STer

No I simply "exposed" myself as someone who is aware that not all of human life takes place at the level of the individual and that any organized group of any kind, state or no state, requires decision-making. I can't imagine how anyone would seriously refute either of those claims. I think many of us who were indoctrinated in various ways felt the wrongness of it from very early on. It's exactly why so many of us, when we later find philosophy and various concepts that make sense of that feeling, don't experience it as a sudden realization that anything is wrong but more a relief to finally understand what it was. Remember the "splinter in your mind" concept in The Matrix? It's just like that. So I disagree with you. I think many many people who were raised in ways that pushed them out of their authentic self feel something is off long before they have any outside validation of it.

You're misunderstanding something. If we were tabula rasa, a blank slate, then you could push every person toward any trait and, as you say, they wouldn't feel any differently since they had no inborn predilection that it goes against. They'd have no feeling that it wasn't them because there was no "them" before the programming. The fact that people do suffer when pushed in an inauthentic direction, which you agree happens, is a symptom of the fact that we are not tabula rasa. We are born with certain inclinations, which is why, if you push everyone in one direction, some will suffer and others will not. That's fine but if you stop with just that, then you can never have institutions or organized communities of any kind. If you have institutions then there will have to be some process for decision-making within them and my point is that in those institutions or organized communities where rationality is crucial, there I would like to see the T style take precedence. But I don't think the T style needs to take precedence everywhere. I don't know if you are saying you want there to be no organized groups of any kind or what. But this gets into another pet peeve of mine which is hyperindividualism, making the individual level out to be everything and diminishing the role of other levels of human systems.

Well said. That reinforces the idea that it is wrong to "condition" another human to your views. Presenting one's views, and allowing them to stand, or fall, on their own merit, would seem to be the more free-market stance. I must admit, my "rational" stance, in all its nuances, cannot be claimed as the "be-all-end-all" of humanity. It just seems the most effective, especially in a world succumbing to irrationality. My point was that we are not a tabula rasa. If we were, nobody would suffer being pushed into being something they're not since there would be no such thing as being something you're not. I see the world as split between areas where irrationality is fine and areas where it's really unethical because of the damage it causes. I would like to see rational people in charge of the areas where rationality is really necessary, but I don't need or want to see rationals running everything on earth.

Yes Enneagram is very interesting too and in some ways even more useful than MBTI. Remember MBTI just indicates preferences. Nobody is 100% on any of them. ESFP's do make choices using logic to some extent, they just prefer to make them on their "gut." And your argument works both ways. Nobody can be a 100% T either and do very well in the world. But this is also cultural. In some cultures, it's easier to be an I than an E or an E than an I or a T than an F and so on. It sounds like you idealize T and think it is superior to F. I don't think that. I think they both have their place. Also part of the problem is the overly individualistic world view. These types evolved, I believe, because they each played a role in a community. They were never meant to exist in isolation from each other. F's evolved to live amongst T's who would balance them out and vice-versa as the community made decisions. You might have read my bit about "true type" vs. "reactive type" on my page. If so, you know that I realize one's inborn type interacts with the environment to give us what we see in the present day. But I don't believe we are a tabula rasa. You can take someone who is a T and force them toward F or vice-versa via upbringing. But if it's not their inclination, they may well suffer or have to repress to make that change. If you raise an F as an F, they will feel healthy and whole being an F. If you raise a T as an F, they may well feel something is missing and have defense mechanisms in place trying to cope with being something they're authentically not.

If you're going to do it in your sleep and you are going to sleep now, then why isn't it being continued immediately?

The T/F in Myers-Briggs is specifically about how one makes decisions. And I'm arguing that there are indeed reasons why emotional decision-making, not just emotional expression, is an important capacity to exist in our species. For me it's more about which kinds of decisions are best made emotionally vs. logically and having people with the right skills involved in the right places. Of course you don't advocate making decisions on "gut," darkskyabove. Everything you're saying screams out that you're clearly a strong T The point is there are lot of people who are F's who believe just as strongly in the other direction. And this is deep stuff, temperament. It may even tie into brain structure or function. I think one of the most misguided ideas promulgated on FDR is that feeling-based decision-making is basically a pathological symptom of abuse and when healed everyone would be T's. I think it can work both ways. An F can be abused into being a hyper-T and vice-versa. Sometimes the extreme hyperrationality screams trauma to me just as much as the extreme emotion-based decision making. The question you'll have to grapple with is, if a significant percentage of people are simply by nature F's, what do you propose to do? Are you going to try to encourage them to go against their nature and act like T's? Or do you really think everyone is a T and F's are all just people who have been abused out of their natural T'ness?

The problem isn't how many "allegations" you have or how "good" they are. It's the type of "evidence" you're providing. It's all anecdotal and circumstantial by your own admission and completely untestable. And I don't value that type of information very highly when it comes to a highly complex and biased subject. In an everyday matter where there is no serious controversy and nobody has any incentive to mislead themselves, I might not have a problem accepting that type of information and running with it. I'd still admit that technically I don't know, but it's safe enough to base minor decisions on. But with something as fraught with complexity as the supernatural issue, that kind of data is not going to be enough to overcome all the potential bias. The main purpose of the scientific method is to reduce bias. And this is a topic extremely high in bias. In fact, one form of bias shows in your own apparent eagerness to believe. You strongly want to believe one way as opposed to the other on this issue. You don't just want to find the truth, but you want the truth to be one way vs. another. There is also enormous bias involved because this is an issue that deals with the very types of perceptions that are most vague and difficult to pin down, making the perceptual claims less trustworthy than ever. And in situations full of bias like that, the standard for what counts as impressive evidence goes way up. I'd need at the very least over 50% certainty to really even start to believe in anything supernatural. 60% would get me seriously considering it. And what's most missing here is any kind of predictability or repeatability to show me cause and effect are involved. When I search my heart what I find is probably what you find, an appreciation for the fact that it could be a beautiful thing if the world had more in it than mundane materialism. It would be thrilling to find that out, though scary in some ways too. I have no dearth of appreciation for the emotions involved. But it's precisely because of those emotions that the standard for evidence has to be raised. If you really care about finding truth, then you should be most skeptical when you know you have a bias toward believing something so as to compensate for your own resulting flawed perception. As for Pascal's Wager, if there is a genuine conversion, then where is the wager? If you've actually been converted, then how do you even have a choice? At that point how could you not believe even if you tried? I thought the whole point of the wager is that if you're undecided and could go either way, you should supposedly choose to believe because that will be more likely rewarded.

This reminds me of another relevant point. The Thinking (T) vs. Feeling (F) preference on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator may be in play here. It identifies whether you prefer to make decisions based on logical analysis of pros and cons (T) or go with your "gut" (F). I am really balanced on the two which is why I see both sides of this and I understand the desire to go with the gut but I also have to keep that in check by being skeptical so I don't become gullible which can leave one vulnerable to being taken advantage of. Some in highly rational forums might see it as a battle between thinkers and feelers and wish everyone would become a thinker and believe the world would then be a better place. But there are many fields where feelers do great work that we all value. The world would be a far less wonderful place if either T's or F's disappeared. I believe they both evolved because they played an important role in our species' thriving. To me the issue is having those functions used in appropriate ways so they complement each other. By the way, it's not really important whether you like or believe in the validity of Myers-Briggs as a whole. Some people prefer to make decisions logically, others with their gut and some prefer one or the other to a greater or lesser degree. I don't think anyone would refute that. The T/F distinction is just a way of communicating that preference concisely.

Yes I think you'll find epistemology really speaks to you. I don't believe I am the one who sets the bar. I just respect where I believe the bar is. If the bar can't be reached, then we should remain agnostic. That's my view. I don't think we should readjust the bar just so something can meet the standard. Is this like affirmative action for ideas? As long as that's the case I will have to remain agnostic. In keeping with the epistemology topic, I think we differ strongly on what it means to "know" something if you think we know what you just claimed. At best, what we might know is that some people had an illness and around the time of a visit somewhere it went into remission. Again, to claim they were cured at the site, implying that the visit to the site was the reason they were cured, is pure speculation. I didn't say my standard was certainty. The irony is that in other threads, I've made the point that we know nothing for certain and been bashed by a few people for it. But I do have a certain threshold of probability that I need reached for different things. To file for divorce, you may need to be 70% certain that you're making the right decision. For starting a new business, maybe your standard is that you think it's just more likely to work than not work. To believe that supernatural events occur, I'd need a pretty high level of probability. And that's what research does. It increases our confidence level, not to 100%, but closer to it than before. As far as I can tell we have a confidence level on the supernatural of almost nothing. It's very very low. Pascal's wager is deeply flawed. So much so that there is an entire section on its Wikipedia page about the refutations of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager#Criticism I had already seen through the faulty logic of it years before I found that page. It just sort of symbolized how flawed it is when I saw that section. The most simple argument against it, which I realized a long time ago is that it assumes a God that would be pleased with someone believing just to serve their own best interest. How do you know God doesn't punish people who try to game the system even harder than those who honestly doubt? It's based on pure assumption about what type of God there is and what that God values. If the assumption is wrong, the entire thing is wrong and your wager might end up costing you more than it gains you. Are you even serious with that? Surely you kow that's like anti-atheism 101, the kind of stuff most atheists have heard 5000 times by the time they're 20. I'm agnostic, not atheist, so it doesn't really apply to me. But my feeling is that if there is a God, God would know better than anyone how sincerely and with how much effort I've tried to genuinely understand the world and that that is the best I can do. And you have no idea, if there is a God, what that God values more - sincere effort in understanding, even if filled with doubt, or blind faith.

I consider myself an agnostic both on God and the supernatural in general. That's where I'll remain until I see reasonably conclusive evidence establishing anything supernatural. Perhaps I'm not your target audience and you're going more for the hardcore materialists who refuse to even consider or investigate anything beyond that. That isn't me. I agree that it is not rational to refuse investigation of anything (although we do have to prioritize due to limited resources, but we shouldn't refuse to investigate anything as a rule just based on prejudice). That's why I wouldn't label myself as a materialist who insists there is not and can never be anything beyond that. I just have no evidence I consider sufficient to accept there is anything beyond that at this time. So I don't think our positions are very far apart. It seems like the only real gap is what you call "proof" and where we put the threshold for that. Like I said before, this is just a basic epistemology discussion. In fact, you'd probably be better off not even mentioning any specific issue like the supernatural and just laying your epistemological cards on the table. You are someone who believes that knowing something requires less burden of proof than some of the rest of us do. You're willing to accept something as true with less systematically analyzed evidence than us. You see a large number of reasonable sounding stories as worthy of saying something supernatural likely exists. I just see them as worthy of saying something exists and we have no idea yet what it is. I think all this boils down to is you have one epistemological approach (there is probably even a name for your view of epistemology, but I don't know the category names that well, perhaps someone can help with that answer) and the rest of us have a somewhat more rigorous approach. Epistemology debates are very interesting and I find that a large percentage of other debates end up boiling down to an epistemological difference anyway so it makes sense to just cut to the chase. As long as two people are coming from incompatible epistemological positions, other debates they have will likely be irresolvable. Much more efficient to make the epistemological difference explicit and then talk directly about that.

My worldview on the subject is that we have no solid establishment of any supernatural phenomena so we should remain agnostic and keep investigating. If we find something more solid where the mechanism is established as supernatural, then we can change to belief in the supernatural. Is this a worldview you think should change? If so, to what?

You must not be replying to me. I've said over and over that we should indeed investigate these cases to see if we can find a mechanism. If we can't find a mechanism, all we can say is some people report a correlation between some things, we have no idea if the correlation is real or if so what it even indicates and our default position must remain agnostic on the subject of the supernatural. I don't know what more you think is merited. You said: "A rational person should be willing to examine the evidence for extraordinary claims even it falls short of providing proof on a silver platter." I agree. The question is what you mean by "examine." To me, it's only a significant enough examination to change our viewpoint if we can solidify what the mechanism of the event was and that it was one that cannot fit into a natural explanation of the world - and do so in an unbiased manner. If we examine it only enough to say something interesting happened, we haven't really gained enough understanding to base any new worldview on it.

You're attempting to turn correlation into causation. Even if the facts of the case are accurate - someone was ill, went to one of these places, then suddenly was better - that doesn't tell us what the mechanism was. It's quite possible, even likely, that if thousands of people go to that site, a handful will by chance go just as they were about to go into remission for some other reason. That's just one of many possible alternative explanations of what took place. To claim that there is any substance to saying they were cured miraculously just because they got better in correlation with a trip somewhere is very misguided. Correlation does provide a reason to do further investigation to find the mechanism. If we can't find the mechanism, then we must remain agnostics who admit we still have no reliable evidence for the supernatural.

How can seeing be believing when we have reams of examples of optical illusions where our vision completely lies to us? When you see something it means you perceived it. It doesn't tell you what you perceived exactly or why. Heck, everything you see everyday misleads you to the very foundation. What looks to you like solid matter is actually mostly space. You'd never know the reality based on your raw perception alone. This goes right down to epistemology. If you think that you can know deeply about things just by seeing them - and we're not even talking about really getting to explore them, but sometimes just a quick flash of seeing something for a few seconds - then you have a different epistemology than I do. And if we went by your epistemology we would have a lot more mistaken beliefs about the world than we do.

OP if your argument is that, since people make these claims, they deserve rigorous scientific investigation, I concur. It would be wrong of any scientific thinker to dismiss their claims without investigation. But so far investigation has never shown anything "supernatural" to be the case as far as I know (though many have shown such claims to be based on misunderstandings, confusions or even hoaxes). So what more would you like to happen? The only thing someone making a claim is really entitled to is to have it taken seriously enough to be investigated. Until an investigation with a trustworthy methodology shows a supernatural explanation for what they have claimed, all we can say is that we don't know and the burden of proof remains on them. It's worth noting that any researcher who could with validity and reliability show any of these so-called supernatural events to be real would have made an enormous breakthrough. So there is an incentive to do so if it can truly be shown with strong evidence and repeatability. Yet, still, nobody that I know of has been able to show this.

Thousands of people lying or being mistaken about a subjective experience doesn't strike me as the least bit extraordinary. In fact, it strikes me as quite ordinary.

So it isn't proceeding with integrity to say "Hey you mentioned these statistics here. Could you please share the source with me?" rather than "throwing them out"? It's like if someone doesn't reference the source, rather than retreat to a position of neutrality and uncertainty, you decide that the stated fact is wrong, which is just as impossible to know as assuming it's right at that point.

The study data I have seen suggest spanking ought to be viewed with neutrality or mild suspicion. In your wildest fantasies, did this really not occur to you?! And this conclusion could be easily deduced from the OP. There are two ways one could go with the spanking question (and this is a general theme, if you look at philosophy/science papers on any topic): 1) Is spanking good, or bad? 2) Can we prove hypothesis X regarding spanking? (e.g. hypothesis: spanking a child causes their IQ to drop). Failing to prove a hypothesis doesn't say anything except that you failed to prove the hypothesis (maybe you're just bad at collecting or analyzing data). Succeeding in proving the hypothesis doesn't answer question 1), because question 1) is such an all-encompassing question. There could be dozens or hundreds or facts regarding spanking to consider. And facts aren't even necessary. You could talk in abstract terms about the dignity of a person, or, as you have, you could appeal to our moral instincts, i.e. that spanking an adult seems wrong, and what makes a child any different? If you want to go after question 1) (pretzelogik and Stef), and facts aren't the most important thing to you, be bold and say so. Don't just grab onto stats that seem to support your argument, but are actually built on shaky studies. Doing so will only distract and detract from your overall point. Pretzelogik, if serious (which I'm sometimes doubting), appears to think that when you claim a study is not valid or reliable, it is relevant what the implications of that are. As if we should let pass shaky studies if we like what they support and not call them into question if doing so might help an argument we don't like. Pretzelogik is not apparently able to separate simply requiring data to be accurately reported from taking stances on issues. He thinks if you call out a study that supports a particular viewpoint then you are supporting its opposite. In fact, I think when you support a particular viewpoint but call out the studies that support it just as much as ones against it when merited, you gain credibility. Pretzelogik's view is that of biased people everywhere who call out studies that go against their view but want the ones that support their view to not be questioned. In other words, confirmation bias rather than an honest search for truth whatever it is regardless of the implications. As I've already said, it's completely irrelevant what OP's viewpoint is. He could be the most horrible terrible person on the face of the earth, whose viewpoints we all disagree with vehemently. But if he is correct that Stefan was referencing a faulty study, then that's all that matters in this particular discussion. Feel free to start a new thread where the topic is OP's particular viewpoints. This thread was about the validity of a study Stefan referenced. It may be Pretzel is just pushing buttons. But luckily I think this is worth saying anyways since it is relevant to philosophy in general. This above is so laden with projection and cherry-picking and a multiplicity of fallacies it boggles (it would likely fit comfortably as a counter on some hyperbolic MSM rant about the inherent evil of guns or the like. Which is what passes as argument these days). Yet, these defenses and rationalizations are done in the name of philosophy. I do declare. The OP was a judgment and an opinion, an attempt to set the record straight as it were, about the merits/faults of spanking. The simple and obvious answer to questions about the motivation behind setting the record straight would be something along the lines of: "Spanking is logically contradictory and morally repugnant, but in the interest of the greater good of philosophy, I think it's important to call attention to faulty research." "I am carrying the mantle of factual accountability for Stef and am going to see to it that when a statistic is referenced in his videos, they are accurate, by gum!" And so on. Judgement was introduced in the OP, as has been repeatedly pointed out and studiously ignored. When faced with inquiry, the responses were ad hominems and value projections. If one's intention is to come to the rescue of philosophical integrity, eliminating contradictions from one's own arguments might be a good place to start. As has been pointed out ad naseum, OP's motivations are not relevant. Are you going to accept critique only from those whose motivations you like? If something incorrect is pointed out by someone whose motivations you don't like, will you then refuse to correct it? Are you not allowed to learn from people unless you agree with their motivations? The message is what matters here, not the messenger. You don't want to pay attention to the message so you keep trying to focus on the messenger. Again, compare your response to Stefan's: Stefan's: "Thank you Tim, I really appreciate you bringing that up, I will put our researcher on the data!" Yours paraphrased: "But OP first you have to tell me your motivations. My response depends on what your motivation was, not simply on the merits of whether the study was flawed or not." What more can I say. At this point I'm not even responding for your sake, Pretzel, since you are clearly not going to be convinced, but for others who might read this thread.

The study data I have seen suggest spanking ought to be viewed with neutrality or mild suspicion. In your wildest fantasies, did this really not occur to you?! And this conclusion could be easily deduced from the OP. There are two ways one could go with the spanking question (and this is a general theme, if you look at philosophy/science papers on any topic): 1) Is spanking good, or bad? 2) Can we prove hypothesis X regarding spanking? (e.g. hypothesis: spanking a child causes their IQ to drop). Failing to prove a hypothesis doesn't say anything except that you failed to prove the hypothesis (maybe you're just bad at collecting or analyzing data). Succeeding in proving the hypothesis doesn't answer question 1), because question 1) is such an all-encompassing question. There could be dozens or hundreds or facts regarding spanking to consider. And facts aren't even necessary. You could talk in abstract terms about the dignity of a person, or, as you have, you could appeal to our moral instincts, i.e. that spanking an adult seems wrong, and what makes a child any different? If you want to go after question 1) (pretzelogik and Stef), and facts aren't the most important thing to you, be bold and say so. Don't just grab onto stats that seem to support your argument, but are actually built on shaky studies. Doing so will only distract and detract from your overall point. Pretzelogik, if serious (which I'm sometimes doubting), appears to think that when you claim a study is not valid or reliable, it is relevant what the implications of that are. As if we should let pass shaky studies if we like what they support and not call them into question if doing so might help an argument we don't like. Pretzelogik is not apparently able to separate simply requiring data to be accurately reported from taking stances on issues. He thinks if you call out a study that supports a particular viewpoint then you are supporting its opposite. In fact, I think when you support a particular viewpoint but call out the studies that support it just as much as ones against it when merited, you gain credibility. Pretzelogik's view is that of biased people everywhere who call out studies that go against their view but want the ones that support their view to not be questioned. In other words, confirmation bias rather than an honest search for truth whatever it is regardless of the implications. As I've already said, it's completely irrelevant what OP's viewpoint is. He could be the most horrible terrible person on the face of the earth, whose viewpoints we all disagree with vehemently. But if he is correct that Stefan was referencing a faulty study, then that's all that matters in this particular discussion. Feel free to start a new thread where the topic is OP's particular viewpoints. This thread was about the validity of a study Stefan referenced. It may be Pretzel is just pushing buttons. But luckily I think this is worth saying anyways since it is relevant to philosophy in general.

Here are several other potential motives (besides the super obvious one pointed out by STer--thanks again) you might have considered if the term “bona fides” had any meaning to you: it irritates me when people who purport intellectualism accept reporting uncritically if it’s preaching to the choir, I look for unexploited market niches the same as post-graduate researchers (where are the armies challenging this video?), I think Stef’s message is too valuable to be compromised...et cetera, et cetera. The OP calls out data that are misrepresented and/or meaningless. (And, uh, misrepresentation is not "potentially" irresponsible.) I have no idea what you think you mean by “inaccurate”. And I think it’s hilarious that you’re willing to outright concede the legitimacy of my concern. No pushback at all? Come on, my arguments aren’t that good. It’s precisely this lack of pushback that makes your trolling so transparent. And now you make it even more transparent by focusing on an irrelevant side-comment made to a person with whom I was commiserating about being trolled (by you). Please. If you have serious questions that don’t relate to the OP (including your desperate supicion that I support child abuse), you could always exercise the PM function. My good faith towards you hasn’t been exhausted just yet, despite that yours towards me started out in the negative. I started out with simple inquiries, no judgement. Simple questions, that inquire as to the specifics of your post. I don't purport intellectualism, nor do I take any statistic on faith. I find it far simpler and more direct to rely on logic and universality. So, yet again, can you just give me a simple response as to whether children are suitable subjects for behavior modification by spanking? There are no statistics or IQ tests required for this answer, it's black and white. Either spanking is an acceptable method of behavior modification or it isn't. If it is, does it only apply to children? If so, why? No statistics required. Is this what you call trolling? There are a few comments in this thread being levied at those who accept information uncritically, yet when questions are posed to those presenting new information, it is referred to as trolling. If the possibility of those with various levels of pigmentation in their skin being biologically/neurologically challenged in some way should be considered, as mentioned, I think it is the responsibility of the claimant to provide some evidence, or perhaps even some data (preferably incontestable), lest the claimant be considered irresponsible. Or such claims could be justified as commiseration and ignored, but that may violate the high standards of intellectual integrity to which those advancing arguments on philosophical forums ought to be held. I think the order of things matters. OP raised an issue with some of the research in one of Stef's videos. You ignored that, didn't address it, and skipped to asking him about other things. The problem isn't that you aren't allowed to ask questions back, but that when you do so in a way that changes the subject while avoiding the question at hand already, that's evasive. OP's personal views are really not even relevant to the point he raised, which was questioning a particular piece of research in Stef's video. It's ad hominem to suggest his views are even relevant. I agree that if he wants to put forth other assertions of his own he has the onus to back those up with solid data, as well. But first and foremost, in this thread, the data in Stef's video that he raised should be addressed. Stef himself was reasonable enough not to question OP's motives or views or anything else. He simply saw the questions about his research and agreed to look into it. It's sad others don't have the same straightforward reaction to it that he did. Once we agree on the importance of verifying the research OP questioned, then it makes sense to move on to other issues. But until then, it's a distraction mechanism.

I think he meant "free thinker." That would make more sense.

Still trying to derail the thread? Does asking for clarification constitute derailing? The OP calls out citation of inaccurate data as potentially irresponsible misdirection. So far so good, better to be accurate with the data. But there must be some reason for calling out the data in the first place, unless it is the intention of the post to challenge any and all data references in any report at any time that may be inaccurate. Here there is a particular bias toward clearing up any fallacies regarding the effects of spanking. My question was and still is: "Why?" Why the concern toward clarifying the misleading data in this area? Why the evasive answer about derailing? Do you want us to think there are biological tendencies where certain people with certain levels of melanin are concerned? I did not reference color, so I am curious as to where we can find accurate data to support those suggestions. Also, is the point of this post to say that since the data is misleading we should re-examine our attitudes toward spanking? If so, what is it about children specifically that makes it acceptable to spank them? Are you kidding me? If a religious person came in here and threw out some nonsense statistic supporting their position and you refuted it and their response was "But why are you refuting it? Let's not talk about the statistic in question, what matters is your motive in refuting it?" you'd find them evasive. But when the fact in question has to do with something you believe in, then you do the same thing and try to focus on the questioner's motive instead of the fact at hand? If a fact is misrepresented, it should be called out and checked on. It doesn't matter what the motive of the person who caught the error is. In fact, even if you completely disagree with their overall position, if you value truth, as people here claim to, you should be eager to check that fact out in an unbiased way. Is the highest value here truth or is it some particular agenda? I agree SO much, with this, and I'm hoping those like you and I can press these issues to the front enough times to make this the respectable philosophy forum that it claims to be instead of the forum philosophers on the outside consider a cult. I don't think that it's too late to save this forum, but I do see a lot of weird, almost religious denial going on with certain topics and elements that blows my mind. I'm a "pure" thinker. I never conform to dogmatic expectations, or friendly rhythms. I just keep coming back the fact that FDR has to make a decision. Is it primarily a philosophical discussion or is it primarily about promoting a particular agenda (ie: non-aggression, peaceful parenting, etc.)? These are all worthy goals, but I think it's a little over the top to say "We are a philosophical conversation and all of our viewpoints are just the unquestionable results of philosophizing." It's putting forth a particular political and social viewpoint while trying to portray it not as a viewpoint at all but objective fact. Time and again I see situations pop up where commitment to a particular agenda like peaceful parenting and commitment to truth and empiricism are both brought up at the same time. And when that happens, which one should take precedence? It all depends on what FDR is. If it's mainly a philosophy conversation dedicated to an epistemological approach like empiricism, that should take precedence. If it's an activist organization for peaceful parenting and non-aggression, then that should take precedence. I think this is all symbolized by the fact FDR is known by almost everyone as a very vocal promoter of anarchism, atheism and non-aggression, yet it never openly declares this as its purpose. It calls itself a philosophy discussion. So there are these mixed messages somewhat.

Still trying to derail the thread? Does asking for clarification constitute derailing? The OP calls out citation of inaccurate data as potentially irresponsible misdirection. So far so good, better to be accurate with the data. But there must be some reason for calling out the data in the first place, unless it is the intention of the post to challenge any and all data references in any report at any time that may be inaccurate. Here there is a particular bias toward clearing up any fallacies regarding the effects of spanking. My question was and still is: "Why?" Why the concern toward clarifying the misleading data in this area? Why the evasive answer about derailing? Do you want us to think there are biological tendencies where certain people with certain levels of melanin are concerned? I did not reference color, so I am curious as to where we can find accurate data to support those suggestions. Also, is the point of this post to say that since the data is misleading we should re-examine our attitudes toward spanking? If so, what is it about children specifically that makes it acceptable to spank them? Are you kidding me? If a religious person came in here and threw out some nonsense statistic supporting their position and you refuted it and their response was "But why are you refuting it? Let's not talk about the statistic in question, what matters is your motive in refuting it?" you'd find them evasive. But when the fact in question has to do with something you believe in, then you do the same thing and try to focus on the questioner's motive instead of the fact at hand? If a fact is misrepresented, it should be called out and checked on. It doesn't matter what the motive of the person who caught the error is. In fact, even if you completely disagree with their overall position, if you value truth, as people here claim to, you should be eager to check that fact out in an unbiased way. Is the highest value here truth or is it some particular agenda?

I agree, although I think the chief reason it’s polarizing is because nobody wants to even think about the possibility that people with darker skin underachieve largely for biological reasons and not purely on the basis of oppression from light-skinned people (if you’re a leftist) or purely on the basis of otherwise reparable cultural dysfunction (if you’re a conservative). Too much hangs on the "everyone created equal" dogma. Thus everything in nature vs. nurture gets tarred and feathered. And of course, ironically, being on the “nature” side really just means you think that nature has a significant effect. Not that environment has no significant effect. (I have never heard of anyone who thinks that.) Meanwhile so many people are desperate to say that everything is 100% environment. I’m glad Stefan agrees it’s both--and I completely understand the prioritization of nurturing techniques, because of course we can’t do anything about nature, and because legit child abuse remains rampant--so if you’ve committed to never striking your children, physical abuse is automatically ruled out. So I sympathize. I just object to dressing up the position with purported “facts” that...aren’t. This is the second time this has come up and I thought we were just talking about ethical issues - like whether some people are born without brains with a capacity for conscience, born psychopaths, for example - and the person instead took it toward the racial subject. Racial differences is not where I'm going with it at all. I agree with maximizing healthy parenting. That's a no-lose. But repeatedly we've been over, in different threads, the fact that not currently having any quick fix for biological contributors to unethical behavior is no excuse for not strongly supporting research into finding them, as well. We never know where that could lead. And, as I've pointed out many times, finding biological markers could, at the very least, allow us to tailor caregiving to a particular child's needs. Perhaps children with certain brain patterns need one type of parenting and those with other patterns respond better to a different type. Both sides of this puzzle deserve serious attention. But when you've already made up your mind that it's "all nurture" you not only don't support the nature side of things being investigated, you tend to oppose it.

Nature vs. nurture is polarizing in part because, in these areas, it's very unsettled science. As I point out often, I don't know of any credible scientist who claims we know one way or another on traits as complex as those involved in ethical behavior. In fact, I think all the credible ones I've heard accept that it's some combination of them and they are inextricably interconnected. So I find it hard to understand anyone claiming it's one or the other and the matter is settled. Even Stefan admits both are involved. But then he usually speaks and prioritizes as if it's really about nurture, not nature. And much of the forum seems to take it as gospel that it's nurture, not nature. And if you question that you get ad hominems and evasions and so on. So I rarely bother bringing it up anymore. It was interesting to see how all you did is question one of the studies in an anti-spanking video and you got the same kinds of responses.