The wisdom of discussing eugenics on twitter
- El Pollo Diablo
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 3577
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
- Location: FBPE
The wisdom of discussing eugenics on twitter
Do I need to give any more information?
Keywords: Dawkins, controversy, twitter, eugenics, arguments, dickhead
Keywords: Dawkins, controversy, twitter, eugenics, arguments, dickhead
If truth is many-sided, mendacity is many-tongued
-
- Clardic Fug
- Posts: 210
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
- Location: Coventry
Re: The wisdom of discussing eugenics on twitter
But facts, EPD. Stop being so ideological.
- Gentleman Jim
- Catbabel
- Posts: 634
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 9:38 pm
Re: The wisdom of discussing eugenics on twitter
Hasn't Brexit taught you anything?
Experts are no longer required; We have had enough of experts!
Experts are no longer required; We have had enough of experts!
Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools.
Re: The wisdom of discussing eugenics on twitter
Don't see what the fuss is about - we know it works, as shown in the 1988 documentary, Twins.
You can't polish a turd...
unless its Lion or Osterich poo... http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbus ... -turd.html
unless its Lion or Osterich poo... http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbus ... -turd.html
- Tessa K
- Light of Blast
- Posts: 4840
- Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:07 pm
- Location: Closer than you'd like
Re: The wisdom of discussing eugenics on twitter
There's a piece here on how we should 'decouple' and realise that saying something is possible is not the same as saying it should be done.
However, I'm not convinced. Of course you can say something is possible without endorsing it but Dawkins has a history of naivety (to put it kindly) when tweeting, failing to think of the wider context and leaving too much implicit.
His basic grasp of psychology is poor for a communicator, he has frequently shown himself to be ignorant of history, psychology, society and of how everything has a context. Words and facts are not neutral even if we like to pretend we're smart enough to claim they are.
And why even say 'yes it's possible to do this'? That's so banal to be not worth saying.
Adam Rutherford has done a good thread on Twitter unpicking the implications of Dawk's tweet that ends 'Finally: ‘Facts don’t care about feelings’ is a really *really*, profoundly idiotic thing to say.'
My main conclusion is a) Dawkins should just shut up b) don't jump on a Dawks' tweet because Adam Rutherford will deal with it more elegantly and intelligently than I can c) there will always be some white man willing to defend him d) Twitter is useful for alerting us to these things so we can go away and discuss them somewhere calmer.
However, I'm not convinced. Of course you can say something is possible without endorsing it but Dawkins has a history of naivety (to put it kindly) when tweeting, failing to think of the wider context and leaving too much implicit.
His basic grasp of psychology is poor for a communicator, he has frequently shown himself to be ignorant of history, psychology, society and of how everything has a context. Words and facts are not neutral even if we like to pretend we're smart enough to claim they are.
And why even say 'yes it's possible to do this'? That's so banal to be not worth saying.
Adam Rutherford has done a good thread on Twitter unpicking the implications of Dawk's tweet that ends 'Finally: ‘Facts don’t care about feelings’ is a really *really*, profoundly idiotic thing to say.'
My main conclusion is a) Dawkins should just shut up b) don't jump on a Dawks' tweet because Adam Rutherford will deal with it more elegantly and intelligently than I can c) there will always be some white man willing to defend him d) Twitter is useful for alerting us to these things so we can go away and discuss them somewhere calmer.
-
- After Pie
- Posts: 2029
- Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2019 1:23 pm
Re: The wisdom of discussing eugenics on twitter
Dawkins should just shut up and discussion of eugenics should be anathema.
Masking forever
Putin is a monster.
Russian socialism will rise again
Putin is a monster.
Russian socialism will rise again
- Woodchopper
- Princess POW
- Posts: 7317
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am
Re: The wisdom of discussing eugenics on twitter
The low decouplers (you’ll have to read Tessa K’s link) remind of this point made by Abraham Lincoln who:
https://timpanogos.blog/2007/05/23/linc ... dogs-tail/used to liken the case to that of the boy who, when asked how many legs his calf would have if he called its tail a leg, replied, ” Five,” to which the prompt response was made that calling the tail a leg would not make it a leg.
- El Pollo Diablo
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 3577
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
- Location: FBPE
Re: The wisdom of discussing eugenics on twitter
I wrote a blog here: https://thingssamthinks.wordpress.com/2 ... ecoupling/
Although in his tweet there was an unreferenced connection to matters in the news right now, Dawkins raised this out of nowhere, and he did it on Twitter. Before he raised the topic, I’m not aware of anyone claiming that eugenics wouldn’t work, though there is now actually some debate over that, once the word ‘work’ is suitably defined, which it tends not to be. (And I should point out, there are lots of things I am not aware of, so maybe that debate was indeed raging good and hard). But his tweet basically stamped a Big White Man Foot and flew a big flag from on high saying, “am I not a clever, clever man?” Simply by raising a question which no one was asking, he lends legitimacy to the worth of having the debate. Previously, most would have considered that legitimacy to be nil. The debate was done, finished, out of bounds except to a few far-right goons on tiny corners of the internet. Dawkins, a man with 2.8 million followers, just broke it out into the big leagues.
If truth is many-sided, mendacity is many-tongued
- Tessa K
- Light of Blast
- Posts: 4840
- Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:07 pm
- Location: Closer than you'd like
Re: The wisdom of discussing eugenics on twitter
This makes an interesting point in a good thread. (Interesting to me, some of you will know this already. I'm learning a lot today).
Sabisky has claimed he was pilloried by 'selective quoting'. So what is the correct selection process for racism, eugenics and sexism?
He also talks about de novo mutations that can't be selectively bred out (or in).Another reason is that humans are exposed to very different environments, so most of trait variation is not due to genetic factors but to differences in environment. One consequence is that it makes it hard to identify subjects who have desirable genetic characteristics.
Sabisky has claimed he was pilloried by 'selective quoting'. So what is the correct selection process for racism, eugenics and sexism?
-
- Catbabel
- Posts: 756
- Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:18 am
Re: The wisdom of discussing eugenics on twitter
Thanks to Tessa and EPD, for links and discussion.
Updated to offer thanks for the Curtis link!
I would add to his points about environmental factor, that a highly significant factor in human development is the uterine environment, which in turn may depend on the mother's environment (food intake, nutrients, etc.). This is why I think 'separated identical twin studies' do not tell us much about the heritability of intelligence, since those twins were raised in the same uterine environment. Quite apart from evil people like Cyril Burt.
Updated to offer thanks for the Curtis link!
I would add to his points about environmental factor, that a highly significant factor in human development is the uterine environment, which in turn may depend on the mother's environment (food intake, nutrients, etc.). This is why I think 'separated identical twin studies' do not tell us much about the heritability of intelligence, since those twins were raised in the same uterine environment. Quite apart from evil people like Cyril Burt.
Re: The wisdom of discussing eugenics on twitter
Yes - "naive to put it kindly" is something I've said elsewhere.
And his communication is sometimes just *wrong* even when he's discussing evolution. For example, his insistence on natural selection being described as not random would imply that humanity was "the peak of evolution", when the KT impact was merely one of the most extravagant incidents that utterly changed the path of evolution.
Here is his own pdf of his paper "Intelligence and the wealth and poverty of nations"
http://www.rlynn.co.uk/uploads/pdfs/Int ... ations.pdf
His results are often quoted by white supremacists, which isn't surprising given their aim and claims.
They are literally incredible, for example assigning "the average IQ" of Guinea-Bissau of 63 (yes, 63) based on a self-declared sample size of zero and asserting that it's the same as Guinea (The value for Equatorial Guinea was based on a single test of 48 ten-fourteen year olds).
He then plots GDP against these values for IQ, I think including those he's estimated, and comes up with something - which I haven't bothered to look at.
Might be fun to gnaw at
And his communication is sometimes just *wrong* even when he's discussing evolution. For example, his insistence on natural selection being described as not random would imply that humanity was "the peak of evolution", when the KT impact was merely one of the most extravagant incidents that utterly changed the path of evolution.
I have seen some screenshots of his "thinking the unthinkable" and his figures look as though they came from Richard Lynn, who is almost an exemplar of bad science pushed with an agenda (in his case, seemingly less of white supremacy than black inferiority)Tessa K wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 5:08 pmThis makes an interesting point in a good thread. (Interesting to me, some of you will know this already. I'm learning a lot today).
He also talks about de novo mutations that can't be selectively bred out (or in).Another reason is that humans are exposed to very different environments, so most of trait variation is not due to genetic factors but to differences in environment. One consequence is that it makes it hard to identify subjects who have desirable genetic characteristics.
Sabisky has claimed he was pilloried by 'selective quoting'. So what is the correct selection process for racism, eugenics and sexism?
Here is his own pdf of his paper "Intelligence and the wealth and poverty of nations"
http://www.rlynn.co.uk/uploads/pdfs/Int ... ations.pdf
His results are often quoted by white supremacists, which isn't surprising given their aim and claims.
They are literally incredible, for example assigning "the average IQ" of Guinea-Bissau of 63 (yes, 63) based on a self-declared sample size of zero and asserting that it's the same as Guinea (The value for Equatorial Guinea was based on a single test of 48 ten-fourteen year olds).
He then plots GDP against these values for IQ, I think including those he's estimated, and comes up with something - which I haven't bothered to look at.
Might be fun to gnaw at
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation
Re: The wisdom of discussing eugenics on twitter
And again, like Cummings, he seems to have binge-read the sort of business-as-war-books you find in airport departure lounges. With a side order of having read too much Asimov's Foundation series or Dune at an impressionable age.
"Superforecasters" - that sounds like a way to try separating someone from money, but hey, the word Mentat has already been coined.
"Superforecasters" - that sounds like a way to try separating someone from money, but hey, the word Mentat has already been coined.
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation
- Tessa K
- Light of Blast
- Posts: 4840
- Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:07 pm
- Location: Closer than you'd like
Re: The wisdom of discussing eugenics on twitter
Scandinavia was surprisingly keen on enforced sterilization. In Switzerland they were still doing it in 1970, Peru in the 90s and in some countries it's still going on.
The flip side of this is Hungary where they want the native population to outbreed immigrants and women with four or more children don't have to pay tax.
The flip side of this is Hungary where they want the native population to outbreed immigrants and women with four or more children don't have to pay tax.
Re: The wisdom of discussing eugenics on twitter
I'm not sure if it was an urban myth, but didn't France try to combat low pregnancy rates by allowing (encouraging?) TV companies to show late-night p.rn?
"My interest is in the future, because I'm going to spend the rest of my life there"
Re: The wisdom of discussing eugenics on twitter
- Gentleman Jim
- Catbabel
- Posts: 634
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 9:38 pm
Re: The wisdom of discussing eugenics on twitter
That just caused a large increase in the number of curtains needing dry cleaning
Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools.
- Boustrophedon
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 2948
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:58 pm
- Location: Lincolnshire Wolds
Re: The wisdom of discussing eugenics on twitter
I am not convinced about "Decoupling". I had a long argument with a Christian fundamentalist homophobe. Any reply or post he made about atheists would inevitably include a reference to the Nazis. At no point did he ever say Atheists are Nazis or like Nazis but instead might include say "of course Hitler was an atheist." or "without an absolute moral authority you end up with Nazism." He was a very annoying troll.Tessa K wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 1:46 pmThere's a piece here on how we should 'decouple' and realise that saying something is possible is not the same as saying it should be done.
However, I'm not convinced. Of course you can say something is possible without endorsing it but Dawkins has a history of naivety (to put it kindly) when tweeting, failing to think of the wider context and leaving too much implicit.
His basic grasp of psychology is poor for a communicator, he has frequently shown himself to be ignorant of history, psychology, society and of how everything has a context. Words and facts are not neutral even if we like to pretend we're smart enough to claim they are.
And why even say 'yes it's possible to do this'? That's so banal to be not worth saying.
Adam Rutherford has done a good thread on Twitter unpicking the implications of Dawk's tweet that ends 'Finally: ‘Facts don’t care about feelings’ is a really *really*, profoundly idiotic thing to say.'
My main conclusion is a) Dawkins should just shut up b) don't jump on a Dawks' tweet because Adam Rutherford will deal with it more elegantly and intelligently than I can c) there will always be some white man willing to defend him d) Twitter is useful for alerting us to these things so we can go away and discuss them somewhere calmer.
He denied he ever said that atheists were Nazi. But actually by repeatedly mentioning the two in the same context of course he f.cking was.
Selective breeding =/= Eugenics. Don't mention eugenics at all if you don't support it.
Perit hic laetatio.
- Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10142
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Re: The wisdom of discussing eugenics on twitter
Dawkins seems to love arguing but never is much good at understanding why people disagree with what he's saying.
How does natural selection being non-random imply that humans are the pinnacle of anything? Humans are no more the product of natural selection than anything else (possibly slightly less due to the relaxation of certain selection pressures).
Also, the existence of random events in *evolution* doesn't mean that *natural selection* is random - selection is just one of many evolutionary forces. It seems a bit of a stretch to define the KT impact as a selection event.
What I would say is that Dawkins tends to overemphasise the importance of selection versus random processes in evolution. He gives the impression that evolution is a highly optimised process, when in reality selection only occurs within tightly constrained parameters. Which, again, really comes down to ignoring context.
Sorry jimbob, I'm not following you.jimbob wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 9:30 pmAnd his communication is sometimes just *wrong* even when he's discussing evolution. For example, his insistence on natural selection being described as not random would imply that humanity was "the peak of evolution", when the KT impact was merely one of the most extravagant incidents that utterly changed the path of evolution.
How does natural selection being non-random imply that humans are the pinnacle of anything? Humans are no more the product of natural selection than anything else (possibly slightly less due to the relaxation of certain selection pressures).
Also, the existence of random events in *evolution* doesn't mean that *natural selection* is random - selection is just one of many evolutionary forces. It seems a bit of a stretch to define the KT impact as a selection event.
What I would say is that Dawkins tends to overemphasise the importance of selection versus random processes in evolution. He gives the impression that evolution is a highly optimised process, when in reality selection only occurs within tightly constrained parameters. Which, again, really comes down to ignoring context.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
- Tessa K
- Light of Blast
- Posts: 4840
- Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:07 pm
- Location: Closer than you'd like
Re: The wisdom of discussing eugenics on twitter
I thought decoupling was what Hollywood stars call divorce.
- El Pollo Diablo
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 3577
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
- Location: FBPE
Re: The wisdom of discussing eugenics on twitter
That's uncoupling, but I made sufficient use of it as a pun in my blog post title.
If truth is many-sided, mendacity is many-tongued
- Tessa K
- Light of Blast
- Posts: 4840
- Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:07 pm
- Location: Closer than you'd like
Re: The wisdom of discussing eugenics on twitter
Oh right. And uncoupling for trains too.El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 12:40 pmThat's uncoupling, but I made sufficient use of it as a pun in my blog post title.
I just learnt this about decoupling:
and thisIn economic and environmental fields, decoupling refers to an economy that would be able to grow without corresponding increases in environmental pressure.
It's a shame Dawks doesn't explode in underground cavities instead of on Twitter.muffle the sound or shock of (a nuclear explosion) by causing it to take place in an underground cavity.
- Gentleman Jim
- Catbabel
- Posts: 634
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 9:38 pm
Re: The wisdom of discussing eugenics on twitter
I thought this was going to be a discussion about the Queen's grand-children
Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools.
Re: The wisdom of discussing eugenics on twitter
Though he quit on Monday night parts of the media aren't giving up on this and Labour/SNP ministers are demanding to know how he was hired and was he vetted.
Gov staying tight lipped because they'll look like cretins either way. Though you'd think they'd rather say he wasn't vetted than he was and deemed acceptable.
Gov staying tight lipped because they'll look like cretins either way. Though you'd think they'd rather say he wasn't vetted than he was and deemed acceptable.
You can't polish a turd...
unless its Lion or Osterich poo... http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbus ... -turd.html
unless its Lion or Osterich poo... http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbus ... -turd.html
- Trinucleus
- Dorkwood
- Posts: 1047
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:45 pm
Re: The wisdom of discussing eugenics on twitter
Daily Mash highlight that a superpredictor was surprised that he got sacked