My design for life

JRPC wrote:

But this is precisely why we cannot stick our heads in the sand on this and must deal with the evidence honestly.

He said, after studiously ignoring and avoiding all the sources, links and questions Face had posted.

JRPC wrote:

What here do you think you an I are actually disagreeing about?

gosh, well, I’m totally stumped as to how one might go about trying to find out what points Face had put to you.
Golly, if only there was some form of written record somewhere that you could go back and spend a little time to read over and have a think about. Oh well, what a shame there isn’t, best move on I suppose, nothing to be done.

JRPC wrote:

Not only did I not downplay it but I granted you the worst possible motives for the funding of their research.

And yet you refuse to follow through on what that funding might mean. You admitted it in the same way Harris admitted the US has done bad things, ie you've then carried on as if it means nothing.

I have no interest at all in defending the financial backing of a 20-year-old book that I have not read nor am ever likely to read. Why on earth would I?


Read these paragraphs again. This is a good summary of everything I'm trying to say about this subject.


All the word "race" means is different characteristics in different groups. There are not actually different races. There is only one human race. 

This isn't a controversial thing to say. 

Do you think that the Bell Curve, a book published 20 years ago, is the last time intelligence has been studied at a genetic level? The genetic basis of intelligence again is not a controversial subject, and a high-school understanding of genetics should tell you that like height, like skin colour, like blood pressure, and like a whole bunch of other characteristics, there's going to be some level of inter-group variation. None of this is controversial. 

I agree and have said multiple times already that this kind of information can be appropriated by the bad guys or even brought about through bad ethical intentions or methods. But this is precisely why we cannot stick our heads in the sand on this and must deal with the evidence honestly.


What here do you think you an I are actually disagreeing about?

I'm not sure now. Perhaps the importance of defending the right of poor science to be heard.

See again what you've said about things either being true or false. The things you've chosen to put in that dichotomy, well, I believe the phrase is "it's a bit more complicated than that."

It fucking is.

Facewon wrote:

I'm not sure now. Perhaps the importance of defending the right of poor science to be heard. See again what you've said about things either being true or false. The things you've chosen to put in that dichotomy, well, I believe the phrase is "it's a bit more complicated than that."

I think we're disagreeing far less than you're imagining. 

As we've talked about previously (and as Gonzo very kindly linked to), I am the intentions guy here. I'm all about the intentions. You've actually accused me of being overly concerned with intention in the past. The motives behind the studies matter.

As for this dichotomy business. 

Firstly, whether or not intelligence has a genetic element is absolutely a yes or no answer.

To what extent this is the case or how we interpret the data or how we let it inform social policy - these are obviously not yes/no questions but they are different questions. 


Let's substitute intelligence for blood pressure.  Do you honestly think you'd be voicing concerns about dichotomies or things being "more complicated than that" if I was talking about differences in BP between racial groups? 

If you accept that, the only variable to play with is your own prejudice or bias (which was not meant as an insult btw - another completely uncharitable reading of what I said).

BTW there are absolutely people who do argue similar things about height and blood pressure too. The idea that there could be any genetic differences between races at all is just too unpalatable for some people to bare.

You see this way more often in gender. 

I have literally had arguments with well-educated women who have refused to accept that there is any reason apart from environmental that could explain the size and strength differences between men and women. I've been called misogynist for thinking otherwise.

I actually had a conversation with some university professor 2 weeks ago who was insisting gender was an entirely social construct and presenting that as established fact.

RedDave2 wrote:

Actually can someone explain the gender as a social construct thing? I get gender classes as a social thing but gender alone seems more of a biological thing. I'm not against the idea , I simply don't understand it well enough.

You disgusting misogynistic pig!

How dare you!

It's another nefarious flavour of anti-rational leftist identity politics where the evaluation of a hypothesis isn't judged on whether it's true or not but on which political interest it serves. 

Wait that sounds strangely familiar.....

JRPC wrote:

It's another nefarious flavour of anti-rational leftist identity politics where the evaluation of a hypothesis isn't judged on whether it's true or not but on which political interest it serves.  Wait that sounds strangely familiar.....

With respect as Ive only just jumped in on this thread, but why not just show some respect.

If someone appears male but identifies as female, it has no negative effect on me what they feel, say or do. Conversely, if I call them a male pronoun upon first encounter, it might upset them. If I change my language and call them by female pronouns after they ask then it is all good. If I insist on calling them he/him then that is being rude and trying to wind them up.

The people who are seemingly most upset by gender terminology are those who refuse to follow a simple polite request. 

I understand that some people probably find it hard to disentangle gender from sexuality, or find it hard to expand the range beyond two. But does it do any harm at all to allow for it? I'd argue not. I would argue it does far more harm to deny them that identity because we all know the stats for suicide and self harm amongst people who don't fit in the straight, male/female boxes.

Ffs, @jrpc.

@vela, pace JRPC, it's not just leftist ip devotees who have problems with gender. There's certainly a pool of second wave feminists who have beef with it too. Funnily enough, I shouted into the void about this earlier with regards to ip. Was my main issue with the orbit article. IP is controversial amongst folks from the left and right.

But also, as per that orbit piece, ip does have a purpose and/or audience, a lot of it because, IMO, most of the other social movements don't cover trans issues, in particular, very well.

RedDave2 wrote:

Actually can someone explain the gender as a social construct thing? I get gender classes as a social thing but gender alone seems more of a biological thing. I'm not against the idea , I simply don't understand it well enough.

You're confusing biological sex and gender. Gender as it relates to people rather than language describes social differences. Sex describes physical ones. People began using gender to mean sex, which most of the time doesn't cause problems, but sometimes the distinction matters. Like in JRPC's argument. He meant sex, she meant gender.

Ha no, not guilty this time.

I have no idea who that is.

JRPC wrote:

Ha no, not guilty this time.

I have no idea who that is.

Well that's a relief. Don't look them up.

Did you take him up on his offer?

JRPC wrote:

It's another nefarious flavour of anti-rational leftist identity politics where the evaluation of a hypothesis isn't judged on whether it's true or not but on which political interest it serves. 

Wait that sounds strangely familiar.....

Slightly disgusting that you’re coming out with this bollocks after the time and energy people have put into expressing their point of views.

You can be excused for starting this off thinking you’re fighting the good fight and breaking taboos. But it’s just pure intentional ignorance to still be at this stage after all this.

Tewh sjws!!