Difference between revisions of "Intellectual dishonesty"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
KingHanksley (talk | contribs) |
Conservative (talk | contribs) |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
[[Charles Murray]] provides an example of [[liberal]] intellectual dishonesty: | [[Charles Murray]] provides an example of [[liberal]] intellectual dishonesty: | ||
| − | :In their heart of hearts, intellectual elites, especially [[liberal]] ones, have two nasty secrets regarding [[IQ]]. First, they really believe that IQ is the be-all and end-all of human excellence and that someone with a low IQ is inferior. Second, they are already sure that the black - white IQ difference is predominantly genetic and that this is a calamity -- such a calamity indeed that it must not be spoken about, even to oneself. To raise these issues holds a mirror up to the elites' most desperately denied inner thoughts. <ref>http://www.eugenics.net/papers/mssel.html</ref> | + | :In their heart of hearts, intellectual elites, especially [[liberal]] ones, have two nasty secrets regarding [[IQ]]. First, they really believe that IQ is the be-all and end-all of human excellence and that someone with a low IQ is inferior. Second, they are already sure that the black - white IQ difference is predominantly genetic and that this is a calamity -- such a calamity indeed that it must not be spoken about, even to oneself. To raise these issues holds a mirror up to the elites' most desperately denied inner thoughts.<ref>http://www.eugenics.net/papers/mssel.html</ref> |
Intellectual dishonesty often arises when incentives exist for people to advocate stances that they know to be wrong. For instance, handlers{{who}} of political candidates may encourage them to adopt positions that will be popular with the people, regardless of what their personal opinions may be. | Intellectual dishonesty often arises when incentives exist for people to advocate stances that they know to be wrong. For instance, handlers{{who}} of political candidates may encourage them to adopt positions that will be popular with the people, regardless of what their personal opinions may be. | ||
| + | |||
| + | *There is a tradition in politics that is similar to one in the legal profession: When evidence supports your position, make your argument based on the evidence, but when it argues against your position, ignore the evidence and appeal to emotion. [https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/20/climate-change-cultists-vs-scientific-evidence/] | ||
| + | |||
| + | == See also == | ||
| + | |||
| + | *[[Deceit]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | Antonym: | ||
| + | |||
| + | *[[Honesty]] | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
| Line 12: | Line 22: | ||
{{liberalism}} | {{liberalism}} | ||
| − | [[ | + | [[Category:Political Terms]] |
[[Category:Liberal Deceit]] | [[Category:Liberal Deceit]] | ||
[[Category:Liberal Traits]] | [[Category:Liberal Traits]] | ||
Latest revision as of 19:49, January 25, 2025
Intellectual dishonesty is lying about or concealing one's own beliefs.
Charles Murray provides an example of liberal intellectual dishonesty:
- In their heart of hearts, intellectual elites, especially liberal ones, have two nasty secrets regarding IQ. First, they really believe that IQ is the be-all and end-all of human excellence and that someone with a low IQ is inferior. Second, they are already sure that the black - white IQ difference is predominantly genetic and that this is a calamity -- such a calamity indeed that it must not be spoken about, even to oneself. To raise these issues holds a mirror up to the elites' most desperately denied inner thoughts.[1]
Intellectual dishonesty often arises when incentives exist for people to advocate stances that they know to be wrong. For instance, handlers[Who says?] of political candidates may encourage them to adopt positions that will be popular with the people, regardless of what their personal opinions may be.
- There is a tradition in politics that is similar to one in the legal profession: When evidence supports your position, make your argument based on the evidence, but when it argues against your position, ignore the evidence and appeal to emotion. [1]
See also
Antonym: