The Dept of Education might be cleansed or reformed as far as the high school misinformation plagues by the profoundly biased teachers, and indeed parents can make a huge difference speaking up and writing to deans - as I and my son have done with excellent results- , but the huge damage to still young college minds paid for by Qatar and tolerated by our idiocy for so long so far is only tackled by government withdrawal of funds and divestment. Many parents have seen the light - or more accurately, the darkness- , and many of these former Ivies have decreased in repute, private sponsors and registrations. One of my kids has two graduate degrees from Harvard . He has stopped sponsoring and vowed that none of his kids will go there. Not much hope for Columbia, as New Yorkers are themselves insane. Look who they picked for Mayor.
I largely agree, but I also think this can't be our primary focus.
It'd be great to teach everyone basic facts and critical thinking, and we should aspire to do that. But what's more realistic and arguably more important is to draw a line on what sort of speech and behavior is socially unacceptable.
In certain situations, the hateful bigotry is explicit and egregious, and we simply need to uphold our universal moral TABOOS against those who express that hate, ostracizing them out of polite society, as we did to defeat the KKK.
But in other situations where the bigotry is masked and perhaps even unintentional, we need to expose the hypocrisy and double standards and missing context that they often employ to reveal that there is an underlying bigotry against certain groups in play. This may not convince the person engaging in this language, but it should show the observers, the vast majority of our society, that those arguments are weak or even abhorrent and can not be the basis of our society. It will isolate those who continue to chant "from the river to the sea" or make vague pseudo-intellectual and not explicitly hateful claims about "antizionism" while aligning with rabid antisemites.
I wrote about this here recently, as part of my broader mission to try to restore our universal moral TABOOS.
Good question. What I consider our "universal moral TABOOS" are overt hateful bigotry, dehumanization, and the endorsement of violence. In the extreme case, this hate is often not rooted in any science or truth. But even when that hate is rooted in some real or imaginary truths, it can never be justified and socially tolerated, at least not in liberal democratic framework.
I can come up with countless examples to demonstrate how we can approach this in a principled way, which in many ways is how society collectively approached these taboo violations quite naturally for the past 50+ years (with a gradual erosion over the past 2 decades and a sharp turn 2.5 years ago).
OK, to cases. In the USA, American blacks' average (mean) IQ is approx. one standard deviation below the mean IQ of white Americans. East Asians and ethnic Jewish people score somewhat higher than whites. Given this scientific fact, a meritocratic distribution of educational degrees, jobs, salaries, housing, and other social "goods" will result in a disparate distribution across the groups mentioned. Does your "universal moral TABOOS" framework accept that various racial/ethnic groups will perform at different rates to common standards applied to everyone?
This is a great example, and I think points to common feedback I get about "what counts as "overt hateful bigotry"'. I've actually built a framework to address this and ran a survey to show that there is already consensus around it.
The tl;dr is that we must distinguish between the different type of speech/views that are all lumped as "bigotry", try to understand which of them have intent to cause harm or are indifferent to doing so, and use a process that evaluates the full context and not just the initial offending speech.
To answer your question specifically, I think it can be quite problematic to make the Essentialist argument about IQ, but it is not necessarily taboo or hateful to simply Observe differences in IQ, and especially not if somebody makes clear that they do not hold Essentialist or hateful views.
The degradation of the educational system really gained momentum when the Vietnam-era Boomers, armed with 60s “I’m ok, you’re ok” attitudes, passed into the general population as K-12 teachers and college professors. This has been happening for decades and unfortunately it needs a massive overhaul. Although personally I’m uncomfortable wearing one’s religion on one’s sleeve, I think that very squeamishness is a problem today. We need a thousand Charlie Kirks going everywhere and speaking calmly and respectfully, yet firmly (and where necessary with a light touch), about what truly matters.
We have failed to watch over our schools. Left them to the liberals. This has to change
Go to school board meetings. Find out exactly what is happening to YOUR schools.
CALL THEM OUT.
Be present an accounted for
Most teachers are graduating from LIBERAL/Progressive schools. We can’t have that!
The Dept of Education might be cleansed or reformed as far as the high school misinformation plagues by the profoundly biased teachers, and indeed parents can make a huge difference speaking up and writing to deans - as I and my son have done with excellent results- , but the huge damage to still young college minds paid for by Qatar and tolerated by our idiocy for so long so far is only tackled by government withdrawal of funds and divestment. Many parents have seen the light - or more accurately, the darkness- , and many of these former Ivies have decreased in repute, private sponsors and registrations. One of my kids has two graduate degrees from Harvard . He has stopped sponsoring and vowed that none of his kids will go there. Not much hope for Columbia, as New Yorkers are themselves insane. Look who they picked for Mayor.
You can't teach the skill of critical thinking properly if you don't have facts and knowledge to think about.
I largely agree, but I also think this can't be our primary focus.
It'd be great to teach everyone basic facts and critical thinking, and we should aspire to do that. But what's more realistic and arguably more important is to draw a line on what sort of speech and behavior is socially unacceptable.
In certain situations, the hateful bigotry is explicit and egregious, and we simply need to uphold our universal moral TABOOS against those who express that hate, ostracizing them out of polite society, as we did to defeat the KKK.
But in other situations where the bigotry is masked and perhaps even unintentional, we need to expose the hypocrisy and double standards and missing context that they often employ to reveal that there is an underlying bigotry against certain groups in play. This may not convince the person engaging in this language, but it should show the observers, the vast majority of our society, that those arguments are weak or even abhorrent and can not be the basis of our society. It will isolate those who continue to chant "from the river to the sea" or make vague pseudo-intellectual and not explicitly hateful claims about "antizionism" while aligning with rabid antisemites.
I wrote about this here recently, as part of my broader mission to try to restore our universal moral TABOOS.
https://elevin11.substack.com/p/the-dunning-kruger-of-hypocrisy
And when science and truth are in conflict with your "universal moral TABOOS"? Then what?
Good question. What I consider our "universal moral TABOOS" are overt hateful bigotry, dehumanization, and the endorsement of violence. In the extreme case, this hate is often not rooted in any science or truth. But even when that hate is rooted in some real or imaginary truths, it can never be justified and socially tolerated, at least not in liberal democratic framework.
I can come up with countless examples to demonstrate how we can approach this in a principled way, which in many ways is how society collectively approached these taboo violations quite naturally for the past 50+ years (with a gradual erosion over the past 2 decades and a sharp turn 2.5 years ago).
OK, to cases. In the USA, American blacks' average (mean) IQ is approx. one standard deviation below the mean IQ of white Americans. East Asians and ethnic Jewish people score somewhat higher than whites. Given this scientific fact, a meritocratic distribution of educational degrees, jobs, salaries, housing, and other social "goods" will result in a disparate distribution across the groups mentioned. Does your "universal moral TABOOS" framework accept that various racial/ethnic groups will perform at different rates to common standards applied to everyone?
This is a great example, and I think points to common feedback I get about "what counts as "overt hateful bigotry"'. I've actually built a framework to address this and ran a survey to show that there is already consensus around it.
The tl;dr is that we must distinguish between the different type of speech/views that are all lumped as "bigotry", try to understand which of them have intent to cause harm or are indifferent to doing so, and use a process that evaluates the full context and not just the initial offending speech.
To answer your question specifically, I think it can be quite problematic to make the Essentialist argument about IQ, but it is not necessarily taboo or hateful to simply Observe differences in IQ, and especially not if somebody makes clear that they do not hold Essentialist or hateful views.
You can find my framework, the survey results, and a video of me walking through them here if you're interested: https://elevin11.substack.com/p/lawful-but-awful-a-guide-to-moral-2c7
I'll check it out. Thanks for the response.
Paul Harvey 1965
https://youtu.be/dNLyCTt5E7U?si=8UZztVsS9JOSgWeW
The degradation of the educational system really gained momentum when the Vietnam-era Boomers, armed with 60s “I’m ok, you’re ok” attitudes, passed into the general population as K-12 teachers and college professors. This has been happening for decades and unfortunately it needs a massive overhaul. Although personally I’m uncomfortable wearing one’s religion on one’s sleeve, I think that very squeamishness is a problem today. We need a thousand Charlie Kirks going everywhere and speaking calmly and respectfully, yet firmly (and where necessary with a light touch), about what truly matters.
Even "long marches" eventually arrive at their desired destination.