ET is generally a good place to express your non-conformist views, even though, like any community, there are some unwritten rules. But hopefully arguments are critiqued on the basis of justice and reason and practicality, and not on community norms.
Anyway, I'd much rather hear your controversial opinions than have you feel you can't express them and then listen to people complain no one ever posts here anymore. So indulge us. Come, my friends, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
So tell us what you think.
This was not a rant about ET in particular, but a general comment about ways to curb freedom in places where that freedom formally exists.
I also think that ET is one of the best places that I know off, again this was not targeted at ET.
Anyway, I'd much rather hear your controversial opinions than have you feel you can't express them and then listen to people complain no one ever posts here anymore. So indulge us.
Some topics that might get interesting at ET (I am not saying that I agree or disagree with the typical ET position - in fact in most cases I do agree, as I am mostly a typical ET - to the point of being in the center of the ET political compass results):
I would argue that in some circles, if you offer a sensible argument against the consensus you will get into trouble. You will certainly be misinterpreted at least.
But my main point is not about ET at all, it is about shaping a society where you can genuinely voice your opinions and where we can loose our own internal "thought police". Of all forms of caution, caution in love is perhaps the most fatal to true happiness - Bertrand Russell
Could one easily discuss this
The main issue you bring up is one of the ones I try to highlight every so often: group think is often caused by politeness and group dynamics, not by fiat, intimidation or law.
Sure, though it would be peppered with me asking for clarification of terms and other good stuff.
Again, my main point is not with ET.
Getting away from ET...
Take as an example the James Watson controversy. Most of the people that attacked the man didn't even read his words. Is is possible to have a rational discussion on the topic? My argument is that although there is formal freedom of expression on the subject, you cannot informally discuss it as you might get into big trouble.
The same line of reasoning can be applied to, say, freedom of expression in the work sphere: in theory you can give feedback and complain. But in practice these freedoms are very limited. With time, people start finding these restrictions normal, and that is a disaster. Of all forms of caution, caution in love is perhaps the most fatal to true happiness - Bertrand Russell
There may be something useful to say about intelligence across populations, but it has to be evidence-based and very careful to eliminate cultural processes and migrations. So far such research has not been attempted because the methodologies invovled are too complex.
And if black people can throw up the odd Gandhi and Mandela, whilst white people keep throwing up Limbaughs and Tebbits, I'm not really sure there's a lot to establish. keep to the Fen Causeway
James Watson was an idiot because he based his claims on Bell Curve
The issue is not with the fact that you might label him an idiot or not. The issue is that he made a statement and suddenly was uninvited from lots of conferences and "retired". Stupid statement = massive consequences.
This is a lot about externalities:
Now forget about Watson a bit and think on any person that might have something interesting to contribute about the said topic (cognitive differences between human populations), that person might be so inclined - because of perceived consequences - to avoid addressing the issue. Even if the person decides to go forward others might be inclined to ignore the person (say, avoid publishing the opinion).
With time, people will naturally and unconsciously avoid those issues (might hurt their career, reputation, social life, ...).
There should be some tolerance for opinions that are way off the mark. Calling him an idiot, that is OK. "Retiring" and uninviting a person because of them, is too much. Not only because of the said person, but because of the consequences to us all, and the perceived freedom that we have.
PS (regarding Watson) - Irrespective of stupid comments and most probably underlying crude racism - and classism [1] - I do think that opinions like these are worthwhile considering. Unfortunately this opinion is voiced by a person that seems to be, simultaneously, a crude racist.
[1] People are so preoccupied in pointing that the guy is a racist that they seem to not notice that he is also very classist. Of all forms of caution, caution in love is perhaps the most fatal to true happiness - Bertrand Russell
Nobody has done such studies as the methodology doesn't even exist. We can argue it might be difficult to establish funding to develop such methodologies because the field has such a history of dishonest intentions that anybody would suspect the motivations involved.
But, to repeat my point, Watson was a fool, not just because he cited discredited research, but because the fact that he gave such research credibility says an awful lot about the company he keeps. And classist almost certainly comes in with that. keep to the Fen Causeway
The informal norms which you describe are what I think of as soft political correctness, something I'm rather strongly in favour of.
I think the real question is which of these informal restrictions on speech are due to illegitimate exercise of social control, or reinforces such illegitimate social control.
To take one of your own examples, I would argue that the restrictions on employee freedom of speech derive directly from the asymmetric power relation between the boss and the employee. If the boss gets mad at the employee, the employee gets fired or otherwise screwed over. If the employee gets mad at the boss... nothing much happens.
As long as such an asymmetric power relation exists, those restrictions will "seem normal." If one contends that the employer-employee power relation is unjust or illegitimate, then those restrictions are a symptom of that underlying problem. If one accepts the employer-employee relation as legitimate (or at least justified on balance), then the informal restrictions on employee freedom of speech are part of the package.
As to the other examples you've brought up, I would agree that they would probably receive a hostile reception, but I think this fact derives less from power relations than from the fact that they are filled to the brim with wingnut talking points.
If I don't know anything about someone, and he starts spewing talking points, then he has less than 100 words to convince me that he's worth listening to if he doesn't want me to write him off as a shill. If someone spends the first hundred words you hear spouting talking points, then it's likely that he a) isn't arguing in good faith, and b) is going to keep spewing (the same old) talking points.
You can call that prejudice if you want to, or you can put it down to experience with (paid and unpaid) shills.
- Jake Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam
Another is "Is race an important factor ?" Given the constriction on human genetic variation, the concept of race in humans is laughable. Colour is simply an adaptation that can be turned on or off in a few generations. I've heard geneticists say there is more variation in a single litter of puppies than across the whole human race.
So our discussions here tend to strip away framing elements very quickly and get to the nitty-gritty of whether there is a useful discussion to be had or merely to provide the quesitoner with an education. and I speak as somebody who's asked the dumb questions on several occasions and had to take an evening's lecture. It's instructive and fun so long as you check your ego at the door.
I'm not sure other sites or other groups have quite the forensic capabilities some of the people do here. There are frighteningly brilliant people on this site and the bs factor stays accordingly low. keep to the Fen Causeway
I think you are absolutely correct, and it's not just outside the scientific community but within. I'm not saying trouble always means being burned at the stake, but history even in the last century is full of nasty conflicts over differing theories within the scientific community. It's just human nature. I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears
I'm Christian, Southern, former Govt/law enforcement/military/security/intelligence career, and American, what do you expect? At least one, usually more, of these categories comes in for a healthy dose of criticism on this site practically every day and 95% of the responses are in agreement. The site needs discourse with varying opinions and I'm happy to provide an alternative view in a respectful way when I can. Still, I read a lot here and learn. I respect the opinions of others, and I believe ET members generally do the same. I know some just ignore the opinions of those with whom they disagree, but that's their loss. No one has all the answers. I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears
