X-Git-Url: http://unremediatedgender.space/source?p=Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git;a=blobdiff_plain;f=notes%2Fhuman-diversity-notes.md;h=47380553540c90734d404287fe1bb0c237eb8550;hp=bc28c00f84a4becbaa6e9250b65d3dde04bbc72e;hb=bf506f3185a9a34ac0296f069b47847c9f5be288;hpb=d2a5ab2ca86b9ba0c6e3d93cdbe7e75f7ee367a3 diff --git a/notes/human-diversity-notes.md b/notes/human-diversity-notes.md index bc28c00..4738055 100644 --- a/notes/human-diversity-notes.md +++ b/notes/human-diversity-notes.md @@ -135,6 +135,15 @@ https://meltingasphalt.com/crony-beliefs/ And, again, socio-psychological facts like character assessments are precisely those for which we have the _most_ reason to distrust each other's judgement: if I like Mary, I might say favorable but false things about her even if I would never tell a lie about homotopy groups. In the absence of a objectively calibrated compassion-o-meter, psychological scientists who want to study individual differences in compassion are mostly limited to doing statistics on people's verbal self-reports and other-reports—but if you don't trust what people _say_, it's at least not _obvious_ whether or how much more you should trust statistical analyses of what people say, in accordance with the ancient dictum: ["garbage in, garbage out."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_in,_garbage_out) Probably the neuroscientists are working on the compassion-o-meter, but they too face the problem of ensuring that their interpretations of their brain scans actually mean what they say they mean. + +Jensen— +> the test must measure, in addition to the construct it purports to measure, +some other characteristic or factor that is completely uncorrelated with the construct and on which the major group, on the average, exceeds the minor group A typical example is the case in which the major and minor groups differ in their native language. A person’s native language is presumably not correlated with the construct of intelligence. If the test involves the native language of the major group exclusively and the minor group has a different language, the test will most likely be positively biased in favor of the major group. In other words, the test is measuring something (in this case a specific language) in addition to the construct that it purports to measure, which condition favors the major group + +https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Intelligence_Test_of_Cultural_Homogeneity + +Draw-a-Horse Pueblo + ------ This was the linkpost description text I initially drafted, before deciding that the "Straussian coyness" I [occasionally]() [succumb]() to is ultimately unbecoming.