When I brought up the subject of intelligence and its definitions, it came as a result of what Olivia comments about not feeling or looking intelligent for EA and how (in your comment) your fact fourth can be understood. What I mean is, that if she (speaking in ultra-simplified and quite relative terms) is less smart than the average EA, it does not mean that she will always be less smart.
Leaving the door open to the learning and growth of possible intelligence that may be underdeveloped could be a valid option for Olivia, but I do not see that option in your comment. I do not see that you are trying to pull that idea of personal and intellectual growth.
That is, she may not know about something and has the right to learn about it, at her own pace. Perhaps in the future, she will discover in herself an expert in some of all this, but how can we know if we do not give her that option?
I also disagree with the implication (which rereading, you did not say outright. So perhaps I misread you) that intelligence (and merit-based systems in general) is racist.
Here you have really misunderstood what I said, as I mentioned before:
Actually, my intention was not focused at any time to bring up the issue of racism or eugenics, but more in terms of how within the EA community intelligence is conceptualized and defined as a means to measure oneself between the group and the others. I believe this, thinking about it, is a good idea to write about it in this forum.
Lastly, on the merit-based system, I think we can have a more distant opinion, and if you ever want to talk about it in more depth, I think this forum has private messages for it.
Thank you for your comment, at the beginning I did not understand about the downvotes and why I wasn't getting any kind of criticism
I agree with what you say with my comment, I would not contribute anything to Olivia's post, I realized this within hours of writing it and I did not want to delete or edit it. I prefer that the mistakes I may do remain present so that I can study a possible evolution for the near-medium future.
But reading this post, it feels less interested in engaging with the OP's post let alone with Linch's response, and more like there is something you wanted to say about intelligence and racism and have looked for a place to say that.
Actually, my intention was not focused at any time to bring up the issue of racism or eugenics, but more in terms of how within the EA community intelligence is conceptualized and defined as a means to measure oneself between the group and the others. I believe this, thinking about it, is a good idea to write about it in this forum.
I also point out about writing on the subject of EA dynamics, giving voices to other people and criticizing both sides that you comment
I could agree with the part where I assume things related to the IQ, but I make those assumptions having previously read other EA members with clearly essentialist and biologist ideas regarding the subject of intelligence, ideas that also are also quite far from being rational. Continuing with that, in the third paragraph I comment on the problem of naturalizing something -intelligence- for which we have evidence and consensus is not as stated.
Understanding the politicization behind my following arguments, where I speak from a perspective beyond rationalist or philosophical could be the most correct thing in which I could reaffirm myself. For the next time, I might start with something about this.
I understand therefore what you say about politicization in the last paragraphs that I expose, for the next time I think I could focus more on possible evidence regarding this, something that I did not think about for a short and brief comment like this one at the beginning.
I think you make a mistake to make a generalization of intelligence, you assume a universalized definition when, in reality, there is no single definition of what we mean when we talk about it.
If we assume (and allow me to) that you mean IQ, I wanted to quickly comment on the controversy (and correlation) of IQ tests with white supremacy, and the perpetuation of racism in the United States and in what is commonly known as "the Global South" and the perpetuation of an ableist system that has reached eugenics.
Understanding intelligence as something you are born with and not as a social construction based on trying to categorize and standardize (at the beginning, as I say, with racist and eugenic ways) a biosocial interaction is somewhat problematic.
Honestly, and this is my personal opinion, I don't think EA people are smart per se. I also believe (or rather, I affirm) that there is a correlation between going to a top university like Oxford or Harvard not with being excellent, but with having had the opportunity to be that. And what I call opportunity also applies to those people who have not gone to university, of course.
Anyway, in EA we have a problem when it comes to identifying ourselves as a group that could be easily resolved by investing efforts in how our dynamics work, and the ways in which we exclude other people (I'm not just referring to Olivia) and how that affects within the community, at the level of biases and at the level of the effects that all this has on the work we do.
Hi! My nickname is Duke as I would like to remain in some kind of an anonymous way. I have been working in the media industry for years, more into the camera department but also as a video editor. I'm really new in here and I would like to meet more EA-aligned creatives. My email is [email protected]
I could completely agree with your argument, but I see a lack of criticism of various comments, where one of the well-known dog whistles used by those who deny the existence of particular violence against women is used.
Likewise, extract the fact that the majority of homicide victims are men, deliberately ignoring the reasons for this violence and their differences, data that I contribute not using Wikipedia pages but global studies on homicide from the United Nations. The comment where I added that data, by the way, got several negative votes originally. I find that worrying enough, and it is worse coming from a community like EA, where these basic things should be already mostly established
If we are going to criticise Sjilver answers, as you say "arguments made from emotion", it seems -to me- more serious to criticise responses that originate in a supposed rationalization argumentation and are still biased and, the worst thing of all of this in my humble opinion, the instrumentalization of deaths that are used as a weapon against the fact that there is particular violence against women that does not exist in the other way.
I do not think that the argument of "no health benefits" is used in contrast to male genital mutilation, since it is known that the benefits are small and still today in many countries it is done without the person's permission, breaking their right to bodily autonomy as happens with neonatal circumcision.
Also today in many societies and cultures, male genital mutilation is given apart to the medical and health system, which influences an increase in infections and problems related to sexual health.
But I agree that repeating that mantra in a decontextualised way is harmful. The way in which I have tried to use it is to contrast it with the mutilations of intersex people, who are operated on these days in medical centres under the idea and dogma "it is for their health" when really that is a lie, there are not benefits in it.
I would like to add that CBT looks like "the therapy for everyone and everything" as is the only one that has shown to work with more mental health-related issues, and probably due to its effectiveness it is the most validated within the NHS since it benefits (also in an economical way).
We should start checking the relation between costs and benefices before trying to persuade the NHS.
To understand the seriousness of the mutilations, I personally consider that we must focus on the reason that leads to them. Are you religious? Is it cultural? Is it a medical reason? and so on.
FGM is distinguished (beyond the forms in which it occurs) in that there are no medical reasons for doing it, nor does it have any health benefits for women. In particular, quite the opposite, since it leads to numerous problems such as infections, complications in childbirth and in sexual relations, and more (1). It is also given for a cultural reason, not only is it "socially accepted" in their society and therefore the norm to follow but also ideas and beliefs of femininity associated with it. For example, it is considered that a genitally mutilated woman has an easier time finding a husband and will remain pure until marriage (2). There is also the fact that in some of these cultures and societies the clitoris is considered a male organ or non-feminine, therefore it is essential for women to have it removed for their own good. The reason for the existence of this mutilation is purely a product of the existence of gender, or what in social sciences is also called the sex-gender system (3)
Mutilation is understood as a violent act itself and we tend to talk about female genital mutilation, and in cases like Question Mark bring up male genital mutilation. But we leave aside the mutilations of intersex people, genital mutilations without any consent carried out legally and that do not have any benefit in terms of health for the person to whom it is done (4.1, 4.2). This kind of mutilation is also the result of the previously mentioned sex-gender system. Specifically, it is its application in our society and culture (5). Understanding these three apparently so different forms of mutilation as a product of the same thing is necessary in terms of understanding their motives and giving them an effective solution.
Yes, men are more likely to be victims of non-sexual violence, but you are omitting a fact of vital relevance in all this, resulting in a biased opinion. While the majority of men murdered are at the hands of other men who are strangers to them, the percentage of women who are killed by their partner or their family is around 50% every year on a global scale (1) (2)
Also is the fact that "while men are more likely than women to be victims of homicide, they are even more likely to be the perpetrators."
Recognizing the gender disparities in terms of understanding the kind of violence that occurs is key to ending it. We must not only look at the victims but also at who the aggressors are, and seek a solution always taking into account the power dynamics that are embedded in the construction of gender and its oppression and discrimination.
Hi Linch! Thanks for your comment
When I brought up the subject of intelligence and its definitions, it came as a result of what Olivia comments about not feeling or looking intelligent for EA and how (in your comment) your fact fourth can be understood. What I mean is, that if she (speaking in ultra-simplified and quite relative terms) is less smart than the average EA, it does not mean that she will always be less smart.
Leaving the door open to the learning and growth of possible intelligence that may be underdeveloped could be a valid option for Olivia, but I do not see that option in your comment. I do not see that you are trying to pull that idea of personal and intellectual growth.
That is, she may not know about something and has the right to learn about it, at her own pace. Perhaps in the future, she will discover in herself an expert in some of all this, but how can we know if we do not give her that option?
Here you have really misunderstood what I said, as I mentioned before:
Lastly, on the merit-based system, I think we can have a more distant opinion, and if you ever want to talk about it in more depth, I think this forum has private messages for it.
Thank you for your comment, at the beginning I did not understand about the downvotes and why I wasn't getting any kind of criticism
I agree with what you say with my comment, I would not contribute anything to Olivia's post, I realized this within hours of writing it and I did not want to delete or edit it. I prefer that the mistakes I may do remain present so that I can study a possible evolution for the near-medium future.
Actually, my intention was not focused at any time to bring up the issue of racism or eugenics, but more in terms of how within the EA community intelligence is conceptualized and defined as a means to measure oneself between the group and the others. I believe this, thinking about it, is a good idea to write about it in this forum.
I also point out about writing on the subject of EA dynamics, giving voices to other people and criticizing both sides that you comment
Hi, thank you for your comment.
I could agree with the part where I assume things related to the IQ, but I make those assumptions having previously read other EA members with clearly essentialist and biologist ideas regarding the subject of intelligence, ideas that also are also quite far from being rational. Continuing with that, in the third paragraph I comment on the problem of naturalizing something -intelligence- for which we have evidence and consensus is not as stated.
Understanding the politicization behind my following arguments, where I speak from a perspective beyond rationalist or philosophical could be the most correct thing in which I could reaffirm myself. For the next time, I might start with something about this.
I understand therefore what you say about politicization in the last paragraphs that I expose, for the next time I think I could focus more on possible evidence regarding this, something that I did not think about for a short and brief comment like this one at the beginning.
I think you make a mistake to make a generalization of intelligence, you assume a universalized definition when, in reality, there is no single definition of what we mean when we talk about it.
If we assume (and allow me to) that you mean IQ, I wanted to quickly comment on the controversy (and correlation) of IQ tests with white supremacy, and the perpetuation of racism in the United States and in what is commonly known as "the Global South" and the perpetuation of an ableist system that has reached eugenics.
Understanding intelligence as something you are born with and not as a social construction based on trying to categorize and standardize (at the beginning, as I say, with racist and eugenic ways) a biosocial interaction is somewhat problematic.
Honestly, and this is my personal opinion, I don't think EA people are smart per se. I also believe (or rather, I affirm) that there is a correlation between going to a top university like Oxford or Harvard not with being excellent, but with having had the opportunity to be that. And what I call opportunity also applies to those people who have not gone to university, of course.
Anyway, in EA we have a problem when it comes to identifying ourselves as a group that could be easily resolved by investing efforts in how our dynamics work, and the ways in which we exclude other people (I'm not just referring to Olivia) and how that affects within the community, at the level of biases and at the level of the effects that all this has on the work we do.
Hi! My nickname is Duke as I would like to remain in some kind of an anonymous way. I have been working in the media industry for years, more into the camera department but also as a video editor. I'm really new in here and I would like to meet more EA-aligned creatives. My email is [email protected]
I could completely agree with your argument, but I see a lack of criticism of various comments, where one of the well-known dog whistles used by those who deny the existence of particular violence against women is used.
Likewise, extract the fact that the majority of homicide victims are men, deliberately ignoring the reasons for this violence and their differences, data that I contribute not using Wikipedia pages but global studies on homicide from the United Nations. The comment where I added that data, by the way, got several negative votes originally. I find that worrying enough, and it is worse coming from a community like EA, where these basic things should be already mostly established
If we are going to criticise Sjilver answers, as you say "arguments made from emotion", it seems -to me- more serious to criticise responses that originate in a supposed rationalization argumentation and are still biased and, the worst thing of all of this in my humble opinion, the instrumentalization of deaths that are used as a weapon against the fact that there is particular violence against women that does not exist in the other way.
I do not think that the argument of "no health benefits" is used in contrast to male genital mutilation, since it is known that the benefits are small and still today in many countries it is done without the person's permission, breaking their right to bodily autonomy as happens with neonatal circumcision.
Also today in many societies and cultures, male genital mutilation is given apart to the medical and health system, which influences an increase in infections and problems related to sexual health.
But I agree that repeating that mantra in a decontextualised way is harmful. The way in which I have tried to use it is to contrast it with the mutilations of intersex people, who are operated on these days in medical centres under the idea and dogma "it is for their health" when really that is a lie, there are not benefits in it.
I would like to add that CBT looks like "the therapy for everyone and everything" as is the only one that has shown to work with more mental health-related issues, and probably due to its effectiveness it is the most validated within the NHS since it benefits (also in an economical way).
We should start checking the relation between costs and benefices before trying to persuade the NHS.
I would like to state some points to clarify:
Yes, men are more likely to be victims of non-sexual violence, but you are omitting a fact of vital relevance in all this, resulting in a biased opinion. While the majority of men murdered are at the hands of other men who are strangers to them, the percentage of women who are killed by their partner or their family is around 50% every year on a global scale (1) (2)
Also is the fact that "while men are more likely than women to be victims of homicide, they are even more likely to be the perpetrators."
Recognizing the gender disparities in terms of understanding the kind of violence that occurs is key to ending it. We must not only look at the victims but also at who the aggressors are, and seek a solution always taking into account the power dynamics that are embedded in the construction of gender and its oppression and discrimination.