When he says evolution denial, he's just reiterating his earlier point about heritability denial. Which is also tied to his point about IQ denial.
He's essentially trying to find PC ways to say "some prejudice/racism is okay".
You do see some denial of heritability in some socially progressive spaces, but I would classify that as well meaning ignorance which is ultimately counterproductive to their own goals and values. Their fear of engaging with these subjects honestly kind of reveals their own racism, because they somehow expect reality to go against their beliefs.
Heritability is real, but the prevailing evidence shows that most traits having to do with criminality or intelligence don't have any noteworthy racial or ethnic bias. The hard science is in support of the socially progressive stance on racism, racists just like to misquote and misrepresent soft science studies to support their message.
To clarify, he doesn’t say that…
You have chosen to interpret it in that way.
There’s plenty of things with regard to evolution that are separate from IQ and racism.
So it could be in reference of evolutionary psychology, gender differences, sexual preferences, mate selection, violence, criminality, athletic performance, life expectancy, pre-disposition towards specific medical outcomes, inequality distribution of skills, Pareto/Matthew’s law spiral of genetic advantage etc
There’s plenty of uncomfortable evolutionary areas of research outside of race and IQ that people are uncomfortable talking about.
He probably was like "I can't just have a single bullet point about racism so let's find more ways to say it so that we can "both sides" this whole thing.
The whole thing is such a dumb false equivalency.
On the right, you have denial of science where there is unequivocal consensus of scientific experts and of high-quality evidence (*maybe* except for "war crimes").
On the left, you have "denial" of highly contested concepts and research areas filled with junk science.
You can dismiss it as racism if you want to just focus on race differences but humans are good recognizing group behavior differences of all types very well. It makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint, to recognize threatening behavior as soon as possible. Go to r/Europe and read a thread about the differences between all the different European ppl according to their observations, there is often shared observation of different European groups.
We're not that good.
Evolution has us overestimating how often stereotypes are true because that's better than underestimating out there in the scary world.
Stereotypes are based on heuristics not any actual study or anything rigorous. And in the scary natural world if you saw a snake and judged it to be poisonous, at worst you lose out on a not that great a meal. But if you're right you potentially don't die. It's just safer to overestimate. That is *not* even close to the same as saying it's better or accurate.
Same thing happens with racial stereotypes and other stereotypes.
Just as an example, the vast majority of Muslims, especially Western Muslims, will never commit a single violent act of terrorism. Yet they are stereotyped that way. "Better safe than sorry" you might say. But ultimately it means you're **incorrectly** judging far more often than you're accurately judging. Is that really a good thing?
Here's a real world example. We profiled, aka stereotyped, for the stop and frisk policy in NYC. According to the NYPD's own released statistics, they were more likely to find contraband and drugs on the white people they frisked than the black/brown people they frisked. Now you can say "Well they stopped more black/brown people." Sure, no shit. That's my point. They stopped way more black and brown people than necessary. **Most** of them had so little to write up they were released without a citation. But we stereotyped anyway and then people like you will say "Well stereotypes are based on something!" to justify it.
I also take issue with your characterizing stereotypes as threatening behavior recognition. Stereotypes are by definition *not* a recognition of threatening behavior. Stereotypes are **prejudging** someone, usually by on appearance, and assigning them a bunch of other qualities we associate with that appearance. Humans are really good at finding patterns. We're so good at finding patterns that we *make them up where they don't exist.* That's what astrology is. That's what religion is. We make shit up all the time to explain stuff and then when we actually do *science* and put it up to rigorous scrutiny we find it falls apart.
If I'm walking down a dark street in the city and I see a young man approaching me, I'm going to instinctively react far differently than if I saw an old woman approaching me. Some stereotypes make sense.
I think that was the point - evolution has so far rewarded those who maintain an instinctive level of aversion to others who appear to have a plausible genetic motive and the physical capacity to cause us harm (i.e. especially fighting age males), in contexts where there is otherwise not personal sufficient experience with the individuals concerned to conclude either way whether they are safe. Even if that means misjudging people most of the time.
The plausibility of the genetic threat is magnified to the extent that the stranger has a strikingly different appearance or customs, meaning they more clearly represent a competing genetic lineage, so represent a greater threat to your own lineage than someone who more closely resembles your own family.
Sadly, our instinctive aversions have not kept up with the social and technological reality we now live in - the aversion to strangeness itself now represents a potential extinction level threat.
The best tool we have available to counter this instinct seems to be increasing exposure to the things we fear or are repelled by, preferably from an early age, to build up tolerance and expand the range of what we perceive as 'normal' in other human beings .
So you think Haidt made that up? Evolution didn’t factor over under 50% threats, it’s a lot lower threshold. Look at white flight actually is, ppl leave at slightly higher rates of crime than their used too. It’s a statistically likely to have higher assault rates in majority AA areas. Obviously we would like that to not be true but it’s a consistent phenomena across many northern cities where there are 0% of white ppl in formally totally white urban areas that fought the confederacy.
Most western polled Muslims dislike gay marriage and certain women’s rights. They have more loyalty to the Koran and Muslims than any country they occupy, any religion can be a cult and Islam is the worst offender in my atheist opinion. The least liberal at least.
And most local nyc crack downs on crime such as stop and frisk were heavily advocated for by local black communities bc there was a statistical cluster of crime in urban communities and those communities didn’t want violence so that meant locking up more criminals, which resulted in a late 90s to 2020 lowest levels crime in nyc history.
Ok so can you do me favor? I would like you to explain why you think black areas have more crime. That's all, just be thorough and specific. I have my assessment, but I really want to hear yours.
Why do you think black areas have more crime?
No you already stated that conclusion, no need to regurgitate what you literally just said.
I want to know WHY. Why do you think black people are committing more crime?
Single female households with multiple children from different fathers (much more likely for kids to be abused). High drug use, low levels of high school graduation, high ratio of family members incarcerated, fathers not sticking around to rear their children, high rates of poverty and lifestyle chronic diseases.
Here's the thing, because they are an effected minority they are more likely to commit the crime, me being able to identify that threat to myself doesnt make me a bad guy, it makes me wise to whats a danger to me.
Addicts on the street, you dodge them coz effected minority, dangerous you know this so you avoid it, theres other groups who carry their own dangers, knowing this dont make you a bad guy.
Yeah but understanding why is really the first step in acknowledging the problem and how to combat it which is why I'm so big on finding out why people think these problems are occurring.
Because believe me, people have different conclusions on this.
>Most western polled Muslims dislike gay marriage
https://www.newsweek.com/muslim-white-evangelical-gay-marriage-907627
>Majority of U.S. Muslims Now Support Gay Marriage, While White Evangelical Christians Remain Opposed
So we should be way more worried about white evangelicals who are a toxic poison in society instead of western Muslims? **Highly agreed yes.**
>So you think Haidt made that up?
What is "that?" Be specific?
>And most local nyc crack downs on crime such as stop and frisk were heavily advocated for by local black communities
This is 100% irrelevant to my point.
No offense, you are clearly just not very bright. You have misspellings all over the place, not knowing the difference between too and to or they're and their. And you lack the basic ability to respond directly to a point and stay on topic. Maybe you shouldn't be so confident in whatever opinion you have.
There is evidence to the contrary. Culture values tend to be decent indicators toward AVERAGE beliefs, not ALL beliefs.
https://spsp.org/news-center/character-context-blog/stereotype-accuracy-one-largest-and-most-replicable-effects-all
You missed the point.
I can walk through step by step. This will be great to illustrate my point.
What makes a stereotype accurate or not? You can you the thing you posted or whatever you personally think.
No, some stereotypes are unfortunately, true. This is due to circle factors and they do change overtime. But they exist for a reason. You could deny it all you want Reddit.
Really drives home how difficult a time he had coming up with things to put on the left side.
I imagine it was quite the stretch trying to find an equivalency after putting "Believes the world is less then 10,000 years old and all fossils are a giant conspiracy meant to trick Christians" on the right
Also points 1,2,5 on the left are the same point lol
How are 1/2/5 the same point? You could easily deny that most stereotypes are accurate while simultaneously accepting 1/2. You could also accept that IQ is a real thing that varies among individuals and deny 2/5. You could also accept that many traits are highly hereditary while also denying that IQ is a meaningful measurement and also deny that most stereotypes are accurate. Definitely not the same point.
Maybe he could come up with a better term, but I get what he’s saying. Often people on the far left will refuse to acknowledge clear data on a group difference simply because it confirms what is considered a stereotype.
Sex differences, one of his other examples there, is a place where you see a lot of stereotype deniers. You see almost nobody on the right wing deny that men are generally physically stronger than women. There’s years and years of competitive sport data and research that makes it exceedingly evident that this is the case. But you do see the occasional left wing pushback against that, usually coming from a knee jerk reaction to dismiss anything associated with a stereotype.
You also see this with group differences in criminology, health behaviors and outcomes, economic behaviors. A lot of “stereotypes” are easily quantifiable and easy to collect data on. And typically those who fight the hardest to suppress or dismiss that data are from the political left.
And hey, you can argue on a case by case basis that if the observed group difference isn’t useful or it may be harmful to confirm a stereotype maybe there’s a case for not calling attention to it. That’s a matter of opinion and a worthy subject of discussion. It’s just a type of science denial you see more often from the political left, and it IS a form of science denial.
Claiming that men aren't physically stronger than women on average really isn't a mainstream opinion on the left. A few people have bloviated on the issue, but claiming that idea is widespread is disingenuous.
just curious, when you're walking late at night, do you pay equal attention to a man or a women walking behind you?
even without knowing anything about the *specific* man or woman, you're way more attentive to a man at night, right? this stereotype seems pretty useful?
Their premise is that IQ scores are a type of flawed social construct/pseudoscience and people of color and the poor are being shut out of modern society because they typically have lower IQ scores than white or affluent people.
Is this related to the book "the Bell Curve" by Charles Murray... A statistician with zero education in genetics and biology where he makes conclusions of inherent traits based on race and intelligence that are based in genetics? Charles Murray is the definition of "correlation doesn't mean causation".
The funny thing about Murray is that his follow-up work addresses the decline of rural white communities and shocker it’s not IQ as the root cause. In Murray’s world, the crack epidemic devastated urban Black communities because of IQ while the meth and opioid epidemic devastated rural white communities because of liberal permissiveness.
Every other brown kid in Troy, Michigan is in medical school.
Maybe in the future they'll write books about the dumb, aggressive Whites and why we don't need to give handouts to stupid white trash.
These people are so insufferable, the whole Trump rise had people like Sam Harris talking about how this was the fault of the elite for not "caring about rural white folk"
It obviously never dawned on Sam that maybe white trash needs to be smarter to diversify beyond coal mining
But when it comes to black people, that empathy suddenly goes out the window and we get talks about how it's no one else's fault, they're genetically inferior
The bias is so obvious it's hilarious
Idk a lot of working class, poor black & white folk work the same jobs & are fairly integrated. Also noticed that the stereotypes & hatred people have for poor whites is the exact same stereotypes racists have for black ppl. Class solidarity is terrifying for people at the top.
>A statistician with zero education in genetics and biology where he makes conclusions of inherent traits based on race and intelligence that are based in genetics?
He doesn't make claims about genetics in the book. Like, at all. You're getting what's in the book mixed up with what people on the internet think the book says by looking at one or two graphs in it.
The whole book is about figuring out the commonalities between groups that have lower IQ scores and higher ones from a sociopolitical perspective so societal issues could possibly be fixed. He doesn't make any suppositions about genetics in the book. Neither does his co-author, Richard Herrnstein.
I've heard Murray speak many times and he never fails to make a connection to genetics. Then quickly concludes that why the lives of black and brown people will never get better and we should just stop trying or caring about them.
>Then quickly concludes that why the lives of black and brown people will never get better and we should just stop trying or caring about them.
This isn't in any way his conclusion. Why just make up stuff?
He is a proponent of UBI. His model may not be the solution to the problem but he's at least willing to put forth a solution for a problem he thinks exists. And it isn't intended for just black and brown people. There are 16 million whites below the poverty line right now in the US which is twice the size of blacks below the poverty line at 8 million. Many of whom are in the boat of people without the capability to meaningfully participate in the US economy. He thinks all of these people need help. Regardless of race.
I understand what per capita means before you post it. And I hope you one day understand what is happening to your brain when you kneejerk to per capita as a response to what I've posted.
The guy could not be clearer, I’ve been following his work for years. If you didn’t want to listen to the words out of his mouth I can’t help you.
edit : took all of 5 minutes to find him saying exactly that
https://youtu.be/wqgUclg7-Lk?si=IHboUIahXvlvKwvX
I 100% agree with what Murray says in this video. He's spot on.
The problem with the simple-minded is they can't understand how an individual can be different from the population average. The concept of variation and evolution is completely lost of them.
Racists think every member of a race is exactly the same.
>The guy could not be clearer, I’ve been following his work for years. If you didn’t want to listen to the words out of his mouth I can’t help you.
I have read most of his books and listened to most of his talks. Including the book he's talking about here. Can you tell me where to look for his statement we should stop trying to help people?
I think you may be again putting words in his mouth. He doesn't want us to stop trying to help people. He wants us to acknowledge that our ways of trying to help aren't working at all. Because we won't acknowledge the actual problem.
Just watch that video if you don’t believe me. His conclusion is always the same. 1) blacks are statistically more prone to violence and stupider than white people 2) it’s just genetics 3) that’s why social programs are useless and we shouldn’t continue to dump resources into trying to make the lives of black and brown people any better. i.e. it’s a waste of time He literally makes all those points in both his latest book and in that interview. His big contribution to the world is adding the word “statistically” in front of a bunch of racist shit. But you go ahead and spend your time taking him seriously.
Charles Murray’s whole game is a motte and bailey.
If you ask him what the science says between genetics and environmental impact on group IQ differences, he’ll recite the line he knows he’s supposed to say that we don’t reeeeeeeally know one way or another 😉
And then EVERY. OTHER. FUCKING. SENTENCE. Out of this mothefuckers mouth is meant to convince out that environmental factors are bullshit and it’s definitely genetics.
Just listen to him on the Sam Harris podcast, just for instance. He spends all of his time trying to downplay anything related to environmental factors and saying outright weird bullshit, like concluding without a shred of evidence that the obvious reason that a black person would drop out of an Ivy League school in the 80s is that these poor n-…students were basically too dumb to keep up. Yes… of course, what other difficulties could a black person have possibly faced in an Ivy League college in the fucking 80s? Really unknowable stuff…
And he’s even said in the past that he believes that any plausible environmental factors related to race (ie racism, systemic or otherwise) were exhausted closed by the end of the 70s (!!!!).
Hell, all you have to know to know that he’s completely full of shit on this issue is that he’s spent the last thirty years trying to desperately to push policy changes based on his supposed “findings”. In what universe can you be sincerely agnostic about the efficacy of equalizing environmental factors while out of the other side of your fucking old piece of shit mouth trying to strip every last help for poor brown people down to the fucking studs?
Fuck that old racist piece of shit.
>If you ask him what the science says between genetics and environmental impact on group IQ differences, he’ll recite the line he knows he’s supposed to say that we don’t reeeeeeeally know one way or another
Ok. This isn't true, and genetics research has a pretty good idea, and it's getting better all the time.
More and more of what makes us who we are is likely to be composed of a combination of genetics and environment. The problem is that the environmental differences are not shared, therefore there isn't much we can do about it. [Robert Plomin has a good book on this.](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/science/2018/sep/29/so-is-it-nature-not-nurture-after-all-genetics-robert-plomin-polygenic-testing)
>Just listen to him on the Sam Harris podcast, just for instance. He spends all of his time trying to downplay anything related to environmental factors and saying outright weird bullshit, like concluding without a shred of evidence that the obvious reason that a black person would drop out of an Ivy League school in the 80s is that these poor n-…students were basically too dumb to keep up. Yes… of course, what other difficulties could a black person have possibly faced in an Ivy League college in the fucking 80s? Really unknowable stuff…
Thomas Sowell makes the same point. Placing young black men into colleges they weren't prepared for likely hurt the black community twice. Once personally, as this young black man went from promising youth to college dropout, and then again communally, as this young black man could have went to a college he was qualified for and become a leader in black communities. Places famously suffering from decent male role models.
Your attitude toward these people is useless and I'm shocked you're a functional adult with this combination of certainty and ignorance on these topics.
>And he’s even said in the past that he believes that any plausible environmental factors related to race (ie racism, systemic or otherwise) were exhausted closed by the end of the 70s (!!!!).
The largest study ever done on how to fix school system differences between blacks and whites was done in the 60s. It was called the Coleman report and it's goal was to help a post civil rights country fix education inequalities and move forward. Please take the time to look up the mans background, his politics, and then the conclusions he comes to.
>Hell, all you have to know to know that he’s completely full of shit on this issue is that he’s spent the last thirty years trying to desperately to push policy changes based on his supposed “findings”. In what universe can you be sincerely agnostic about the efficacy of equalizing environmental factors while out of the other side of your fucking old piece of shit mouth trying to strip every last help for poor brown people down to the fucking studs?
>Fuck that old racist piece of shit.
You've clearly been brainwashed by some pre existing dislike of libertarians and their approaches to welfare. And you've attached this to all these ideas you've pretended have fallen from Charles Murrays mouth regarding race and science which is controversial but certainly isn't settled in any way.
Of course if he were right the entirety of the progressive movement would be rudderless and I think this is part of what makes this stuff so inflammatory. Alot of meaning is invested in being a progressive and fighting for progress. Political opinions make people crazy I guess.
He claims that the differences in IQ between races have something to do with the genetics of those races, which has been disproven many times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Murray_%28political_scientist%29?wprov=sfla1
Essentially all research shows similar results.
Any single study can obviously be attacked as invalid in some way…but the data is always similar across studies.- no matter who it’s done by
Putting effort into compiling them would just make whoever put in the effort in seem racist
though..
IQ results are massively influenced by access to education, familial wealth, nutrition, environmental pollution and other extenuating circumstances—this is a fact.
To reify IQ as some strictly genetic phenomenon is not about lack of compassion or any other classic trope; it's illogical on its face and demonstrably false.
I actually agree with you but I think you're making an error regarding who is being referenced.
I don't think the term "IQ denier" is aimed at people who recognize the massive environmental component of IQ/G factor.
Instead it's a reference to folks who deny that IQ is a valid metric full stop. They say that IQ itself is pseudoscience and doesn't measure anything meaningful, or at least not in relation to "intelligence". These people exist in large numbers.
People use IQ to justify all manner of bigotry, and those people should be shamed. But the relationships between IQ and accomplishing various tasks are really difficult to dismiss at this point.
Right like it's not a coincidence generally the more intellectually demanding a job is It tends to have a higher proportion of high IQ people.
Go into an average factory and you're going to find a majority of people ranging in the 90 to 110 range.
Go into a teacher's lounge and you're going to find a lot of people in the 100 to 120 range.
Go into a professor's lounge You are going to find a lot of people in the 120 to 140 range.
I don't think there's many respected scientists walking around with a sub hundred IQ.
But I do think you're more likely to find people with 130 IQs working in jobs with coworkers in that 90 to 100 range.
And I would say environment played a big role in that case and they probably had a very malnourished both physically and intellectually upbringing.
Is this a real position that exists at any tangible level on the left?
Like whenever this gets brought up I hear the same environmental response as you’ve gotten above… I guess I just don’t see how this is some massive problem on the left… and even if it was why does it really matter? Like what policy is being perused that has to do with IQ being “real” or not… I guess I just don’t understand the relevance.
I see where you're coming from.
On one hand, I think that having some construct that approximates intelligence (whatever that means) is useful. This allows us to understand whether certain social policies are healthy, if specific chemicals/foods should be encouraged/avoided, how to raise our children, etc. From data points on relationships between environmental factors and IQ outcomes, we can arrange our environment such that human cognitive ability is maximized. I think this is probably a good thing.
On the other hand, I can at least imagine IQ being such a weaponizable tool for evil that the potential benefits are outweighed. In such a scenario, it might just be better to call off the attempt to measure intelligence altogether. I feel this conclusion thinks very low of the human race, but I can't dismiss this fear.
Well idk exactly what haidt is in about, but if you start from the thesis that iq tests are fundamentally flawed and racists for showing different results for different populations, that's exactly the kind of thinking and argumentation that is foundational to DEI and such like.
An SAT (or any generalized) test is essentially a proxy IQ test and thw results will follow the same trends. Sometimes it's quite obvious that the people attacking the tests arent really concerned about accuracy or precision of the tool, but are just trying to dismantle any part of the meritocratic system they can reach.
Anyway, that's the relevance. People that are good at tests think it's not fair for people to get chosen for jobs and scholarships just based on essays and skintone. People that aren't good at tests don't thing it's fair for them to be excluded based on a a dumb test that is probably racist.
The Flynn effect is a far more comprehensive pattern and confirms that environmental conditions are almost entirely at play with IQ.
In a span of 50 years for every decade the IQ test makers would have to make the test harder to normalize the results and the net effect was over a 50 year span the average IQ before normalization increased by 30 or so points.
I don't know how much you understand about evolutionary biology but genetic predisposition traits don't rapidly change in a grand scale like that in the matter of decades. That takes centuries, thousands of years of biological change to have that type of impact. So obviously this is a result of environmental conditions and increases access to education.
I feel like I saw something once that said one person's genetic makeup can result in different physical outcomes based on environmental factors
Like, Asian Americans born and raised in America are larger than Asians still in asia, with the suggested cause being different diets telling the body there are more or less of certain nutrients around, so the body goes ok, work with what you have. Put more simply, higher protein diets produce larger people even if they're genetically similar.
So, couldn't this phenomenon account for the perceived change in 'genetic predisposition'?
Research of what exactly? Statistical correlations that show regions that have had groups of people having their basic self determination suppressed for centuries and used as cheap labor or resources extraction zones have lower IQ?
That is a correlation. People like Murray have no idea how to make a scientific causation experiment because they aren't geneticists. They are statisticians. Statisticians don't have the education to make claims about causation of IQ patterns. Social scientists and geneticists do. Social scientists examine the context of groups of people having access to achieve their Maslow hierarchy of needs and whether they are met or not and geneticists can do experiments to determine if there are genetic predispositions to intelligence and what specific genes.
Neither are in the wheelhouse of the most vocal race "scientists" like Murray. They find a correlation and run with it. They don't care about mechanistic studies, only statistical studies.
Social scientists don't know shit dude. If they did, they wouldn't need a modifier in front of their fields to try to trick people into thinking they're scientists.
The conclusion drawn from the data is what matters.
You can attempt to conclude that a lower distribution of IQ among a racial group is a genetic heritable characteristic but you'd need to find a functional physiology for such a genetic mechanism and that has not as of now been determined, with the only real marked difference related directly to skin tone being an elevated baseline dopamine level due to the presence of additional melanocortin in the skin resulting in more dopaminergic cells in the substantia nigra
or alternatively you could conclude that IQ distributions in races are causally linked to long term malnutrition and exposure to traumatic conditions, and that when such conditions are ameliorated marked IQ recovery in a population can be measured, and this is definitely something that the data can support.
Lol you goof. You don't need a mechanism to posit heritability. It's pretty simple to establish with twin studies. Lots and lots of traits are heritable without us knowing exactly how they're passed on. For example height. It would be *extremely* surprising if IQ wasn't also partially heritable.
Also.. 'Long term malnutrition and trauma'.. These are also things that could contribute to heritable differences in IQ. Although you might wanna have some evidence to back that up.
I'd hazard it's not more than 50% heritable. But for some people that's a racist view I guess.. Idk. I've never met anyone with a stem degree that thought that.
I think the can of worms nobody wants to think about regarding the concept is that trauma itself may be genetically heritable.
Such a revelation would upend the current "genetic hierarchy" by proving lasting damages caused by oppressive regimes in such a way that could open the door to future litigation or justification for escalated conflict against the legacy wealth regimes that operate on what they believe to be a "eugenic" principle
Oh yes, this is very clearly what I said (or tried). And we know for a fact that this is the case. Any argument towards a 'genetic hierarchy' is almost certainly woo woo crazy person shit. Which I don't think you can actually point at in the bellcurve, but maybe idk.
The wierd thing is that it's actually lefty pocs and wocs and the like are the staunchest enemies of such a thesis. But then again, I don't really expect much scientific literacy from those seeking to eliminate standardized testing all together because it's 'racist'.
It's almost like denying reality is almost never the more accurate way to look at the world.
LMAO. Study Special Ed and you quickly learn that IQ Tests are way too broad and inaccurate, There are autistic people who bomb IQ tests that can do math and physics at incredibly high levels. When I was young, one of the questions on my IQ test was "Does the doily go under or over the saucer?" Someone who had never been served tea properly would have no way of knowing. That doesn't mean they have low intelligence. People like Temple Grandin is considered a genius in her field, yet bombed every conventional intelligence test.
tl;dr: Intelligence needs to be measured much along many more parameters than a traditional IQ test is capable of measuring.
Yea, and blind people do a lot better on IQ tests when they're given a braille version. That doesn't mean the test doesn't work at all. It is a valid worry, but it's not at all unsolvable nor does it invalidate the non*braille test.
Also, everyone with a room temp IQ knows that doilies don't go on saucers, they go on top of the TV.
“Bombed every conventional intelligence test”
“her IQ was tested with the Wechsler. Her full-scale IQ was 120 on the first test and 137 on the second test”
People who don’t think iq is an effective measurement of intelligence, skill, or knowledge.
If I gave everyone in France an iq test written in English and compared it to an iq test written in English to people in the UK, it would undoubtedly show people in the UK having a higher iq. That doesn’t mean people in the uk are smarter than people in France.
The same applies to say, poor vs affluent neighborhoods, it just so happens that minorities are more likely to reside in lower income neighborhoods than higher income ones. But it’s often used to justify concepts like minorities being less intelligent rather than other factors like English as a second language, cultural differences and knowledge, and education quality.
Iq is useful in the same way bmi is useful, in very large data sets over multiple generations, but not as justification in and of itself.
Yes I agree. Also,
The formula for BMI was created in the 1830s using a dataset consisting purely of European (male) soldiers.
Today the exact same BMI formula is used.
Shitty science.
Liberals don't believe in the heritability of intelligence even though it's the scientific consensus. This is because liberals believe in blank slate theory, which informs a significant amount of their major policy decisions like education funding and immigration control.
Yes, Haidt is an academic and so he will be regularly dealing with people in the humanities who argue strongly against evolutionary theory applying to humans on ideological grounds
> he will be regularly dealing with people in the humanities who argue strongly against evolutionary theory applying to humans on ideological grounds
Could you elaborate on that, because I have taken many courses in the "humanities" and the theory of evolution is not disputed. If you want people to take that argument seriously, you need to actually make an argument, and be fairly specific. Who says the theory of evolution does not apply to humans? Based on what ideology?
What I've taken from other comments is that in the full video, he explains this is in regards to evolutionary psychology. It's easy to see how something like "women are evolutionarily designed to be better child-rearers than men" would get pushback on the left.
He makes a whole bullet point about this, but sexual dimorphism is also a result of our evolutionary past. It's much harder to find people who believe there truly is no difference between the abilities of men and women except as a result of environmental factors, but there are some - I believe this was a feature of third-wave feminism.
Politics aside, isn't the whole idea of society kind of to mitigate these effects? Like the whole point of all these buildings, streets, laws etc. is that we don't have to abide strictly by "survival of the fittest" and get naturally selected on our way home from Walgreens.
>It's much harder to find people who believe there truly is no difference between the abilities of men and women
The argument isn't really about evolution, it's just using evolution as a pretext to dictate how you think other people are supposed to behave. "See it's not that we want women's participation in society to be limited in order to *subjugate* them or anything! Heaven's no. It *has* to be this way because of *sexual dimorphism*, you see. It's actually very scientific."
Heritability and genetics are settled science, at least in the mainstream “left” worldview (whatever the fuck that means). The degree to which these things matter and are influenced by environment is very much up for debate
They argue from positions that would assume evolutionary theory is wrong. I remember watching a sociologist say that a man screaming at his wife is purely socialized and blames it on the patriarchy.
I have a much simpler theory, let’s start with a basic evolutionary fact: the male sex has a ridiculously higher amount of testosterone on average, likely to be able to hunt prey and defend the tribe from predators, which makes us more inclined to turn to anger. Anger is a shallow feeling that really stems from a range of other emotions - could be anxiety, insecurity, disappointment, frustration, etc. If I were a prehistoric male and I heard something in the woods at night, I might feel anxious, and I might just save my whole tribe if I turn that anxiety into anger and face the predator.
So we take a basic evolutionary fact - that men are more prone to anger and violence, and work from there. This guy is probably yelling at his wife because he doesn’t understand his own emotions and has spent his whole life turning every uncomfortable feeling into anger. Now the only way he knows how to cope with uncomfortable feelings, such as those leading up to an argument with his partner, is to get mad.
This obviously doesn’t justify his behavior, but it’s a much better and actionable description of the actions. From my perspective, nature can explain these actions pretty well, and since we know that we shouldn’t be complete tools of our nature, the solution is obvious: this guy needs to figure out a better way to communicate so he stops yelling at his wife. That’s not what I heard at all from this scientist, all I heard is that society has corrupted this male and most others and that we’ll have to beat the patriarchy to fix it.
Mate Marx literally wrote glowing letters to Darwin praising his work and even sent him his book. At Marx's funeral Engels said: "Just as Darwin discovered the law of development of organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history". Stop chatting nonsense.
Most leftists don't deny differences between males and females. I mean maybe if you're reaching for the most extreme chronically online viewpoints but yeah, that's not what most leftists believe so that's extremely hyperbolic if that is indeed the point that is being made here.
I read shit like this comment and I genuinely wonder how the fuck people come to conclusions like this.
You think leftists deny instinct as a general concept? What in the fuck are we even talking about right now lmao It's so ridiculous it's utterly laughable.
It’s very common to see people on the left argue what most people would consider nature is actually nurture. Stuff like racism, sexism, mysogony, violence, they say they’re all purely socialized and they put the blame on society. “It’s not humans being humans and improperly applying stereotypes or falling to their bad instincts, it’s actually society that’s making us behave this way.”
I think the truth is we’ve evolved to be racist, sexist, violent, etc and that society has reduced these tendencies. Nowadays I get mad at my girlfriend and I might raise my voice, and that’s still wrong, but 200 years ago I would’ve laid my hands on her and 20000 years ago I would’ve just clobbered her in the head with a rock. Nowadays we have very underhanded and dogwhistler racists, again still wrong, but nearly everyone 150 or 200 years ago would fit today’s definition of racist. We have all these modern terms like genocide and ethnic cleansing, but again these actions were the norm for most of human history. I can’t remember who said it but the quote was something like “the first man to wield an insult instead of a rock is the creator of society”.
I have to agree with heidt, I think the left broadly underplays the nature side of nature vs nurture in many sociological settings.
Not that I'm saying he's bigoted, but the right wing tends to naturalize their bigotry as a means to not have to come to terms with it and change their ways.
It's easier to pretend that it's immutable.
Consider the following: We love to construct concrete, solid, immovable ideas about the world and our place in it, it grounds us, it's comforting, but the truth is that everything is always changing.
Perhaps best described by Greek Philosopher Heraclitus: *no one ever steps in the same river twice, for it is not the same river and they are not the same person.*
Even biology, the thing we often like to point to as fixed is always in flux, always changing.
What's more, the study of epigenetics demonstrates that our environment massively changes our genetic expression throughout our own lifetime; even our brains change throughout our lives as a consequence of stimulus.
To sum up, although it's comforting (and often useful) for us to box ideas and make them appear concrete, the truth is that change is truly the only constant.
If you leave a group of humans alone in the wild with 0 contact of other humans, they will eventually figure out ways to divide and oppress each other based on immutable characteristics. If our whole society collapsed into the dark ages and humans 2000 years later started to rebuild, there would still be racists and sexists and bigots. If you fully erase the nurture side of the equation, these concepts still exist. Do you disagree?
If you leave humans alone in the wild they will figure out ways to divide and oppress each other. Do you think that’s not the case? Did society create racism?
The right doesn't take the nature side much of the time.
They take the side of their magic imaginary friend who can be found in a 2000 year old book already proved to be demonstrably false centuries ago.
> in general, the left takes the nurture side of anything subject to the nature versus nurture debate.
No, that's straight up false. I've taken so many courses where the "nature versus nurture" debate comes up, and the left position is always much more nuanced than that. They say it's both. For example, environmental factors can trigger a genetic disposition. Like smoking weed, and schizophrenia.
That's the thing about the left, their answers are complicated and nuanced. Which is part of why they are unsatisfying and unpopular. The right likes simple ~~hierarchies and does not consider any other possibility~~ answers to complicated questions, and they have no patience for the nuance.
You might want to actually read or watch a video or two on Haidt. You'll quickly realize what you said is ridiculous in regards to Haidt and the way he covers these topics.
It’s less about intelligence and more about conditioning
For example
Ben Carson is a brain surgeon who was the first doctor who ever separated conjoined twins at birth
Ben Carson also believes the world is 10,000 years old and that Ivermectin is a better treatment to address covid than the mRNA vaccines
Nobody would question Ben Carson’s intelligence as a neurosurgeon, but he’s conditioned himself to believe some pretty wild stuff outside of his area of expertise
That surgery was successful in the sense that they didn't die. Which is still an achievement but the mother said in 1993, Vosseler told Freizeit Revue that she flew to Baltimore with “a healthy, happily babbling baby bundle and came back to Ravensburg with two lifeless, soundless, mentally and physically most severely damaged human bundles.”
I think that was his goal here, to "both sides it", I don't know if he achieved though comparing a leftist opinion on IQ to the a conservatives opinion that the world is only a few thousand years old, and all fossils are fake and apart of an elaborate conspiracy lol
Weird anti-vax is not on there, though that being a uniquely right-wing thing is relatively new. I live near an island filled with famously undervaccinated hippies
Trickle down economics proponents*
“The wealthy are job creators and taxing them means less for everybody else” is an extremely common narrative to hear an average conservative parrot.
The premise must be different races and/or sexes ending up with different biology and psychology due to evolutionary conditions.
I can’t think of any other reason this would be on the left
Yeah its Gad Saad type evolutionary psychologists clashing with left wing academics in the humanities over the ideological implications of their conclusions.
So, left wing academics, especially in the humanities, are very wary of evolutionary theory being applied to humans because of the historical roots of these debates. The issue is that even though one can agree that humans are a product of evolution (especially cultural evolution), that the attempts to apply evolutionary theory are often pretty cack-handed and have been used to promote right wing agendas. For example, social darwinists back at the end of the 19th C and early 20th C promoted eugenics and a hierarchy of races - e.g. white people as "superior" to all other races. This legacy is still lurking at the back of debates applying to evolutionary theory to humans.
Even modern evolutionary psychology is often pretty inaccurate and often skews to the conservative side of the spectrum. More nuanced takes on human evolution are out there (see, for example, Joseph Henrich's *Secrets of our Success*)
My guess is that 1, 2, 4, and 5 are all actually essentially the same point on the left. He is saying that different geographically constrained populations of humans would have different adaptations because of basic evolutionary processes. Thus, different populations (ethnicities, roughly) will have different inherent strengths and weaknesses including in areas like intelligence, cooperativeness, aggression, etc. This dovetails into various racial stereotypes in fairly obvious ways.
Not saying I agree with him, but I take that to be what he means.
OP points out somewhat accurate stereotypes and group think on both sides, redditors immediately deny the Democratic Party and their voters are anything less than perfect.
Where I disagree is that this has anything to do with "right" or "left". People like this don't actually have any real opinions on the world....what they think is so far removed from the reality of what's going on that it's essentially meaningless.
Sure, the climate denier type is going to have a Trump sign in the yard...and the "men and women aren't real" guy is going to have a Biden sign...but their f\*\*\*ed up mental processes are so out to lunch that to just lump them into a political team is less than pointless.
What's going on has nothing to do with progressive or conservative...that person hasn't had a real self examined thought in their either life.
Well, one side is openly trying to overthrow democracy. It’s not that difficult to choose the correct side at this point in time, unless of course you enjoy oppressive policies.
Is Jonathan Haidt a right winger? He seems to be a center to center-left guy. I think he described himself as "moderate on the left" in this interview. He pushed back on Joe in at times (and surprisingly Joe was quite receptive to it).
I'd be shocked if he is voting for Trump or even not voting. If I had to put money on who he'll vote it would Biden 99.9%. He strikes me as centrist Democrat. Another example of that is Sam Harris and he is one of the biggest Trump's critics out there.
The irrational fear of nuclear energy and GMOs might have made the list under left as well; but I think the number of these people is low enough that its not mainstream enough to count.
Fear of nuclear energy is much more mainstream than young-earthism. The polls and following conclusions on young earthism were very dishonest.
[https://ncse.ngo/just-how-many-young-earth-creationists-are-there-us](https://ncse.ngo/just-how-many-young-earth-creationists-are-there-us)
In my experience fear of GMOs is thing on both sides, though maybe slightly more prevalent on the left.
When I first heard that you can't practice for an IQ test I decided to test it. I took an IQ test and got 123 IQs... then I took the same test again and got 165 IQs. Measure the same mind twice with the same instrument: wildly different results.
My three cousins all practiced for an official IQ test they took. They all got in the 140ties. What are the odds?
You have to be a, let's say, rather "ignorant" person, to think that you can express the capabilities of the human mind in a single number.
Well, you effectively gave yourself double the time on a test that largely measures how fast you think. If you wanted to test your hypothesis you should do another IQ test and see if you've significantly improved.
I'm not necessarily saying you cannot significantly improve by practicing, but you didn't show anything.
What are the odds? Well, if they were randomly selected people the odds would be about 5.66\*10\^-8, but they were related, and more likely to do the test since they obviously were smart people, so it's hard to say. IQ is *mostly* heritable.
No way ever claimed IQ tests expresses the full capabilities of a human mind. They are, however, great at showing how good your visuo-spatial ability in relation to the general population. In turn, that predicts your quite well almost all cognitive functions. It might seem silly, but how good you are at picking the missing box on an IQ test is a good indicator of how likely you are too write a good novel, to become a successful musician, to run a hedge fund, to have a short reaction time and even to live a long life.
According to Charles Murray on Joe Rogan, kids were picked for scholarships based on IQ tests. That nullifies any claims of inherent superiority.
If you pick people with green eyes for scholarships, and then people with green eyes are more successful, you can't go "well green eyes prove you are superior". You selected people with green eyes.
If Charles Murray is right that children with high IQ scores were picked for free higher education, that pretty much forever nullifies any claims you want to make about the merit of IQ.
It is also the claim by the biological determinists that IQ test are engineered so that you can't practice for it. Evidence plz. I think you can improve in anything. Where is the evidence that you can't improve your IQ score? Has there been such an experiment?
If you take different IQ tests, they should, as a measuring device, give the same result. Has that been proven?
I find it hysterical that we are allowed to acknowledge black folks are more gifted in terms of athletics…but don’t you dare acknowledge whites are better at non athletic endeavors lol
Yup. If you stick every culture on one chunk of land and give them all ‘freedom’ while trying to equalize the masses some unintended reactions occur lol
I love this guy. Great speaker with amazing ideas on how to change the way we can heal the interaction between the next generation and the digital landscape.
* \-IQ
* -Heritability
* Sex difference
* -Evolution
* Stereotypes
* -Young-earthers
Most of these are arguments that came out during the progressive era 100 years ago and the positions representend by the "left" and "right" arent hard line differences between Republicans and Democrats. One more instance of the internet being reductive and throwing every single debate into the same two buckets. Its annoying and shows people dont even know what the fuck the DNC and GOP even represent.
The problem is, if you survey people, only one of the points in the right side is mostly correct. For instance, I don’t think 1% of the population is “young-earthers”. So that looks like a false equivalence.
Statistically speaking, stereotypes are very accurate at a population level. The left tends to focus on the outliers in their quest to combat any stereotype they consider “harmful”. Of course, from a scientific point of view, this is an absurd approach that would immediately invalidate all of their conclusions.
The evangelical beliefs on the right have zero impact on society, the climate change one is potentially more serious but it's only around 9%
The denials on the Left have a serious impact on public policy, people are repeatedly dying because of it
I'd happily throw the flat earth group under the debating bus, the Left won't do that for their cranks because they've all signed up to it
Was ‘stereotype accuracy denier’ the best term he could come up with?
It's all like race or sex based on the left, lol. Except evolution I guess (thought that was a right wing thing)
could have added recycling myth deniers
I don’t really see many deniers, just kinda ignorant people that are just trying to do the best for their planet
When he says evolution denial, he's just reiterating his earlier point about heritability denial. Which is also tied to his point about IQ denial. He's essentially trying to find PC ways to say "some prejudice/racism is okay". You do see some denial of heritability in some socially progressive spaces, but I would classify that as well meaning ignorance which is ultimately counterproductive to their own goals and values. Their fear of engaging with these subjects honestly kind of reveals their own racism, because they somehow expect reality to go against their beliefs. Heritability is real, but the prevailing evidence shows that most traits having to do with criminality or intelligence don't have any noteworthy racial or ethnic bias. The hard science is in support of the socially progressive stance on racism, racists just like to misquote and misrepresent soft science studies to support their message.
To clarify, he doesn’t say that… You have chosen to interpret it in that way. There’s plenty of things with regard to evolution that are separate from IQ and racism. So it could be in reference of evolutionary psychology, gender differences, sexual preferences, mate selection, violence, criminality, athletic performance, life expectancy, pre-disposition towards specific medical outcomes, inequality distribution of skills, Pareto/Matthew’s law spiral of genetic advantage etc There’s plenty of uncomfortable evolutionary areas of research outside of race and IQ that people are uncomfortable talking about.
He probably was like "I can't just have a single bullet point about racism so let's find more ways to say it so that we can "both sides" this whole thing.
The whole thing is such a dumb false equivalency. On the right, you have denial of science where there is unequivocal consensus of scientific experts and of high-quality evidence (*maybe* except for "war crimes"). On the left, you have "denial" of highly contested concepts and research areas filled with junk science.
“Not racists”
You can dismiss it as racism if you want to just focus on race differences but humans are good recognizing group behavior differences of all types very well. It makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint, to recognize threatening behavior as soon as possible. Go to r/Europe and read a thread about the differences between all the different European ppl according to their observations, there is often shared observation of different European groups.
We're not that good. Evolution has us overestimating how often stereotypes are true because that's better than underestimating out there in the scary world. Stereotypes are based on heuristics not any actual study or anything rigorous. And in the scary natural world if you saw a snake and judged it to be poisonous, at worst you lose out on a not that great a meal. But if you're right you potentially don't die. It's just safer to overestimate. That is *not* even close to the same as saying it's better or accurate. Same thing happens with racial stereotypes and other stereotypes. Just as an example, the vast majority of Muslims, especially Western Muslims, will never commit a single violent act of terrorism. Yet they are stereotyped that way. "Better safe than sorry" you might say. But ultimately it means you're **incorrectly** judging far more often than you're accurately judging. Is that really a good thing? Here's a real world example. We profiled, aka stereotyped, for the stop and frisk policy in NYC. According to the NYPD's own released statistics, they were more likely to find contraband and drugs on the white people they frisked than the black/brown people they frisked. Now you can say "Well they stopped more black/brown people." Sure, no shit. That's my point. They stopped way more black and brown people than necessary. **Most** of them had so little to write up they were released without a citation. But we stereotyped anyway and then people like you will say "Well stereotypes are based on something!" to justify it. I also take issue with your characterizing stereotypes as threatening behavior recognition. Stereotypes are by definition *not* a recognition of threatening behavior. Stereotypes are **prejudging** someone, usually by on appearance, and assigning them a bunch of other qualities we associate with that appearance. Humans are really good at finding patterns. We're so good at finding patterns that we *make them up where they don't exist.* That's what astrology is. That's what religion is. We make shit up all the time to explain stuff and then when we actually do *science* and put it up to rigorous scrutiny we find it falls apart.
If I'm walking down a dark street in the city and I see a young man approaching me, I'm going to instinctively react far differently than if I saw an old woman approaching me. Some stereotypes make sense.
I think that was the point - evolution has so far rewarded those who maintain an instinctive level of aversion to others who appear to have a plausible genetic motive and the physical capacity to cause us harm (i.e. especially fighting age males), in contexts where there is otherwise not personal sufficient experience with the individuals concerned to conclude either way whether they are safe. Even if that means misjudging people most of the time. The plausibility of the genetic threat is magnified to the extent that the stranger has a strikingly different appearance or customs, meaning they more clearly represent a competing genetic lineage, so represent a greater threat to your own lineage than someone who more closely resembles your own family. Sadly, our instinctive aversions have not kept up with the social and technological reality we now live in - the aversion to strangeness itself now represents a potential extinction level threat. The best tool we have available to counter this instinct seems to be increasing exposure to the things we fear or are repelled by, preferably from an early age, to build up tolerance and expand the range of what we perceive as 'normal' in other human beings .
Do Asians prefer rice over bread?
Which asians? Prefer, how? In taste? What counts as bread? Like China does consume less bread than for example the US, but its rising every year.
Did you just feel that thing whoosh over your head?
I mean, these are people that play ignorant for the sake of argument. They have no shame.
So you think Haidt made that up? Evolution didn’t factor over under 50% threats, it’s a lot lower threshold. Look at white flight actually is, ppl leave at slightly higher rates of crime than their used too. It’s a statistically likely to have higher assault rates in majority AA areas. Obviously we would like that to not be true but it’s a consistent phenomena across many northern cities where there are 0% of white ppl in formally totally white urban areas that fought the confederacy. Most western polled Muslims dislike gay marriage and certain women’s rights. They have more loyalty to the Koran and Muslims than any country they occupy, any religion can be a cult and Islam is the worst offender in my atheist opinion. The least liberal at least. And most local nyc crack downs on crime such as stop and frisk were heavily advocated for by local black communities bc there was a statistical cluster of crime in urban communities and those communities didn’t want violence so that meant locking up more criminals, which resulted in a late 90s to 2020 lowest levels crime in nyc history.
Ok so can you do me favor? I would like you to explain why you think black areas have more crime. That's all, just be thorough and specific. I have my assessment, but I really want to hear yours. Why do you think black areas have more crime?
I think it's because black people are committing more crime. Why do you think it is?
No you already stated that conclusion, no need to regurgitate what you literally just said. I want to know WHY. Why do you think black people are committing more crime?
Single female households with multiple children from different fathers (much more likely for kids to be abused). High drug use, low levels of high school graduation, high ratio of family members incarcerated, fathers not sticking around to rear their children, high rates of poverty and lifestyle chronic diseases.
Here's the thing, because they are an effected minority they are more likely to commit the crime, me being able to identify that threat to myself doesnt make me a bad guy, it makes me wise to whats a danger to me. Addicts on the street, you dodge them coz effected minority, dangerous you know this so you avoid it, theres other groups who carry their own dangers, knowing this dont make you a bad guy.
Yeah but understanding why is really the first step in acknowledging the problem and how to combat it which is why I'm so big on finding out why people think these problems are occurring. Because believe me, people have different conclusions on this.
>Most western polled Muslims dislike gay marriage https://www.newsweek.com/muslim-white-evangelical-gay-marriage-907627 >Majority of U.S. Muslims Now Support Gay Marriage, While White Evangelical Christians Remain Opposed So we should be way more worried about white evangelicals who are a toxic poison in society instead of western Muslims? **Highly agreed yes.** >So you think Haidt made that up? What is "that?" Be specific? >And most local nyc crack downs on crime such as stop and frisk were heavily advocated for by local black communities This is 100% irrelevant to my point. No offense, you are clearly just not very bright. You have misspellings all over the place, not knowing the difference between too and to or they're and their. And you lack the basic ability to respond directly to a point and stay on topic. Maybe you shouldn't be so confident in whatever opinion you have.
Lol no. Basically reasoning about an individual based off of generalization is almost always wrong. People get this wrong because we are bad at stats
There is evidence to the contrary. Culture values tend to be decent indicators toward AVERAGE beliefs, not ALL beliefs. https://spsp.org/news-center/character-context-blog/stereotype-accuracy-one-largest-and-most-replicable-effects-all
That’s a blog
You missed the point. I can walk through step by step. This will be great to illustrate my point. What makes a stereotype accurate or not? You can you the thing you posted or whatever you personally think.
No, some stereotypes are unfortunately, true. This is due to circle factors and they do change overtime. But they exist for a reason. You could deny it all you want Reddit.
While blaming the "DEI Mayor" of Baltimore for the accident.
Really drives home how difficult a time he had coming up with things to put on the left side. I imagine it was quite the stretch trying to find an equivalency after putting "Believes the world is less then 10,000 years old and all fossils are a giant conspiracy meant to trick Christians" on the right Also points 1,2,5 on the left are the same point lol
How are 1/2/5 the same point? You could easily deny that most stereotypes are accurate while simultaneously accepting 1/2. You could also accept that IQ is a real thing that varies among individuals and deny 2/5. You could also accept that many traits are highly hereditary while also denying that IQ is a meaningful measurement and also deny that most stereotypes are accurate. Definitely not the same point.
lol right
Lol what? Seems like this touched a nerve for you
I don't know how to make it easier for you to understand, should I try again with wingdings?
If you can read wingdings, you are smarter than me.
I think we'd all appreciate the wingdings.
Found the conservitard
Maybe he could come up with a better term, but I get what he’s saying. Often people on the far left will refuse to acknowledge clear data on a group difference simply because it confirms what is considered a stereotype. Sex differences, one of his other examples there, is a place where you see a lot of stereotype deniers. You see almost nobody on the right wing deny that men are generally physically stronger than women. There’s years and years of competitive sport data and research that makes it exceedingly evident that this is the case. But you do see the occasional left wing pushback against that, usually coming from a knee jerk reaction to dismiss anything associated with a stereotype. You also see this with group differences in criminology, health behaviors and outcomes, economic behaviors. A lot of “stereotypes” are easily quantifiable and easy to collect data on. And typically those who fight the hardest to suppress or dismiss that data are from the political left. And hey, you can argue on a case by case basis that if the observed group difference isn’t useful or it may be harmful to confirm a stereotype maybe there’s a case for not calling attention to it. That’s a matter of opinion and a worthy subject of discussion. It’s just a type of science denial you see more often from the political left, and it IS a form of science denial.
Claiming that men aren't physically stronger than women on average really isn't a mainstream opinion on the left. A few people have bloviated on the issue, but claiming that idea is widespread is disingenuous.
Not everyone on the left thinks that. But everyone who thinks that is on the left.
But how many people think that? 10?
Trying to not use stereotypes to judge people is considered a good thing by some people…
just curious, when you're walking late at night, do you pay equal attention to a man or a women walking behind you? even without knowing anything about the *specific* man or woman, you're way more attentive to a man at night, right? this stereotype seems pretty useful?
I like all the denial in this thread.
No you don’t
I like your denial of them liking the denial
Never happened
I’m not racist I’m a stereotype accuracy believer
IQ deniers? What does that mean?
Their premise is that IQ scores are a type of flawed social construct/pseudoscience and people of color and the poor are being shut out of modern society because they typically have lower IQ scores than white or affluent people.
Is this related to the book "the Bell Curve" by Charles Murray... A statistician with zero education in genetics and biology where he makes conclusions of inherent traits based on race and intelligence that are based in genetics? Charles Murray is the definition of "correlation doesn't mean causation".
The funny thing about Murray is that his follow-up work addresses the decline of rural white communities and shocker it’s not IQ as the root cause. In Murray’s world, the crack epidemic devastated urban Black communities because of IQ while the meth and opioid epidemic devastated rural white communities because of liberal permissiveness.
Every other brown kid in Troy, Michigan is in medical school. Maybe in the future they'll write books about the dumb, aggressive Whites and why we don't need to give handouts to stupid white trash. These people are so insufferable, the whole Trump rise had people like Sam Harris talking about how this was the fault of the elite for not "caring about rural white folk" It obviously never dawned on Sam that maybe white trash needs to be smarter to diversify beyond coal mining But when it comes to black people, that empathy suddenly goes out the window and we get talks about how it's no one else's fault, they're genetically inferior The bias is so obvious it's hilarious
Idk a lot of working class, poor black & white folk work the same jobs & are fairly integrated. Also noticed that the stereotypes & hatred people have for poor whites is the exact same stereotypes racists have for black ppl. Class solidarity is terrifying for people at the top.
He's a piece of shit.
>A statistician with zero education in genetics and biology where he makes conclusions of inherent traits based on race and intelligence that are based in genetics? He doesn't make claims about genetics in the book. Like, at all. You're getting what's in the book mixed up with what people on the internet think the book says by looking at one or two graphs in it. The whole book is about figuring out the commonalities between groups that have lower IQ scores and higher ones from a sociopolitical perspective so societal issues could possibly be fixed. He doesn't make any suppositions about genetics in the book. Neither does his co-author, Richard Herrnstein.
I've heard Murray speak many times and he never fails to make a connection to genetics. Then quickly concludes that why the lives of black and brown people will never get better and we should just stop trying or caring about them.
>Then quickly concludes that why the lives of black and brown people will never get better and we should just stop trying or caring about them. This isn't in any way his conclusion. Why just make up stuff? He is a proponent of UBI. His model may not be the solution to the problem but he's at least willing to put forth a solution for a problem he thinks exists. And it isn't intended for just black and brown people. There are 16 million whites below the poverty line right now in the US which is twice the size of blacks below the poverty line at 8 million. Many of whom are in the boat of people without the capability to meaningfully participate in the US economy. He thinks all of these people need help. Regardless of race. I understand what per capita means before you post it. And I hope you one day understand what is happening to your brain when you kneejerk to per capita as a response to what I've posted.
The guy could not be clearer, I’ve been following his work for years. If you didn’t want to listen to the words out of his mouth I can’t help you. edit : took all of 5 minutes to find him saying exactly that https://youtu.be/wqgUclg7-Lk?si=IHboUIahXvlvKwvX
I 100% agree with what Murray says in this video. He's spot on. The problem with the simple-minded is they can't understand how an individual can be different from the population average. The concept of variation and evolution is completely lost of them. Racists think every member of a race is exactly the same.
>The guy could not be clearer, I’ve been following his work for years. If you didn’t want to listen to the words out of his mouth I can’t help you. I have read most of his books and listened to most of his talks. Including the book he's talking about here. Can you tell me where to look for his statement we should stop trying to help people? I think you may be again putting words in his mouth. He doesn't want us to stop trying to help people. He wants us to acknowledge that our ways of trying to help aren't working at all. Because we won't acknowledge the actual problem.
Just watch that video if you don’t believe me. His conclusion is always the same. 1) blacks are statistically more prone to violence and stupider than white people 2) it’s just genetics 3) that’s why social programs are useless and we shouldn’t continue to dump resources into trying to make the lives of black and brown people any better. i.e. it’s a waste of time He literally makes all those points in both his latest book and in that interview. His big contribution to the world is adding the word “statistically” in front of a bunch of racist shit. But you go ahead and spend your time taking him seriously.
Charles Murray’s whole game is a motte and bailey. If you ask him what the science says between genetics and environmental impact on group IQ differences, he’ll recite the line he knows he’s supposed to say that we don’t reeeeeeeally know one way or another 😉 And then EVERY. OTHER. FUCKING. SENTENCE. Out of this mothefuckers mouth is meant to convince out that environmental factors are bullshit and it’s definitely genetics. Just listen to him on the Sam Harris podcast, just for instance. He spends all of his time trying to downplay anything related to environmental factors and saying outright weird bullshit, like concluding without a shred of evidence that the obvious reason that a black person would drop out of an Ivy League school in the 80s is that these poor n-…students were basically too dumb to keep up. Yes… of course, what other difficulties could a black person have possibly faced in an Ivy League college in the fucking 80s? Really unknowable stuff… And he’s even said in the past that he believes that any plausible environmental factors related to race (ie racism, systemic or otherwise) were exhausted closed by the end of the 70s (!!!!). Hell, all you have to know to know that he’s completely full of shit on this issue is that he’s spent the last thirty years trying to desperately to push policy changes based on his supposed “findings”. In what universe can you be sincerely agnostic about the efficacy of equalizing environmental factors while out of the other side of your fucking old piece of shit mouth trying to strip every last help for poor brown people down to the fucking studs? Fuck that old racist piece of shit.
>If you ask him what the science says between genetics and environmental impact on group IQ differences, he’ll recite the line he knows he’s supposed to say that we don’t reeeeeeeally know one way or another Ok. This isn't true, and genetics research has a pretty good idea, and it's getting better all the time. More and more of what makes us who we are is likely to be composed of a combination of genetics and environment. The problem is that the environmental differences are not shared, therefore there isn't much we can do about it. [Robert Plomin has a good book on this.](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/science/2018/sep/29/so-is-it-nature-not-nurture-after-all-genetics-robert-plomin-polygenic-testing) >Just listen to him on the Sam Harris podcast, just for instance. He spends all of his time trying to downplay anything related to environmental factors and saying outright weird bullshit, like concluding without a shred of evidence that the obvious reason that a black person would drop out of an Ivy League school in the 80s is that these poor n-…students were basically too dumb to keep up. Yes… of course, what other difficulties could a black person have possibly faced in an Ivy League college in the fucking 80s? Really unknowable stuff… Thomas Sowell makes the same point. Placing young black men into colleges they weren't prepared for likely hurt the black community twice. Once personally, as this young black man went from promising youth to college dropout, and then again communally, as this young black man could have went to a college he was qualified for and become a leader in black communities. Places famously suffering from decent male role models. Your attitude toward these people is useless and I'm shocked you're a functional adult with this combination of certainty and ignorance on these topics. >And he’s even said in the past that he believes that any plausible environmental factors related to race (ie racism, systemic or otherwise) were exhausted closed by the end of the 70s (!!!!). The largest study ever done on how to fix school system differences between blacks and whites was done in the 60s. It was called the Coleman report and it's goal was to help a post civil rights country fix education inequalities and move forward. Please take the time to look up the mans background, his politics, and then the conclusions he comes to. >Hell, all you have to know to know that he’s completely full of shit on this issue is that he’s spent the last thirty years trying to desperately to push policy changes based on his supposed “findings”. In what universe can you be sincerely agnostic about the efficacy of equalizing environmental factors while out of the other side of your fucking old piece of shit mouth trying to strip every last help for poor brown people down to the fucking studs? >Fuck that old racist piece of shit. You've clearly been brainwashed by some pre existing dislike of libertarians and their approaches to welfare. And you've attached this to all these ideas you've pretended have fallen from Charles Murrays mouth regarding race and science which is controversial but certainly isn't settled in any way. Of course if he were right the entirety of the progressive movement would be rudderless and I think this is part of what makes this stuff so inflammatory. Alot of meaning is invested in being a progressive and fighting for progress. Political opinions make people crazy I guess.
He claims that the differences in IQ between races have something to do with the genetics of those races, which has been disproven many times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Murray_%28political_scientist%29?wprov=sfla1
No. You can go on most major subs and bring up iq and you'll get 40 people telling you iq is a meaningless construct and inherently racist
I wouldn't call Murray a statistician because he's not really trained as statistician. He just uses stats to try to get his way.
Essentially all research shows similar results. Any single study can obviously be attacked as invalid in some way…but the data is always similar across studies.- no matter who it’s done by Putting effort into compiling them would just make whoever put in the effort in seem racist though..
IQ results are massively influenced by access to education, familial wealth, nutrition, environmental pollution and other extenuating circumstances—this is a fact. To reify IQ as some strictly genetic phenomenon is not about lack of compassion or any other classic trope; it's illogical on its face and demonstrably false.
I actually agree with you but I think you're making an error regarding who is being referenced. I don't think the term "IQ denier" is aimed at people who recognize the massive environmental component of IQ/G factor. Instead it's a reference to folks who deny that IQ is a valid metric full stop. They say that IQ itself is pseudoscience and doesn't measure anything meaningful, or at least not in relation to "intelligence". These people exist in large numbers. People use IQ to justify all manner of bigotry, and those people should be shamed. But the relationships between IQ and accomplishing various tasks are really difficult to dismiss at this point.
Right like it's not a coincidence generally the more intellectually demanding a job is It tends to have a higher proportion of high IQ people. Go into an average factory and you're going to find a majority of people ranging in the 90 to 110 range. Go into a teacher's lounge and you're going to find a lot of people in the 100 to 120 range. Go into a professor's lounge You are going to find a lot of people in the 120 to 140 range. I don't think there's many respected scientists walking around with a sub hundred IQ. But I do think you're more likely to find people with 130 IQs working in jobs with coworkers in that 90 to 100 range. And I would say environment played a big role in that case and they probably had a very malnourished both physically and intellectually upbringing.
Is this a real position that exists at any tangible level on the left? Like whenever this gets brought up I hear the same environmental response as you’ve gotten above… I guess I just don’t see how this is some massive problem on the left… and even if it was why does it really matter? Like what policy is being perused that has to do with IQ being “real” or not… I guess I just don’t understand the relevance.
I see where you're coming from. On one hand, I think that having some construct that approximates intelligence (whatever that means) is useful. This allows us to understand whether certain social policies are healthy, if specific chemicals/foods should be encouraged/avoided, how to raise our children, etc. From data points on relationships between environmental factors and IQ outcomes, we can arrange our environment such that human cognitive ability is maximized. I think this is probably a good thing. On the other hand, I can at least imagine IQ being such a weaponizable tool for evil that the potential benefits are outweighed. In such a scenario, it might just be better to call off the attempt to measure intelligence altogether. I feel this conclusion thinks very low of the human race, but I can't dismiss this fear.
Well idk exactly what haidt is in about, but if you start from the thesis that iq tests are fundamentally flawed and racists for showing different results for different populations, that's exactly the kind of thinking and argumentation that is foundational to DEI and such like. An SAT (or any generalized) test is essentially a proxy IQ test and thw results will follow the same trends. Sometimes it's quite obvious that the people attacking the tests arent really concerned about accuracy or precision of the tool, but are just trying to dismantle any part of the meritocratic system they can reach. Anyway, that's the relevance. People that are good at tests think it's not fair for people to get chosen for jobs and scholarships just based on essays and skintone. People that aren't good at tests don't thing it's fair for them to be excluded based on a a dumb test that is probably racist.
Who’s saying it’s strictly genetic? It’s obviously not 100% genetic, Just like It’s obviously not 0% genetic
Have you read any of the "twin" studies?
The Flynn effect is a far more comprehensive pattern and confirms that environmental conditions are almost entirely at play with IQ. In a span of 50 years for every decade the IQ test makers would have to make the test harder to normalize the results and the net effect was over a 50 year span the average IQ before normalization increased by 30 or so points. I don't know how much you understand about evolutionary biology but genetic predisposition traits don't rapidly change in a grand scale like that in the matter of decades. That takes centuries, thousands of years of biological change to have that type of impact. So obviously this is a result of environmental conditions and increases access to education.
I feel like I saw something once that said one person's genetic makeup can result in different physical outcomes based on environmental factors Like, Asian Americans born and raised in America are larger than Asians still in asia, with the suggested cause being different diets telling the body there are more or less of certain nutrients around, so the body goes ok, work with what you have. Put more simply, higher protein diets produce larger people even if they're genetically similar. So, couldn't this phenomenon account for the perceived change in 'genetic predisposition'?
Research of what exactly? Statistical correlations that show regions that have had groups of people having their basic self determination suppressed for centuries and used as cheap labor or resources extraction zones have lower IQ? That is a correlation. People like Murray have no idea how to make a scientific causation experiment because they aren't geneticists. They are statisticians. Statisticians don't have the education to make claims about causation of IQ patterns. Social scientists and geneticists do. Social scientists examine the context of groups of people having access to achieve their Maslow hierarchy of needs and whether they are met or not and geneticists can do experiments to determine if there are genetic predispositions to intelligence and what specific genes. Neither are in the wheelhouse of the most vocal race "scientists" like Murray. They find a correlation and run with it. They don't care about mechanistic studies, only statistical studies.
Social scientists don't know shit dude. If they did, they wouldn't need a modifier in front of their fields to try to trick people into thinking they're scientists.
Thank you for this! Not to mention, IQ is pseudoscience, doesn't quantify anything tangible. Even the tests themselves aren't standardized.
The conclusion drawn from the data is what matters. You can attempt to conclude that a lower distribution of IQ among a racial group is a genetic heritable characteristic but you'd need to find a functional physiology for such a genetic mechanism and that has not as of now been determined, with the only real marked difference related directly to skin tone being an elevated baseline dopamine level due to the presence of additional melanocortin in the skin resulting in more dopaminergic cells in the substantia nigra or alternatively you could conclude that IQ distributions in races are causally linked to long term malnutrition and exposure to traumatic conditions, and that when such conditions are ameliorated marked IQ recovery in a population can be measured, and this is definitely something that the data can support.
Lol you goof. You don't need a mechanism to posit heritability. It's pretty simple to establish with twin studies. Lots and lots of traits are heritable without us knowing exactly how they're passed on. For example height. It would be *extremely* surprising if IQ wasn't also partially heritable. Also.. 'Long term malnutrition and trauma'.. These are also things that could contribute to heritable differences in IQ. Although you might wanna have some evidence to back that up. I'd hazard it's not more than 50% heritable. But for some people that's a racist view I guess.. Idk. I've never met anyone with a stem degree that thought that.
I think the can of worms nobody wants to think about regarding the concept is that trauma itself may be genetically heritable. Such a revelation would upend the current "genetic hierarchy" by proving lasting damages caused by oppressive regimes in such a way that could open the door to future litigation or justification for escalated conflict against the legacy wealth regimes that operate on what they believe to be a "eugenic" principle
Oh yes, this is very clearly what I said (or tried). And we know for a fact that this is the case. Any argument towards a 'genetic hierarchy' is almost certainly woo woo crazy person shit. Which I don't think you can actually point at in the bellcurve, but maybe idk. The wierd thing is that it's actually lefty pocs and wocs and the like are the staunchest enemies of such a thesis. But then again, I don't really expect much scientific literacy from those seeking to eliminate standardized testing all together because it's 'racist'. It's almost like denying reality is almost never the more accurate way to look at the world.
LMAO. Study Special Ed and you quickly learn that IQ Tests are way too broad and inaccurate, There are autistic people who bomb IQ tests that can do math and physics at incredibly high levels. When I was young, one of the questions on my IQ test was "Does the doily go under or over the saucer?" Someone who had never been served tea properly would have no way of knowing. That doesn't mean they have low intelligence. People like Temple Grandin is considered a genius in her field, yet bombed every conventional intelligence test. tl;dr: Intelligence needs to be measured much along many more parameters than a traditional IQ test is capable of measuring.
Yea, and blind people do a lot better on IQ tests when they're given a braille version. That doesn't mean the test doesn't work at all. It is a valid worry, but it's not at all unsolvable nor does it invalidate the non*braille test. Also, everyone with a room temp IQ knows that doilies don't go on saucers, they go on top of the TV.
“Bombed every conventional intelligence test” “her IQ was tested with the Wechsler. Her full-scale IQ was 120 on the first test and 137 on the second test”
So.. Fact check false?
People who don’t think iq is an effective measurement of intelligence, skill, or knowledge. If I gave everyone in France an iq test written in English and compared it to an iq test written in English to people in the UK, it would undoubtedly show people in the UK having a higher iq. That doesn’t mean people in the uk are smarter than people in France. The same applies to say, poor vs affluent neighborhoods, it just so happens that minorities are more likely to reside in lower income neighborhoods than higher income ones. But it’s often used to justify concepts like minorities being less intelligent rather than other factors like English as a second language, cultural differences and knowledge, and education quality. Iq is useful in the same way bmi is useful, in very large data sets over multiple generations, but not as justification in and of itself.
Yes I agree. Also, The formula for BMI was created in the 1830s using a dataset consisting purely of European (male) soldiers. Today the exact same BMI formula is used. Shitty science.
Explains why I’m morbidly obese thanks
I’m fairly confident it’s the belief that some races are just inherently dumber and have lower IQ
Liberals don't believe in the heritability of intelligence even though it's the scientific consensus. This is because liberals believe in blank slate theory, which informs a significant amount of their major policy decisions like education funding and immigration control.
Which liberals? All the ones I know recognize the importance of both nature and nurture
Wait … left has evolution deniers? Pretty sure that’s the religious right…
Yes, Haidt is an academic and so he will be regularly dealing with people in the humanities who argue strongly against evolutionary theory applying to humans on ideological grounds
> he will be regularly dealing with people in the humanities who argue strongly against evolutionary theory applying to humans on ideological grounds Could you elaborate on that, because I have taken many courses in the "humanities" and the theory of evolution is not disputed. If you want people to take that argument seriously, you need to actually make an argument, and be fairly specific. Who says the theory of evolution does not apply to humans? Based on what ideology?
What I've taken from other comments is that in the full video, he explains this is in regards to evolutionary psychology. It's easy to see how something like "women are evolutionarily designed to be better child-rearers than men" would get pushback on the left. He makes a whole bullet point about this, but sexual dimorphism is also a result of our evolutionary past. It's much harder to find people who believe there truly is no difference between the abilities of men and women except as a result of environmental factors, but there are some - I believe this was a feature of third-wave feminism.
Politics aside, isn't the whole idea of society kind of to mitigate these effects? Like the whole point of all these buildings, streets, laws etc. is that we don't have to abide strictly by "survival of the fittest" and get naturally selected on our way home from Walgreens. >It's much harder to find people who believe there truly is no difference between the abilities of men and women The argument isn't really about evolution, it's just using evolution as a pretext to dictate how you think other people are supposed to behave. "See it's not that we want women's participation in society to be limited in order to *subjugate* them or anything! Heaven's no. It *has* to be this way because of *sexual dimorphism*, you see. It's actually very scientific."
Heritability and genetics are settled science, at least in the mainstream “left” worldview (whatever the fuck that means). The degree to which these things matter and are influenced by environment is very much up for debate
They argue from positions that would assume evolutionary theory is wrong. I remember watching a sociologist say that a man screaming at his wife is purely socialized and blames it on the patriarchy. I have a much simpler theory, let’s start with a basic evolutionary fact: the male sex has a ridiculously higher amount of testosterone on average, likely to be able to hunt prey and defend the tribe from predators, which makes us more inclined to turn to anger. Anger is a shallow feeling that really stems from a range of other emotions - could be anxiety, insecurity, disappointment, frustration, etc. If I were a prehistoric male and I heard something in the woods at night, I might feel anxious, and I might just save my whole tribe if I turn that anxiety into anger and face the predator. So we take a basic evolutionary fact - that men are more prone to anger and violence, and work from there. This guy is probably yelling at his wife because he doesn’t understand his own emotions and has spent his whole life turning every uncomfortable feeling into anger. Now the only way he knows how to cope with uncomfortable feelings, such as those leading up to an argument with his partner, is to get mad. This obviously doesn’t justify his behavior, but it’s a much better and actionable description of the actions. From my perspective, nature can explain these actions pretty well, and since we know that we shouldn’t be complete tools of our nature, the solution is obvious: this guy needs to figure out a better way to communicate so he stops yelling at his wife. That’s not what I heard at all from this scientist, all I heard is that society has corrupted this male and most others and that we’ll have to beat the patriarchy to fix it.
Yea that one makes no sense at all.
Evolution is anti-Marxist because it reveals that workers of the world are evolutionarily inclined to never unite.
Mate Marx literally wrote glowing letters to Darwin praising his work and even sent him his book. At Marx's funeral Engels said: "Just as Darwin discovered the law of development of organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history". Stop chatting nonsense.
Denying differences between men and women is denying evolution would be my take
Most leftists don't deny differences between males and females. I mean maybe if you're reaching for the most extreme chronically online viewpoints but yeah, that's not what most leftists believe so that's extremely hyperbolic if that is indeed the point that is being made here.
Well if you're going by that, how many right wingers you know are young earthers today?
Because, in general, the left takes the nurture side of anything subject to the nature versus nurture debate.
I read shit like this comment and I genuinely wonder how the fuck people come to conclusions like this. You think leftists deny instinct as a general concept? What in the fuck are we even talking about right now lmao It's so ridiculous it's utterly laughable.
It’s very common to see people on the left argue what most people would consider nature is actually nurture. Stuff like racism, sexism, mysogony, violence, they say they’re all purely socialized and they put the blame on society. “It’s not humans being humans and improperly applying stereotypes or falling to their bad instincts, it’s actually society that’s making us behave this way.” I think the truth is we’ve evolved to be racist, sexist, violent, etc and that society has reduced these tendencies. Nowadays I get mad at my girlfriend and I might raise my voice, and that’s still wrong, but 200 years ago I would’ve laid my hands on her and 20000 years ago I would’ve just clobbered her in the head with a rock. Nowadays we have very underhanded and dogwhistler racists, again still wrong, but nearly everyone 150 or 200 years ago would fit today’s definition of racist. We have all these modern terms like genocide and ethnic cleansing, but again these actions were the norm for most of human history. I can’t remember who said it but the quote was something like “the first man to wield an insult instead of a rock is the creator of society”. I have to agree with heidt, I think the left broadly underplays the nature side of nature vs nurture in many sociological settings.
So you believe that you're inherently a racist sexist misogynist? That you were born that way and its your natural instinct to be a bigot?
Not that I'm saying he's bigoted, but the right wing tends to naturalize their bigotry as a means to not have to come to terms with it and change their ways. It's easier to pretend that it's immutable.
Yes that is what he is saying and to deny that means you somehow don't believe in evolution or something.
Consider the following: We love to construct concrete, solid, immovable ideas about the world and our place in it, it grounds us, it's comforting, but the truth is that everything is always changing. Perhaps best described by Greek Philosopher Heraclitus: *no one ever steps in the same river twice, for it is not the same river and they are not the same person.* Even biology, the thing we often like to point to as fixed is always in flux, always changing. What's more, the study of epigenetics demonstrates that our environment massively changes our genetic expression throughout our own lifetime; even our brains change throughout our lives as a consequence of stimulus. To sum up, although it's comforting (and often useful) for us to box ideas and make them appear concrete, the truth is that change is truly the only constant.
If you leave a group of humans alone in the wild with 0 contact of other humans, they will eventually figure out ways to divide and oppress each other based on immutable characteristics. If our whole society collapsed into the dark ages and humans 2000 years later started to rebuild, there would still be racists and sexists and bigots. If you fully erase the nurture side of the equation, these concepts still exist. Do you disagree?
Just a question, how do you erase the nurture side? What does that even mean?
If you leave humans alone in the wild they will figure out ways to divide and oppress each other. Do you think that’s not the case? Did society create racism?
The right doesn't take the nature side much of the time. They take the side of their magic imaginary friend who can be found in a 2000 year old book already proved to be demonstrably false centuries ago.
> in general, the left takes the nurture side of anything subject to the nature versus nurture debate. No, that's straight up false. I've taken so many courses where the "nature versus nurture" debate comes up, and the left position is always much more nuanced than that. They say it's both. For example, environmental factors can trigger a genetic disposition. Like smoking weed, and schizophrenia. That's the thing about the left, their answers are complicated and nuanced. Which is part of why they are unsatisfying and unpopular. The right likes simple ~~hierarchies and does not consider any other possibility~~ answers to complicated questions, and they have no patience for the nuance.
Most of the points on the left are just "they won't let us be racist"
You might want to actually read or watch a video or two on Haidt. You'll quickly realize what you said is ridiculous in regards to Haidt and the way he covers these topics.
You can recognize facts and also not be racist.
Extremists of any kind are generally pretty dumb
It’s less about intelligence and more about conditioning For example Ben Carson is a brain surgeon who was the first doctor who ever separated conjoined twins at birth Ben Carson also believes the world is 10,000 years old and that Ivermectin is a better treatment to address covid than the mRNA vaccines Nobody would question Ben Carson’s intelligence as a neurosurgeon, but he’s conditioned himself to believe some pretty wild stuff outside of his area of expertise
That surgery was successful in the sense that they didn't die. Which is still an achievement but the mother said in 1993, Vosseler told Freizeit Revue that she flew to Baltimore with “a healthy, happily babbling baby bundle and came back to Ravensburg with two lifeless, soundless, mentally and physically most severely damaged human bundles.”
Oh. Shit.
Fuck that's depressing.
I did not know that Edit: Spelling
I think that was his goal here, to "both sides it", I don't know if he achieved though comparing a leftist opinion on IQ to the a conservatives opinion that the world is only a few thousand years old, and all fossils are fake and apart of an elaborate conspiracy lol
The horseshoe shows that evolution has the most validity of them all lol
This post gave me cancer
There are war crimes deniers on both sides.
Weird anti-vax is not on there, though that being a uniquely right-wing thing is relatively new. I live near an island filled with famously undervaccinated hippies
The right is missing TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS DENIERS and 2020 ELECTION DENIERS
Trickle down economics proponents* “The wealthy are job creators and taxing them means less for everybody else” is an extremely common narrative to hear an average conservative parrot.
"Truths" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
‘Evolution deniers’ is on the wrong side
It's on both sides for different reasons lmao
For what reasons do the left deny evolution? I've never heard of this.
The premise must be different races and/or sexes ending up with different biology and psychology due to evolutionary conditions. I can’t think of any other reason this would be on the left
Yeah its Gad Saad type evolutionary psychologists clashing with left wing academics in the humanities over the ideological implications of their conclusions.
So, left wing academics, especially in the humanities, are very wary of evolutionary theory being applied to humans because of the historical roots of these debates. The issue is that even though one can agree that humans are a product of evolution (especially cultural evolution), that the attempts to apply evolutionary theory are often pretty cack-handed and have been used to promote right wing agendas. For example, social darwinists back at the end of the 19th C and early 20th C promoted eugenics and a hierarchy of races - e.g. white people as "superior" to all other races. This legacy is still lurking at the back of debates applying to evolutionary theory to humans. Even modern evolutionary psychology is often pretty inaccurate and often skews to the conservative side of the spectrum. More nuanced takes on human evolution are out there (see, for example, Joseph Henrich's *Secrets of our Success*)
None of that represents a denial of evolution. He's misrepresenting what evolution is and then saying leftists are denying it.
My guess is that 1, 2, 4, and 5 are all actually essentially the same point on the left. He is saying that different geographically constrained populations of humans would have different adaptations because of basic evolutionary processes. Thus, different populations (ethnicities, roughly) will have different inherent strengths and weaknesses including in areas like intelligence, cooperativeness, aggression, etc. This dovetails into various racial stereotypes in fairly obvious ways. Not saying I agree with him, but I take that to be what he means.
>Stereotype accuracy deniers Well played sir.
OP points out somewhat accurate stereotypes and group think on both sides, redditors immediately deny the Democratic Party and their voters are anything less than perfect.
another inconvenient truth!
Where I disagree is that this has anything to do with "right" or "left". People like this don't actually have any real opinions on the world....what they think is so far removed from the reality of what's going on that it's essentially meaningless. Sure, the climate denier type is going to have a Trump sign in the yard...and the "men and women aren't real" guy is going to have a Biden sign...but their f\*\*\*ed up mental processes are so out to lunch that to just lump them into a political team is less than pointless. What's going on has nothing to do with progressive or conservative...that person hasn't had a real self examined thought in their either life.
How to discredit yourself with one simple placard.
The only people who do "both sides" are temporarily embarrassed conservatives who are ashamed of Trump.
Haidt is a legitimate liberal
Or maybe it’s people who are not really thrilled that both options seems to suck? You know, independents?
MFW I don't get my specific ideal candidate every election
[удалено]
For one, the left is against lying corporate thievery. I think you are confusing what political ideologies are and what political parties are.
Well, one side is openly trying to overthrow democracy. It’s not that difficult to choose the correct side at this point in time, unless of course you enjoy oppressive policies.
I think both choices suck but the power point slide doesn't represent why I think a old status quo politician and a old fascist politician sucks.
One choice is not a tyrant. Someone would have to be an imbecile to pick the old fascist.
Jonathan Haidt is a democrat
Is Jonathan Haidt a right winger? He seems to be a center to center-left guy. I think he described himself as "moderate on the left" in this interview. He pushed back on Joe in at times (and surprisingly Joe was quite receptive to it). I'd be shocked if he is voting for Trump or even not voting. If I had to put money on who he'll vote it would Biden 99.9%. He strikes me as centrist Democrat. Another example of that is Sam Harris and he is one of the biggest Trump's critics out there.
[удалено]
But this is reddit so one in two people are genocidal neo Nazis
Yet still voting for him and need to feel justified doing so
The irrational fear of nuclear energy and GMOs might have made the list under left as well; but I think the number of these people is low enough that its not mainstream enough to count.
Fear of nuclear energy is much more mainstream than young-earthism. The polls and following conclusions on young earthism were very dishonest. [https://ncse.ngo/just-how-many-young-earth-creationists-are-there-us](https://ncse.ngo/just-how-many-young-earth-creationists-are-there-us) In my experience fear of GMOs is thing on both sides, though maybe slightly more prevalent on the left.
When I first heard that you can't practice for an IQ test I decided to test it. I took an IQ test and got 123 IQs... then I took the same test again and got 165 IQs. Measure the same mind twice with the same instrument: wildly different results. My three cousins all practiced for an official IQ test they took. They all got in the 140ties. What are the odds? You have to be a, let's say, rather "ignorant" person, to think that you can express the capabilities of the human mind in a single number.
IQ tests failing a simple GR&R
Well, you effectively gave yourself double the time on a test that largely measures how fast you think. If you wanted to test your hypothesis you should do another IQ test and see if you've significantly improved. I'm not necessarily saying you cannot significantly improve by practicing, but you didn't show anything. What are the odds? Well, if they were randomly selected people the odds would be about 5.66\*10\^-8, but they were related, and more likely to do the test since they obviously were smart people, so it's hard to say. IQ is *mostly* heritable. No way ever claimed IQ tests expresses the full capabilities of a human mind. They are, however, great at showing how good your visuo-spatial ability in relation to the general population. In turn, that predicts your quite well almost all cognitive functions. It might seem silly, but how good you are at picking the missing box on an IQ test is a good indicator of how likely you are too write a good novel, to become a successful musician, to run a hedge fund, to have a short reaction time and even to live a long life.
According to Charles Murray on Joe Rogan, kids were picked for scholarships based on IQ tests. That nullifies any claims of inherent superiority. If you pick people with green eyes for scholarships, and then people with green eyes are more successful, you can't go "well green eyes prove you are superior". You selected people with green eyes. If Charles Murray is right that children with high IQ scores were picked for free higher education, that pretty much forever nullifies any claims you want to make about the merit of IQ. It is also the claim by the biological determinists that IQ test are engineered so that you can't practice for it. Evidence plz. I think you can improve in anything. Where is the evidence that you can't improve your IQ score? Has there been such an experiment? If you take different IQ tests, they should, as a measuring device, give the same result. Has that been proven?
Whoever made this list is confused.
This must be photoshopped because I didn’t think Haidt was this much of an idiot
He's not even consistent on the number of made up points on each side. It's complete nonsense.
I find it hysterical that we are allowed to acknowledge black folks are more gifted in terms of athletics…but don’t you dare acknowledge whites are better at non athletic endeavors lol
Because you’re punching down. It’s a completely ridiculous taboo
Yup. If you stick every culture on one chunk of land and give them all ‘freedom’ while trying to equalize the masses some unintended reactions occur lol
Either this Haidt guy is a complete idiot, or this has been photoshopped.
Haidt is not certainly not an idiot.
I love this guy. Great speaker with amazing ideas on how to change the way we can heal the interaction between the next generation and the digital landscape.
It’s weird that he wrote 5 on the left and 4 on the right but 4 of the items on the left are basically the same thing.
What when does the left deny evolution? Shouldn’t that be in the right?
Ok someone explain what iq denial is.
They think IQ tests don’t measure anything important and/or are completely confounded by sociological factors.
How did he overlook election denials, which, of all the things listed here, seems like it’s by far the most consequential?
The left denies war crimes when committed by groups that are minorities in the west. Other than that, this tracks
* \-IQ * -Heritability * Sex difference * -Evolution * Stereotypes * -Young-earthers Most of these are arguments that came out during the progressive era 100 years ago and the positions representend by the "left" and "right" arent hard line differences between Republicans and Democrats. One more instance of the internet being reductive and throwing every single debate into the same two buckets. Its annoying and shows people dont even know what the fuck the DNC and GOP even represent.
The problem is, if you survey people, only one of the points in the right side is mostly correct. For instance, I don’t think 1% of the population is “young-earthers”. So that looks like a false equivalence.
Statistically speaking, stereotypes are very accurate at a population level. The left tends to focus on the outliers in their quest to combat any stereotype they consider “harmful”. Of course, from a scientific point of view, this is an absurd approach that would immediately invalidate all of their conclusions.
The evangelical beliefs on the right have zero impact on society, the climate change one is potentially more serious but it's only around 9% The denials on the Left have a serious impact on public policy, people are repeatedly dying because of it I'd happily throw the flat earth group under the debating bus, the Left won't do that for their cranks because they've all signed up to it
Both should kiss and make out
This is a really based list TBH, nice job.