My question about centering "biased social cognition" is not as much about its veracity (which matters a lot to me in some areas, but in this case I'm not seeing that it's clearly enough defined, nor falsifiable enough, to discern any objective truth), than about whether in the ensuing decades it has shown itself to be fruitful framing which advances desirable outcomes.
I currently perceive the current fixation on "systemic racism" (as used in contemporary political discourse) to be based more on the psychological payoffs of it as an ego-salving framing, than on seeking the most effective tools for improving the real world problems it nominally seeks to explain. As such, "systemic racism" rarely submits to neutral evaluation, preferring to operate by ideologically ignoring any alternative explanations in favor of those which support the desire narrative.
I'm wondering if "biased social cognition" avoids those pitfalls.
This is really, really good stuff and an important piece of Glenn Loury archaeology since he has not fundamentally changed his mind about many of the ideas in it.
I'm not here for that discussion, I'm here for this one:
As I have an idea that could turn the tide (which would serve your interests whether I agree with them or not): All conversations on here fit under the umbrella of mine. If you’re not interested in such discovery, let’s not waste each other’s time. Thx 🙏
***************
If evidence claimed as components for building a nuclear bomb isn’t worthy of consideration, what is? There was a time when people saying, “Show Me the Evidence” — would look at it when you did. Those days are long gone — eradicated by a world where authenticity amounts to flooding the internet with catchy quotes promoting principles you abandon the second they’re inconvenient. Then crank out the hate-card when called to account, because you damn sure don’t have an argument.
The Critical Thinking of Sowell’s Crowd: Where Even Math is a Matter of Opinion
What part of this do you not understand? "All conversations on here fit under the umbrella of mine." But you people never understand anything -- making it impossible to have this conversation anywhere. Now, mind your own business and don't waste my time again.
To the extent that I read the post you are questioning Thomas Sowell worshipers because Sowell was wrong about Iraq having WMD and has not apologized. I do not take Glenn Loury for a Thomas Sowell worshiper and have no idea if he was wrong about Iraq.
Thank you for that reply and for taking a look-see. Glenn Loury once called my writing "brilliant," was "honored by it," and "blown away" by my site and signed up. Alas, he wasn't too keen on the truth when I took his hero to task. So, you're wrong about Loury -- and everyone is wrong about Sowell (and that -- is an opportunity). What does it say to you for over 3 years -- I've been practically spit on by people promoting principles I followed to find Sowell didn't?
As stated on my site:
**********
I’m sure it’s intoxicating to amass a following and feel like you’re making a difference. But I’m gonna weigh your impact partly as a reflection of your community: How people behave, not what they believe. If you can’t get that right, I don’t care how big your following gets — you’re taking this nation nowhere.
**********
McWhorter's right -- anti-racism has become religion. But fighting that religion has become another religion.
What’s Wrong With This Picture? The Religion of Ripping on Race & Woke Religions
Not sure this is religious belief as much as people choosing the one designated Black person they are going to listen to and being entirely lost if that Black person is a flawed human being. Clearly Glenn Loury does not have this problem. If Loury says that he respects Sowell because of his books then Loury is saying that the books had arguments that were helpful to him not that Sowell is perfect.
My question about centering "biased social cognition" is not as much about its veracity (which matters a lot to me in some areas, but in this case I'm not seeing that it's clearly enough defined, nor falsifiable enough, to discern any objective truth), than about whether in the ensuing decades it has shown itself to be fruitful framing which advances desirable outcomes.
I currently perceive the current fixation on "systemic racism" (as used in contemporary political discourse) to be based more on the psychological payoffs of it as an ego-salving framing, than on seeking the most effective tools for improving the real world problems it nominally seeks to explain. As such, "systemic racism" rarely submits to neutral evaluation, preferring to operate by ideologically ignoring any alternative explanations in favor of those which support the desire narrative.
I'm wondering if "biased social cognition" avoids those pitfalls.
This is really, really good stuff and an important piece of Glenn Loury archaeology since he has not fundamentally changed his mind about many of the ideas in it.
I'm not here for that discussion, I'm here for this one:
As I have an idea that could turn the tide (which would serve your interests whether I agree with them or not): All conversations on here fit under the umbrella of mine. If you’re not interested in such discovery, let’s not waste each other’s time. Thx 🙏
***************
If evidence claimed as components for building a nuclear bomb isn’t worthy of consideration, what is? There was a time when people saying, “Show Me the Evidence” — would look at it when you did. Those days are long gone — eradicated by a world where authenticity amounts to flooding the internet with catchy quotes promoting principles you abandon the second they’re inconvenient. Then crank out the hate-card when called to account, because you damn sure don’t have an argument.
The Critical Thinking of Sowell’s Crowd: Where Even Math is a Matter of Opinion
https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2024/05/12/the-critical-thinking-of-sowells-crowd-where-even-math-is-a-matter-of-opinion/
***************
This comment is in the wrong conversation
What part of this do you not understand? "All conversations on here fit under the umbrella of mine." But you people never understand anything -- making it impossible to have this conversation anywhere. Now, mind your own business and don't waste my time again.
To the extent that I read the post you are questioning Thomas Sowell worshipers because Sowell was wrong about Iraq having WMD and has not apologized. I do not take Glenn Loury for a Thomas Sowell worshiper and have no idea if he was wrong about Iraq.
Thank you for that reply and for taking a look-see. Glenn Loury once called my writing "brilliant," was "honored by it," and "blown away" by my site and signed up. Alas, he wasn't too keen on the truth when I took his hero to task. So, you're wrong about Loury -- and everyone is wrong about Sowell (and that -- is an opportunity). What does it say to you for over 3 years -- I've been practically spit on by people promoting principles I followed to find Sowell didn't?
As stated on my site:
**********
I’m sure it’s intoxicating to amass a following and feel like you’re making a difference. But I’m gonna weigh your impact partly as a reflection of your community: How people behave, not what they believe. If you can’t get that right, I don’t care how big your following gets — you’re taking this nation nowhere.
**********
McWhorter's right -- anti-racism has become religion. But fighting that religion has become another religion.
What’s Wrong With This Picture? The Religion of Ripping on Race & Woke Religions
https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2024/03/17/whats-wrong-with-this-picture-the-religion-of-ripping-on-race-woke-religions/
Not sure this is religious belief as much as people choosing the one designated Black person they are going to listen to and being entirely lost if that Black person is a flawed human being. Clearly Glenn Loury does not have this problem. If Loury says that he respects Sowell because of his books then Loury is saying that the books had arguments that were helpful to him not that Sowell is perfect.