I was assigned female at birth and have been in tons of conversations where people talk about IQ differences between men and women and why that might explain why there are less women in STEM.
I never thought “wtf, they must secretly be sexist”.
I thought “Huh, interesting. I wonder if the evidence backs that up.”
Because I know I’m incredibly smart. The evidence is abundantly clear. And I know that people talking about group differences doesn’t say much about individual differences.
Women are also on average shorter than men, but I’m taller than most men. I don’t get offended or think that people are secretly saying I’m actually short.
Averages are different than individuals.
You can talk about differences between groups without it being sexist / racist / _____ist and thinking people are talking about you.
I think your reply misses the point of what I’ve said. I am not saying that “averages = individuals” or that you “can’t talk about differences between groups without it being sexist…. and thinking people are talking about you.”
My claim is that many people are skeptical about the intentions of people who spend their entire careers talking about those differences and how they should shape healthcare, policy, etc. I find some of that skepticism to be super reasonable (especially on the policy end), and I find it frustrating when that is reduced to what you’re saying above even though I default to a different approach personally.
I think I’m skeptical of people’s intentions too sometimes, but this seems to me more to apply to the person who asked Hanania a question than Hanania. I don’t like Hananai’s behaviour, but it doesn’t feel like he spends his whole time talking about group difference, here is a screenshot of his blog homepage. Perhaps there is some race discussion in the “dissident right” piece, but that seems like a pretty small percentage.
The upshot here is I’m not sure “people who spend their entire careers talking about those differences” is a good characterisation of the people who were speakers at manifest.
The anecdote from the conference was more about how those conversations made me feel which I should have been more clear about. This was prompted by Austin’s comments about how Manifest made people feel. I should have (maybe?) also said that Hanania answered in a way that made me uncomfortable, but I don’t think the details of that matter as I’m not advocating for something to change based on my discomfort. I’m unsure about my views on this, so I want to emphasize that this is (presently) not the case.
The statement about “people who spend their entire careers…” was a general statement about the “edgy” people and not necessarily about him (though I do think his book falls into the “reasonably skeptical” camp) which was also not super clear.
Have you considered all of the other intentions they might have and compared the probabilities of various hypotheses?
My top hypothesis is that for most of the prominent HBD intellectuals, their motivation is the usual “ooh, shiny, what an interesting idea” combined with some contrarian urges.
Like, when somebody censors a book, readership goes up.
I know the moment I hear that a book has been banned, I go download it. What don’t people want me to know?
Many people have the urge to talk about things if it’s been deemed taboo by society.
I really do not understand why you are asking me to explain a suspicion that I clearly said I don’t have. I mentioned in the original comment and in the reply that I do engage and consider the other possibilities that you mentioned. I read the books and blogs unless they are overtly racist and I have the time. I am saying that I don’t fault people people who don’t do that or have those defaults/reflexes.
Glad to hear it! But I think a little compassion is due here to the very common experience in this community of not being confident about one’s own intellect or abilities, or among people who are confident about themselves, very much not being confident that they will be perceived as capable and taken seriously by their peers.
It wasn’t intended as snide. I think it’s probably just hard to convey tone and emotions over text, especially in a heated conversation.
Sorry if it came across that way. I should definitely try to err more on the side of speaking extra nicely when commenting on the forum, to make up for all of the psychological forces pushing against it being interpreted that way.
I was assigned female at birth and have been in tons of conversations where people talk about IQ differences between men and women and why that might explain why there are less women in STEM.
I never thought “wtf, they must secretly be sexist”.
I thought “Huh, interesting. I wonder if the evidence backs that up.”
Because I know I’m incredibly smart. The evidence is abundantly clear. And I know that people talking about group differences doesn’t say much about individual differences.
Women are also on average shorter than men, but I’m taller than most men. I don’t get offended or think that people are secretly saying I’m actually short.
Averages are different than individuals.
You can talk about differences between groups without it being sexist / racist / _____ist and thinking people are talking about you.
I think your reply misses the point of what I’ve said. I am not saying that “averages = individuals” or that you “can’t talk about differences between groups without it being sexist…. and thinking people are talking about you.”
My claim is that many people are skeptical about the intentions of people who spend their entire careers talking about those differences and how they should shape healthcare, policy, etc. I find some of that skepticism to be super reasonable (especially on the policy end), and I find it frustrating when that is reduced to what you’re saying above even though I default to a different approach personally.
I think I’m skeptical of people’s intentions too sometimes, but this seems to me more to apply to the person who asked Hanania a question than Hanania. I don’t like Hananai’s behaviour, but it doesn’t feel like he spends his whole time talking about group difference, here is a screenshot of his blog homepage. Perhaps there is some race discussion in the “dissident right” piece, but that seems like a pretty small percentage.
The upshot here is I’m not sure “people who spend their entire careers talking about those differences” is a good characterisation of the people who were speakers at manifest.
The anecdote from the conference was more about how those conversations made me feel which I should have been more clear about. This was prompted by Austin’s comments about how Manifest made people feel. I should have (maybe?) also said that Hanania answered in a way that made me uncomfortable, but I don’t think the details of that matter as I’m not advocating for something to change based on my discomfort. I’m unsure about my views on this, so I want to emphasize that this is (presently) not the case.
The statement about “people who spend their entire careers…” was a general statement about the “edgy” people and not necessarily about him (though I do think his book falls into the “reasonably skeptical” camp) which was also not super clear.
I appreciate it, thank you.
Appreciate it. I wish more people thought this way.
Why are you suspicious of their intentions?
Have you considered all of the other intentions they might have and compared the probabilities of various hypotheses?
My top hypothesis is that for most of the prominent HBD intellectuals, their motivation is the usual “ooh, shiny, what an interesting idea” combined with some contrarian urges.
Like, when somebody censors a book, readership goes up.
I know the moment I hear that a book has been banned, I go download it. What don’t people want me to know?
Many people have the urge to talk about things if it’s been deemed taboo by society.
I really do not understand why you are asking me to explain a suspicion that I clearly said I don’t have. I mentioned in the original comment and in the reply that I do engage and consider the other possibilities that you mentioned. I read the books and blogs unless they are overtly racist and I have the time. I am saying that I don’t fault people people who don’t do that or have those defaults/reflexes.
Oh you’re right. My bad. So many threads going on here and I got mixed up. Sorry about that.
Glad you’re not suspicious of them!
Glad to hear it! But I think a little compassion is due here to the very common experience in this community of not being confident about one’s own intellect or abilities, or among people who are confident about themselves, very much not being confident that they will be perceived as capable and taken seriously by their peers.
But they are not talking about you or perceiving you as less intelligent.
They are talking about averages.
Just because you feel like people are talking about you does not mean that they are.
This feels unnecessary. This topic is hard enough without snideness.
It wasn’t intended as snide. I think it’s probably just hard to convey tone and emotions over text, especially in a heated conversation.
Sorry if it came across that way. I should definitely try to err more on the side of speaking extra nicely when commenting on the forum, to make up for all of the psychological forces pushing against it being interpreted that way.