Normal_Anomaly comments on [SEQ RERUN] Why Are Individual IQ Differences OK? - Less Wrong

11 Post author: MinibearRex 09 October 2011 03:07AM

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

Comments (119)

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

Comment author: Normal_Anomaly 13 October 2011 12:33:05AM *  6 points [-]

If humans were perfect reasoners, your objection would be valid. But people are irrational, and will tend to over-discriminate based on race if minor discrimination (based on the amount of info race does provide) is socially allowed.

Here's a thought experiment: have a bunch of typical humans guess the intelligence of a group of subjects, knowing their test scores, grades, and job performance, but not race. Then have the same judges guess the intelligence of a second group of subjects, using all the above info plus race, and the fact that "on average, whites are smarter than blacks" without any quantitative data on by how much*. I consider it likely that the second group, despite having more information, will be less accurate than the first. Therefore, if race-based IQ differences exist, we should try to ignore them unless we know their magnitude and are confident in our own rationality.

  • "On average, whites are smarter than blacks" is all most people will remember from an article on race and IQ, and they won't think to look up by how much.
Comment author: lessdazed 13 October 2011 01:10:36AM 1 point [-]

people are irrational, and will tend to over-discriminate based on race if minor discrimination (based on the amount of info race does provide) is socially allowed.

What will happen at various degrees of minor discrimination not being socially allowed?

Comment author: Normal_Anomaly 13 October 2011 01:46:42AM 1 point [-]

I don't have any data to hand on this issue, but there is some optimal amount of disseminated info+set of social norms that maximizes people's ability to correctly judge others' merit. Ceteris paribus, let's go with that.

Comment author: lessdazed 13 October 2011 01:55:34AM 2 points [-]

some optimal amount of disseminated info+set of social norms that maximizes people's ability to correctly judge others' merit.

I agree, but that means the optimum norms are a balance rather than to be maximally vigilant hunting down minor discrimination. Since the maximum is wrong, this means that complaints that something is the type of thing that should be socially disallowed are highly suspect.

Comment author: Normal_Anomaly 13 October 2011 02:05:06AM 1 point [-]

Yes. I don't mean that it should be totally disallowed. The optimal thing would be to weight it appropriately. However, it may be that there can't be any other states in society other than "ban it/make things race-blind" and "allow it/don't make things race-blind".