From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Fri Jul 26 2002 - 22:11:04 MDT
Harvey very sensibly inquires
> Again, I must ask. Why are some people pushing so hard for group-based
> judgments? Don't we agree that screening all bags would be best? Is
> there really a need to screen some bags to a lesser extent than others?
> These repeating arguments for group-based judgments always seem
> contrived toward some specific agenda, but don't seem to address any
> real need in the real world. We can screen all bags equally without
> weakening security with profiling or group based judgments.
One answer to your question, why are some people standing up for
group-based judgment, must relate to the ambiguity of the phrase,
and also to the added ambiguity when a thread has drifted away
from the intent of the original poster.
As for the screening of bags, I'm amazed that this is still an issue.
Yes, yes, yes, we all agree that all bags should be screened. No one
has said anything contrary so far as I can remember. Now, if no one
has ever suggested that not all bags be screened, we are either
communicating with woeful lack of skill, or a straw man is being
set up. Perhaps, with luck, this paragraph will be the last posted
to extropians that mentions whether or not all bags should be
inspected.
> These repeating arguments for group-based judgments always
> seem contrived toward some specific agenda, but don't seem
> to address any real need in the real world.
I think that you are referring to a wider context here than
just the screening of bags per se, and you deserve a careful
answer that I hope goes some way towards explanation. Naturally,
such a proffered explanation itself needs, deserves, and I hope
receives criticism itself.
So, to interpret "group based judgment" in its wider context,
and to attempt to account for its undying popularity as a
discussion topic (along with "racism" or "profiling"), I
submit the following. But before I do so, I wish to counter
the dark suggestion that some hidden agenda is at work behind
the scenes, and that nefarious parties are pursuing an ulterior
goal. I don't believe there is any evidence of this, and also
believe that we should avoid such insinuations.
Now then, here is how I read the situation. On purely
ideological grounds disputes have occurred for at least
the last three hundred years concerning differences between
social class and possible differences between ethnicities
and races. Eighteenth century France and England, for
example, were the scenes of frequent debates between those
who believed more in the equality of different classes and
those who believed less in it. So this argument has a long
pedigree, and no one should be so foolish as to believe
that one side or the other is without facts, or is evil,
or has views based upon ignorance. I am constantly annoyed
that very often people, from both sides, are indeed so
foolish, even occasionally on this list.
The oldest of these debates that I'm aware of is whether
or not it is possible for people of no breeding to aspire
to genius or refinement, and this argument, amazingly,
has actually been settled, though it took hundreds of
years. Today, very few doubt that genius or any other
predisposition may arise from any class of human beings
(where one must exercise good sense about what I mean
here by "class").
However, elements of the ideological debate even in this
narrow way are still quite active because modern research
into the effects of heredity does indeed suggest correlations
between class and potential for achievement. Here isn't the
place to undertake the arguments for an against that
point of view, however---because the debate rages on,
which is my real point.
We should deeply appreciate how fortunate is homo sapiens
that our problems discussing differences between races,
genders, and upbringing are so relatively minor. Imagine
how thorny the problems would be were there a continuum of
races and ethnicities between human and animal. For a while,
of course, some did maintain that Africans held such an
intermediate position, but at least in the U.S., such
arguments obtained only from the financial incentives of
people wanting to perpetuate slavery. It's simply a fact
that geniuses or other extremely accomplished people arise
from any sufficiently numerous racial or ethnic group. Can
you imagine how tough it would be if there really was a
large racial or ethnic group whose I.Q.s, say, practically
never reached as high as 90?
What follows, very briefly alas, are the ideological motivations
that underlie the positions at the current time between those
who, for the sake of brevity I'll describe as being left-leaning,
and those who I'll describe as right-leaning. Profound apologies
to any who may have strong opinions on "group based judgment"
to whom these labels don't correctly apply!
The belief of those on the left is that statistical differences
between groups is non-existent or minor. As broad as that
statement I just made is, I claim that it still accounts for
the intuitions and feelings and thoughts that always and so
predictably separate right from left on a wide variety of
issues, even insofar as it would relate to the question of
the extent to which correlations between criminal behavior
and race, for example, have any use or significance.
Those who are right-leaning on these kinds of questions, have
darks suspicions that the left systematically opposes an
openness regarding what the right believe to be the truth of the
matter. To those on the right, the left-leaning suspect and
know the truth, but are being purposely evasive and squeamish
about information that should be regarded as almost completely
objective.
Meanwhile, on the left, it is thought that those on the right
are not only putting forth arguments weak in scientific fact,
but for some reason, possibly sinister, persist in raising
questions and points that even if correct could serve no possible
social good, and indeed possibly create great harm. It then
naturally begins to appear to those on the left that their
opposite numbers never really accepted egalitarianism in their
hearts, and possibly still yearn to retreat to a pre-18th
century social structure.
That's what's going on. I claim that anyone of any political
persuasion who is objectively interested in what's happening
can see himself or herself in the above descriptions, even if
only in the small.
I must cut this short, but otherwise could greatly amplify on
the descriptions above, yet the interested reader certainly
ought to have no trouble producing his or her own further
examples.
The bottom line of extreme importance, in my opinion, is that
men and women of good character, high intelligence, ample
education, and sincere desire for the truth are to be found
everywhere along the political spectrum. Moreover, as these
ideological differences have absolutely no chance of vanishing
any time soon, we should all realize our place, and make
every effort towards recognizing the deep well-springs of our
disagreements.
This, then, is why there is persistent disagreement about a
whole range of issues, including "group based judgment".
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:41 MST