Jandila comments on Undiscriminating Skepticism - Less Wrong

97 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 14 March 2010 11:23PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (1329)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 26 September 2011 04:11:18AM 5 points [-]

So, this is well written and does bring up some valid points. But there are some serious issues:

First, your comment about defining racism misses the point: The issue there was specifically whether individuals are being racist and what that means. You seem to be arguing that that might not be terrible relevant. But that doesn't undermine that discussion at all.

Another issue is that there a large set of minorities which have succeeded quite well in the US despite having had serious issues in the past. The Chinese and the Jews are excellent examples (the second curiously enough seems to be overrepresented here.)

so many people here tend to view IQ as primarily-genetic, whereas I tend to view it as more a measure of proficiency at functioning in an industrialized, highly-individualistic, mostly-urban capitalist society.

This confuses me in that you seem to be arguing that ability to function in an "industrialized, highly-individualistic, mostly-urban capitalist society" must not be genetic. But all the time traits which evolved in one context turn out to be relevant in a new environment. Incidentally, there's a fair bit of evidence that conscientiousness matters as much if not more than IQ for actually succeeding in modern societies. (See e.g. this paper).

Comment author: [deleted] 26 September 2011 04:20:32AM -2 points [-]

First, your comment about defining racism misses the point: The issue there was specifically whether individuals are being racist and what that means.

I think it's sort of important to understand what Property X is before we can meaningfully argue about whether a given case specimen has Property X, let alone whether it's meaningful to group them in Reference Class X. Isn't it putting the cart before the horse to do it the other way?

Another issue is that there a large set of minorities which have succeeded quite well in the US despite having had serious issues in the past. The Chinese and the Jews are excellent examples (the second curiously enough seems to be overrepresented here.)

The Chinese and the Jews have hard remarkably different outcome distributions, and Jews in the US generally fit into the "white" category these days (and have for a long time). I'd avoid over-presuming on the amount of success Chinese-Americans have had, too -- see the Model Minority Stereotype, and consider that for most Asian Americans they've only enjoyed comparable gains to many whites at the cost of having to work two to four times harder to achieve it.

Even then, I'd still hardly call Chinese Americans included in mainstream-society; they're still predominantly seen as "other" by whites except insofar as they assimilate.