implications are too horrible. Their evaluation of reality isn't based on data or reasoning - it's influenced by the imagined bad consequences of changing their mind.
Another example is that someone might refuse to acknowledge that black people tend to do worse in school, cause -
Conversation
the implication might be that black people are dumb, and the idea that mental quality might correspond with race is horrifying.
But I truly believe that the truth will always save you, even if it's scary and even if you can't see how. Yes, it's scary to believe that -
1
6
68
losing your faith will also destroy your moral compass, or that black people being bad at school will mean they're dumb, but if you actually accept the truth then you might find that you still want to do good things after becoming atheist, or that black school scores-
2
4
52
are actually causes by poverty and discrimination.
A lot of the people who get horrified at topics I probe are horrified because I'm challenging a core belief that they need to hold to be okay with themselves. But it'll be all right, I promise. Horrible implications just mean-
1
4
86
the topic hasn't been fully understood yet. For example, your horror at IQ possibly corresponding with race means that maybe you value people with IQ less, or view them as disposable. Maybe that's actually the issue here - in a world where we respected and cared for everyone-
9
11
111
regardless of their intelligence, then IQ corresponding genetically with race would be trivial, wouldn't be a scary thing to think about.
So basically, don't be afraid of going into the truth. It will be okay no matter how unpalatable it seems.
23
7
123
Replying to
For you, is there no room here for empirical disagreement? Or is that always preemptively trapped in this kind of counter-moralizing you offer? I agree that it’s better to know the truth, even if offends us, but your points don’t feel airtight enough to warrant these assumptions.
2
3
This is, IMO, an inadequate steelman of your opposition. It’s not difficult to hold that IQ is a vague & complicated thing (as I do) whilst also believing that whatever future investigations (read: more sophisticated) may reveal shouldn’t hold weight when it comes to moral worth.
1
2
Replying to
Sure, IQ is vague and not simple. I was definitely using a simplified example to make my point. The things that I'm actually talking about with this example are not things I said directly.
1
Replying to
Okay, but then why signal in this way, using this as your example? Why not just discuss the things you’re actually talking about?
1
2
Replying to
Because they're more extreme/controversial and I wanted some more accessible examples for my point
Replying to
But your setup forecloses the possibility that people can & do make the necessary moral & empirical judgments about the research separately. There’s good reason for thinking that IQ is an insufficient metric for these broad determinations. Where is the room for that position?
3