Ask HN: What can't you say today?
3 comments
My opinion of topics you can't talk about in descending order of controversy in 2012 America:
- Racial phenotype/genotype differences
- Differences between the sexes
- Using foreign policy sticks (rather than solely carrots) with Israel
- The Drug War's legitimacy
- IQ and its correlates, causes and effects on both an individual and societal level
- Islamofascism
- Single payer healthcare
- US Gov't crackdowns on secrecy and information
- The many fallacies in organized religion (this one is highly regional)
There are probably lots of others but those examples immediately spring to mind for me.
- Racial phenotype/genotype differences
- Differences between the sexes
- Using foreign policy sticks (rather than solely carrots) with Israel
- The Drug War's legitimacy
- IQ and its correlates, causes and effects on both an individual and societal level
- Islamofascism
- Single payer healthcare
- US Gov't crackdowns on secrecy and information
- The many fallacies in organized religion (this one is highly regional)
There are probably lots of others but those examples immediately spring to mind for me.
I think you've pretty much nailed it, although I would disagree with the ordering. I'd put Islam and healthcare at the top (not sure which is more controversial).
I agree they are controversial, but they are at least somewhat within the realm of discussion.. race/sex differences are so taboo that you can't even bring the topics up without the vast majority of people becoming extremely emotional and irrational. It's somewhat understandable given their tumultuous history and the relatively recent progress made by the civil rights and feminist movements, but even so, reality is what it is and all the words in the world won't change it.
And given that my post already received a -1 vote it seems those topics are frowned upon/can't be talked about even on HN ;)
And given that my post already received a -1 vote it seems those topics are frowned upon/can't be talked about even on HN ;)
(Disclaimer: overly shallow/un-nuanced post about to follow because deep and nuanced would be longer than an HN discussion thread or two)
There are a number of reasons those topics are taboo and, to some degree, maybe should be until further notice. For example, you say "reality is what it is and all the words in the world won't change it" but when the reality in question is the words, actions, and beliefs of people we all know that that statement is categorically false. The wrong words, the wrong discussions, the legitimisation of wrong arguments can all have a disproportionate effect and impede or even reverse some of the progress we've made. For example, it may or may not be the case that the average XY male has an inherently slightly higher propensity for physical strength as compared to the average XX female but any time a study suggests "yes" or "no" the discussions surrounding it greatly exaggerate the potential difference discussed. Especially with the way science is reported today, proof positive of a real difference that is still dwarfed by training would enter the public consciousness as an insurmountable gap that some would take to justify various forms of oppressing women.
Of course, we are talking about science and some people hold the ridiculous belief that the human element doesn't matter and we should just discuss the truth and thus everything above is irrelevant. Except, even if we legitimize that point of view, the truth is: we don't know. The state of the research on real, meaningful, inherent differences is largely inconclusive except for some highly specialized and specific results. For example, it's common knowledge that the best distance runners are disproportionately often Kenyan but this doesn't take into account the relative effect from genetics, environment, and training and it also doesn't imply that being Kenyan makes you better at running. When we look at it we can't say there's a difference between races or nationalities because we don't know that; we just know that some combination of factors has balanced the scales in an interesting fashion. With the exception of certain disease/condition frequencies, this is some of the best data we have for real differences between races or sexes. Generally speaking, even if we could do a study to compare everybody alive now from group A with everybody alive now from group B (say all XY-males with all XX-females) and properly accounted for other variables and measured a real difference we still have no way of knowing where the differences come from as far as "nature" or "nurture" goes.
Furthermore, there are adequate studies suggesting that, regardless of natural tendencies, the environmental/training effect can be greatly affected just by the simple act of telling someone they can or cannot do something or fit some role. That is, it might be the case that American XY-males today are better (by whatever quantitative measure) at math and science than American XX-females today strictly by environmental factors and that by repeating "men are better at math than women" we are exacerbating and continuing this problem.
Now, all this said, it shouldn't be the case that all differences are strictly off-limits since, for example, there is a high incidence of lactose intolerance among south Asians and an incredibly low incidence among northern Europeans so menus for both groups absent other information would likely have necessary differences. And, given an equal society with a different mind towards things data on other differences might be interesting. But, widely speaking, discussions on potential differences is necessarily an area of little to no information and has high potential to be actively harmful to society.
There are a number of reasons those topics are taboo and, to some degree, maybe should be until further notice. For example, you say "reality is what it is and all the words in the world won't change it" but when the reality in question is the words, actions, and beliefs of people we all know that that statement is categorically false. The wrong words, the wrong discussions, the legitimisation of wrong arguments can all have a disproportionate effect and impede or even reverse some of the progress we've made. For example, it may or may not be the case that the average XY male has an inherently slightly higher propensity for physical strength as compared to the average XX female but any time a study suggests "yes" or "no" the discussions surrounding it greatly exaggerate the potential difference discussed. Especially with the way science is reported today, proof positive of a real difference that is still dwarfed by training would enter the public consciousness as an insurmountable gap that some would take to justify various forms of oppressing women.
Of course, we are talking about science and some people hold the ridiculous belief that the human element doesn't matter and we should just discuss the truth and thus everything above is irrelevant. Except, even if we legitimize that point of view, the truth is: we don't know. The state of the research on real, meaningful, inherent differences is largely inconclusive except for some highly specialized and specific results. For example, it's common knowledge that the best distance runners are disproportionately often Kenyan but this doesn't take into account the relative effect from genetics, environment, and training and it also doesn't imply that being Kenyan makes you better at running. When we look at it we can't say there's a difference between races or nationalities because we don't know that; we just know that some combination of factors has balanced the scales in an interesting fashion. With the exception of certain disease/condition frequencies, this is some of the best data we have for real differences between races or sexes. Generally speaking, even if we could do a study to compare everybody alive now from group A with everybody alive now from group B (say all XY-males with all XX-females) and properly accounted for other variables and measured a real difference we still have no way of knowing where the differences come from as far as "nature" or "nurture" goes.
Furthermore, there are adequate studies suggesting that, regardless of natural tendencies, the environmental/training effect can be greatly affected just by the simple act of telling someone they can or cannot do something or fit some role. That is, it might be the case that American XY-males today are better (by whatever quantitative measure) at math and science than American XX-females today strictly by environmental factors and that by repeating "men are better at math than women" we are exacerbating and continuing this problem.
Now, all this said, it shouldn't be the case that all differences are strictly off-limits since, for example, there is a high incidence of lactose intolerance among south Asians and an incredibly low incidence among northern Europeans so menus for both groups absent other information would likely have necessary differences. And, given an equal society with a different mind towards things data on other differences might be interesting. But, widely speaking, discussions on potential differences is necessarily an area of little to no information and has high potential to be actively harmful to society.
I agree with your statement that the social impact of discussing racial/sexual differences on a wide scale could be harmful among the masses who wouldn't take the time to ponder and process the information in a balanced and gradated manner.
And you could also be right that significant differences don't exist on a genotype-based level beyond different populations being vulnerable to certain diseases, knowledge for which we have incontrovertible proof. However, my intuition (and the closely guarded intuition of many sociologists, anthropologists, geneticists and other academics who don't buy into the mainstream narrative that human groups are all exactly equal despite several millenia of evolutionary branching) is that the genotype plays a larger role among observed differences than is commonly accepted. Thus, the argument that some groups of people 'do worse on average than other groups because they believe they will do worse' is not as strong as 'some groups of people do worse because they are on average inherently less capable at performing on a certain task, whatever their level of self-belief in their performance at that task,' an argument for which much evidence exists. Note that I am not stating we should change social policy or even necessarily our current cosmopolitan world view based on this information.. I'm just pointing out a fact of reality which is glossed over with emotion and fear by starry-eyed academics.
The counterpoint among intelligent people is to claim that it is not a fact that genotype-based differences exist and that to think they do is not only wrong but also harmful. Much the same way creationists dispute a missing link of evolution though and falsely conclude that God must have done it all, just because we don't have every possible piece of evolutionary data on the chain from single-celled amoebas to Homo Sapiens doesn't mean we can't form a highly probable link of progression between the two based on the large amount of available evidence we do have. I forget the Latin term for it so I shall refer to the above as the fallacy of ignorance: in the absence of complete enough information to satisfy a logical positivist, it is impossible to draw a likely conclusion at all.
Among anyone who is interested in what's true about reality, no subject should be taboo, and one should be guided by evidence and truth alone. Is this ridiculous and naive? That's a subjective value judgment, a judgment which I think becomes increasingly arbitrary the more open minded and intelligent the person thinking about the topic is.
tldr: Truly open minded and intelligent people (which are quite rare) who can approach controversial subjects with subtlety and even-keeled rationality should follow the truth wherever it leads them, even if it's to conclusions society deems 'improper'. Then they should hide these conclusions from almost everyone they speak with. lol.
And you could also be right that significant differences don't exist on a genotype-based level beyond different populations being vulnerable to certain diseases, knowledge for which we have incontrovertible proof. However, my intuition (and the closely guarded intuition of many sociologists, anthropologists, geneticists and other academics who don't buy into the mainstream narrative that human groups are all exactly equal despite several millenia of evolutionary branching) is that the genotype plays a larger role among observed differences than is commonly accepted. Thus, the argument that some groups of people 'do worse on average than other groups because they believe they will do worse' is not as strong as 'some groups of people do worse because they are on average inherently less capable at performing on a certain task, whatever their level of self-belief in their performance at that task,' an argument for which much evidence exists. Note that I am not stating we should change social policy or even necessarily our current cosmopolitan world view based on this information.. I'm just pointing out a fact of reality which is glossed over with emotion and fear by starry-eyed academics.
The counterpoint among intelligent people is to claim that it is not a fact that genotype-based differences exist and that to think they do is not only wrong but also harmful. Much the same way creationists dispute a missing link of evolution though and falsely conclude that God must have done it all, just because we don't have every possible piece of evolutionary data on the chain from single-celled amoebas to Homo Sapiens doesn't mean we can't form a highly probable link of progression between the two based on the large amount of available evidence we do have. I forget the Latin term for it so I shall refer to the above as the fallacy of ignorance: in the absence of complete enough information to satisfy a logical positivist, it is impossible to draw a likely conclusion at all.
Among anyone who is interested in what's true about reality, no subject should be taboo, and one should be guided by evidence and truth alone. Is this ridiculous and naive? That's a subjective value judgment, a judgment which I think becomes increasingly arbitrary the more open minded and intelligent the person thinking about the topic is.
tldr: Truly open minded and intelligent people (which are quite rare) who can approach controversial subjects with subtlety and even-keeled rationality should follow the truth wherever it leads them, even if it's to conclusions society deems 'improper'. Then they should hide these conclusions from almost everyone they speak with. lol.
Anything which results in making the world an exponentially better place ;)
People seem to like hearing how awesome they are and what they are doing even if it isn't.
People seem to like hearing how awesome they are and what they are doing even if it isn't.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4399678
as contrasted with one of the gripe threads submitted just before.
In general, I can talk about any contentious social policy issue here. I can ESPECIALLY talk absolutely any social policy issue, and about current electoral politics, in my group of Facebook friends. I've practiced cultivating a community of friends from all phases of my life, from first cousins and elementary school classmates to co-workers from when I lived abroad to fellow parents I "met" in other online networks and on and on into a group who are mutually respectful, factual, and curious about every subject. In my today, in my America, you can talk about anything. Just be polite and thoughtful, that's all I ask.
For actual hard information on some of the more controversial topics some people discuss in some places online, I recommend
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WeijiBaikeBianji/Intellige...
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WeijiBaikeBianji/Anthropol...
for reliable sources with good information on the subjects.
AFTER EDIT: It's possible to talk about controversial topics here on HN:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4524856
It is worth bearing in mind, however, that HN has a defined topic scope, and the site guidelines
http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
say, "Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them."
So most of the veteran users here with the highest karma relentlessly downvote and flag stories and posts that refer to electoral politics or other especially heated issues. I discuss those on Facebook, in my carefully curated circle of friends accumulated over decades, but I don't go out of my way to bring them up here.