How would you respond if you assumed (correctly) that
(1) I have read a number of your writings and appreciated them, earning my respect FWIW. I was feeling happy to have a chance to explore some concepts with somebody I respect. I did not expect your reaction, tho.
(2) I was largely agreeing with …
How would you respond if you assumed (correctly) that
(1) I have read a number of your writings and appreciated them, earning my respect FWIW. I was feeling happy to have a chance to explore some concepts with somebody I respect. I did not expect your reaction, tho.
(2) I was largely agreeing with you, not disagreeing. I may emphasize a different facet, or phrase something my own way, but that doesn't mean I'm an adversary.
(3) I was neither denying any role for genetics, nor imputing that you were denying environmental factors; just not thing existing in my mind (however clumsily conveyed)
(4) Having read other work by you, I already know you are not a modern neo-progressive, and that we share a disenchantment from what it has become. However, the issues of intelligence and population groups is an exceptionally explosive subject, and can cause problems even for non-progressives, so I wanted to note that.
Clearly, I have badly miscommunicated and apologize for that. I would appreciate if you could quote what I said that led you to believe (1) that I was denying any role for genetics, or (2) that I thought (almost insultingly) that you were denying any role for environment. I'd like to learn to avoid whatever I wrote that came across so far from my intent (I'm in what my spouse calls "debug mode"). Sometimes our words can be interpreted in ways we did not intend, so we need to learn how to avoid that when possible. That's my task.
OK, thanks. The last word was not meant to mitigate anything, but to explain that I was presenting a hypothetical rather than an assertion. Read it in the spirit of "EVEN IF the differences were 100% environmental... certain issues remain". I appreciate your explaining; I do not always anticipate all the ways something I write can be interpreted, so this is helpful.
Wow. Can we reset and reparse, Chris?
How would you respond if you assumed (correctly) that
(1) I have read a number of your writings and appreciated them, earning my respect FWIW. I was feeling happy to have a chance to explore some concepts with somebody I respect. I did not expect your reaction, tho.
(2) I was largely agreeing with you, not disagreeing. I may emphasize a different facet, or phrase something my own way, but that doesn't mean I'm an adversary.
(3) I was neither denying any role for genetics, nor imputing that you were denying environmental factors; just not thing existing in my mind (however clumsily conveyed)
(4) Having read other work by you, I already know you are not a modern neo-progressive, and that we share a disenchantment from what it has become. However, the issues of intelligence and population groups is an exceptionally explosive subject, and can cause problems even for non-progressives, so I wanted to note that.
Clearly, I have badly miscommunicated and apologize for that. I would appreciate if you could quote what I said that led you to believe (1) that I was denying any role for genetics, or (2) that I thought (almost insultingly) that you were denying any role for environment. I'd like to learn to avoid whatever I wrote that came across so far from my intent (I'm in what my spouse calls "debug mode"). Sometimes our words can be interpreted in ways we did not intend, so we need to learn how to avoid that when possible. That's my task.
"The differences could be 100% due to environment and 0% due to genetics (hypothetically)"
The last word doesn't mitigate it.
OK, sorry if I sounded like I was bristling. I wasn't, but I see how it could read that way. Fair do's.
OK, thanks. The last word was not meant to mitigate anything, but to explain that I was presenting a hypothetical rather than an assertion. Read it in the spirit of "EVEN IF the differences were 100% environmental... certain issues remain". I appreciate your explaining; I do not always anticipate all the ways something I write can be interpreted, so this is helpful.