Controversy in Conversation

[Seldon2639]

well ok not the church but the early christians themselves but still it was christianity as a whole that did it

Isn't that just one of the possibilities? Isn't it true that we actually don't know exactly how the Library was destroyed? Aren't you just picking and choosing the most ideological friendly historical possibility? Much like religious fanatics pick and choose?

yes but why was he placed under house arrest and why didn't copernicus publish his works and why was newton afraid of publishing his? it was because of the church's anti-knowledge stance, if you have an intelligent populace they become harder to control

Once again: where are you getting the idea of an anti-knowledge stance on the part of any Church? How can you say a Church that incorporated Aristotle to the extent it did is 'anti-knowledge'?

If you have a problem with religion, that's fine. If you want to point out how religion has been hostile to science (in a thread about political correctness for some reason which I still can't figure out), that's fine too. However, why do you feel the need to make shit up about history in the process?

How can you castigate one group for allowing ideology to prevail over truth in science, and then engage in the same kind of fundamentalism when it comes to history?

Admittedly, neither section of the church (catholic or protestant) was particularly enamored of pure scientific thought. And while one should not blame the church alone for the ignorance and superstition of the age, it wasn't exactly innocent either. Few people were put to death, but the indoctrination in scholasticism didn't propel us toward reason. It wasn't until Newton that science began to really break away and accept that it should follow logic and reason no matter where it leads. Also, they taught Aristotle (a) not at all times, and (b) only in parts. Aristotle's views on the natural world were largely verboten, while his more metaphysical works (like the cosmological proof for the existence of god) were a-okay. I'd really suggest that you read Durant for a better view of this than I can give. I'll find some passages and quote them later (since I do have midterms for which to study)

 

[Saskwach]

I think everyone should walk away from this argument; nothing good will come of it. Hell, you people are spending laborious posts arguing about tangents and throwaway examples.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

Okay, first and foremost, when did "eugenics" get into this debate? I never said the word eugenics (before now), nor have I supported it. Saying "intelligence is heritable" =/= eugenics. I'm not sure who "[trashes UCLA med, Yale med, and the European Journal of Human Genetics] as bad science", because the only person I've seen doing that in this post is *you*. If you have a bunch of peer-reviewed journal articles which contradict mine, please bring them out. Until then, just saying "most scientists don't approve" is about as significant as if I said "most scientists think I'm right". Hell, mine would be more significant since I've at least shown *some* scientists who think "g" is inheritable. Show me the "law of averages" which contradicts the concept of inheritable intelligence, and I'll be very surprised. You've started setting up straw men of my arguments, and that's almost universally the sign that a discussion has become untenable. I never said that "someone's race determines how intelligent they are", nor have I advocated (nor has James Watson) eugenics.

ummm well saying it's genetic and inherited IS eugenics, look at what your major person for citing has said, he's not saying white ppl breed stupid ppl he's blatantly saying asians are smarter than caucasions who are smarter than people of african extraction

so yeah it's labeled as bad science and no matter what you try to claim that it's not that, it is exactly that

as i said a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet, even if you call it a freshly rotting garbage flower it would still smell nice

just like if you called the nazi's the happy fun time squad, they'd still be an evil bunch of people

so yeah the person you're claiming is a big supporter of intelligence was in grained in your genes was actually refering to the RACE of ppl, he's made many a statement about how ppl of african extraction are less intelligent than those of other races

i'd suggest you do some actual reading on your so called hero before you go spouting his "findings"

 

[Seldon2639]

Okay, first and foremost, when did "eugenics" get into this debate? I never said the word eugenics (before now), nor have I supported it. Saying "intelligence is heritable" =/= eugenics. I'm not sure who "[trashes UCLA med, Yale med, and the European Journal of Human Genetics] as bad science", because the only person I've seen doing that in this post is *you*. If you have a bunch of peer-reviewed journal articles which contradict mine, please bring them out. Until then, just saying "most scientists don't approve" is about as significant as if I said "most scientists think I'm right". Hell, mine would be more significant since I've at least shown *some* scientists who think "g" is inheritable. Show me the "law of averages" which contradicts the concept of inheritable intelligence, and I'll be very surprised. You've started setting up straw men of my arguments, and that's almost universally the sign that a discussion has become untenable. I never said that "someone's race determines how intelligent they are", nor have I advocated (nor has James Watson) eugenics.

ummm well saying it's genetic and inherited IS eugenics, look at what your major person for citing has said, he's not saying white ppl breed stupid ppl he's blatantly saying asians are smarter than caucasions who are smarter than people of african extraction

so yeah it's labeled as bad science and no matter what you try to claim that it's not that, it is exactly that

as i said a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet, even if you call it a freshly rotting garbage flower it would still smell nice

just like if you called the nazi's the happy fun time squad, they'd still be an evil bunch of people

so yeah the person you're claiming is a big supporter of intelligence was in grained in your genes was actually refering to the RACE of ppl, he's made many a statement about how ppl of african extraction are less intelligent than those of other races

i'd suggest you do some actual reading on your so called hero before you go spouting his "findings"

Having never called him a hero, I think it would be more reasonable of you to read what he actually wrote as opposed to that other people's interpretation of what he said. But, to attack a group of scientific findings because of one of the scientists involved is like saying we should throw out the theory of general relativity because Einstein helped build the atomic bomb.

"ummm well saying it's genetic and inherited IS eugenics".

No, in point of fact. If I say that height is inheritable (which it is, incidentally), it's not eugenics. If I say hair color is inheritable, it's not eugenics. It's not "eugenics" to say that something may be genetic. It's eugenics to try to rid the world of one group of people because of some form of "superiority". And, as previously stated, if you look at the research itself on the subject of the inheritability of intelligence, you'll find that no one so much as makes note of race in the UCLA article, Yale, or the EJHG. And, not for nothing, but Watson was not the sole pillar of my argument, I have peer-reviewed (yes, that's right, peer-reviewed) articles from Yale, UCLA, and the University of Bern. So, I'm confused again, what's your argument?

 

[Seldon2639]

I think everyone should walk away from this argument; nothing good will come of it. Hell, you people are spending laborious posts arguing about tangents and throwaway examples.

Given the decidedly unscientific mode of conversation this has inspired (which, ironically, was exactly what I was critiquing in the first place), that's probably for the best.

 

[meatloaf231]

People. Hark to the words of Seldon2639.

http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/4622/ia3yp.jpg

This is the internet. No matter what you say or what conclusions you arrive at, no change will come of it.

 

[mshcherbatskaya]

I realize that Wikipedia is not a definitive reference, the the Wikipedia article on The Bell Curve [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve] does contain quite a few links that might be very interesting to people who wish to pursue the issue. I have to back out because I admit I lack the knowledge to address the issue to my own satisfaction, and I also lack the critical distance. In other words, I don't know enough and I'm prone to lose my shit on this topic, so, y'all have fun now. I'm going to go back to a study on failure to properly diagnose bipolar disorder in certain demographic groups.

 

[Saskwach]

In the same spirit as mscherbatskaya, I'll suggest that interested people should read Freakonomics [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freakonomics] which, among other things, looks at this issue.

 

[Seldon2639]

Admittedly, neither section of the church (catholic or protestant) was particularly enamored of pure scientific thought.

He didn't say 'scientific thought' in the post I was replying to. He said the Church was "anti-knowledge." I think you misunderstood what I was criticizing.

It wasn't until Newton that science began to really break away and accept that it should follow logic and reason no matter where it leads.

Wait, I thought you were just complaining that we *can't* follow logic and reason in science even today because of our "sensitivities" ;-D

I was complaining that in current discussions, we prevent ourselves from following logic and reason because of our sensitivities, which was the problem with the church for much of the middle ages into the renaissance. Scholasticism (which is what we exercise a lot today) is the mindset of "go, study whatever you want, question everything, as long as you arrive back at the pre-ordained "truth" when you're done". Modern dogma is no better than ancient dogma.

 

[Seldon2639]

People. Hark to the words of Seldon2639.

http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/4622/ia3yp.jpg

This is the internet. No matter what you say or what conclusions you arrive at, no change will come of it.

I say that is *total* bullshit. I say change comes all the time from what we say on the internet. Maybe not in the person you're arguing with, but maybe in the people who are undecided on the issue and read the argument.

The best antidote for bad ideas are good ideas. I don't know why that wouldn't be less true on the internet than elsewhere.

"Sunlight is the best disinfectant" - Louis Brandeis (Supreme Court Justice)

Besides: http://xkcd.com/386/

 

[Hanji]

People. Hark to the words of Seldon2639.

http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/4622/ia3yp.jpg

This is the internet. No matter what you say or what conclusions you arrive at, no change will come of it.

True. However, the same applies to any area or circumstance. All matter decays, all elements atrophy. The inevitable culmination of your or anyone else's achievements (in the realm of corporeality) is indiscriminate ash, if not less. Everyone is already dead, they simply have not yet realized it. Thus, indulging this fortunate ignorance (their entire being), via virtual elucidation is no less illusory, valuable, or preferable than any other act because every act is, objectively, absolutely illusory and completely without value.

 

[Seldon2639]

Scholasticism (which is what we exercise a lot today) is the mindset of "go, study whatever you want, question everything, as long as you arrive back at the pre-ordained "truth" when you're done". Modern dogma is no better than ancient dogma.

That's still not anti-knowledge. There's a big difference between the position that thinking and observing will necessarily lead you to questioning dogma, and the position that thinking and observing will necessarily lead you to affirming dogma.

Huge difference between 'you haven't thought about the issue enough and that's why you're wrong' and 'your wrong because you thought about the issue in the first place' if the question is 'was the Church anti-knowledge'.

Oh, and I thought of that *exact* xkcd strip when I was responding to the other poster!

Which is fair enough. But, then we get into how one defines "knowledge". Which is where the disagreement seems to hinge. Since I define knowledge as empirical, scientific, testable, and proveable, concepts, I would naturally view any superstition as opposed. If, however, we expand "knowledge" to include knowledge of god itself, then the church (by definition) could not be "anti-knowledge". So, if we agree it's anti-scientific, I think we can lay this issue to rest and accept that Cleverlymadeup was either attempting to mislead, misspoke, or was misinformed

 

[Seldon2639]

People. Hark to the words of Seldon2639.

http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/4622/ia3yp.jpg

This is the internet. No matter what you say or what conclusions you arrive at, no change will come of it.

True. However, the same applies to any area or circumstance. All matter decays, all elements atrophy. The inevitable culmination of your or anyone else's achievements (in the realm of corporeality) is indiscriminate ash, if not less. Everyone is already dead, they simply have not yet realized it. Thus, indulging this fortunate ignorance (their entire being), via virtual elucidation is no less illusory, valuable, or preferable than any other act because every act is, objectively, absolutely illusory and completely without value.

Yes, having taken a running leap into solipsism and nihilism, it's not difficult to see everything as dust in the wind. But, since there are plenty of examples of people who have made a substantive difference in the world, that would seem to be erroneous. Besides, even if one never becomes president, our effect on others arond us lives on even after we're dead. Nihilism is interesting, to be sure, and Hume is a great read on the "imperfection of human senses" side of things, but it quickly gets mired in its own self-righteousness. If nothing we do matters, why comment that nothing we do matters? The only possible explanations are that you're a (a) a jerk, or (b) trying to educate us. But, if we're unable to impact anything, you couldn't possibly educate us, meaning you want to convince people that the world is a bleak, empty place, devoid of any meaning, and life is a slow toil unto death, just for kicks. That seems a bit... Mean, doesn't it?

 

[Hanji]

Yes, having taken a running leap into solipsism and nihilism, it's not difficult to see everything as dust in the wind. But, since there are plenty of examples of people who have made a substantive difference in the world, that would seem to be erroneous. Besides, even if one never becomes president, our effect on others arond us lives on even after we're dead. Nihilism is interesting, to be sure, and Hume is a great read on the "imperfection of human senses" side of things, but it quickly gets mired in its own self-righteousness. If nothing we do matters, why comment that nothing we do matters? The only possible explanations are that you're a (a) a jerk, or (b) trying to educate us. But, if we're unable to impact anything, you couldn't possibly educate us, meaning you want to convince people that the world is a bleak, empty place, devoid of any meaning, and life is a slow toil unto death, just for kicks. That seems a bit... Mean, doesn't it?

The percieved difference people make in the world is negated by the world itself. While of a greater scale, it is of similar components and will, like anything, lose the capacity for dynamics, perhaps even substance. Therefore, any theoretical potential of an individual is barred by their declining encapsulation. Our time, often connected to importance is based on the same ignorant perception as life. To view the sun as human would be to view ourselves as a single cellular reaction. That is already infinitesimal. As the scope can be infinitely withdrawn, all is eventually reduced to naught. The relevance of noting this equitable nihility is to debunk claims of selective importance, such as the aforementioned smite of internet debate. Your means of determining my traits or motivations are incorrect. It is possible to be educated via nihilism, the worth of the eucation is simply denied. This does not make it any less true, and if true, any less worth knowing. I do not need to share my intention in engaging this coversation. However, doing so to convince this community of a meaningless existence could only be "mean" under the belief that ulterior purpose or value is essential to subjective happiness. I could describe more personal (i.e. less valid) aspects of nihilism, but they are not immediately relevant to the original or tangental topic of this discussion.

 

[Fire Daemon]

The original post said something of outliers. I will like to know what those outliers are. Are they poor people doing wrong or rich people doing poorly?

Onto the topic of Nature VS Nuture in relation to intelligence.

This one response:

There is no answer to this question. The fact that we are learn things as we grow up will make nuture thw inner of this debate. But the fact that some people are born with the ability to learn easier than others negates this. In the end you have a 3 out comes. A combination of natural born stupidity and a lack of teaching will put you at the bottom, Born stupid but made smart (or the other way around) will put you in the middle and born smart and made smart will put you up the top.

The response I believe is that Intelligence is the ability to learn things not the amount of knowledge known. So going by that it is quite possible that you may have a higher Intelligence that someone else however they "know more" than you due to better schooling.

What I'm saying is that it is a combination of schooling and genetic intelligence that determine our intelligence.

I think one thing that everyone is in agreement however is that more money should be used for schooling.

 

[werepossum]

Back to Seldon's original point, you can always make the point that there's some genetic component to any behavior or performance. In this case however it's demonstrably vanishingly small, because numerous times a teacher, private school, or even government school district has taken a completely non-functional class or school and turned it into a top-performer. It doesn't take a lot of resources, but it does take excellent teachers and the ability to keep discipline within the classroom. If you're hungry, you'll have a harder time learning, but you can learn, if properly motivated. If you're in a madhouse where the teacher is hoping for nothing more than minimizing the number of felonies actually committed in the classroom, you'll learn little unless you're one of those rare, self-motivated individuals able to teach yourself. And even then, your learning will be limited to what is available to you until you get old enough and wealthy enough to provide your own resources.

Conversely, a teacher with numerous resources, smaller class sizes, and reasonable discipline has a better chance of reaching more students. If you are dyslexic or otherwise learning-disabled (which comes with relatively weak genetic correlation but relatively strong environmental correlation, on average), more personal attention or different kinds of teaching materials (smart boards or one-on-one computer programmed learning, for instance) vastly increase your chances of learning a useful amount. Assuming a lack of brain damage and serious malnutrition, learning is exponential. Getting over the first hurdle of wanting to learn AND seeing learning as something that can positively affect your life is extremely important, and it's as difficult if no one around you values learning as it is if your economic circumstances prohibit formal education.

The other problem with the genetic component is that people do not become wealthy (or well-off enough to select a good school district or private school) simply because of good genetics. Some people arrive there due to luck, or hard work and self-sacrifice, or government programs. An adult with really hard-working, self-sacrificing, smart parents who turns out to be a raging idiot will tend to have kids in a good school simply because once you're up, it's harder to fall back down.

On the flip side, not everyone in horrible schools has a genetic component. I have a good friend who just moved back to town and intentionally bought a house zoned for a very good school, but the zoning changed before his kids began attending. Now they're stuck in the poor school until he can save enough money to buy another house (upside down due to fall in housing prices.) If both of your parents are Brock scholars but your dad dies of a long, drawn-out cancer at 25 and your mom gets paralyzed in an accident, you're probably going to be poor no matter how smart you are. If your mom is an addicted single parent, you're probably going to be poor no matter how intelligent she is. And some kids are smart as whips even though both parents are potted plants.

This mirrors the problems with the Bell Curve theory, which is fine as far as it goes but makes little allowance for the many reasons people mate as well as the non-linear nature of genetics.

I'm as big an opponent of political correctness as the next bear, but in this case, the genetic component is demonstrably insignificant and the environmental factors demonstrably very significant. So even though your detractors might have been acting out of political correctness, they're correct. (Even a blind hog finds the occasional acorn.)

 

[Saskwach]

Yes, having taken a running leap into solipsism and nihilism, it's not difficult to see everything as dust in the wind. But, since there are plenty of examples of people who have made a substantive difference in the world, that would seem to be erroneous. Besides, even if one never becomes president, our effect on others arond us lives on even after we're dead. Nihilism is interesting, to be sure, and Hume is a great read on the "imperfection of human senses" side of things, but it quickly gets mired in its own self-righteousness. If nothing we do matters, why comment that nothing we do matters? The only possible explanations are that you're a (a) a jerk, or (b) trying to educate us. But, if we're unable to impact anything, you couldn't possibly educate us, meaning you want to convince people that the world is a bleak, empty place, devoid of any meaning, and life is a slow toil unto death, just for kicks. That seems a bit... Mean, doesn't it?

The percieved difference people make in the world is negated by the world itself. While of a greater scale, it is of similar components and will, like anything, lose the capacity for dynamics, perhaps even substance. Therefore, any theoretical potential of an individual is barred by their declining encapsulation. Our time, often connected to importance is based on the same ignorant perception as life. To view the sun as human would be to view ourselves as a single cellular reaction. That is already infinitesimal. As the scope can be infinitely withdrawn, all is eventually reduced to naught. The relevance of noting this equitable nihility is to debunk claims of selective importance, such as the aforementioned smite of internet debate. Your means of determining my traits or motivations are incorrect. It is possible to be educated via nihilism, the worth of the eucation is simply denied. This does not make it any less true, and if true, any less worth knowing. I do not need to share my intention in engaging this coversation. However, doing so to convince this community of a meaningless existence could only be "mean" under the belief that ulterior purpose or value is essential to subjective happiness. I could describe more personal (i.e. less valid) aspects of nihilism, but they are not immediately relevant to the original or tangental topic of this discussion.

I counter with George Orwell [http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm].

 

[AngryMan]

I'm pretty much opposed on principle to locking threads for any reason other than "Too many people in the thread are being dicks". (with certain obvious exceptions. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.58889#444180])

Just because a thread has wandered away from its original purpose, or is addressing a slightly controversial topic, is not in my eyes sufficient reason to shut it down. If it dies of its own accord, fair enough, but a lock? unnecessary.

 

[LisaB1138]

I am late to this party. Wow. A lot has been thrown around.

The truth is these kids do not do poorly because of genetics. Granted, there are always going to be people smarter than others, or less-clever than others (particularly in certain areas), but overall poor performance in school cannot be attributed to genetics or poverty. I doubt you'll find any correlation of poor performance in the Depression when *everyone* was poor.

The problem is modern parenting and values. A lack of discipline, the failure to instill responsibility in children. I don't deny in our consumptive society that poverty is an issue, but families used to pull together through hardship. I don't think my granddad would have excused poor grades from my mother because they were poor. (My grandad farmed cotton, and my mother literally washed out her socks every night because she had only one pair.) And I *know* my mother wouldn't have accepted poor grades because she was "poor."

It's not class sizes, it's behavior. There were fifty kids in my dad's elementary class; how many "problems" do you think there were?. Kids were expected to behave in school, pay attention and mind the teacher. Nowawdays, kids are taught that breaking rules is the only way to get ahead, whether it's the parent cheating on the taxes or taking one more bag of ice out of the freezer than you paid for. Morales are defined by what you can "get away with", not a code of honor.

Poverty has always been with us, genetics has always been with us. Look at what's *changed* in the last fifty years. Parent's decided to believe all that mumbo-jumbo about Johnny's delicate psyche and fragile self-esteem and raised a bunch of ego-maniacs. Who, unfortunately, are now raising children of their own.

 

[Seldon2639]

@ Fire Daemon:

That's kind of my point. If you read the original post, I (nor anyone I've quoted) have said "genetics is the whole reason some people do well and others fail", my only point was that it should be taken into account. If the question of nature vs nurture is unanswerable (though I think with better methods of study, it won't be), we shouldn't cut off possible explanations without evidence.

The outliers were schools (on both sides of the socioeconomic question) who did either far better than they (by the trend) should, or did far worse. There were only a couple, but one school which was at the top of achievement (compared to the other schools) was a good fifteen points above the line, and was also one of the schools with the lowest amount of poverty. There were schools going down the line which strayed pretty far from the trend, so while they're taken into account, and do tend to lower the "r" value, I call them outliers because they don't follow the trend lines.

@ Cheeze Pavilion:

"the class brought up "the usual explanations "they don't get as much funding", "the parents can't be as involved", "they don't have access to technology"" all of which are based on nurture being the answer. Well, if it's actually nature and not nurture, any resources we expend based on those conclusions are wasted because those conclusions follow from a flawed premise.

Which has big implications for Political Science. If intelligence is hereditary and the best funded schools are the schools educating the children of the intelligent, should we be leveling off the funding of all schools when with unequal funding the children that can do more with their education are getting more resources? Or is funding a right like voting, where no matter how more politically astute one person is than another, they both get one vote?"

You've made my point in a way that I only recently (having met with people studying the issue, since I'm now writing a research paper on this very subject) could have. So, I think we have agreement there, which is fantastic.

Back on the church, though:

I agree, and I really do think we're getting hung up on what counts as "knowledge". The fact that someone "considers" something science doesn't make it science anymore than if I consider myself an Adonis-like ubermensch, it doesn't make me one (I was going for the most absurd thing I could think of). But, faith's rejection of temporal, empirical, and "natural" (natural being explanations which deal only with the natural world) evidence when it conflicts with dogma would seem to indicate that at the very least it's anti-scientific.

"Finally, did you ever consider Scolasticism (you are free to keep thinking about the dogma until it convinces you) as an evolutionary step between "you're not free to think about the dogma, just to accept it" and "there should be no dogma, only free thinking"?"

Yes, I have. I would make that very argument. It was a step between them, but in the same way that a 15-week-old fetus is a step between conception and a full-born human, I don't have to be particularly enamored of the step.

@ Werepossum & LisaB1138:

Welcome to the discussion. It's actually kind of fun if you do it without getting angry (as I hope you'll be able to). I don't disagree with any of your points on the nurture side of things, but both of you open with lines that beg the question. By opening with "you can always make the point that there's some genetic component to any behavior or performance. In this case however it's demonstrably vanishingly small" or "The truth is these kids do not do poorly because of genetics", you assume your point to be true (insofar as genetic components involved in academic achievement/intelligence), and go from there". The studies I've seen (done by Yale, UCLA, the EJHG, The University of Bern), have shown a strong genetic component to cognitive ability. If you have an e-mail address I can send these to, I'd be happy to (I promise it won't be spam, viruses, or a RickRoll). So, my question is: what's your evidence that it's either vanishingly small, or completely untrue.

There does tend to be a problem, on both sides of the issue, with the soft racism of low expectations, and expectations are one possibility we discussed in class. My entire point, the entire time, is that there is some evidence to a genetic component, and we should study that. If it's wrong, we now know that. If it's right, we need to retool the system. But, we can't reasonably simply assume it's wrong because we'd like it to be.

@Everyone:

We seem to have gotten back to the original point, which is awesome. If anyone would like to see the studies I'm referencing, I'll send them to you if you give me an e-mail address (I can't post a pdf to a forum)