Read on Twitter
Having followed this kind of discussion with car-crash-level unsettled fascination for a while, ISTM that this intersects with some deep and messy philosophical differences. 
https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🧵" title="Thread" aria-label="Emoji: Thread">1/14 https://twitter.com/IonaItalia/status/1277893083791851520">https://twitter.com/IonaItali...
One side insists on using the word "inferior" and the other insists it& #39;s not what they mean. Assuming for the sake of argument that both are honest (always try that out at least), the disagreement is about whether "has lower intelligence" inherently translates to "inferior". 2/14
They& #39;re different species of concept. Intelligence as "g" is a & #39;positivist& #39;-ish term that& #39;s supposed to measure an abstracted but ultimately material attribute. It belongs in a scientific/materialist interpretive frame. 3/14
"Inferior" on the other hand, is a social/moral concept, referring to something& #39;s proper place in a hierarchy of value. This is an alien framework for scientific concepts that treat the world as atoms in motion. 4/14
From that view, moral and social concepts are not really "there" — they& #39;re projected onto the world by us, and doing that is an action we must actively perform for them to be there at all. If we don& #39;t, they aren& #39;t. 5/14
The other side argues that given the ways material properties reliably interact with the assignment of moral/social properties, they effectively become the same thing and one of them cannot be adressed in isolation. 6/14
In this view, when you say "lower intelligence" you say "socially inferior" whether you mean to or not. More generally I think this implies the conviction that in discourse it& #39;s fair to replace someone& #39;s word with another if they have roughly the same denotation. 7/14
The objection is that words have connotations as well, and it& #39;s through those connotations the mentioned projection of moral/social meaning onto the physical world occurs. Chosen connotation therefore determines what moral/social meaning, or none, is to be inferred. 8/14
E.g. calling somebody "academically challenged" vs. "stupid" may have similar denotations (they refer to similar attributes) but different connotations (does vs. doesn& #39;t assign low moral/socal status). Hence changing connotations changes meaning; it changes what is said. 9/14
(A complicating factor is that moral/social status is both an objective social fact and a subjective value judgment — in fact, it& #39;s an objective social fact *consisting of* many subjective value judgments — and it& #39;s not always clear which meaning is intended.) 10/14
In the end it comes down to whether somebody making a claim has the right to demand that the interpretive frame they used to say it is also privileged with the receiver — or if you can move frameworks freely. 11/14
If the second is assumed correct, then you& #39;re responsible for what you said even thorugh other framworks, which means you should think about it in advance, which means you likely did, and... 12/14
...that you& #39;re intentionally, or at least semintentionally, letting others do your "projecting dirty work" for you.
So, in a truly galaxy-brain move, it comes back down to trust and presumtion of honesty/dishonesty. Thank you, you& #39;ve all been great. 13/14
So, in a truly galaxy-brain move, it comes back down to trust and presumtion of honesty/dishonesty. Thank you, you& #39;ve all been great. 13/14
This thread brought to you by me being inspired from my current re-read of sociologist Ullica SegerstrĂĄle& #39;s fascinating multi-decade chronicle and detailed philosophical unpacking of the sociobiology controversy. 14/14
