(i don't actually know what you really believe, i'm just trying to understand why this conversation takes the path it does and what can be done about it)
-
-
Replying to @circusarmy @slatestarcodex
I always used to wonder why people got so upset about the concept of "privilege" and the answer was - they don't trust it. You can say it's harmless but you might be lying to cover up for some far more extreme position.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @circusarmy @slatestarcodex
This is probably what happens whenever you start talking about the genetic basis of crime. The initial statement might be relatively benign, but your audience has heard this kind of thing before and thinks it'll probably turn out to be about eugenics
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @circusarmy @slatestarcodex
You wouldn't necessarily notice this, and it would seem to you like people were just being incredibly fucking stupid - just as it always seemed to me that people complaining about privilege were being fucking stupid
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @circusarmy @slatestarcodex
Also, to clarify - I'm not saying that your studies are without value. I'm saying that they're very hard to effectively respond to in the context of an informal discussion. To respond to them in a meaningful way I'd have to write a paper of my own.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @circusarmy
I agree that single studies aren't very valuable (though note that I linked you a meta-analysis of all studies done after 1975 and they all basically agree). I hoped the BBC article would reinforce my claim that this is a broad consensus among people in the field.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @slatestarcodex @circusarmy
I guess what bothers me is that I said something which AFAIK basically everyone who has looked into it even briefly believes (genetics can predict criminality moderately well) and was accused of being some kind of crazy-out-there scientific racist.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @slatestarcodex @circusarmy
I have no problem with you being unsure about this because you haven't checked the research. But I feel like that precludes you saying that people who have one opinion are "technofascists" and (ironically) "brain geniuses".
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @slatestarcodex @circusarmy
I don't think I'm motte-and-baileying - I wrote in middle of a long post that I predict polygenic scores will predict some amount of criminality. Everyone except you seemed to understand this was on the same scale as existing IQ predictors.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @slatestarcodex @circusarmy
I do think you're motte-and-baileying between "Look at this racist fascist crazy person" and "Well, the research is so complicated that nobody can be SURE this is wrong"
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I don't know how to argue that I'm motivated more by wanting to be able to discuss scientific research on important topics without being called fascist than by desire to hurt poor people for fun. Seems crazy to me to believe opposite.
-
-
Replying to @slatestarcodex
Your papers agree that something called "criminality" or "antisocial behaviour" is hereditary without bothering to consider how either of those terms are constructed. That's my whole point. You can't get around that just by reasserting the original statement.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @circusarmy @slatestarcodex
I don't know why it seems crazy to you that I would suspect you of arguing in bad faith. That seems like special pleading to me. You assume leftists are arguing in bad faith basically all the time.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 20 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.