The little professor
- Local time
- Today, 18:59
- May 3, 2011
Some people are biased. But you are human, and humans make mistakes. So you can be wrong about things, and about this as well. So you can't argue, that just because some people don't agree with you, that they are always automatically biased. Some people may be unbiased, and right, that you are wrong, and some people may be biased, and still be right, that you are wrong. Treating any scientific theory or any scientist like they are infallible, is not that rational.Although written nearly two decades ago, Arthur Jensen's critique of Charles Murray's work in The Bell Curve, and the popular (almost stridently incomprehensible) uproar over the statistically robust claims and correlations made therein, perhaps elucidates the chaos that some members are attempting to engender: name calling ("neo-nazi," "pseudo-scientific," "racism"), sidetracks ("but does IQ really measure intelligence?"), non-sequiturs ("specific genes for IQ have not been identified, so we can claim nothing about its heritability"), red herrings ("Hitler misused genetics"), falsehoods ("all the tests are biased"), hyperbole ("throwing gasoline on a fire"), and insults ("creepy," "indecent," "ugly"). The following excerpt was from an article which Jensen wrote ("Paroxysms of Denial") directly following The Bell Curve's publication.
In order to prove bias, and not fall prey to that mistake yourself, you have to prove bias, independently of their views. So, if someone else first takes a poll of people's views, and doesn't let you know the results, and then you ask them about your theory, and in every such discussion, it always turns out, that everyone who didn't express a bias in the first poll, happens to never express the view that your theory might be wrong, then one could say that those who happen to disagree with your theory, is probably biased.
But you have to do that, multiple times, before you can show it is a repeatable, and predictable, phenomenon, that one can consider scientifically reliable.
I didn't see you do that here. Therefore, there is every possibility that your theory may be disagreed with, by people who aren't biased, and we cannot discount that possibility.
If you want to accept this as a fact for yourself, that is your personal choice. But if you require that I do, without freedom of rational thought for others, to come to their own conclusions, then that would be a totalitarian situation, where even opinions contrary to your views, would be outlawed. I think such a situation would not be productive for science, and such theories as are invalid, probably would hold sway, because no-one would be allowed to disagree with them. That is exactly why so many people don't like "PC".The words are as poignant for this thread and the libelous ejaculations of some of its contributors as they were in the nineties for the United States' refusal to accept prevailing conditions, black/white IQ differences and statistical outcomes. Blacks report IQ scores, on average, one standard deviation (15 IQ points) lower than whites; consistent findings show that low IQ - irrespective of its provenance and creation (e.g., environmental factors) - is associated with childbirth out of wedlock, welfare, criminality and educability. The negative aspects of these correlations essentially disintegrate as one moves simply to average IQ levels. This is the current landscape of knowledge, which has been thoroughly studied, chronicled, disseminated and understood for generations, but enclaves of the lay audience appear to have their own narrative of enduring conditions.
But, if you wish to have a discussion, based on an assumption that blacks score better than whites, because they are smarter, then we can do that, because that does not require that any of us accept your views without question and reason.
If that is what you meant, then I return to your original question:
You refused to accept that anyone who believes that the black/white difference can largely be attributed to cultural bias, is doing so, out of anything other than lack of reason, and cultural bias itself. So you don't believe such people hold any form of valid views.For those who still believe that the black/white difference can largely be attributed to cultural bias, I have one question: why do East Asians perform slightly higher than whites on American IQ tests? Seemingly the cultural and educational, overarching environmental differences, are not subsumed solely be some factor which preferentially attacks blacks and leaves asians alone. Some critics then shift gears and argue that SES brings down IQ for blacks. Let's remember two things though: SES informs IQ, and IQ informs SES; second, when the statistical analyses are computed, SES only explains one third of the standard deviation difference between blacks and whites. What explains the rest? Genetics? Something else? I would love to hear your opinions.
Thus, your statement: "I would love to hear your opinions." doesn't make sense. Why would you want to hear the views of what you consider to be unreasonable, anyway?
If you would love to hear the opinions of those who disagree with you, but only to try and knock them down, and then, having failed, to claim they are biased, and thus only reject reason, then that's not exactly a winning argument. Far from it. Schopenhauer even pointed out that if you try to knock down people's views, even their wrong ones, they are just going to stick to them even stronger than they did before you spoke. Emerson pointed out similarly.
So why on Earth did you choose to ask the opinions of people you refuse to even discuss with?
Are you a glutton for punishment?
I would love to hear your opinions on why you bothered to ask for people to knock down your theory, when you refuse to listen to their objections.