[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 187 KB, 1242x1204, dictionary.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17932971 No.17932971 [Reply] [Original]

Does this dictionary definition seem a bit biased to any one else?

>> No.17932981

>>17932971
Everything after "animals" could and should be removed. This is supposed to give you a definition, not a political tract.

>> No.17932984

>>17932981
/tread

>> No.17932991

No, it’s absolutely right.

>> No.17932994

>>17932971
But humans are subject to the same laws of natural election, you don't have to talk about the Social Darwinism that just focuses on race (even though it's real), but it's impossible to deny its reality for people on the whole.

>> No.17933007

It says "largely discredited" which is true; you won't find many in polite society espousing it. If it just said discredited then it would be biased.

>> No.17933010

>>17932981
>not a political fact
Ftfy.

It’s a term used to justify a political stance, derived from a debunked idea. It has nothing to do with Darwin and Spencer would probably distance himself from it if he were alive today

>> No.17933015

>>17932994
The thing is that social Darwinism isn't just the observation that evolution is still a thing in humans, it's the assertion that it's still a thing and that we should just let it run its course.

>> No.17933020

>>17932981
Even the first sentence is wrong. All living beings *are* subject to Darwinian laws, social Darwinism goes much further than just that basic observation. But yes, dictionaries used to have the decency to at least hide their ideological preferences in the example usages.

>> No.17933034

>>17932971
>Uses corporate-provided dictionary
>Shocked when it has a blatant agenda
Seriously?

>> No.17933040

>>17933015
But it obviously is still a thing, some humans can be more or less intelligent than others by breeding.

>> No.17933057

>>17932971
why do people like to pretend that iq isn't strongly heritable?
>inb4 muh diamonds in the rough
shut up. shut the fuck up.

>> No.17933060

>>17933057
Because it isn’t

>> No.17933064

>>17933057
It conflicts with liberalism, and people will do anything to save liberalism, even go full creationist.

>> No.17933072
File: 991 KB, 241x170, CDD2C2D3-5E05-4F38-B85C-C4C6BE82A528.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17933072

>>17933034
>Uses the socialist defense
>in defense of racist agenda

What a thread. Why not take it back to /pol/?

>> No.17933081

>>17933060
>Twin studies of adult individuals have found a heritability of IQ between 57% and 73%[6] with the most recent studies showing heritability for IQ as high as 80%.[7] IQ goes from being weakly correlated with genetics for children, to being strongly correlated with genetics for late teens and adults.
why are you like this? what's the point of posting here if you won't accept even the most trivial realities? like, just think about it for two seconds. why would a trait like that not be something that can be passed down like any other? have you ever seriously thought about why it is you so desperately want this to be false?

>> No.17933084

>>17933057
>>17933064
How do you explain the Flynn effect? How could IQ scores rise dramatically over a minuscule amount of time (human generations), when it's not enough time for evolution to take place? The genetic stock wasn't improved due to sexual selection, it was improved through environmental factors like access to high quality nutrition, education, a stimulating environment, etc. Following this line of thought, Europeans at one point must have had the same IQ as sub-Saharan Africans, meaning that IQ can be improved across time with the right environmental factors, not because the genetic stock "magically" gets better in such short amounts of time.

>> No.17933085

>>17933081
>The IQ gene has been isolated!

>> No.17933096

>>17933085
Not even close to anything that was argued

>> No.17933112

>>17933072
Don't get me wrong: I have never been fond of the IQ argument. That being said, my earlier point still stands.

>> No.17933114

>>17933084
your whole point rests on the assumption that environment is the only factor in IQ, but the whole point of my post was that it is not. even if the average IQ improves over generations, that in no way implies that a) all populations had the same IQ initially or b) all populations will end up with the same IQ
>>17933085
>if you can't identify the specific gene responsible for something then it must not be heritable
do you actually think before you hit the post button? could i perhaps implore you to?

>> No.17933141

>>17933084
Nobody is arguing that the environment isn't a massive factor in IQ (around 50% in most studies I'm familiar with), nor even that IQ is a very useful predictor of general intelligence. I suggested that going against the fundamental ideological conviction that every person is a tabula rasa 100% determined by environment is already enough drive people into hysterics. >>17933085
If you don't even have a basic idea of how genetics works, just don't post.

>> No.17933154

>>17933085
Cope, you feel doomed and ashamed by your dumb parents and they feel just as ashamed by you.

You will never be able to escape them.

>> No.17933163

>>17933096
Where?

>>17933112
There are unfortunate people with slow or differently impaired minds. Congenital diseases, but by and large the normal human mind is perfectly malleable and can learn what their parents have not.

>>17933114
Did you know this is a literature board?

>> No.17933175
File: 216 KB, 1400x2093, 61DCC12F-AC10-462C-8A59-092E9D4970C8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17933175

>>17933154
Your’s is the generation who have been fed, since fetus stages, poisoned foodstuffs

>> No.17933207

>>17933163
>There are unfortunate people with slow or differently impaired minds. Congenital diseases, but by and large the normal human mind is perfectly malleable and can learn what their parents have not.
I do not disagree with any of that. Perhaps this was not the thread to point out that a corporate-provided dictionary (any media, really) will have an agenda to it, and one should not be surprised to see it. If you want to know my opinion on Social Darwinism, to me it is an abstraction/analogy that is useful in some contexts (like geopolitics) but hardly something to live by.

>> No.17933216
File: 78 KB, 1008x1024, Gigachad cosmic.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17933216

Social Darwinism is only believed by edgy atheists because they know they would be forcibly sterilized by the designer baby Gigachad eugenicists.

>> No.17933226

>>17933163
the worst part of this entire situation is that you'll probably go to bed tonight thinking "wow i sure pwned those nazis on my favorite online esoteric sri lankian pottery glazing consortium who believe in such silly archaic concepts like IQ being a heritable trait" and it won't ever even occur to you what a fucking retard you are and how you don't give a shit what's actually true or what's not and that the whole reason you even pretend to care is out of some sense of moral duty to which your sense of truth is completely subordinate. you clearly have some part of your identity that puts great value in things like being right and smart and being able to think while at the same time treating arguments and logic and ideas as just soldiers that you either enlist or attack based on whether they seem too racist or not. i wish it was true that being a living contradiction like this somehow leads inevitably to misery because i would very much like it if you suffered enough to kill yourself so i never have to read another line of you retarded fucking drivel you drooling troglodyte gorilla nigger. this board would be about fifty times better without you in it and it's not because i simply disagree with you, it's because you're just too fucking dumb to even argue with

>> No.17933229
File: 995 KB, 260x146, 85D1CEB6-C7B6-44D8-B917-55F7AF16E41C.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17933229

>>17933207

>> No.17933251

>>17933163
>Where?
Literally anywhere in the thread. It's very unlikely that IQ is determined by a single gene (like most noticable phenotypes) but it is probably determined by a combination of multiple inherited genes and post natal factors like childhood nutrition. That being said, the evidence is clear that IQ is at least partially determined by genetic inheritance and it is foolish to assume that it is a trait unable to differ among people groups. These facts don't even necessarily support a white supremacist argument.

>> No.17933376

>>17932971
Why wouldn't humans be subject to darwinian laws like all other animals?