It’s probably difficult to respond to this in a way that’s satisfying to you, because I and most other people are not paid independently to post on the internet, and so there’s limits to what we can say in public. But every man under the age of 30 that I’ve ever met at Lighthaven, that I’ve had the opportunity to speak with privately, has completely and totally integrated IQ differences into their ontology. There’s no hem and hawing, they’ve just accepted it as part of their worldview.
The reason I disagree voted with your post is not because it touches on ‘taboos’, it’s because it’s a vast inferential leap, developed piecemeal from assorted blogs and sociological studies you’ve gathered on the internet. Anybody that doesn’t both share your priors and information feed almost exactly will naturally end up disagreeing with large portions of it, even if they agree with you that the cause of black poverty is genetics. And IMO for good reason, because large portions of the post are generated from claims like “Elites are pro-Hamas” that are just literally and obviously false, and that you’re treating as background knowledge that I’m supposed to share.
has completely and totally integrated IQ differences into their ontology. There’s no hem and hawing, they’ve just accepted it as part of their worldview.
Just noting that these are different things, and I think Richard is attempting to point at the differences between them.
eg, he’s claiming that Scott probably believes that there are group differences in intelligence (it’s a part of his worldview), but is also flinching away from propagating all the implications.
(However this doesn’t bear on the main thrust of your comment.
eg, he’s claiming that Scott probably believes that there are group differences in intelligence (it’s a part of his worldview), but is also flinching away from propagating all the implications.
Right, and what I’m saying is that they’re very explicit about it and propagate the implications.
It’s probably difficult to respond to this in a way that’s satisfying to you, because I and most other people are not paid independently to post on the internet, and so there’s limits to what we can say in public. But every man under the age of 30 that I’ve ever met at Lighthaven, that I’ve had the opportunity to speak with privately, has completely and totally integrated IQ differences into their ontology. There’s no hem and hawing, they’ve just accepted it as part of their worldview.
The reason I disagree voted with your post is not because it touches on ‘taboos’, it’s because it’s a vast inferential leap, developed piecemeal from assorted blogs and sociological studies you’ve gathered on the internet. Anybody that doesn’t both share your priors and information feed almost exactly will naturally end up disagreeing with large portions of it, even if they agree with you that the cause of black poverty is genetics. And IMO for good reason, because large portions of the post are generated from claims like “Elites are pro-Hamas” that are just literally and obviously false, and that you’re treating as background knowledge that I’m supposed to share.
Do you have a discussion about iq differences with every man under 30 you meet at Lighthaven?
Just noting that these are different things, and I think Richard is attempting to point at the differences between them.
eg, he’s claiming that Scott probably believes that there are group differences in intelligence (it’s a part of his worldview), but is also flinching away from propagating all the implications.
(However this doesn’t bear on the main thrust of your comment.
Right, and what I’m saying is that they’re very explicit about it and propagate the implications.