the ecological fallacy and identity politics

Ukerric · Aug 14, 2017

Campbell1oo4 said:
I don't know, my man. I think we are going to start seeing the break ups of corporations in our life time. Just because we haven't seen it yet doesn't mean it won't happen.

Dunno. Large corporations are incredible resilient against difficulties; much more than smaller ones. Once you're the dominant factor in the market, the only thing that can happen is that another big player from a parallel market wants to purchase you. IBM is still around, even if they completely lost their market due to tech transition. The only reason Monsanto got bought out is that Bayer is even bigger, not because it's a failure.

AngryGerbil · Aug 14, 2017

Simplicity. Low-resolution is easier. ID Politics is easy-cheesy one-size-fits all. It's what Sharper Image would come up with if they invented a Political Party. All you have to do is look at someone for a couple seconds and you're done! It's like 'set it and forget it' politics. It's like adults watching cartoons.

The Left are the current masters of ID Politics, but the Right is, sadly, trying its best to keep up with the Left's present retardation.

Sadre Spinegnawer · Aug 15, 2017

AngryGerbil said:
Simplicity. Low-resolution is easier. ID Politics is easy-cheesy one-size-fits all. It's what Sharper Image would come up with if they invented a Political Party. All you have to do is look at someone for a couple seconds and you're done! It's like 'set it and forget it' politics. It's like adults watching cartoons.

The Left are the current masters of ID Politics, but the Right is, sadly, trying its best to keep up with the Left's present retardation.

Ok, thanks AG. I think this outlook is healthier (for me) than mine. It's not malice, it is just plain old, stupid, ancient, laziness. That actually does make sense, too. I feel a little less depressed now. Thnx.

AngryGerbil · Aug 15, 2017

Sadre Spinegnawer said:
Ok, thanks AG. I think this outlook is healthier (for me) than mine. It's not malice, it is just plain old, stupid, ancient, laziness. That actually does make sense, too. I feel a little less depressed now. Thnx.

I can't take too much credit. This is basic personality psychology as given to me largely, but not entirely, by Jordan Peterson.

He is the one who says that when you look at a person for 5 seconds you can only tell so much about them. Namely, the amount of and the nature of the photons that bounce off of that person. So in that sense, when examining the psychology of any individual human, to look at their skin color and/or mere photons that bounce off of them, it can tell you something about them, yes, but it can not tell you who they truly are.

That part takes real actual effort.

Sentagur · Aug 15, 2017

"Diversity is our strength." That phrase is laughable if your diversity is only skin deep.
It is like having 100s of different colors of ice cream and they all taste like vanilla. The idea of diversity being a strength is having different points of view about any given situation that helps analyze it and understand it completely.
Right now everyone looks different but if you look closely they are all clones of each other with different DLC paintjobs and everyone who does not comply is worse than Hitlers and Pol Pots lovechild.

AngryGerbil · Aug 15, 2017

Sentagur said:
"Diversity is our strength." That phrase is laughable if your diversity is only skin deep.
It is like having 100s of different colors of ice cream and they all taste like vanilla. The idea of diversity being a strength is having different points of view about any given situation that helps analyze it and understand it completely.
Right now everyone looks different but if you look closely they are all clones of each other with different DLC paintjobs and everyone who does not comply is worse than Hitlers and Pol Pots lovechild.

They all have different hair colors and skin colors but all subscribe to the same ideological mentality. It's a cult of exterior fashion.

White males might all look similar, or whatever, but they have widely disparate viewpoints and memes.

Anyone is welcome to the 'Diversity of Ideas'. Ideas care not a fig for what your melanin content or your gamete morphology are. They only care if the said idea works in an objective and moral sense.

Sentagur · Aug 15, 2017

AngryGerbil said:
They all have different color hair colors and skin colors but all subscribe to the same ideological mentality. It's a cult of exterior fashion.

White males might all look similar, or whatever, but they have widely disparate viewpoints and memes.

Anyone is welcome to the 'Diversity of Ideas'. Ideas care not a fig for what you melanin content or your gamete morphology are. They only care if the said idea works in a objective and moral sense.

Every time I see someone with an outrageous hair color or collection of shitty tattoos pretending to be artsy i think: How desperate are you to be unique and stand out on the outside while on the inside you are just carbon copies of people you associate with? Its literally like you walked into a flamboyantly gay Borg collective and they want to assimilate you and paint you like an Easter egg so everyone call wallow in the crazy brand of unique sameness.

AngryGerbil · Aug 15, 2017

Sentagur said:
Every time I see someone with an outrageous hair color or collection of shitty tattoos pretending to be artsy i think: How desperate are you to be unique and stand out on the outside while on the inside you are just carbon copies of people you associate with? Its literally like you walked into a flamboyantly gay Borg collective and they want to assimilate you and paint you like a Easter egg so everyone call wallow in the crazy brand of unique sameness.

Amen.

"Growing up and being responsible is the new counter culture." -JBP

TrollfaceDeux · Aug 15, 2017

I blame russia.

Sadre Spinegnawer · Aug 16, 2017

Sentagur said:
Every time I see someone with an outrageous hair color or collection of shitty tattoos pretending to be artsy i think: How desperate are you to be unique and stand out on the outside while on the inside you are just carbon copies of people you associate with? Its literally like you walked into a flamboyantly gay Borg collective and they want to assimilate you and paint you like an Easter egg so everyone call wallow in the crazy brand of unique sameness.

I'm gonna call "foul," even if just a five-yarder and repeat the down.

As long as I am contributing, I am going to hew to the original point. 1: Individual identity is only rarely reducible to group identity. 2: Usually group identity is a "low bandwidth" (as AngryGerbil put it) shorthand for actually dealing with the individual before you.

So, you know, I am not sure talking about the set "people with outrageous hair color" does much to actually build the point. I'm suspecting AG's affirmation of your post was b/c he was drunk or something. I would await, correction, as always.

AngryGerbil · Aug 16, 2017

Sadre Spinegnawer said:
I'm gonna call "foul," even if just a five-yarder and repeat the down.

As long as I am contributing, I am going to hew to the original point. 1: Individual identity is only rarely reducible to group identity. 2: Usually group identity is a "low bandwidth" (as AngryGerbil put it) shorthand for actually dealing with the individual before you.

So, you know, I am not sure talking about the set "people with outrageous hair color" does much to actually build the point. I'm suspecting AG's affirmation of your post was b/c he was drunk or something. I would await, correction, as always.

Hair color and tattoos are choices. Races and genders are not. Does that help?

Lanx · Aug 16, 2017

Sadre Spinegnawer said:
The ecological fallacy is pretty easy to summarize: it is when you inappropriately assign a characteristic of a group to each individual member of that group.

This definition lets us know, there are valid applications of group definitions to members. For example, I can say that all bird lovers love birds. That is not a controversial statement.

But there are controversial examples, and they are quite insidious socially, I would argue.

For example, consider the rather anodyne observation that taken as a group, male humans are physically stronger than females. This is not a controversial statement.

But what about the statement that women cannot be Navy SEALs, since women are not as strong as men?

See the fallacy? Some logical moves from group to individual are valid, others are not. In this case, the identity "woman" tells us very little about the individual, in fact. And it is invalid to make conclusions that are not warranted from group descriptions to an individual estimation. That is the essence of the ecological fallacy.

Our minds would be much freer if we became more wary of the ecological fallacy. In some cases we are justified in making judgments about individuals based on their membership in a group (or set). In other cases, the exact opposite is the case. We are thinking fallaciously, and should not do it.

Now proceed to arguing, most men play melee classes, therefore if male, then bellicose. Etc. And so forth. have fun.

edit: that stupid Google dude's memo made me want to post this. It is textbook.

Identity politics is for bored stupid white kids. You ever see a trans shaniqua??? Exactly shaniqua got too much going on in the hood to worry about identity shit.

Sentagur · Aug 16, 2017

Sadre Spinegnawer said:
I'm gonna call "foul," even if just a five-yarder and repeat the down.

As long as I am contributing, I am going to hew to the original point. 1: Individual identity is only rarely reducible to group identity. 2: Usually group identity is a "low bandwidth" (as AngryGerbil put it) shorthand for actually dealing with the individual before you.

So, you know, I am not sure talking about the set "people with outrageous hair color" does much to actually build the point. I'm suspecting AG's affirmation of your post was b/c he was drunk or something. I would await, correction, as always.

I would see your point about individual identity vs group identity if it wasnt for the fact that allot of people are starting to identify themselves( and others) solely based on the group they are in. Individuality is getting to be skin deep just as the mentioned tattoos and hair color which have been reduced to semi permanent accessories.
A while back you could find strong individuals with unique interests that had unusual tattoos or haircuts but mass appeal and availability watered that down almost completely in the new generation.
That was my old man rant of course i could be completely wrong but this belief is part of my identity and it comforts me. So stop micro aggressing me or something.

Sadre Spinegnawer · Aug 17, 2017

Ok, let me refine. I did not say *all* people do not do this trick. As I said, as AG agreed, it is matter of simplicity: it is easier to take people as members of group than as individuals/

That also applies to individuals. Many people find it easier to identify via group markers than be individuals.

But that does not mean it is therefore satisfactory to think this way of people. If they insist on it, good luck. But that does not negate the fact, it is a low-bandwidth way of thinking of others.

edit: he said, waiting for someone to say the valid observation, that the emphasis on individual identity is not universal, and it is not the case that all group thinking of others is low-bandwidth.

maskedmelon · Aug 18, 2017

Perhaps a bit of a ranger, but generalizations are not inherently fallacious. They are a practical tool of deductive reasoning for expeditious resolution of complex issues.

The ecological fallacy described in OP is an issue of specificity, which is an integral component of functional generalization. There is nothing at all invalid about generalizations provided they are applied appropriately. Consider the following revision to the fallacious argument introduced in OP:

"Most women cannot be Navy Seals, since women generally are not as strong as men."

This is a true statement provided the following premises suggested in OP are true:

1. Human males are generally stronger than human females.
2. The role of Navy Seal demands strength above (or even at) the human male average.

The problem is that most individuals are insufficiently discriminatory to recognize the subtle differences between similar logical arguments, let alone their relevance. For most, introducing them to the error will not lead to better generalizations. At most it will lead them to outright rejection of all generalization and make them dubious of any argument employing it regardless of validity.

ZyyzYzzy · Aug 18, 2017

maskedmelon said:
Perhaps a bit of a ranger, but generalizations are not inherently fallacious. They are a practical tool of deductive reasoning for expeditious resolution of complex issues.

The ecological fallacy described in OP is an issue of specificity, which is an integral component of functional generalization. There is nothing at all invalid about generalizations provided they are applied appropriately. Consider the following revision to the fallacious argument introduced in OP:

"Most women cannot be Navy Seals, since women generally are not as strong as men."

This is a true statement provided the following premises suggested in OP are true:

1. Human males are generally stronger than human females.
2. The role of Navy Seal demands strength above (or even at) the human male average.

The problem is that most individuals are insufficiently discriminatory to recognize the subtle differences between similar logical arguments, let alone their relevance. For most, introducing them to the error will not lead to better generalizations. At most it will lead them to outright rejection of all generalization and make them dubious of any argument employing it regardless of validity.

To be a tard for the sake of being a tard, it is not strength that makes someone a seal and another not. It is determination and ability to ignore instincts and rudimentary urges.

Leadsalad · Aug 18, 2017

You kind of do still need to be a strength mutant to get through training.

ZyyzYzzy · Aug 18, 2017

Leadsalad said:
You kind of do still need to be a strength mutant to get through training.

I'll say it again, stength isn't what makes a special operator.

Leadsalad · Aug 18, 2017

So I can get through BUDS as a 98lb female who couldn't curl anything greater than a soda?

ZyyzYzzy · Aug 18, 2017

Leadsalad said:
So I can get through BUDS as a 98lb female who couldn't curl anything greater than a soda?

How about not being a faggot? An strength male can get through BUDS..

Search

the ecological fallacy and identity politics

Ukerric

Bearded Ape

AngryGerbil

Poet Warrior

Sadre Spinegnawer

AngryGerbil

Poet Warrior

Sentagur

Low and to the left

AngryGerbil

Poet Warrior

Sentagur

Low and to the left

AngryGerbil

Poet Warrior

TrollfaceDeux

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer

Sadre Spinegnawer

AngryGerbil

Poet Warrior

Lanx

Sentagur

Low and to the left

Sadre Spinegnawer

maskedmelon

Orator of Superfluous Nothings

ZyyzYzzy

RIP USA

Leadsalad

Cis-XYite-Nationalist

ZyyzYzzy

RIP USA

Leadsalad

Cis-XYite-Nationalist

ZyyzYzzy

RIP USA