The Liberal Blind Spot

[Endus]

I really do not believe that facts are misogynistic, they just are. Just have a look at the nobel prize winners, most of them are men. This is largely because of gender roles over the ages, but that doesnt make it less true nor misogynistic. And that brings us to the white person thing you felt you needed to drag into this. When you look at the whole of history then it is a really stupid thing to say, there have been cultures blooming all over the world at different times. Most of the time they will have the smartest person alive. But, in recent history it have been white males that have hold this position, again, not because others are stupid but because of a better education systems. But in very recent history this has luckily changed a lot. Brilliant people are starting to come from all over the world, simply because they get a chance to bloom.

This is not racist, this is not sexist, this simply is how we have evolved/came out off the industrial revolution. This isn't to say that everything that evolved like it did is a good or a bad thing, it just is. So, the root problem here isn't racism or sexism but rather a lack of education or a lack of interest in certain fields.

Again, none of that has anything to do with biology. You're conflating social and cultural factors and pretending they're innate.

[Spectral]

Bush gave us the biggest expansion of government powers since... ever.

It's trivially easy to find larger expansions of federal power and scope. FDR would be a good example.

- - - Updated - - -

This is just flat-out untrue. You're just expressing misogyny. Go ahead; talk about how the smartest person alive has always been a white person, because white folks are smarter than everyone else. Same difference, applied to race rather than gender. Don't pretend that this isn't explicitly discriminatory.

This isn't what "misogyny" means. It's potentially sexist. It's mostly just a claim that male variance is higher, which is a claim that it's either true or false based on evidence, but isn't "misogynistic" in any sense other than an absurd watering down of the term.

I get the impression that the only axis in politics you give any consideration to is civil rights, which is about the only area in which the Democrats are moving leftwards, and even there, they're moving fairly slowly. In terms of fiscal policy and such, the Democrats are more than a little right-wing.

If Democrats and Republicans have both moved to the fiscal right, it's more than a little weird that any long-run look at total government spending shows a clear trend towards increased spending.



- - - Updated - - -

I suspect the smartest person alive has more often been Asian than European (or of European descent).

I'm not sure we can measure "smartest person alive" with any reasonable degree of confidence, but I'd say that your claim is likely true to a first approximation, unless it turns out that European variance is way higher. That might be true. Again, seems like a matter to settle with evidence, but I suppose even trying to measure such a thing is racist and therefore wrong and therefore shall not be spoken in polite company.

[Deleted]

Again, none of that has anything to do with biology. You're conflating social and cultural factors and pretending they're innate.

I am very sorry to inform you that neither you or I or anyone alive for that matter can say this with any certainty at all. We simply do not have the means to determine if gender has any if al baring on the workings on our brains and if this comes with certain predispositions. We simply do not understand the workings of the brain enough to say this with any certainty. But, that doesn't mean that his statement was incorrect, because when talking in statistics (what he did) then the woman have very little chance. Even if we have a woman as the smartest person on this planet for the next 500 years the men will still come out on top.

But that doesn't take away the fact that we see the genders generally have different career choices. Certain fields are dominated by males, others by females. But that is a whole different discussion.

[Spectral]

I am very sorry to inform you that neither you or I or anyone alive for that matter can say this with any certainty at all. We simply do not have the means to determine if gender has any if al baring on the workings on our brains and if this comes with certain predispositions. We simply do not understand the workings of the brain enough to say this with any certainty.

I don't think you sufficiently understand Endus's egalitarian bonafides. His position, as near as I can tell, is that exact parity of both intellect and variance in intellect exists across both gender and all ethnic groups. This, again as near as I can tell, is treated as an axiomatic truth such that anything that contradicts it by definition is just misogyny or racism and therefore false. The important thing here is to consider the axiom and then figure out how to make all reality consistent with it.

[Osmeric]

I don't think you sufficiently understand Endus's egalitarian bonafides. His position, as near as I can tell, is that exact parity of both intellect and variance in intellect exists across both gender and all ethnic groups. This, again as near as I can tell, is treated as an axiomatic truth such that anything that contradicts it by definition is just misogyny or racism and therefore false.

No, I think his position is that considering this possibility is racist and misogynistic, even if it turned out it was true.

[alexw]

The thing is, the conservatives in the US are actually the ones who want smaller government with less oversight of the people. Every time the Democrats are in office, new departments are opened up in the government mainly for more oversight on the population and spending goes up drastically. The democrats are also the ones who try and raise taxes rather than freezing them or even lowering them as the republicans try to do when congress doesn't block them. Lower taxes means more money in your pocket rather than the governments. It also means that what you earn is more yours to do with as you will rather than all the "social" policies that want to take your money and give it to those to lazy to work for it themselves.

Lol, yeah, no. Do you actually believe this hogwash? Here is the reality -

The democrats want to increase spending and match it with tax increases that mostly hit the rich. The end result doesn't affect the deficit. This is what they consistently do/try to do when they are in power.

The republicans want to increase spending and cut taxes at the same time with the biggest tax cuts going to the rich. The end result balloons the deficit passing the costs onto the unborn. This is what they consistently do/try to do when in power.

[Endus]

I don't think you sufficiently understand Endus's egalitarian bonafides. His position, as near as I can tell, is that exact parity of both intellect and variance in intellect exists across both gender and all ethnic groups. This, again as near as I can tell, is treated as an axiomatic truth such that anything that contradicts it by definition is just misogyny or racism and therefore false. The important thing here is to consider the axiom and then figure out how to make all reality consistent with it.

There's no evidence to support the idea whatsoever. Even the studies that get linked claiming to do so are clear that they're observing outcomes, not biological predisposition, at best.

I find the argument that "women just can't be as smart as men" is completely indefensible. Even Summers walked back that argument, even when he was only presenting it as an option, because there's essentially no merit whatsoever to the claim.

Particularly when they present that argument as to why there are so few women CEOs, when that has far more to do with social dynamics and privilege than intelligence.

[Deleted]

I don't think you sufficiently understand Endus's egalitarian bonafides. His position, as near as I can tell, is that exact parity of both intellect and variance in intellect exists across both gender and all ethnic groups. This, again as near as I can tell, is treated as an axiomatic truth such that anything that contradicts it by definition is just misogyny or racism and therefore false. The important thing here is to consider the axiom and then figure out how to make all reality consistent with it.

Oh i do, but i do want to point out that there being differences isn't a bad thing. And even when we consider a difference to be problematic then it is not this difference that is the problem, but rather the outcome of the problem.

[Spectral]

The republicans want to increase spending and cut taxes at the same time with the biggest tax cuts going to the rich. The end result balloons the deficit passing the costs onto the unborn. This is what they consistently do/try to do when in power.

The good ol' Two Santa Clauses theory of politics. Reprehensible for its long run consequences, but surprisingly effective when it comes to getting into office.

[Deleted]

There's no evidence to support the idea whatsoever. Even the studies that get linked claiming to do so are clear that they're observing outcomes, not biological predisposition, at best.

I find the argument that "women just can't be as smart as men" is completely indefensible. Even Summers walked back that argument, even when he was only presenting it as an option, because there's essentially no merit whatsoever to the claim.

Particularly when they present that argument as to why there are so few women CEOs, when that has far more to do with social dynamics and privilege than intelligence.

The problem is just that statistics where used, and that makes his point rather valid. You can't just ignore part of the argument, statistics are a thing.

[Spectral]

There's no evidence to support the idea whatsoever. Even the studies that get linked claiming to do so are clear that they're observing outcomes, not biological predisposition, at best.

I find the argument that "women just can't be as smart as men" is completely indefensible. Even Summers walked back that argument, even when he was only presenting it as an option, because there's essentially no merit whatsoever to the claim.

Particularly when they present that argument as to why there are so few women CEOs, when that has far more to do with social dynamics and privilege than intelligence.

Can you clarify whether I've misstated your position? I do not wish to misstate your position. As near as I can tell from things you've written, including the above, you treat it as axiomatically true that there is no innate difference in intellect or in variance of intellect between genders or ethnic groups. If this is not your position, can you clarify what you would consider evidence that could make a reasonable person disagree with your current position?

[Endus]

If Democrats and Republicans have both moved to the fiscal right, it's more than a little weird that any long-run look at total government spending shows a clear trend towards increased spending.

There's nothing particularly right-wing about reducing spending. Military spending by the USA is, broadly speaking, right-wing, since that military is largely used to protect American interests and maintain their primacy on the world stage. Fiscal conservativism is a branch that can be held by either wing, and I'd argue is held by neither in the USA.

[alexw]

I think his political affiliation is more important to understanding why he saw a lot of left-leaning ideology or not. The right tends to think that evolution and climate change are left-leaning ideology whereas moderates and liberals just see a biology class and a climatology class. I'd assume perspective makes a huge difference.

Exactly. For example social scientists will teach that high levels of inequality are harmful, and that lower levels of inequality than we currently have would be beneficial to the poor and wealthy alike (because of the resulting faster rates of economic growth). Now this is simply stating facts. It can't really be argued over. It would be like stating that grass is not green and water does not make things wet. But a conservative being taught that would rage and shout liberal bias! No. It's just reality.

[Spectral]

There's nothing particularly right-wing about reducing spending. Military spending by the USA is, broadly speaking, right-wing, since that military is largely used to protect American interests and maintain their primacy on the world stage. Fiscal conservativism is a branch that can be held by either wing, and I'd argue is held by neither in the USA.

Can you clarify this comment?

...civil rights, which is about the only area in which the Democrats are moving leftwards, and even there, they're moving fairly slowly. In terms of fiscal policy and such, the Democrats are more than a little right-wing.

Again, if it's true that both parties have slid right fiscally, it's pretty odd that fiscal policy shows nothing but continual climbing (when considering what the American right claims to represent). I'd suggest that the new middle is well to the left of the middle circa 1960 on both social and fiscal policy, broadly construed. This is plainly evident in what the spending is on as well - there's less military and infrastructure spending as a percentage of GDP and much more health care and social spending.

[Endus]

The problem is just that statistics where used, and that makes his point rather valid. You can't just ignore part of the argument, statistics are a thing.

I'm not ignoring the statistics, I'm saying they exclude obviously relevant factors.

It's no different than looking at crime rates by racial group in the USA and declaring that black people are "just more prone to be criminal, biologically". You're deliberately ignoring a huge swath of cultural and socioeconomic factors that all contribute. You can't just ignore relevant variables and pretend that the one variable you selected out of the pack is what's responsible for the variance in the statistics.

Can you clarify whether I've misstated your position? I do not wish to misstate your position. As near as I can tell from things you've written, including the above, you treat it as axiomatically true that there is no innate difference in intellect or in variance of intellect between genders or ethnic groups. If this is not your position, can you clarify what you would consider evidence that could make a reasonable person disagree with your current position?

I don't consider it "axiomatically true", I consider the idea that such a variance exists to be an extraordinary claim, and as such, I require conclusive evidence of such before I'll give it any real consideration.

That evidence would require a controlled study that eliminated culture, variance in parental treatment, social pressures, and so forth. Since those all have well-tested results that affect outcomes within populations, so there's little reason to expect that they don't contribute between populations.

That's the central issue. I could use outcomes-based studies like this to "prove" that people from wealthy families are biologically "better" than people from poor families. And that this biology will magically shift in a couple generations of being poor, even if you exclusively marry other ex-rich families. None of that has to do with anything inherent, it has to do with the advantages and disadvantages that arise from social class and wealth.

- - - Updated - - -

Can you clarify this comment?

Again, if it's true that both parties have slid right fiscally, it's pretty odd that fiscal policy shows nothing but continual climbing (when considering what the American right claims to represent). I'd suggest that the new middle is well to the left of the middle circa 1960 on both social and fiscal policy, broadly construed. This is plainly evident in what the spending is on as well - there's less military and infrastructure spending as a percentage of GDP and much more health care and social spending.

I think you're arguing that increased spending is "left", and I'd fundamentally dispute that assertion for a whole bunch of reasons.

Neither party's economic policy has sought to reduce and minimize class divides, both have pursued policy that has led to increasing wealth inequality and so forth. That's right-wing policy. Though to clarify the time frames, at least, I was referring to a variation in where the parties are today with where they were in, say, the early '80s, not where they were 5 years ago or something.

[Acidbaron]

What is the wrong that's being committed? Is it that a minority group is being unfairly discriminated against, or that an individual is being unfairly discriminated against? I'd say it's that an individual is being unfairly discriminated against, and the laws clearly state that it applies to all religious discrimination, not just the minority religions. Now, as an atheist, I think these laws are warranted. I have faced discrimination for being an atheist and I really don't wanna have to go through that again because it was bullshit, but I don't want a christian to go through that either because it was bullshit. The point is that I don't want anyone to be treated the way I was so I support laws being made to deter such bullshit behavior, but I want those laws applied fairly and equally across the board because it's the bullshit behavior that's the problem, not the fact that it's done against a certain group in particular. People need to recognize that they are self serving by nature and try to counteract that a bit because otherwise we're never going to get rid of this blatant bigotry that people just try to rationalize or justify when it just doesn't need to exist.

They came from protecting the minority groups but of course also apply to the larger groups, it works both ways, i was more speaking in terms of how they came to be rather than who all is protected by it, regarding religion there is no priority given over one or the other.

Now there is also a case in the current age of positive discrimination and how that also is a problem in some cases.

[Spectral]

I don't consider it "axiomatically true", I consider the idea that such a variance exists to be an extraordinary claim, and as such, I require conclusive evidence of such before I'll give it any real consideration.

Really? Why? It doesn't strike me as an extraordinary claim at all. Sexual dimorphisms of all sorts, including cognitive differences are trivial to observe. Physical differences between ethnic groups are also trivially easy to observe. What I'd find extraordinary is if all of the differences just cold-stopped when it comes to things like mathematical and verbal ability. In fact, I'd be shocked if all gender and ethnic groups just so happened to have exactly the same mathematical abilities with exactly the same level of variance. That would be a lot weirder than if they were different.

That evidence would require a controlled study that eliminated culture, variance in parental treatment, social pressures, and so forth. Since those all have well-tested results that affect outcomes within populations, so there's little reason to expect that they don't contribute between populations.

We pretty much have this sort of evidence in the form of twin studies - splitting twins out into different parental treatments and schools doesn't have very much effect on IQs.

That's the central issue. I could use outcomes-based studies like this to "prove" that people from wealthy families are biologically "better" than people from poor families. And that this biology will magically shift in a couple generations of being poor, even if you exclusively marry other ex-rich families. None of that has to do with anything inherent, it has to do with the advantages and disadvantages that arise from social class and wealth.

It's interesting that you reject claims of biological differences out of hand, but you're quite comfortable making very strong claims in the opposite direction. It's a really strong claim to say that there are no inherited cognitive differences that are relevant and that all cognitive differences stem exclusively from social class and wealth. Maybe it's true! But it's a hell of a claim to make for someone that demands a much higher standard of evidence for counter-claims.

- - - Updated - - -

I think you're arguing that increased spending is "left", and I'd fundamentally dispute that assertion for a whole bunch of reasons.

No, I'm stating that spending more money on social welfare is a left position. I guess you can reject that by some world standard, but it's what "left" means in the United States political scene. I think the data on this is sufficiently clear that claiming there's been a big right-shift in fiscal policy is really hard to support.

[Osmeric]

Really? Why? It doesn't strike me as an extraordinary claim at all. Sexual dimorphisms of all sorts, including cognitive differences are trivial to observe. Physical differences between ethnic groups are also trivially easy to observe. What I'd find extraordinary is if all of the differences just cold-stopped when it comes to things like mathematical and verbal ability. In fact, I'd be shocked if all gender and ethnic groups just so happened to have exactly the same mathematical abilities with exactly the same level of variance. That would be a lot weirder than if they were different.

We pretty much have this sort of evidence in the form of twin studies - splitting twins out into different parental treatments and schools doesn't have very much effect on IQs.

It's interesting that you reject claims of biological differences out of hand, but you're quite comfortable making very strong claims in the opposite direction. It's a really strong claim to say that there are no inherited cognitive differences that are relevant and that all cognitive differences stem exclusively from social class and wealth. Maybe it's true! But it's a hell of a claim to make for someone that demands a much higher standard of evidence for counter-claims.

It's the leftist version of creationism. If differences in mental abilities cannot reflect genetic differences, then how could they have evolved? There would be nothing for natural selection to act on.

[Ehrenpanzer]

Kristof writes opinion for the NY Times, whatever you say about him millions of people will read his column.

He says that universities have become a left wing bubble. Sure they promote speech from minorities and women, but they actively discriminate against conservatives. Kristof says this is wrong and liberals should be more accepting of different views.

The article was long, much more to read at the link

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/op...lind-spot.html

In a column a few weeks ago, I offered “a confession of liberal intolerance,” criticizing my fellow progressives for promoting all kinds of diversity on campuses — except ideological. I argued that universities risk becoming liberal echo chambers and hostile environments for conservatives, and especially for evangelical Christians.

As I see it, we are hypocritical: We welcome people who don’t look like us, as long as they think like us.

It’s rare for a column to inspire widespread agreement, but that one led to a consensus: Almost every liberal agreed that I was dead wrong.

“You don’t diversify with idiots,” asserted the reader comment on The Times’s website that was most recommended by readers (1,099 of them). Another: Conservatives “are narrow-minded and are sure they have the right answers.”

Mixed in here are legitimate issues. I don’t think that a university should hire a nincompoop who disputes evolution, or a racist who preaches inequality. But as I see it, the bigger problem is not that conservatives are infiltrating social science departments to spread hatred, but rather that liberals have turned departments into enclaves of ideological homogeneity.

Sure, there are dumb or dogmatic conservatives, just as there are dumb and dogmatic liberals. So let’s avoid those who are dumb and dogmatic, without using politics or faith as a shorthand for mental acuity.

On campuses at this point, illiberalism is led by liberals. The knee-jerk impulse to protest campus speakers from the right has grown so much that even Democrats like Madeleine Albright, the first female secretary of state, have been targeted.

Frankly, the torrent of scorn for conservative closed-mindedness confirmed my view that we on the left can be pretty closed-minded ourselves.

As I see it, there are three good reasons for universities to be more welcoming not just to women or blacks, but also to conservatives.

First, stereotyping and discrimination are wrong, whether against gays or Muslims, or against conservatives or evangelicals. We shouldn’t define one as bigotry and the other as enlightenment.

When a survey finds that more than half of academics in some fields would discriminate against a job seeker who they learned was an evangelical, that feels to me like bigotry.

Wow... your astounding insights are a boon to us all... Liberal people who DON'T cower under threats from an imaginary sky-jew wouldn't want to hire someone who believes they are especially commanded to go around telling people how they are going to hell and suffer forever if they don't turn to the imaginary jew....? Please, continue with your incredibly enlightened ideas.... /facepalm...

That feels like common sense, last I checked, Liberals were not denying conservatives (which basically means white christian in the US) the ability to get married, or use the washrooms, or access medical facilities for pregnancies/life options.

Your whole diatribe comes off as smug bullshit, the thought process of a 21 year old who thinks he knows everything and needs to feel superior....pathetic

[Endus]

Really? Why? It doesn't strike me as an extraordinary claim at all.

"Extraordinary" in the sense that it doesn't automatically follow from the basic facts at hand. While sexual dimorphism exists, if you want to claim it swings a particular way on a particular subject, I'm gonna require evidence that eliminates other probable factors.

Sexual dimorphisms of all sorts, including cognitive differences are trivial to observe. Physical differences between ethnic groups are also trivially easy to observe. What I'd find extraordinary is if all of the differences just cold-stopped when it comes to things like mathematical and verbal ability. In fact, I'd be shocked if all gender and ethnic groups just so happened to have exactly the same mathematical abilities with exactly the same level of variance. That would be a lot weirder than if they were different.

Yes, but "intelligence" is a combination of a whole suite of those kinds of things. Case in point; if you define "intelligence" by the factors in which men typically have strengths, you've biased your conclusion from the outset.

It's interesting that you reject claims of biological differences out of hand, but you're quite comfortable making very strong claims in the opposite direction. It's a really strong claim to say that there are no inherited cognitive differences that are relevant and that all cognitive differences stem exclusively from social class and wealth. Maybe it's true! But it's a hell of a claim to make for someone that demands a much higher standard of evidence for counter-claims.

That wasn't what I was saying at all. I was saying that social class and parental wealth levels have huge effects on the future outcomes of their kids. Not that it's the only factor.