Quote:
Originally Posted by Graystoke
Can you explain where racism plays into my post?
Genuinely asking.
|
Sure. I was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but your post, which I agree with, can be reduced down to nature > nurture. That is, our genetic code will trump whatever training/education/background we go through.
But today there are many who disagree with that philosophy and call it all kinds of names. I don’t agree that believing nature trumps nurture is racist but it is routinely branded as racist.
Consider the following example:
Among humans, males are taller than females. While this is generally true, many today reject this as sexist because it posits a biological difference between the sexes. Further, arguing about genetics and nature has in the past been used for some really ugly uses, such as eugenics. Recognizing this truth, though, does not lead to eugenics.
And along these lines, even though it is objectively true that men are generally taller than women, most people do not understand statistics. As a result, when confronted with a statement like “Men are generally taller than women,” they respond with, “Well, my Aunt Sally is taller than my Uncle John,” and view this as some sort of refutation of the general statement.
Notice how in this discussion most people are arguing using stories, anecdotes or personal experiences. Nothing wrong with that. But when looking at statistics, there always exceptions, outliers on the Bell curve if you will. Basing an argument upon the outliers is logically fallacious but is frequently done.
Anyway, to argue today that nature trumps nurture opens the door to allegations of racism or a whole host of social ills, which is unfortunate because it shuts down debate.