Then, apparently, you’re not genuinely trying to understand or find some truth.
Is there any history of using questionable measures of introversion vs extraversion in order to justify slavery or other atrocities?
If not, maybe that’s the difference, and extra skepticism is warranted for claims about intelligence.
No, I think the issue here is that you saw something you didn’t really understand - like the debate about the nature of intelligence, or the difficulty in finding ways to objectively measure it - and so you assumed the debate was because of “woke.”
Which, I suppose, means the issue here really is motivated reasoning, just not in the way you thought.
Sure. Let me ask you something: how many historical atrocities were perpetuated by people believing pseudoscientific theories about introversion? Compared to the number of historical atrocities committed by people believing pseudoscientific theories about intelligence? More people are going to jump on sloppy claims about intelligence because that’s a subject that more people care about, because the topic has led to inhumane outcomes so many times.
Maybe once governments start sterilization programs for Betas, you’ll see more pushback on pseudoscientific “personality tests,” the way pseudoscience around “intelligence” gets pushback, but for right now, you’re going to find a lot more people who have strong opinions about “intelligence” than “extroversion.”
Is “ninja’d” the proper term for this post right after mine (the atrocities part, anyway), or is there a term that fits better?
Ignoring a minor error isn’t lying. Ignoring a minor truth isn’t lying. I only have so many words and so much energy to devote to a particular discussion, why should I expend those limited assets to voice a qualified agreement to an idea I find repellent?
I think it’s more effective to maintain focus on the bigotry rather than finding a place where I agree with the bigot.
I happen to personally agree in a limited and qualified way with a certain point made by anti-trans bigots, but you’re not going to get me to voice it. Why? Because I know it doesn’t matter, it’s just a stupid little point that has very little impact in the real world, other than serving as the point of a wedge that is being used to harm untold numbers of genuinely decent people. I won’t do it.
ISTM this is really misrepresenting what Cheesesteak was saying. Resisting specific targeted attempts at distraction that serve to deflect attention from bigoted stereotypes is not the same thing as “suppressing” facts or “refusing to acknowledge” facts.
Whining that the resisted distraction attempt is just a factual statement, so if you don’t go along with this distraction attempt then you’re refusing to acknowledge facts! is disingenuous.
Oh, you may have been fortunate enough to avoid those tiresome “race realist” discussions about IQ testing. Here’s some background information about concepts like stereotype threat, assessment inequities, and other factors that impact cross-racial intelligence testing in societies significantly affected by racial bias and discrimination.
Extra skepticism can be warranted in that case. Just not dismissing an entire area of science that’s actually useful (and one of the better evidenced) because people have misused it.
And I resent being told I’m misunderstanding something, when the truth is that because of this extra skepticism, other people are dismissing ordinary evidence and demanding extraordinary proof.
Also, I’m serious that everyone should be much more skeptical of social science in general. A lot of it is weakly evidenced and misconstrued, and when it’s used to make policy decisions, that can harm people too. No malicious intent is required.
Nah, I understand fine. And this sort of thing pre-dates the Great Awokening. That merely amped it up it from denying scientific facts to denying ordinary ones that everyone is familiar with. Much harder to swallow.
This can be a perfectly reasonable reply, depending on the circumstances. What I’m advising against is defending against the racist by denying some fact that bystanders can go and check, rather than by pointing out that it doesn’t imply what the racist says it does.
I was responding to you complaining bigots are allowed to tell ridiculous lies. What ‘allows’ them is their own conscience, and it’s a good thing that yours doesn’t allow that, even if it sometimes gives them a rhetorical advantage.
As for “why should you”, why should you do anything? Because it’s the right thing to do, or because it helps achieve your goals. Hiding or denying a truth can harm people too. If it didn’t, I’d be far more inclined to agree with you. And in an age where people can instantly look up government statistics or scientific papers, you risk them believing those things confirm what the bigot says if you don’t address it.
If you believe your cause is good (who doesn’t?) you have to decide what best helps it
I disagree. What allows them to lie is the fact that people bend over backwards to justify or excuse their lies, and don’t require them to back up their statements with evidence.
You think the right thing to do is to join that chorus of supporters by voicing yet another agreement (albeit limited and qualified) to the stereotype.
Mr. “they’re eating the dogs” is hard at work taking care of that.
Did you know that the practice of eating dog meat is ingrained in some cultures? A guy I went to college with told me he used to eat dog when he was growing up in China, so maybe Trump was on to something there. He may have just mixed up which immigrant group he was talking about.
For certain nebulous, suspect, mercurial, amorphous, self-serving values of ‘truth.’
Here’s a fact that everyone is familiar with; You will not unpack any of the three parts of the second sentence in the quote above.
Prove me wrong.
You called the objective fact that intelligence is hard to both define and measure “ridiculous,” so no, you very clearly did not.
Really? I’m happy to say extrovert vs introvert are bullshit categories and Myers-Briggs is pseudoscientific crap. If I haven’t done so up to now, I certainly would have.
I wasn’t referring to Myers-Briggs; everyone knows that’s not scientific. I mean the 5-factor model that psychologists use:
There are various valid criticisms of it, as indeed there are of IQ, but both are commonly used by researchers in the field, and not ordinarily considered pseudoscience.
What “people”? Do you mean the media? My impression is that the liberal media does generally push back on lies. I just googled “Trump eating dogs”, and 9 of the 10 results on the first page are saying Trump’s claim is false, echoes stereotypes, and/or has a racist history in the headline or first line of the article. (The one that didn’t was a link to a YouTube video of Trump making this claim about immigrants eating dogs, without any commentary. The first comment is gold, though: “When he said that, I laughed so hard I spit out my dog”.)
Or do you mean normal people? I frequently hear bigotry online, but rarely in real life. I do tend to push back on it in real life, if it’s someone I know. Online it often seems hopeless, though I’ll sometimes try.
What I don’t do is deny facts; instead I try to put them in context or point out other factors the person might not have considered. I don’t think it’s particularly persuasive, but nothing is.
Different cultures consider different animals acceptable to eat, it’s nothing new. AFAIK pigs are approximately as smart/sentient as dogs, yet most of us think nothing of eating bacon. Stealing other people’s pets to eat is, however, a racist canard.
No. Putting stopping bigotry ahead of maximal truthfulness isn’t totally unreasonable, but if that’s what you support, own it.
Are you putting stopping bigotry ahead of maximal truthfulness because I recall folks finding singular incidents that showed that other folks had, in fact, eaten other people’s pets.
Of course we all knew that those incidents had nothing to do with the stereotype being supported but, like crime statistics, they were used to support the racist canard just the same.
I’d love to hear what some of these taboo deep truths — that we all know are true but deny it because we’ve been infected by the woke mind virus — really are.
What, exactly, aren’t we (woke libs) being realists about?
Don’t hold your breath.
Really? Were those ‘folks’ even immigrants?
I can’t answer because it’s a loaded question. There are no deep truths. Just everyday ones that it’s taboo to bring up only in as much as people - generally wrongly - believe they confirm some offensive stereotype or other. For example, it’s fine for a Jewish org to note and celebrate the number of Nobel prizes won by Jewish people.
Also, “woke mind virus”? Come on. 