In that case, we should encourage google to go all-in on climate change, racism, and war; they should back the conservative party as well. Then 90% of those will fail.
Fair enough, but what do I say when someone says "isn't that eugenics?" Society has a deep-set opposition to the idea genes affect ones life in any way, but they do, and we should recognize that so that we can make progress toward reducing human suffering. Sincerely, the reason people dislike this idea is because it sounds like eugenics.
Interesting! I wouldn't have expected germans and chinese people to have similar hand sizes, given their heights differ.
The study you linked right off the bat claims that women from the Philippines have markedly larger hand sizes than other women. I notice that analysis doesn't include standard deviation or calculate statistical significance. It also looks like women from vietnam have smaller hand sizes, which is not surprising to me, because people from vietnam tend to be shaped in a way that is different from people from other countries, though I don't know why.
literally every technology can be used by evil racist ends. You've merely grouped two things into the same category, "eugenics" and called it a bad thing. If instead you had different words for these two things, it wouldn't occur to you to say they are both usable for evil ends. Why not just say "medicine" or "science" will be used for evil ends, as the Nazis did?
When you say 'right' it sounds like it's a forgone conclusion that eugenics is not a good term for the things I'm talking about, or that it's somehow morally reprehensible to refer to stuff like selecting out genetic illnesses as eugenics. It seems to me to be eugenics though.
To be clear, you're saying that asian women typically having smaller hands is dubious? I have to double-check because I'm astonished anyone doubts this.
The use of "race science" in this headline has been bugging me and I only just realized why. Questionable race science would be claiming that e.g. asian women think in some particularly useful way, or any other specific claim about race that is hard to prove. But it's actually quite easy to show asian women have small hands, I assume -- at least, it seems to me like asian women do tend to have much smaller hands than men of other races. This is not the dubious claim. The dubious claim is whether those smaller hands are useful or not.
I am not really sure what to make of this, I'm still grappling with this one. Just thought I'd share my scattered thoughts.
Hmm, that is a pretty insightful point. On the other hand, I think most people I know who are religious are the sort who can appreciate self-deprecating humour themselves -- they might think it's funny for taking an absurd premise to its logical conclusion.
What suggests to me that this author is trying to paint atheism in a negative light is quite straightforwardly "score one for atheism." It doesn't really have a hint of irony to me. I think the author clearly thinks atheism just isn't cool anymore.
Most people I know who are religious don't take the bible very literally; most haven't even read it. The comforting lie is stuff about the after-life, heaven, and a caring universe.
"Young Chinese women have small fingers," the article reads, "and that has made them a valuable contributor to iPhone production because they are more nimble at installing screws and other miniature parts in the small device, supply chain experts said." [...]
there doesn't seem to be a lick of evidence [...] that small hands are preferable for manufacturing small devices. The closest thing we could find was a paper that found that surgeons with smaller hands actually had a harder time manipulating dextrous operating tools, which would seem to contradict the NYT's claim that small hands are an advantage for small specialized movements.
(...so should they be hiring big white men instead? Not clear to me how this article thinks that's a rebuttal of the 'race science')
Oh I didn't say they would do that. Nor do I think it would solve any big problem AI is causing society. I'm just pointing out that there's a simple rebuttal to his argument.
I'd say IQ is an attempt at concretizing a notion of intelligence. There's little consensus on what intelligence really means, so there's not much more to say than that. In other words, IQ is just a number. More relevant is what IQ can be found to correlate with.
In that case, we should encourage google to go all-in on climate change, racism, and war; they should back the conservative party as well. Then 90% of those will fail.