Is political correctness stifling debate?

[HurleyHepsHird]

Myers-Briggs is nothing to do with what I'm talking about, so I've no idea why you're bringing it up. I suspect you don't either.

The big 5 is a strong ongoing area of research with high levels of replication. I don't know about neurobiology but if you're claiming it must approve of every psychological aspect of human nature, I suspect you'd be laughed at by many.

Higher fear, but more specifically, higher disgust sensitivity too. How long since you've actually read anything on these topics? Jesus. And you went off half cocked saying nobody else actually reads. Good call...

How long since you have read anything.

There is a reason actual scientists don't consider psychology to be an actual science.

It's amazing how regularly shot through of holes most psychological studies end up being.

Psychology’s Replication Crisis Is Running Out of Excuses

Another big project has found that only half of studies can be repeated. And this time, the usual explanations fall flat.

www.theatlantic.com

Can't keep explaining away successive replicabillity crisis.

 

[ShanDog]

How long since you have read anything.

There is a reason actual scientists don't consider psychology to be an actual science.

It's amazing how regularly shot through of holes most psychological studies end up being.

Psychology’s Replication Crisis Is Running Out of Excuses

Another big project has found that only half of studies can be repeated. And this time, the usual explanations fall flat.

www.theatlantic.com

Can't keep explaining away successive replicabillity crisis.

Yes I'm well aware of it - point me to where the replication issue is with Big 5.

Your "real scientists" jab exemplifies how rigid your thinking is.

 

[ShanDog]

Did you not also cite intelligence - one of the cornerstones of psychological theory - in your description of conservatives more than once? So psychology is OK if it says something you find agreeable? That would indicate you are low on personality trait Agreeableness in the big five btw....

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

Did you not also cite intelligence - one of the cornerstones of psychological theory - in your description of conservatives more than once? So psychology is OK if it says something you find agreeable? That would indicate you are low on personality trait Agreeableness in the big five btw....

But intelligence can be broken down into various provable neurological traits with a biological/genetic basis.

The etymology of the word long precedes contemporary psychology, so I am comfortable using it as shorthand.

 

[JackOutback]

Good article on the Guardian about the problem with the ‘free speech defence’ and how it’s actually just another attempt to shut down debate. Want to say something boring, irrelevant or malicious? Claim someone is trying to deny your right to say it. Then dissent is censure and censorship should be banned. You can tack ‘free speech’ on to any crackpot prejudice and suddenly you’re a lone truth teller standing up to the hordes.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Woo science is the domain of liberals, not progressives.

This all depends on how you define a "liberal" and a "progressive"

Both terms have been hijacked.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Sure, it's an appeal to authority and an independently verifiable fact.

There is no neurobiological evidence to support the Big 5. And as far as psychologists go, MBPT was rejected as bunk some time ago, with the vetacity of nearly all research claiming to support the Big 5 personality test concept now being questioned.

Again though, lower intelligence and higher fear response does correlate to more rightwing political views. So I guess biology can be a predictor of politics.

So biology predicts lower intelligence, higher fear response..............and a correlation with right wing political views?

There's a whole swathe of race & I.Q. stuff for you to digest in that case.

 

[Hoops]

I think you're right that a lot of people who complain about PC are just unhappy that they'll be called out as racist for saying racist stuff. But there's definitely some truth to what he's saying when it comes to debates/conversations about certain sensitive topics. It's like there are certain opinions that cannot be challenged without someone throwing out accusations of racism, sexism, homophobia, islamophobia or whatever.

I read yesterday about some baseball commentator that lost his job because he tweeted about transgender men not belonging in female toilets. I think it's a pretty fair point. Do we really want it normalized that a dude can put on a wig and hang out in the same restroom with little girls? It's a legitimate point to raise, but it's perceived as anti-LGBTI and the guy is punished for it.

What's the difference between this a dudes hanging out in the same restroom as little boys

 

[fleabitten]

What's the difference between this a dudes hanging out in the same restroom as little boys

Not a lot I guess, other than the assumption that a little girl is relatively safe in the women's restroom with unknown women. I wouldn't send my son into a men's bathroom alone and I wouldn't send my daughter in the women's alone if I thought there might be penises in there.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

So biology predicts lower intelligence, higher fear response..............and a correlation with right wing political views?

There's a whole swathe of race & I.Q. stuff for you to digest in that case.

Nah, I'll pass on the race pseudoscience thanks.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Nah, I'll pace on the race pseudoscience thanks.

Psuedoscience? So now you're dismissing decorated academics?

I figured you for a poser, looks like I was right.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

Psuedoscience? So now you're dismissing decorated academics?

I figured you for a poser, looks like I was right.

Yep, I am dismissing debunked racist frauds like Charles Murray.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Yep, I am dismissing debunked racist frauds like Charles Murray.

Only took you 2 minutes to google. Well done.

 

[ShanDog]

Everyone's been debunked when you disagree with them or their politics

 

[Snake_Baker]

Everyone's been debunked when you disagree with them or their politics

Particularly when the humanities started emerging and vomiting all over academia.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

Only took you 2 minutes to google. Well done.

I know who Murray is you goose.

 

[Snake_Baker]

I know who Murray is you goose.

Take your act somewhere else. You aren't fooling anyone.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

Everyone's been debunked when you disagree with them or their politics

No, he has been debunked.

Not just due to some dubious sources (in the Bell Curve), but due our changing understanding of heritability.

There aren't groupings of SNPs or gene clusters that explain IQ. Some measures of intelligence are partly heritable, but no known genetic basis exists that tracks across ethnicity (which is a fluid concept, unlike race which is a social construct). Likewise, post natal factors like poverty and poverty induced stress are likely confounding factors.

It is controversial whether IQ say, can be improved in even a marginal sense.

It is not controversial that environment may be a causative factor in more rapid cognitive decline or stunted development.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

Take your act somewhere else. You aren't fooling anyone.

I suppose dunking on you smooth brains could be called performance art.

 

[ShanDog]

There aren't groupings of SNPs or gene clusters that explain IQ. Some measures of intelligence are partly heritable, but no known genetic basis exists that tracks across ethnicity (which is a fluid concept, unlike race which is a social construct). Likewise, post natal factors like poverty and poverty induced stress are likely confounding factors.

Are you sure this isn't what Murray said? Or more specifically, that he argues intelligence is strictly inherited and therefore some races have inferior intelligence?

 

[Snake_Baker]

Here's a fantastic example of people across the aisle sitting down to talk:

"Epistemological fragility"

 

[Contra Mundum]

I know who Murray is you goose.

Its a scientific fact they have got smaller brains you know... and phrenology and skull measuring can determine race. If I may post from the authoritative text:

The primary reason that natural philosophers began to classify humans into different races is that human populations look different from one another….. Furthermore, these differences reflect their divergent geographical origins. In fact, researchers can classify human variation by continent quite accurately using only data from the human skull. (They are able to correctly classify human skulls into black and white Americans with about 80% accuracy, using only two variables.)

When Quillette's Latest Attempt to Legitimise Race Science Met Actual Scientists

A Quillette article claims studies prove that inherent racial differences exist and 'race science' is legitimate. What does the science actually say?

uncommongroundmedia.com

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

Are you sure this isn't what Murray said? Or more specifically, that he argues intelligence is strictly inherited and therefore some races have inferior intelligence?

Intelligence isn't strictly inherited, that's not how inheritance works.

Heritability may only explain a portion of a trait and there is no known genetic component which describes IQ. Furthermore, there is no such thing as biological race.

Genetic variance across populations completely undermines Murray's proposition. Simply put, we can't map IQ as a trait to particular genenotypes, especially across populations. Further to this IQ has increased (as has height), iregardless of background in certain locales. Which further undermines any genetic/racial argument.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

Its a scientific fact they have got smaller brains you know... and phrenology and skull measuring can determine race. If I may post from the authoritative text:

The primary reason that natural philosophers began to classify humans into different races is that human populations look different from one another….. Furthermore, these differences reflect their divergent geographical origins. In fact, researchers can classify human variation by continent quite accurately using only data from the human skull. (They are able to correctly classify human skulls into black and white Americans with about 80% accuracy, using only two variables.)
View attachment 698764

When Quillette's Latest Attempt to Legitimise Race Science Met Actual Scientists

A Quillette article claims studies prove that inherent racial differences exist and 'race science' is legitimate. What does the science actually say?

uncommongroundmedia.com

I wonder whether they will realise you are making fun of them.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

This is the kind of rightwing identity politics we need to be worried about and which aims at stifling debate.

"Austrian far-right leader searched on suspicion of forming terrorist group with Christchurch shooter."

Austrian far-right leader searched on suspicion of forming terrorist group with Christchurch shooter

Investigation widens to include Martin Sellner’s fiancee Brittany Pettibone following her contact with Australian far-right figure Blair Cottrell

www.theguardian.com