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.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @slatestarcodex @circusarmy
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
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 -
Replying to @circusarmy @slatestarcodex
I'm trying to put myself inside your head now. I guess if you think that most people aren't really racist any more, it would seem ridiculous to you that I would even suspect you of being some kind of crazy out-there scientific racist.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @circusarmy @slatestarcodex
Whereas in my mind it's like - ah, biological determinism, I know this. For the last couple hundred years, anyone who's said this has been about to do something horrible to the lower classes. I guess this guy could be an exception, but why would I assume that?
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @circusarmy
I think your concept of history is distorted. 99% of the time ppl discover stuff about biology, they're using it to help people. EG hypothyroidism in Pakistan - not attempt to insult Pakistanis, just trying to help them - and it worked. Look up hx of iodine supplementation there.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Similar example is lead-crime hypothesis. Proposes biological basis of crime - and used it to support banning lead pollution, after which crime dropped. Probably among most important interventions for helping poor in all of human history.
-
-
Replying to @slatestarcodex @circusarmy
The examples of biodeterminism being used against poor tend to be weaker than generally believed - eg "Social Darwinism" was less a coherent philosophy than something other people accused their enemies of - see eg https://historyofeconomics.wordpress.com/2009/06/04/is-social-darwinism-a-myth/ … .
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @slatestarcodex @circusarmy
On the other hand, lots of neglected use of sociodeterminism to hurt poor, eg programs to take Aboriginal children away from their parents to be raised by whites, on the grounds that it was immoral to expose them to all the social problems of Aboriginal society.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - 14 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.