:41
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:What does a plot of upper tax bracket limits vs. middle class share of wealth look like? Crossed sabers? Pretty sure it's a low straight line that suddenly shoots upwards once you get to 95% upper bracket.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 12:01
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Donald Trump is your president-elect. 60 million (?) people voted for him. He has the finger on the button for the bomb. "You can't debate with them" is a suicidal statement. Worse, a murderous statement, cause you might end up taking the rest of the world down with you. (Us Europeans have a similar thing with anti-immigrant sentiments and the dissolution of the EU of course.) Did you notice my use of the third person plural? I'm not American (I'm also one of the people everyone is eager to throw under the bus). But sure, go ahead and read "their" news sources. Try to reason with the people posting a Facebook status a minute and who literally talk in slogans. We've always rightly ridiculed them, but apparently now that they're on social network platforms, they're suddenly worthy of consideration
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 12:07
|
|
|
Sour Kraut relishes argument.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 12:14
|
|
|
hackbunny posted:Did you notice my use of the third person plural? I'm not American (I'm also one of the people everyone is eager to throw under the bus). But sure, go ahead and read "their" news sources. Try to reason with the people posting a Facebook status a minute and who literally talk in slogans. We've always rightly ridiculed them, but apparently now that they're on social network platforms, they're suddenly worthy of consideration Yeah and being fair you have the worst of it since the 5SM are officially the biggest progenitors of fake news in Europe. Kinda hard to argue with such people in good faith.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 12:28
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Pretty sure it's a low straight line that suddenly shoots upwards once you get to 95% upper bracket.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 12:51
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I meant over time. Oh, then it shows it rising and then the graph makes a Reagan-shaped blotch before middle class share of wealth plummets and never ever recovers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 12:55
|
|
|
HURR DURR look at this funny video i made were i stick it to those ess jay doubley00s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqAQShwN9tY this entire youtube channel is some sort of bizarre chimera of  and  edit: ANNND it turns out its yet another UK dork with reactionary opinions what the gently caress is going on with the UK's nerd population? Did they all just wake up one day and decided women and minorities are scary? BornAPoorBlkChild has a new favorite as of 15:46 on Dec 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Oh, then it shows it rising and then the graph makes a Reagan-shaped blotch before middle class share of wealth plummets and never ever recovers.  (Entirely fake data)
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Ha, I meant something like this. No no no the Y axis needs to be in units of dollar sign 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
Relevant Tangent posted:Sour Kraut relishes argument. It doesn't cut the mustard
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
Race Realists posted:what the gently caress is going on with the UK's nerd population? Did they all just wake up one day and decided women and minorities are scary? Our highest-circulation newspaper is owned by the son of a nazi, the second biggest is run by Murdoch and makes Fox News look centrist, and the rest are hardly much better. The only papers that reliably avoid slobbering far-right teat also happen to have a readership of about 3% of the country in total at best. Basically the only voices that aren't screaming racial epithets are too quiet to be heard. Cingulate posted:Ha, I meant something like this. Maybe it's just me but I'm pretty sure you can't plot all three things on a two dimensional graph? Is that the joke? I mean ate all the Oreos's graph shows two different lines showing different rates, not plotting rate vs. distribution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Maybe it's just me but I'm pretty sure you can't plot all three things on a two dimensional graph? Is that the joke? I mean ate all the Oreos's graph shows two different lines showing different rates, not plotting rate vs. distribution. I'm pretty sure the chart is a joke but even if you charted that right with two different Y axes it would come out about the same
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
ate all the Oreos posted:I'm pretty sure the chart is a joke but even if you charted that right with two different Y axes it would come out about the same But surely the effect on middle-class income is directly related to upper-tax bracket amount? If the latter goes down we should see the former go down too as it fails to counter income disparity due to lowering of taxation?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Maybe it's just me but I'm pretty sure you can't plot all three things on a two dimensional graph? Is that the joke? I mean ate all the Oreos's graph shows two different lines showing different rates, not plotting rate vs. distribution. Plotting wise, all of these make total sense. (Although for a really common confound, if the x axis really is time, you obviously need to somehow check if you're just observing a time effect) The point is, if you correlate tax load and middle class wealth [share] over any dimension, such as time, you either get a positive or a negative number.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Plotting two (or more) time series with different y axes isn't problematic. See http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations Oh you mean a simple plot of what the rate was vs. the distribution subsequent. Right. I thought you wanted a graph that plots the distribution over time for all possible values of upper-bracket rate - which would require a different style of graph. For all intents and purposes yes, crossed sabres, but laggier.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I thought you wanted a graph that plots the distribution over time for all possible values of upper-bracket rate - which would require a different style of graph. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
Trap set and sprungCingulate posted:Plotting two (or more) time series with different y axes isn't problematic. See http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations rthur Jensen, the preeminent psychologist, has died at the age of 89. This is a great loss. When I was a young sprite, I would from time to time come across the name "Arthur Jensen" in popular press commentaries and in textbooks. Had I never read further, I would have held to the impression that this tenured psychologist was an outlier among scholars, if not an outright racist crank. Jensen's research concerning racial differences in cognitive ability was invariably characterized as having been thoroughly "discredited," and the term "Jensenism" was invoked as a watchword to illustrate the dangers that must be taken seriously when the mantle of science -- ahem, "pseudoscience" -- is leveraged to justify inegalitarian social policies. This was back when the specter of Nazism was deployed with nary a wink, and if you had questions you were referred to that Stephen Jay Gould book. It was only when I read Steven Goldberg's When Wish Replaces Thought that I began to nurse doubts about the received wisdom. I still assumed that Jensen guy was some kind of racist, but Goldberg's explication of the ad consequentiam fallacy and its role in the social sciences gave me pause. The possible consequences of an argument or conclusion, Goldberg emphasized, have absolutely no bearing on whether a given argument or conclusion is empirically sound. This is one of those points that seems so obvious when stated that it's almost shocking to look up and realize how frequently the fallacy is embraced and repeated, often by the very best people -- by people, for example, who write magazine commentaries and who edit undergraduate textbooks. So I wondered, cautiously enough, about the confident rejection of "Jensenism" that had resounded in popular discourse. Might it be that such heated denunciations were grounded not so much in the disinterested appraisal of flawed science as in the crude blur of wishful thinking? It seemed possible. All I knew at the time was that it -- "Jensenism," or whatever -- had been "discredited." But when I got around to reading The Mismeasure of Man as instructed I found very little in the way of such promised "discrediting." What I found instead was what one critic -- a critic who was in fact a distinguished scholar and not, as I would discover in time, a bigot or a charlatan -- astutely described as "The Debunking of Scientific Fossils and Straw Persons." I came to realize that a game was being played, and that truth was a pawn. So I shook off the bugaboos. I took the time to read a number of Arthur Jensen's books and articles. And I learned a lot. Straight Talk About Mental Tests remains unsurpassed as a layman's introduction to the field of psychometrics, and I think it's fair to say that Bias in Mental Testing still provides the most exhaustive and convincing refutation of the popular claim that IQ tests are instrumentally and culturally rigged against minorities. I never made it through Jensen's technically imposing magnum opus, The g Factor, but it's still there on my shelf, right next to The Cartoon Guide to Statistics. Maybe I'll try again one of these days. If you are not familiar with Arthur Jensen's work (or if you are only familiar with his work through the willfully distorted media caricature that remains so despicably wrong), I recommend starting with Frank Miele's superb book, Intelligence, Race, and Genetics: Conversations with Arthur R. Jensen. Through a series of in-depth interviews, Miele's book presents an exemplary survey of the arguments and data surrounding a perennially contentious subject, but it also leaves us with a nuanced biographical portrait of a man -- a Gandhi scholar, as it turns out -- who faced would-be inquisitors with unshakable courage and uncommon decency.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
I wonder if all the scientific racist fanboys realize that a lot of scientists from other cultures that absolutely have no qualms with scientific racism being true generally agree with the conclusions of the rest of science. Though I guess they must be wrong because they're nonwhite.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 20:47 |
|
|
ate all the Oreos posted:I wonder if all the scientific racist fanboys realize that a lot of scientists from other cultures that absolutely have no qualms with scientific racism being true generally agree with the conclusions of the rest of science.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 21:23
|
|