Left
Right
Equal
Select gender and age to cast your vote:
Please select your age
Tell a leftard about the measured differences between the races (intelligence, creativity, personality traits, brain size, as well as skeletal and muscular structure) and see how quickly they ignore science.
Talk to them about the Earth’s climate, its history (such as the Mediaeval Warm Period) and how increased carbon dioxide causes plants to thrive and watch their heads explode.
Their entire belief system is at odds with reality.
I agree.
@Juxtapose
Unfortunately, most people in academia who do the "peer-reviewing" are Leftists and Contemporary (not classical) Liberals who find it correct to denounce any such studies, which point to genetic differences in intelligence by race. I believe that this is prompted with the justification that it's moral and ethical to do so.
It's incredibly unrealistic to believe that the genes responsible for intelligence were perfectly, precisely, and equally distributed among the over 100 human population groups across the globe; we simply don't live in a perfectly controlled environment, but one ruled by chaos. People who evolved in an extremely cold environments like those in Northern Europe and Northeast Asia had to find ways to survive the brutal Winters and find food in an environment where it was relatively scarce in comparison to Africans who had little danger of freezing to death and who lived in an environment where food is abundant year-round. A premium on intelligence is selected for in harsher environments.
I have a number of books which explain this with great research and an exhaustive list of scholarly annotations. I'll make a list of them for you.
I think for there to be any noticeable difference in intelligence it would require hundreds of thousands of years more.. which won't happen since we live in a mixed global world because of air travel.
In terms of our evolutionary stage, we are all still tribals. Technology changes us more than anything else and every black person I have seen with a good family does just as well as white people with good families.
Do Asians do better than everyone else because they are naturally smarter? No, they just work more.
@Juxtapose there are hundreds of papers talking about ancestral and population differences in not only intelligence, but many other aspects of behavior. Arthur Jensen is a good place to start.
@Juxtapose
Sorry Jux, I'll get back to you eventually. I have a bad problem with procrastination.
Which side claims that “believing in science” is refraining from questioning the consensus of experts, censoring unpopular hypotheses, claiming the peer review system is invulnerable to corruption, etc? I hate to break it to you... that isn’t science.
Right on.
Opinion
37Opinion
In terms of the colloquial American "left" vs "right", it's fair to say that both sides treat some types of science denial as dogmatic. However, there are major differences in the real world, practical importance of science denial. For example, let's take the right's favorite forms of denialism: evolution, YEC, and anthropogenic climate change. Out of the three of these, only one is of any real-world importance (climate change). This is, of course, important, but the American right can still be made to support many measures that would combat climate change (tariffs, nuclear power, conservation, etc.). On the other hand, with the American "left", their forms of science denial come in the form of denying human biological differences, and the results of this are catastrophic. Over sixty years of racial policy and untold trillions of dollars have been squandered by the Left in pursuit of pseudoscientific tactics that show no signs of addressing racial gaps in health, education, incomes, crime, etc. 2020's summer of riots is a perfect demonstration in the Left's childish inability to accept the scientific reality that all men are not created equal. And unlike the right, whom have little real institutional power--and whose scientific denialisms amount to little more than curiosities--the Left's pseudoscientific mass delusions are official policy of the most powerful institutions in the Western World today.
BEAUTIFUL response! I very much agree. I'm going to bookmark this question to my favorites as a result. Thank you for the reply to the other response by that conformist dolt goaded; I would've responded with the same argument and some more, but I've decided not to bother anymore with his stubbornness. It seems that you're much the race realist as I am, and don't subscribe to the biological egalitarian dogma characteristic of the Left.
Thank you, and I really think we should just call race realism science at this point.
I highly recommend you lurk around the American Renaissance website, by the way! It's a White Advocacy and Race Realism website.
amren. com
Here's their Bitchute Channel:
https://www.bitchute.com/channel/5Q4sa6rObtGx/
I'm familiar with Amren and agree with a fair amount, if not most of what they say. I'm not a White nationalist (strictly speaking), but this stuff regarding human biodiversity needs to simply be accepted (begrudgingly, if need be) by the mainstream lest we fall more quickly into disaster.
Almost nobody is anti-science.
People confuse being skeptical of NEW science that has not withstood the test of time as being against science. Skepticism itself is an important part of science. In my lifetime there have been quite a few things that were considered to be science with strong backing from the scientific community. Then it turned out to be wrong.
For people who are skeptical, it doesn't mean they reject the massive body of science accumulated over thousands of years. The things that are controversial are extremely minor compared to the whole body of knowledge.
I know that there are things called atoms, and they are made up of protons, neutrons and electrons. I know plants use photosynthesis. I know that water erodes rocks. I know roughly the size of the Earth and moon, and how the moon affects tides. The list is endless. Being skeptical of one particular new science does not in any way reject the body of science as a whole.
People want to call someone anti-science when they aren't. I'm sure you can find some people who really are anti-science, but that would be cherry picking to the extreme. That in itself is anti-science because cherry picking has no place in science.
The Right believes in a magical sky wizard who watches us at all time and the Left thinks it can make up genders and pronouns at a whim. Sorry to ruffle everyone's feathers, but both are pretty horribly anti-science. not that "the science" is some objective arbiter of what is true and factual, as you can use science and data to twist anything into a certain narrative you want to hear. Haven't you ever heard how easy it is to lie using statistics?
https://www.youtube.com/embed/bVG2OQp6jEQBut yeah; when you've got people who still believe everything in the Bible was factual and objectively happened, and then you've got people who believe whatever nonsense is fabricated out of thin air such as "non-binary," should be taken even the tiniest bit seriously, then you end up with the average human being, which is an anti-science dumbass who couldn't survive one day on their own without the geniuses of the world wiping their butts for them.
I hate to admit it (not really), but 99% of humanity is a species surviving only by a handful of non-morons out there. And what's worse is, the more intelligent humans are, the more evil and sociopathic they tend to be, like Bill Gates, or Mark Zuckerberg, to name a few. But when you grow up in a species as dumb as this, can you really blame them/us?
OPTION C: EQUAL.
I think that question should have a couple considerations.
Firstly, left leaning individuals are conistnely seen making up higher proportions of adults with higher levels education and university degrees. However, whilst scientist may be more left leaning, they aren't politicians (www. pewresearch. com)
Secondly, the right leaning politician appear to show a greater emphasis on the importance of religion guiding and being compatible with political policy making. Science and the scientific method which propels science is largely irreconcilable with religion. However, I can think of a VERY right leaning regime in 1940 Germany which were inspired by Darwins theory of natural selection and its relevance and application to different groups society. Though on the other hand, I can think of a leftist Russian in the 1920s who put researchers under strict political control and sought the kind of research that validated political doctrine, not the kind that relied on the scientific method.
Thirdly, I have noticed some in the left believing that biological sex can be changed which i think is anti science which observed at an objective biological level. Socially, you can be any gender you want but that doesn't then involve biology but rather sociology. But like the right leaning denying or downplaying climate change action, the adherence to science by politicians are largely irrelevent to political party but rather its utility in political discourse.
I wouldn't say either is, but politics will start to use science in a political way, which then makes it less believable and people go against it.
Since most people can't actually verify the science themselves, it becomes a trust issue. If science is a political tool, now people no longer believe it.
Science really should be neutral and no one should use it as a political tool, sadly we are far past that.
The vaccine for example has been politicalized, they say it is safe but yet the US government has given the manufacturers blanket legal immunity for lawsuits if someone has severe side effects. That means that the science no longer matters, because actions speak louder than words.
Right now, it's the left by a longshot. Not only are they actively denying basic understood facts about biology and virology among other things, they're now saying "don't question the science!" Which is in itself about as anti-science as it gets. They have effectively turned blind obedience to bureaucratic quacks into an aggressive doomsday cult-like religion that almost fully embodies every negative trope about religions that their ignorant self-proclaimed intellectuals like to regularly accuse people of, frequently against the claims of the actual Frontline researchers. The hysteria over Omicron is probably the most egregious example of that last point.
Since we're on the subject of denying reality, the American left is also far more guilty of ignoring or rewriting history to fit future goals as well. There's a difference between embellishing and flat out lying, and both are bad but the latter is far worse with more malicious implications.
The left. They want to have electric cars to move away from fossil fuel. They do not realize that you have to generate electricity to power all those cars. The electricity must be generated with FOSSIL FUEL.
They want to bankrupt the future ao all Americans to combat global warming even though it has not been proven that is is caused by anything manmade.
Then when you take into account all the contradictions during the Covid pandemic it shows the left is not interested in solving problems but only staying in power.
"The electricity must be generated with FOSSIL FUEL. "
upload.wikimedia.org/.../...e_of_wind_turbines.png
In Germany, it's 27%, about the same as fossil fuels (13% is nuclear, and the rest is renewables). And it's much cheaper in the long run because it's not building up a massive debt that will have to be paid in managing the effects of global warming.
Aren't there massive deserts in the US that get sun all the time? 10% of Germany's electricity comes from solar, with a much less suitable climate.
@goaded There are a few wind turbines near where I live. The ones in my town have not worked in years and most of the others have had problems from neighbor's complaints to getting the companies to keep them in working order. The results have not been good enough that I would trust them to be my main source of electricity yet. I hope that someday renewable energy becomes a reality. I suspect we will leapfrog over wind and solar and have electricity generated by fusion reactors.
Both are when it suits their given agenda. Both will also champion a study that has disproven many times if it suits their agenda. People on both sides of the isle don't see this because doing research and thinking for ones self are two things that politics actively discourages. Simply because people who do both end to hit a point where they see politics for the joke that it is.
I said equal, but with the left flaunting "the science" as a religious entity that they believe they have claim on through a selection of exalted experts, rather than the scientific method as a process of learning, I almost want to say the left.
At least sky-daddy is commonly understood not to be a scientific claim.
In reality both, the populist sides of the camps are strongly anti-science and anti-technology because they fundamentally do not understand it.
Both sides are equally antiscience, but they are antiscience in different spheres. Right-wing people are terrified of being controlled, so they are against things like vaccines which, according to their paranoia, would control them. Leftists, on the other hand, are terrified of being poisoned. So they are against nuclear technologies, genetically modified organisms etc.
Neither team can claim to "have science on their side". They both twist it or deny it whenever it's convenient to do so.
The right tend to believe in things without proof aka God, Vaccines have microchips, Global warming don't exist.
Left tend to agree that Global warming is a problem and exists, Vaccines are not made to control people with microchips, and the existence of god isn't true or at least remains to ever been seen.
Therefore Anti-Science would go to the right. Also most scientists themselves lean politically to the left if anything.
The Scientific Method requires applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed. The left lacks this completely. Ideas like "trust the science" sounds more like faith then science to me. If your research is valid is should withstand the critisim and be able to compete on the free market place of ideas. The left method for finding truth is censorhip of oposition and deplatfroming of contrarians. Constantly talking about "the exsperts" is an apeal to authority and an unvalid argument in my eyes
In the US, we are sliding into tribalism. This is bad. It infers that one side is right and the other side is wrong. We used to believe that opinions were valid for everyone and we respected the right to an opinion. This is gone and replaced with, my opinion is fact and you are evil.
the right. they are fundamentally against education because it scares them. they are afraid of anything that challenges their views or makes them uncomfortable... it's why they are fighting so hard to stop the teaching of critical race theory... which is taught in collage... which they likely couldn't even tell you what it even is. which is not to say that the left doesn't ignore science on things like weed. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/04/26/a-wider-ideological-gap-between-more-and-less-educated-adults/
https://www.youtube.com/embed/qjdwBqKmxngLefties by far. They never research the science and just follow the hype of media propaganda... As a trained scientist it's a sad fucking sight to watch.
Well science as a whole has turned into a Satanic cult where you are not allowed to question anything but then again it is not real science so it is hard to say. The left is brainwashed worse but the right is going along with the fake covid narrative too to a point too.
@doopayo Science is about questioning things yet in 2020 and 2021 if a doctor or scientist goes against the narrative that is pushed on the news they are ignored. The majority of people go along with this. So many doctors have said everything going on with covid is so wrong and they are not allowed on TV so they are discredited. As far as climate change goes the government loves pushing that that is all they talk about.
The loony lefties, of course! You can show them every bit of proof possible to back up a claim and they still won't believe you because it just doesn't fit their agenda!!
Not even close at all. Clearly everyone knows the "R" in Rightwing, stands for 'RETARDED'.
As someone that passed the CA state educator's required test on my first attempt (CSET) I can tell you that the left are more anti-science.
One thing I find fascinating about all this is how the women are almost universally thinking it's the right, while the men are split, but leaning towards the left
The left. They are all worked up about covid and vaccines when it doesn’t even really matter that much.
Science is based on questioning everything, not based on obeying politicians and trusting companies who are soaking up tax dollars
I think question should be Science Fiction, and that is Democrats.
Both political sides are anti science. Science and politics are completely different subsystems of society. Politics abuses science for it's means. The fact that science can't exist without money makes it vulnerable.
Can't be bothered to watch something that's obviously going to be rubbish, but from the YouTube page:
"“creationism doesn't… affect the way science is done."
It just ignores most or all of biology, astronomy, geography...
"I can't find examples where the right-wing stopped the progress of science…"
Stem cell research. Global warming.
I'm not bothering with you more than this goaded. Go be a line-towing, well-indoctrinated, self-loathing, conformist cuck elsewhere.
They're as bad as each other. Science and politics should never mix.
Definitely the left; they are illogical and emotional and science is the opposite
Neither. Both are just worong when it comes to science. One side believes in God, and feels like anyone that does not is stupid, the other side believes you can make up genders on the spot and have it actually mean something. I'm done with all of it.
The right think that putting religion in our laws is acceptable. It's part of the reason that separation of church and state exists.
Pretty equal. Both ignore it when it is convenient for their narrative.
You can’t be a leftist unless you reject certain scientific truths.
Ever since the party shift the right has always been the party of pseudoscience.
The left would like you to believe they are. But in actuality they both twist science to suit their agendas.
Whoever thinks that science is objective truth or cannot be questioned is anti-science.
Both sides are essentially working for rich people who don't care about the truth.
The Right believes both in science and God. The Left, on the other hand, believed that transgender women are real women so I’d say the latter
In polls like this people always say the opposition. As someone slightly to the left I'd say the far right has always been more vocally against science while the left supports the mainstream view.
The mainstream views are incorrect, however.
Race is real and biological. Intelligence is largely inherited; race differences in intelligence, and other traits, are predominantly biological. Men's and women's brains aren't identical and interchangeable. Dozens of genders and non-binary pronouns have next to no basis in biology. And Men can't get pregnant.
Mainstream views are prompted and supported by political correctness and moral or ethical justification. Dissidents are typically demonized and vilified.
The right also has a propensity towards beliefs that aren't supported by science, such as the one that the Earth is 10,000 years old (or creationism), but not all of us do; I don't. I think the Left is more guilty of being anti-science and censoring or suppressing anything that doesn't tow the line of their egalitarian dogma. Conservatives tend to be more open to dialogue involving incendiary or inflammatory topics.
If there's no single trait that you can use to distinguish between two groups 100% of the time, there's practically no reason to distinguish them.
For example: Some things you may not know about Transgenderism! ↗
@TheSpartan Are different subspecies of bugs given different legal rights?
Look at what I was responding to: "Race is real and biological" - who fits into exactly one race without a trace of another? "Intelligence is largely inherited" - largely (even if that's true, which I doubt). "Men's and women's brains aren't identical and interchangeable." except there are examples of physically and functionally "male"-like brains in "female" bodies and vice versa, see my link.
@TheSpartan Look at what I was responding to. That was the subject.
@TheSpartan And how relevant are the tools of "field life biologists" to humans? Or determining the race or gender of people? And, more importantly, treating people differently on that basis? There's almost certainly a better correlation for intelligence with, say, the wearing of MAGA hats than with race.
@goaded You didn't understand my point. No matter, there are major biological differences between human populations in intelligence, temperament, mating behavior, conscientiousness, different types of athletic ability, etc. While each individual is different and should be treated accordingly, human populations are massively different on average--and this difference isn't sociological. Trust me when I say it's better to just swallow this pill now; the topic is beyond debatable at this point to anyone actually familiar with the subject. There probably is an IQ gap between Trump supporters and White liberals, but it's almost certainly not as large as the Black-White IQ gap (which the consensus view suggests is about 50-60% biological in origin).
@Physics-Man this actually is the mainstream view, believe it or not. The media is just incredibly good as gaslighting.
@TheSpartan "While each individual is different and should be treated accordingly..." is precisely why I said "If there's no single trait that you can use to distinguish between two groups 100% of the time, there's practically no reason to distinguish them."; you're agreeing with me that there isn't.
There are women who are stronger and faster than you, there are plenty of people who are smarter in lots of ways.
Tell me who's smarter: a group of people whose instant reaction is that these lines are of different lengths, or a group that instantly see they're all the same length? It makes a difference whose measuring what.
@goaded >"While each individual is different and should be treated accordingly..." is precisely why I said "If there's no single trait that you can use to distinguish between two groups 100% of the time, there's practically no reason to distinguish them."; you're agreeing with me that there isn't.
No, we already debunked this argument. Any criteria you can use to shave off some uncertainty or better distinguish between multiple groups, factors, etc. should be used. The idea that something should only be used as a heuristic when it distinguishes between things 100% of the time isn't even wrong; it's so utterly beyond wrong that no living person actually believes it in their everyday life--including you. No one, and I mean no one, follows that line of thinking--especially not in situations where decision making is especially important (business, science, engineering, etc.). So, we're no longer going to even address it. We both know the *only* reason you're bringing up these totally beyond absurd standard is because you realize that your unconscious beliefs on human equality are being challenged.
@TheSpartan No "we" didn't. Why do you want to categorise people into groups? Finding new ways to justify bigotry is still bigotry, and I think that's what you want to do.
@goaded Of course we debunked it, and you know I'm right. You're simply denying a universally (yes, universally) accepted principle in order to desperately defend a bankrupt position. I'll ask you a similar question: imagine you're buying a lottery ticket, and you're given a choice between the blue ticket and the green ticket. The blue ticket has a 1% chance of having the winning number, while the green ticket has a 50% chance. Which one are you going to buy?
The argument that this is some attempt to "justify bigotry" is so hilariously false as to be barely worth acknowledging. The vast majority of laymen who end up reading scientific literature on human population and demographic biological differences were once average people who shared the same mainstream beliefs you do. Please drop that argument immediately for your own sake.
@TheSpartan What is this "universally accepted principle"?
I wouldn't buy either ticket, because if they each cost a dollar, they'd pay out less than $100, and less than $2. I'm almost certain to lose money.
OK, so explain *why* you're so keen to classify people into two groups, and *how* you can supposedly do it when there are so many variables. Until then, I'll sick with the most probable: justifying bigotry.
@goaded >What is this "universally accepted principle"?
I've told you several times: any heuristic you can use to eliminate uncertainty between different groups, categories, factors, etc. is rational to use and will be used.
>I wouldn't buy either ticket, because if they each cost a dollar, they'd pay out less than $100, and less than $2. I'm almost certain to lose money.
You aren't given that choice in this example. Predictably, you chose the stupid answer in an attempt to salvage your denialism. Also, really? You wouldn't buy a lottery ticket with a 50% chance of being the winning ticket? Either 1) you're lying, or 2) you've shown there's no reason to talk to you about anything.
>OK, so explain *why* you're so keen to classify people into two groups, and *how* you can supposedly do it when there are so many variables. Until then, I'll sick with the most probable: justifying bigotry.
Your lack of ability to think creatively--or even just observe reality--is not something that has any bearing on me. *We* are not keen on categorizing people according to certain qualities and traits: reality is by virtue of different populations displaying those variations of traits by virtue of their genetics. That's it; done. The only person--or thing--you should be yelling at is nature itself, because that is what created the reality of human differences in measurable traits. If I could change the rules of nature, trust me, I would in many ways.
@TheSpartan You clearly understand as little about how lotteries work as biology. People buy tickets, the lottery pays out a fraction of the income to the winner and keeps the rest, less taxes.
It's actually a good example of moderate complexity. How much does each ticket cost? Can I afford one? How much does a "win" pay out?
"I've told you several times:"
No, this would be the first time, I'd have remembered something so asinine.
"any heuristic you can use to eliminate uncertainty between different groups, categories, factors, etc. is rational to use and will be used."
So, if I said Men are over 5'6" and women under, which would work moderately well (about 90% of the time), that's rational, and you'd be fine with short men using the women's toilet.
You claim to have no reason to classify people into two groups, or the ability to do so. Which makes me think you'll choose whatever categories leave you on the winning side.
@goaded >You clearly understand as little about how lotteries work as biology. People buy tickets, the lottery pays out a fraction of the income to the winner and keeps the rest, less taxes. It's actually a good example of moderate complexity. How much does each ticket cost? Can I afford one? How much does a "win" pay out?
No, I objectively understand better than you. This is not up for debate. I was giving an analogy to illustrate a point to you, and predictably, you threw a fit instead of answering the question. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that the lottery amount we are talking about is more than the lottery ticket price by several magnitudes. Stop being purposefully obtuse; it is only making you look profoundly petulant and ridiculous.
>"I've told you several times:"
No, this would be the first time, I'd have remembered something so asinine.
I objectively have told you this several times by now. Again, this is a principle everyone uses, period. It is not up for debate.
>"any heuristic you can use to eliminate uncertainty between different groups, categories, factors, etc. is rational to use and will be used."
So, if I said Men are over 5'6" and women under, which would work moderately well (about 90% of the time), that's rational, and you'd be fine with short men using the women's toilet.
It would be perfectly reasonable, when knowing an individual is about 5'4, to bet money on the fact that they are probably a woman, since you would be correct in excess of 95% of the time. Hilariously, the example you used actually further illustrates my point. However, this hilariously stupid bit about shorter men using women's bathrooms simply solidifies that you either 1) have no idea what I'm talking about and can't comprehend it, 2) refuse to comprehend it out of childish petulance, or 3) know I'm right and are employing classic leftist dishonesty to stand by your pathetic worldview. Either way, you should bow out now why you still can.
@TheSpartan You "objectively understand better than" me but you think lottery companies run at a loss. Do you even know the odds of winning a large prize in a real lottery? They're millions to one.
@TheSpartan Think of a better one that doesn't force me to ignore reality and maths.
I still think you're trying to justify bigotry. If not, you haven't explained your point very well.
Picking people over 5'8" for a job that requires a certain height (who knows what job that would be, it's an analogy) makes sense. Picking only men because they're more likely to be over 5'8" does not, that would be bigoted.
@goaded >Think of a better one that doesn't force me to ignore reality and maths.
No, you're just being purposefully indignant.
>I still think you're trying to justify bigotry. If not, you haven't explained your point very well.
No, I have explained it very well; you just are being dense either purposefully or by unconscious panic.
>Picking people over 5'8" for a job that requires a certain height (who knows what job that would be, it's an analogy) makes sense. Picking only men because they're more likely to be over 5'8" does not, that would be bigoted.
I already said a couple of times that you should judge individuals by their merits.
@TheSpartan Then why do you want to split people into two groups?
@TheSpartan No it doesn't, people do. Often to discriminate against the "inferior" side of an arbitrary division (chosen to put them on the "superior" side).
@TheSpartan Those populations often now live in the same places. Why would you still want to make distinctions and divisions? It's one thing for a group to describe themselves, its another for people to impose a division from outside. You still haven't articulated why you think those distinctions are necessary, useful or practical.
Maybe you could give an example of a difference in human populations (you listed intelligence, temperament, mating behavior, conscientiousness, and different types of athletic ability) that exists in, say, New York city, and explain how what difference it should make to how that group is treated?
@TheSpartan All the more reason to give an example of a difference (you listed intelligence, temperament, mating behavior, conscientiousness, and different types of athletic ability) that exists between geneticly different groups in a modern city, and explain what difference it should make to how the people in that group are treated.
@goaded I gave several differences; different ethnic and racial populations have large differences in average intelligence, muscular strength, weight, gestation time, age of pubertal onset, conscientiousness, etc. You can see these differences most pronounced when comparing Africans, Europeans, East Asians, and Ashkenazi Jews, but these differences are even evident when comparing ethnic groups of the same continental origin.
@TheSpartan Funnily enough, that's not an example of how those groups differ. More importantly, that was only half the question. The rest was: "explain what difference it should make to how the people in that group are treated."
@TheSpartan Sigh. That would be what we call bigotry. And it's stupid.
Like I said before: Picking people over 5'8" for a job that requires a certain height (who knows what job that would be, it's an analogy) makes sense. Picking only men because they're more likely to be over 5'8" does not, that would be bigoted.
And: If there's no single trait that you can use to distinguish between two groups 100% of the time, there's no practical reason to distinguish them.
Just because people might tend to be bigoted doesn't make it right.
A while ago, top orchestras started holding auditions with the candidates hidden from the selectors. All of a sudden, the number of women in orchestras increased immensely, because they were listening to how the musicians played and not looking at who they were.
"Since the mid-1970s, orchestra musicians have usually played the preliminary rounds of auditions from behind a screen, so that race and gender aren’t obvious. They walk on a long strip of carpet, so the clacking of high-heeled shoes doesn’t give anything away. It’s made a big difference in merit hiring."
www.stltoday.com/.../...29f-bb98-8c5b08c64434.html
@goaded >Sigh. That would be what we call bigotry. And it's stupid.
No, it would be called distinguishing individuals based on your behavior. Once again, you have either 1) purposefully misinterpreted me, 2) are no capable of comprehending what I've said, or 3) are unconsciously misinterpreting me so that your argument doesn't implode.
>Like I said before: Picking people over 5'8" for a job that requires a certain height (who knows what job that would be, it's an analogy) makes sense. Picking only men because they're more likely to be over 5'8" does not, that would be bigoted.
I have addressed this analogy several times and already poked holes in it. Again, if you had to place a bet on a random 5'4 individual being a woman (assuming we're in a Western country), you would be logically justified in making that bet; that's a closer analogy to what I've been saying about eliminating uncertainty using heuristics.
>And: If there's no single trait that you can use to distinguish between two groups 100% of the time, there's no practical reason to distinguish them.
I have debunked this point countless times by now. If you still don't get it, then I'm sorry, but you're a hopelessly lost cause.
>"Since the mid-1970s, orchestra musicians have usually played the preliminary rounds of auditions from behind a screen, so that race and gender aren’t obvious. They walk on a long strip of carpet, so the clacking of high-heeled shoes doesn’t give anything away. It’s made a big difference in merit hiring."
These claims are almost nigh-universally debunked upon even the slightest bit of scientific scrutiny. I would have to take a look into actual scientific studies on the topic of orchestral selection processes, but I can pretty much bet a $1000 minimum that this claim of bigotry--like nearly all such claims--is bullshit.
@TheSpartan I can't be bothered watching you lie about what we've said in this conversation any more. You're clearly too thick to understand simple logic and too willing to outright lie.
Your entire point, which I could see very clearly from the get-go, thank you, is that people are naturally bigoted, so they should to carry on instead of learning not to be an asshole.
For example, what you claim was addressing my hypothetical (it wasn't, that's a lie) was:
"It would be perfectly reasonable, when knowing an individual is about 5'4, to bet money on the fact that they are probably a woman, since you would be correct in excess of 95% of the time."
That's completely avoiding the obvious point that if you're looking for someone who's 5'4, only looking at women will exclude other people who are 5'4. (Again, in case you missed it, it's an analogy: substitute "good at maths", "good with people", "good at multi-tasking", or any other bloody thing.) If you exclude groups of people who include individuals that have that property because they're not the group you're looking for, you're being stupid and bigoted.
@goaded >I can't be bothered watching you lie about what we've said in this conversation any more. You're clearly too thick to understand simple logic and too willing to outright lie.
You are projecting to an almost insane and delusional point. It's outright mindboggling how utterly deceitful left wingers such as yourself really are--truly, it is. However, your pathetic insults and attempts as gaslighting fall on deaf ears. As far as being "too thick" to understand simple logic, I can only laugh; I have a undergraduate degree in physics, a minor in material science, and I work at a top silicon valley tech company.
>Your entire point, which I could see very clearly from the get-go, thank you, is that people are naturally bigoted, so they should to carry on instead of learning not to be an asshole.
No, that was never even remotely close to my point, as anyone with a stable mind reading this thread can clearly see.
>That's completely avoiding the obvious point that if you're looking for someone who's 5'4, only looking at women will exclude other people who are 5'4. (Again, in case you missed it, it's an analogy: substitute "good at maths", "good with people", "good at multi-tasking", or any other bloody thing.) If you exclude groups of people who include individuals that have that property because they're not the group you're looking for, you're being stupid and bigoted.
This is literally incomprehensible.
@TheSpartan One last try.
If you were looking for a person who is 5'4, and that was your only criterion, would you limit your search to just women, or not? Why?
@goaded No, but you're also purposefully misrepresenting my point completely. Thus, the question is irrelevant.
Also, you have this backwards: I'm the one patiently trying to explain a concept to you, which you refuse to understand. I understand what you're saying perfectly. You're the one struggling here.
@TheSpartan You didn't answer the second part of the question again. Why wouldn't you limit your search to just women, although any 5'4 person is likely to be a woman?
@TheSpartan You know that the question is relevant and easy to answer to anyone who isn't trying to justify bigotry: Why wouldn't you only consider women if your only criterion is "a person who's 5'4"?
Then we can come back to the other question you've never answered, which was: "Why do you want to categorise people into groups?"
Tell the left that boys have penises and girls have vaginas and watch their heads explode.
Definitely the right! They are almost on another level even to that of the flat earthers!
Anyone who puts their doctrine above reality.
the side I don't agree with
Stossel is such a hack. stop watching that idiot
What is your definition of "anti-science?"
Science is right
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions