I think in order for the opposite thing to work, you have to approach the material with the understanding that "There are people who believe this stuff as firmly as I believe the complete opposite. If you asked them, they say, with absolute conviction, that I'm nuts. How might that happen? What if they're right? What could I have missed?"
This engages System 2, hard. And it's so easy to slip back into System 1 and continue to reject the evidence in front of you, as System 1 does so well when it doesn't like what it's seeing.
I have to constantly remind myself of the possibility that I could be wrong or have an incomplete view of things, but then that allows me to extract the valuable nuances and hidden assumptions that underlie the belief.
Even more importantly, it tends to cast a light on my unconscious biases and assumptions that underlie my beliefs.
>There are people who believe this stuff as firmly as I believe the complete opposite. If you asked them, they say, with absolute conviction, that I'm nuts. How might that happen? What if they're right? What could I have missed?
After having read books on two sides of various things, I have found that most people don't have firm beliefs at all. Their beliefs don't even have anything to do with how they live. They have everything to do with what they're told will make them look good. So, just because someone says they believe something, I'm not willing to waste any more of my time on learning how it is justified on an intellectual or logical level (which is what books tend to capture). Even the believers most likely don't have any understanding of it themselves or how or why it matters to them. It's simply not worth it.
The problem is most people don't have those perspectives. Their beliefs don't come from their life experience or that of their family handed down to them. It comes from marketing material. Therefore they're highly inconsistent in their beliefs and what they believe they believe does not have anything to do with them or how they actually live their lives.
So, if you want to understand what they think they're about, you can just watch the "news" or read other PR material targeted to them. That is now more difficult because it's a bit more targeted because of social media marketing but it is still possible.
But if you want to know what they actually believe without even knowing that they do, you have to look at what they actually do and how they live their lives.
And that's also true of most high brow, abstract school stuff. Like evolution. Even in countries where creationism isn't a thing and everyone "believes in" evolution, most of them couldn't describe a logically workable mechanism of evolution, they know a cartoon version but believe it because they "know" that "evolution" is true.
But would you say it makes no sense to read books on evolution just because most people who believe in evolution don't believe in it for the reasons outlined in advanced books?
Why did schools end up teaching evolution? For scientific reasons? To suppress religion in some freemasonry conspiracy?
>Why did schools end up teaching evolution? For scientific reasons? To suppress religion in some freemasonry conspiracy?
I think it has nothing to do with "increasing scientific literacy" or anything like that, for sure. It would be very odd that of all the scientific things you could push to teach kids, the theory of evolution is somehow the most important one. I think it has everything to do with attacking the Christian Right at their homes by forcing their kids to learn something they don't want them to. It's a socio-economic and political tool for war.
When grilled by someone, I remember Richard Dawkins, one of the "Four Horsemen" of New Atheism, said that he just wants people to understand that it happens in nature but doesn't want people to live by the idea of natural selection or something to that effect. In other words, he wants people to understand evolution but not "believe" it... i.e. in the sense that he doesn't want people to live by it (I disagree with Dawkins, but more on that later).
I know that if one really believes in evolution, there is absolutely no reason to "conserve a species". It makes absolutely no sense. Species come and go. Whatever species remain will evolve to acquire characteristics suitable for whatever changes happen... or perish. So why does everyone believe in conservation and in evolution? Because they don't. But what if they believed in Noah's arc? It would be terrible if one of the species that Noah himself picked to be on a boat were to go extinct because humans did something, wouldn't it? That is exactly the reaction you see from all these westerners who allegedly "believe" in evolution.
I mean people can make use of certain rhetoric for status, or political gains or economic gains, but to actually believe those is a different matter altogether. I think westerners believe in many dogmas of Christianity, no matter how much they deny it or pretend that they are above it. I, as a non-Christian non-westerner who grew up mostly outside of the reach of westerners, see it in many aspects of how they actually live. The things that they actually believe in comes from Christianity. The things they pretend believe in comes from corporate and political PR material that they're exposed to... and some of it they do believe, as long as it doesn't contradict with Christianity.
> I know that if one really believes in evolution, there is absolutely no reason to "conserve a species". It makes absolutely no sense. Species come and go. Whatever species remain will evolve to acquire characteristics suitable for whatever changes happen... or perish. So why does everyone believe in conservation and in evolution? Because they don't. But what if they believed in Noah's arc? It would be terrible if one of the species that Noah himself picked to be on a boat were to go extinct because humans did something, wouldn't it? That is exactly the reaction you see from all these westerners who allegedly "believe" in evolution.
The reason to conserve a species is because a biodiverse ecology is healthier. There is more competition so any organism (such as a disease-causing bacteria) is less able to cause a pandemic. Monocultures are susceptible to all sorts of problems that diverse ecologies are not.
How this interplays with evolution is that humans are in the position of unintentionally changing the environment drastically so that many species are now 'unfit.' This is because evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive. It doesn't tell you anything is good or bad about 'fitness.' Fitness always refers to an environment. Given another environment, something else would be more fit to survive.
Conservation relies on an understanding of human power over the environment and a desire to maintain an environment that doesn't succumb to the same problems we see with monocultures.
>The reason to conserve a species is because a biodiverse ecology is healthier.
Healthier for who or what or to what end? Whatever changes (because of humans or otherwise), some individuals of a species may evolve to fit better to that... or they'll perish and something else will happen there. Worst case, it will go back to how things were 4 billion years ago.
>There is more competition so any organism (such as a disease-causing bacteria) is less able to cause a pandemic.
And humans are special why? Disease-causing is very human-centered... because of course we are special because God created us in his image. You may deny that because you "believe in evolution"... but I'm arguing is your beliefs make more sense if I go with the assumption that you belive in the Christian dogma and do not believe in evolution AT ALL. You may use your understanding of evolution to justify your Christian beliefs while simultaneously denying that you believe in Christianity... but from the outside, I see right through you.
If you believed that we are not special and that bacteria is running the world as much as we think we are, there is no need to favor humans over disease-causing bacteria.
>How this interplays with evolution is that humans are in the position of unintentionally changing the environment drastically so that many species are now 'unfit.'
>Conservation relies on an understanding of human power over the environment and a desire to maintain an environment that doesn't succumb to the same problems we see with monocultures.
If you believed in evolution, you'd see that humans are just as much part of nauture as anything else. It's your Christian dogma that leads you to believe that the world was created with a certain intent and humans are ruining it (by going against God's will, like Adam did with the fruit).
Again, in absence of Christian dogma, and with knowledge of evolution, you would not see the world as you do now.
You're actually reading something into this that isn't there. I want a world that's good for humans because I'm human and my genes make me want a world that is good for me and my offspring.
> there is no need to favor humans over disease-causing bacteria.
its not a need, its a value.
> Again, in absence of Christian dogma, and with knowledge of evolution, you would not see the world as you do now.
I'd still have a genetic drive for self preservation and a gene based desire to live in an environment that was better for me.
If that was the case, the least that would be called for is to eliminate all other apex predators, have herbivore population grow and open up hunting in those areas. Removing apex predators and using human hunters instead has no side effects that are harmful to humans.
Yet, this idea would not fly in the west. I know other countries where this would be preferred. The western governments put pressure on those poorer governments to "conserve" those species. The only reason this would be unacceptable to Christians is the Noah's arc story. Yet westerners would justify it with completely unsubstantiated "oh there are other imbalances that we can't forsee", at best.
That's just a start. A human-centric approach would see little value in other ecosystems which evolved with humans completely outside of the picture and have nothing to do with humans. Humans are a part of very specific parts of very specific ecosystems. Most of others have nothing to do with humans and at best are a nuisance and potential disease risk, at worst are directly detrimental. It can be argued that some of them may be of medicinal value but it can also be argued that they could be breeding ground for future pandemics.
Yet, even talking about this to westerners who are otherwise "believers of evolution" and "anti-Christianity" will hit deep sentiments and they'll be seen grasping at straws to justify their position... which could be anything... any position is OK as long as it is pro saving all the species that Noah intended to save.
> Removing apex predators and using human hunters instead has no side effects that are harmful to humans.
Thats not true, apex predators perform a valuable service by keeping the prey populations in check. Without them, humans would have to go hunt which is additional labor. Also its clear that humans wouldn't be able to hunt the same populations in the same amounts in the same way, which would have effects on the prey population, which would affect the rest of the ecosystem.
> Yet, this idea would not fly in the west.
Any ecologist could explain the above, it has nothing to do with the west.
> Yet westerners would justify it with completely unsubstantiated "oh there are other imbalances that we can't forsee", at best.
This is also a useful heuristic that is borne out of experience when we intervened in the ecosystem and discovered second order unintended consequences that no one could have foreseen. However in the case you mentioned, there are easily identifiable negative consequences that make it unnecessary to rely on the "least affect possible" heuristic.
> That's just a start. A human-centric approach would see little value in other ecosystems which evolved with humans completely outside of the picture and have nothing to do with humans.
There are none, at least not on Earth.
> Humans are a part of very specific parts of very specific ecosystems. Most of others have nothing to do with humans and at best are a nuisance and potential disease risk, at worst are directly detrimental.
This is incorrect. They provide a check on disease by encouraging competitor organisms through biodiversity. They provide a future stock of biological goods and biological inputs for industrial goods that will be used when discovered to be useful. They also interact with our ecosystem because all the ecosystems are connected and make one planet-Earth-sized ecosystem.
> It can be argued that some of them may be of medicinal value but it can also be argued that they could be breeding ground for future pandemics.
They are however the other organisms are busy evolving responses to these potential pandemic-causing organisms and that both keeps them in check and allows us to use those organisms to respond to the pandemics when they (inevitably) arise. Pandemics and plagues are more prevalent with less biodiversity because there is less competition once an organism evolves a means to take advantage of a vulnerability.
> Yet, even talking about this to westerners who are otherwise "believers of evolution" and "anti-Christianity" will hit deep sentiments and they'll be seen grasping at straws to justify their position... which could be anything... any position is OK as long as it is pro saving all the species that Noah intended to save.
You're pursuing this pet idea of yours to the exclusion of the facts and values of the people who address these ideas regularly.
>You're pursuing this pet idea of yours to the exclusion of the facts and values of the people who address these ideas regularly.
I'm pursuing this idea because it has wide-ranging applications. It explains why otherwise "rational" intelligent westerners make no sense a lot of the time. It is very easily explained if I just refer to the Bible.
>apex predators perform a valuable service by keeping the prey populations in check.
Even that is not true. A apex-predator-less ecosystem can function just as well, albeit differently. Look up bottom-up trophic cascade.
>Without them, humans would have to go hunt which is additional labor.
Not necessarily. Bottom-up trophic cascade takes care of that. However, hunting will be more available, reducing reliance on industrial food farming.
>Also its clear that humans wouldn't be able to hunt the same populations in the same amounts in the same way, which would have effects on the prey population, which would affect the rest of the ecosystem.
There is no need to copy a particular behavior. The species in the environment can epigenetically change to adapt to various predation patterns or lack thereof.
>Any ecologist could explain the above, it has nothing to do with the west.
A Chinese or a Japanese or an Indian or an African can in fact say the same thing, because they most likely studied the same things written by western academics. However, they are not so strictly married to those ideas, unless of course, they have been brought up as Christians.
For example, the ideas behind animal cognition and intelligence have been heavily suppressed in the west because animals are not supposed to have a "soul". They are supposed to be mindless automatons. This is rarely the case with non-western scientists.
>There are none, at least not on Earth.
Sure, in a world where God created Adam and Eve and other animals to accompany them. In the real world, humans co-evolved with very specific eco-systems and have nothing to do with most of the rest of it.
>They provide a check on disease by encouraging competitor organisms through biodiversity. They provide a future stock of biological goods and biological inputs for industrial goods that will be used when discovered to be useful. They also interact with our ecosystem because all the ecosystems are connected and make one planet-Earth-sized ecosystem.
That's a huge leap of faith. Most other animals, which are not Christians, attack other predators which are their competitors all the time. They would happily get rid of them if they had the means. In fact, Europe got rid of a lot of predators before Christianity spread. The rest of the world did too, before the west spread Christianity to them, either as the religion as a part of the imperial era or as the education that came out from it spread to universities everywhere.
>They are however the other organisms are busy evolving responses to these potential pandemic-causing organisms and that both keeps them in check and allows us to use those organisms to respond to the pandemics when they (inevitably) arise. Pandemics and plagues are more prevalent with less biodiversity because there is less competition once an organism evolves a means to take advantage of a vulnerability.
Biodiversity of what? Bacteria and viruses? Or mammals? If we didn't have pangolins, some of which are endangered btw, we'd probably not have COVID-19.
> It explains why otherwise "rational" intelligent westerners make no sense a lot of the time. It is very easily explained if I just refer to the Bible.
That assumes they aren't making sense and that it needs to be explained. That hasn't been demonstrated.
> Even that is not true. A apex-predator-less ecosystem can function just as well, albeit differently. Look up bottom-up trophic cascade.
The existence of other ways of controlling population doesn't mean that those other ways are the only way. Not all food chains are controlled by bottom-up trophic cascade. some are controlled by apex predators and removing apex predators changes the ecosystem, sometimes in ways that result in collapse.
> Not necessarily. Bottom-up trophic cascade takes care of that.
You're shifting your explanation. Earlier you said that humans could replace apex predators. When I pointed out the problems with that, now you say it can be controlled with bottom up trophic cascade. Is it possible you just don't understand this issue as well as you think?
> However, hunting will be more available, reducing reliance on industrial food farming.
Not if humans aren't able to replace the apex predators functionally. Not if the volume of food produced is different. Industrial food production is less subject to seasonal variations. Have you considered that?
> There is no need to copy a particular behavior. The species in the environment can epigenetically change to adapt to various predation patterns or lack thereof.
Thats basically nonsensical and doesn't respond to my point. Humans wouldn't replace the apex predator therefore the ecosystem would change.
> In the real world, humans co-evolved with very specific eco-systems and have nothing to do with most of the rest of it.
In the real world, the ecosystems are interdependent on other ecosystems and no barriers can be drawn except by choice.
> That's a huge leap of faith.
Not at all.
> They would happily get rid of them if they had the means.
Of course they would, animals have no concept of biodiversity. That doesn't impact on the well-established thesis that biodiversity is healthy and ecosystems with fewer species are more vulnerable to disease and catastrophe.
> Biodiversity of what? Bacteria and viruses? Or mammals? If we didn't have pangolins, some of which are endangered btw, we'd probably not have COVID-19.
Biodiversity of everything. The pangolin theory is interesting but its equally likely that if humans hadn't been destroying species at an astonishing rate over the last 50 years we'd likely also not have COVID-19.
Oh, it has been demonstrated to me over and over again. Unfortunately, you may be too much in it to see it. I am in the position to observe from the outside.
>The existence of other ways of controlling population doesn't mean that those other ways are the only way.
Read this part of your comment again, but slowly.
>Not all food chains are controlled by bottom-up trophic cascade.
And where did I imply that it is?
>some are controlled by apex predators and removing apex predators changes the ecosystem, sometimes in ways that result in collapse.
Not really. The very same ecosystem can adapt to changes in predator population or extermination of predator population altogether.
>You're shifting your explanation. Earlier you said that humans could replace apex predators. When I pointed out the problems with that, now you say it can be controlled with bottom up trophic cascade. Is it possible you just don't understand this issue as well as you think?
Or maybe I understand it thoroughly, much more than your limited religious beliefs allow for. The ecosystem can be regulated with or without apex predators. If we remove apex predators, it will still be regulated automatically. We can choose to hunt if we so desire, and it will work differently but it will still work and work well.
>In the real world, the ecosystems are interdependent on other ecosystems and no barriers can be drawn except by choice.
Ever heard of terrariums? Sure, ecosystems may be related because they're open systems. But they don't have to be.
>That doesn't impact on the well-established thesis
What is interesting is that all these "well established" theses only go so far as to comply with Christianity, never further.
>if humans hadn't been destroying species at an astonishing rate over the last 50 years we'd likely also not have COVID-19
I know, right? The children of Adam and Eve continue to disrupt the harmony of Gods creation, so many thousand years later. When will we learn?
Except coronaviruses have been infecting mammals almost as long as mammals have been around.
I tried to read "The End of Policing". I got half way through chapter 1 before the author stated, as support for his argument, that The Bell Curve was "overtly racist". Now, you could argue that lots of racists like that book, that the authors might be motivated by bias, etc etc, but no credible reviewer at the time it came out would call it "overtly racist". This is retroactive moving of the goal posts, and the word "overt", to me, still has meaning.
So I tried to read the tripe, but the arguments are not persuasive unless you already believe what they are trying to convince you of.
I suspect that the author is using the term "racist" differently than you use it. The Bell Curve explicitly argues that some racial groups are inherently, biologically less intelligent than others. In the author's view, that in itself is overtly racist (because it argues that one racial group is genetically inferior to another racial group), no matter how much intellectual argument is presented or how gently it is stated. Perhaps you use the word differently, and believe that something is only racist if the author hates people on the basis of race.
It could be argued that they use it precisely because of the ambiguity. The word retains an aura of taboo and evil and one of the worst things a person can be. Then you redefine it to use it against a broader set of people but continue to harvest the power of the previous connotation. A variant of the euphemism treadmill. Instead of dropping a tarnished word and transitioning to a clean fresh one to describe the same thing, you keep using the tarnished word but for a different thing.
Closely related is the "motte and bailey" tactic: depending on the situation you sometimes use the word in an milder sense (new meaning of racist, "we are all a little bit racist", it's just unconscious biases or beliefs about any difference between races), but when people aren't looking you switch definitions (old definition, worst possible thing, "some races must be subjugated and kept away from our social circles as they are subhuman and incapable of participation by their nature and will poison our bloodline").
Indeed many critics of the new social justice movements would have this as the main argument: that SJ uses equivocation in this way as the rule, not the exception.
This seems to all hinge on an overly specific definition of 'overt'.... while it's definition is something done openly with no attempt to hide, sometimes it is used for effect, to say something unintended is actually so apparent that it almost seems like it must have been done intentionally.
You might want words to be narrowly defined and used, but that isn't how language works.
> So I tried to read the tripe, but the arguments are not persuasive unless you already believe what they are trying to convince you of.
What the gp describes only works if you are tolerant of other people's errors to some extent. You can't let a few things like you describe derail you. Remember your own beliefs, it may be the case that you are right and the inaccuracy you discovered is a linchpin in their incorrect system of ideas. Or it might be some little piece of information that is accepted as a truism in their bubble so people throw it around when it seems appropriate, but its not an essential part of their argument.
The main thing is that you want to understand the author's perspective. why did they consider the bell curve to be overtly racist? perhaps they are defining racism differently than you (this is almost certainly the case [0]).
It does you no good to read books by people you disagree with in order to understand them better if you're gonna get derailed when they say something that seems obviously false to you.
The more I read such works and try to abstract away from their exaggetared use of words, the more I find it to be like those inflatable air "houses" or potemkin villages. Once you take away the punch, the urgency and the strength of the words themselves, there's little left.
The thing is, you can try to project something sensible onto them, ie steelman them, but you will end up with something the authors would disagree with.
You may just as well say you should read Scientology, and you will surely find common points to agree on etc. I mean, it's perhaps still useful to try that, I've read some Scientology materials myself and left with more knowledge about the specifics of Scientology, but I didn't get closer to believing it. Perhaps I can empathize with why it can hook people, we could call that understanding in a sense.
> The thing is, you can try to project something sensible onto them, ie steelman them, but you will end up with something the authors would disagree with.
I agree with this. However you have then arrived at the basic truth that underlies the distorted version you were originally exposed to. So then you can discuss the issue with the person using a set of shared assumptions and perhaps bring them around to the steel manned version. Now you have changed their mind. If they then say "what about this <more preferred, less supportable version> that I started out with" they are more open to your summarized dismissal "that doesn't work because of w, x, y, and z"
> The more I read such works
You're not justified in labeling a work as this kind of work until the process here has been done. You may have been exposed to a weaker version and dismissed that because of fallacies, while a stronger version exists. You can't dismiss the stronger version without examination merely because it reaches the same conclusions as the weaker version you were exposed to.
> You may just as well say you should read Scientology, and you will surely find common points to agree on etc. I mean, it's perhaps still useful to try that, I've read some Scientology materials myself and left with more knowledge about the specifics of Scientology, but I didn't get closer to believing it. Perhaps I can empathize with why it can hook people, we could call that understanding in a sense.
I think my independent study of scientology was fruitful for my understanding of how someone becomes possessed by ideology. Studying scientology under the supervision of scientologists is dangerous because they prevent you from critically examining the ideas.
The Bell Curve is filled to the brim with shoddy pseudoscience and clearly supports racist ideas that have been thoroughly debunked as summarized here https://youtu.be/UBc7qBS1Ujo. If you want to nitpick on how “overt” it was, fine, but that’s not a charitable way to read an argument you disagree with at all. It honestly sounds like you just found one detail that you disagreed with to call the book tripe.
It's not the core conceit. Black/white IQ differences were discussed in one chapter. The core conceit is that IQ is real, and it really matters for life outcomes.
I know very little to nothing of the works you cite, so my ideas are to be taken with a grain of salt, but...
I don't think the author was born thinking those complex thoughts, so clearly they were persuaded by something that didn't rely on previous belief. What could that be? Why isn't that persuasive to you? What sort of person does it persuade and why? Are there other arguments that could persuade you of the same thing? Or of something similar?
Intellectual exchange requires constructing the steel man argument of your counterpart, as impossible as it may seem at times. Underneath, we're all humans, longing for food, shelter, companionship, and stability.
> I don't think the author was born thinking those complex thoughts, so clearly they were persuaded by something that didn't rely on previous belief. What could that be?
Very often the answer is mundane; 'It's what my parents taught me.' Particularly in the most contentious cases, like religion and politics. It seems like 'born thinking it' vs 'was persuaded' is a false dichotomy, unless you count being steeped in a culture as a child to be a form of persuasion.
It is generally good to try seeing things from the other person's perspective, but it is also possible that sometimes the other person is simply wrong. Just because an idea is wrong, that doesn't magically prevent millions of people from following it.
That can have lots of reasons,like they grew up with it, were indoctrinated in school/college when they had little experience or critical thinking skills and stay due to sunk cost fallacy or tribalism, or it satisfies some deep psychological need to feel superior or virtuous etc. Plenty of reasons besides them analytically arriving at a position through a lot of thinking.
This is all true for everyone. The point is to get a better understanding of those reasons and why those reasons led this person to these beliefs. Plenty of people grow up and change their minds and then have different opinions than their parents indoctrinated them with. Plenty of people rely on the reasons you mentioned above to dismiss other people's views without critically examining their own views, which are subject to the exact same reasoning process.
Sure, but all of those things could apply to your thinking too, maybe even just as much. Figuring out who suffers more from those kinds of biases is often harder than just saying, "yeah, it's definitely the other guy."
This engages System 2, hard. And it's so easy to slip back into System 1 and continue to reject the evidence in front of you, as System 1 does so well when it doesn't like what it's seeing.
I have to constantly remind myself of the possibility that I could be wrong or have an incomplete view of things, but then that allows me to extract the valuable nuances and hidden assumptions that underlie the belief.
Even more importantly, it tends to cast a light on my unconscious biases and assumptions that underlie my beliefs.