@nathancofnas engages in a debate with Journalist @ElizabethHaighx about a classic controversial topic: race and IQ.
What to make of this debate?
thecritic.co.uk
What to make of this debate?
thecritic.co.uk
Some examples of what's going on:
So, one side of the debate has a position, the other side is calling for the former to be fired and excommunicated
This is not science - this is politics - a battle for the narrative where the goal is to get people to believe your preferred narrative, whether or not it's true
This is not science - this is politics - a battle for the narrative where the goal is to get people to believe your preferred narrative, whether or not it's true
That narrative is then a weapon that can be used to achieve political goals. Getting people fired, enacting progressive policies, etc.
Since we're not doing science it is perhaps a mistake to think about this debate like a scientist - it's a waste of time.
Since we're not doing science it is perhaps a mistake to think about this debate like a scientist - it's a waste of time.
Rather, think like a statesman. Who funds the science deniers? Who organises them? More importantly, why have they picked this particular set of falsehoods to defend?
Moldbug has part of the answer. But perhaps not all of it.
Here's something to meditate on: what kind of motivation makes someone or some group want to deny human differences, even in the face of overwhelming evidence?
Here's something to meditate on: what kind of motivation makes someone or some group want to deny human differences, even in the face of overwhelming evidence?
If you had to design a world that suffers from these delusions, how would you do it?
Loading suggestions...