Summers Was Correct

[Carey N]

Originally Posted by Margaret

That last sentence in the Note belies a growing (but not solidified) belief on my part that EP is a branch of psychology the purpose of which is to scientifically justify the beliefs af angry white males. I didn't believe this at first. I read The Moral Animal and several other books that discussed human nature in terms of hereditary influence on behavior.

I can understand your inclination to believe that some evolutionary psychologists are devoted to the white male supremacy idea, but I don't agree with it. Perhaps this is because I'm a white male of European descent, but I still think your worrying about a thread of racism and misogyny running through EP is unnecessary.

It may be worth noting that Leda Cosmides, one of several founding (and still very active) authors of evolutionary psychology, is a woman. (here's their book)

Originally Posted by Margaret

. . . it also seems that there is a strong ideological movement within EP that seems unduly focussed on scientifically justifying genetic differences between human sub-groups as determinants of behavior and accomplishment. This ideology seems especially strong when those differences can be used to show the superiority of white European males. Based on many statements by the moderatior of this group and the consistent focus of thread topics he intitiates, it appears to me that this forum is a locus of such sentiments.

I don't think most people focus on identifying genetic differences between sub-groups . . . at least not with respect to sensitive subjects like intelligence. Evol Psych primarily aims to test evolutionary hypotheses about human brains and behavior - e.g. the prediction that humans have specialized, highly developed processing centers for dealing with social interaction. In effect, Evol Psych usually examines the features that all humans have in common. I believe JB considers this to be a weakness of the field, and has pointed out to us that systematic differences may also be important for our consideration.

To that end, JB has described research that infers a distinction between ethnic sub-groups. But he has never, ever used such posts to claim that white males are better than everyone else (in fact, if I recall, the typical finding is that people of Asian descent tend to perform best on whatever tests are used to quantify intelligence, perhaps slightly behind Ashkenazi jews). None of these results imply anything about superiority or inferiority . . . just difference. And the point is important for Evol Psych, not because it promotes a KKK ideology (it doesn't, though racists and bigots may try to put that slant on it), but because such differences, if valid, may well be the result of phylogenetic history in divergent selective environments (i.e., the stuff of evolution by natural selection)

The most important message is that biological differences have nothing to do with ethics . . . to make that leap would be to commit the naturalistic fallacy. It's neither fair nor correct to infer from JB's posts about human differences that he's a pseudo-nazi. One must let go the present cultural extreme of political correctness; otherwise, it's pretty hard to think straight about the science of human beings.

[Margaret McGhee]

Carey, Your post bravely addresses some important questions. I will reluctantly go out onto the ice to try to respond. Rather than go back into justfying previous positions and statements and questioning those of others here - as I prefer, I will try to clarify my present position on these things.

I grew up in the fifties in Texas where blacks were called niggers and Mexicans were called wetbacks by everyone I knew. I had no idea those were derogatory terms because I never heard them called anything else. My 8 yo brain registered the "Colored" and "White" signs on the drinking fountains in the dept. stores downtown and the "Coloreds Must Sit Behind This Sign" on the city buses - so I knew there was a more official way to label those people - while still putting them in their proper place in society. All of this never seemed quite right to me - I was a transplant from the north - but I was a kid and grownups always knew best.

I quickly learned to pick up the southern drawl and mannersisms so as not to get ridiculed or beaten up as a Damned Yankee by the other kids - as I frequently was at first. I eventually learned that the coloreds lived in a place called Niggertown. I went there once with my Dad to pick up our black maid and noticed the slummy neighborhood - dirt streets, wrecked cars all around, chickens on the porch. By High School guys with cars would joke about going down to Niggertown on Saturday nite to "bop some niggers" with a two by four out the window. I had my boss (after school job) tell me once that he knew a guy in Niggertown who would send his young daughter out to your car if you pulled up to his house with $5 in your hand.

I'm sure these were just the Southern version of urban myths, but looking back, I have to wonder what was actually in their minds for them to enjoy these stories so much as part of their culture. Now that I understand human nature a little better I realize that I was living in a "Bully Culture". One's worth in such a case is determined by how many people you can claim to crap on in life vs. the number who crap on you. Those stories and the terms one uses to describe others is how you advertise your place above others in that society. Skin color and the myths surrounding that marker were the perfect ideas to form your culture around. Even the poorest white would have plenty of people to crap on.

The term political correctness, is itself a framed political construct. It is usually used to denigrate a practice more properly termed, social politeness. It means something quite innocent. It means that if it is possible to act in a way that doesn't offend others, then that's a good way to act - in the sense of reducing overall social tensions and hatefulness in the society we inhabit. It's kind of like driving the speed-limit or not drinking and driving - other practices I find that those so infuriated by political correctness tend to despise - as somehow infringing on their human nature. The term political correctness is more properly used in a political context - as when considering laws that say our government should act in a way that doesn't offend its citizens, if possible.

In any case, I have to wonder why anyone would object to either version of that - and if they did, what their motives might be. You and others here have made negative comments about the idea of political correctness. When I hear someone complain or say something sarcastic about political correctness my bully radar starts beeping. If I suspect someone of being a bully you can believe that I will confront them - usually after giving them a chance to clarify their position.

Perhaps you can explain to me what these terms mean to JB (or you) and why I should not be concerned when my repeated gentle requests for clarification have been ridiculed as evidence of my liberal and socialistic tendencies.

Margaret

[ToddStark]

Norm was the mailman on Cheers.

I loved that show. I think Cliffie was the gregarious postal worker with more interests and good intentions than smarts ... and Norm was the wide-bodied accountant who always got the big salute when he entered.

T.

[Margaret McGhee]

Oh yeah, you are right about Cliffie and Norm.

That was a cool show.

Margaret

[Carey N]

Originally Posted by Margaret

[The phrase 'political correctness'] is usually used to denigrate [did you really mean to use this word?] a practice more properly termed, social politeness. It means something quite innocent. It means that if it is possible to act in a way that doesn't offend others, then that's a good way to act - in the sense of reducing overall social tensions and hatefulness in the society we inhabit.

I agree in principle with the notion of social politeness, but our current culture has taken it way too far . . . We now celebrate mediocrity everywhere, for fear of hurting peoples' feelings (By the way, a great film exploring this theme is "The Incredibles"). I strongly promote the ideal of social equality - everyone, regardless of race, sex, or religion, deserves the same civil rights and privileges. That is NOT the same thing as hiding information about human variation, just because it might make some people feel bad about themselves. Everyone has the same privileges, but it's okay to talk about individual differences in a rigorous manner (rather than one motivated by racism). Hence, my stress in the previous post that scientific research revealing systematic differences between people does not have any bearing on the ethics of society . . .

To state my overall point in (pseudo-)brief: the plain fact that humans vary widely in all kinds of abilities does not preclude the possibility of executing the ideal of equal civil rights for all. Most people assume that what is reflects what ought to be (the naturalistic fallacy), and think that any evidence revealing systematic differences automatically undermines the ideal of equal rights. That is nonsense. It may well be that racist bastards will try to justify their hatred with research demonstrating systematic differences, but does that mean we should stop investigating the way human variation is distributed, and all that it might tell us about our evolutionary history? I don't think so . . . the problem is not the biology, but the bigots. Perhaps one or two of the biologists are also bigots, but it's not fair to make that assumption, just because their research examines divergence between human sub-groups.

I dont see the connection between resenting extreme political correctness and condoning drunk drivers. DUI is a lot like taking a loaded gun, putting on a blindfold, walking out into the street, and shooting in random directions. Such behavior should yield prison sentences, without exception. I don't care if you're alcoholic and genetically susceptible to addiction - you killed someone's kid (or could have), so you go to jail for a long time.

Originally Posted by Margaret

my bully radar starts beeping

Please don't liken me to the racists of your childhood, to whom you also referred as bullies. That's below the belt.

[Margaret McGhee]

Just a quick response to

Please don't liken me to the racist idiots of your childhood, to whom you also referred as bullies. That's below the belt.

My purpose in my post was to explain why I have reason to be cautious. I wouldn't be discussing this with you in this way if I thought you were actually a racist idiot.

I need to think carefully about the rest of your post before responding. I know you will be quick to point out any thinking asymmetries in my reponse.

Margaret

[Carey N]

Okay - my bad on that one; I am admittedly reactionary.

[Margaret McGhee]

Carey, You say

To state my overall point in (pseudo-)brief: the plain fact that humans vary widely in all kinds of abilities does not preclude the possibility of executing the ideal of equal civil rights for all.

When I deconstruct that sentence I run into several problems understanding it.

Are you saying that - even though everyone does not now enjoy equality of civil rights, the fact that they have different abilities is not what is preventing us from correcting that?

Do you mean that in the sense that those who would deny equal civil rights to some groups are using the purported "different abilities" of those groups to justify that - but that society is currently demonstrating the ability to disregard those justifications - so we don't need to worry? See why I'm having trouble?

Responding with my best guess of where you might be going with this . .

It seems to me that even the white supremacy groups are careful not to say that blacks are inferior, ' . . . they're just different, and therefore they should live with their own kind - and not with us. It is human nature to want to live with our own kind. We don't really have anything against blacks - we're are just really proud of being white. And what's wrong with that?'

I think people who organize into groups that are really serious about discriminating politically against minorities are very aware of the politically acceptable ways to do that - they make a science of it. They are the last who would justify their discrimination on the basis of lower IQ. They might greatly enjoy the scientific discussion of racial IQ differences and any other racial differences. But they justify their discrimination using loftier means, like freedom of association and freedom of thought.

Have you ever visited www.vdare.com ? Steve Sailer is a very smart person who, I believe, has broken new ground in this area. By stressing the "scientifically" based differences between whites, esp. white males and other groups he has attracted several prominent scientists to his private online discussion group - who I am sure are not racists but who wish to appear open to various views - as well as others who may have more sinister reasons for being there.

Here's a more specific article by Sailer The White Guy Gap

Before I get going in that general direction, I think if I tried to answer you properly at this time I would be guessing wrong at your precise meaning. I'm sure you are posing an important premise but could you restate it more succintly for my old brain?

Margaret

[Carey N]

Just so you know - I'm thinking of a better way to describe my previous post, but might not be able to take time to write it for a while.

-Carey

[Fred H.]

Carey:
To state my overall point in (pseudo-)brief: the plain fact that humans vary widely in all kinds of abilities does not preclude the possibility of executing the ideal of equal civil rights for all.

MM:
When I deconstruct that sentence I run into several problems understanding it….

Do you mean that in the sense that those who would deny equal civil rights to some groups are using the purported "different abilities" of those groups to justify that - but that society is curently demonstrating the ability to disregard those justifications - so we don't need to worry? See why I'm having trouble….

Before I get going in that general direction, I think if I tried to answer you properly at this time I would be guessing wrong at your precise meaning. I'm sure you are posing an important premise but could you restate it more succintly for my old brain?

Carey:
I'm thinking of a better way to describe my previous post, but might not be able to take time to write it for the next few days.

Face it Carey, Margaret’s sanctimonious notions here are obvious. And you’ve pretty much already lost this one—Margaret is arguing moral properties, her conviction of what ought to be, while you’re arguing natural properties (and subjective “ideals”)—and as you’ve already more or less suggested, Margaret doesn’t seem to recognize or allow naturalistic fallacies to get in the way of her “reasoning” and/or beliefs

Everyone being created equal is perhaps a useful illusion, but apparently not reality. The best we can shoot for is to accept the moral truth that sane adults are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness….”

But for those convinced that the Creator is also an illusion, and that also refuse or are unable to acknowledge naturalistic and/or “ought to be” fallacies, well, they’ll just pull “morality” out of their ass all day long.