Oscar_Cunningham comments on Rationality Quotes April 2012 - Less Wrong

4 Post author: Oscar_Cunningham 03 April 2012 12:42AM

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

Comments (858)

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

Comment author: MixedNuts 09 April 2012 03:24:07PM *  12 points [-]

On specificity and sneaking on connotations; useful for the liberal-minded among us:

I think, with racism and sexism and 'isms' generally, there's a sort of confusion of terminology.

A "Racist1" is someone, who, like a majority of people in this society, has subconsciously internalized some negative attitudes about minority racial groups. If a Racist1 takes the Implicit Association Test, her score shows she's biased against black people, like the majority of people (of all races) who took the test. Chances are, whether you know it or not, you're a Racist1.

A "Racist2" is someone who's kind of an insensitive jerk about race. The kind of guy who calls Obama the "Food Stamp President." Someone you wouldn't want your sister dating.

A "Racist3" is a neo-Nazi. You can never be quite sure that one day he won't snap and kill someone. He's clearly a social deviant.

People use the word "Racist" for all three things, and I think that's the source of a lot of arguments. When people get accused of being racists, they evade responsibility by saying, "Hey, I'm not a Racist3!" when in fact you were only saying they were Racist1 or Racist2. But some of the responsibility is on the accusers too -- if you say "That Republican's a racist" with the implication of "a jerk" and then backtrack and change the meaning to "vulnerable to unconscious bias", then you're arguing in bad faith. Never mind that some laws and rules which were meant to protect people from Racist3's are in fact deployed against Racist2's.

-celandine13

Comment author: Oscar_Cunningham 09 April 2012 06:31:28PM 1 point [-]

Surely one of the definitions of "racist" should contain something about thinking that some races are better than others. Or is that covered under "neo-Nazi"?

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 09 April 2012 07:41:11PM 4 points [-]

Depends on what you mean by "better". There's a difference between taking the data on race and IQ seriously, and wanting to commit genocide.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 09 April 2012 08:17:07PM 1 point [-]

(blink)

Can you unpack the relationship here between some available meaning of "better" and wanting to commit genocide?

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 09 April 2012 08:40:02PM 3 points [-]

Can you unpack the relationship here between some available meaning of "better" and wanting to commit genocide?

That's the question I was implicitly asking Oscar.

Comment author: wedrifid 09 April 2012 09:02:41PM 2 points [-]

Can you unpack the relationship here between some available meaning of "better" and wanting to commit genocide?

Most obvious plausible available meaning for 'better' that fits: "Most satisfies my average utilitarian values".

(Yes, most brands of simple utilitarianism reduce to psychopathy - but since people still advocate them we can consider the meaning at least 'available'.)

Comment author: TheOtherDave 09 April 2012 09:52:10PM 0 points [-]

Fair enough.

Comment author: Oscar_Cunningham 09 April 2012 07:53:48PM 0 points [-]

Sure, I just thought it was weird that the definitions given barely even mentioned race.

Comment author: thomblake 10 April 2012 07:34:13PM *  3 points [-]

I'm pretty sure that's covered under Racist1. Note the word "negative".

Though it's odd that Racist1 specifically refers to "minorities". The entire suite seems to miss folks that favor a "minority" race.

Comment author: CaveJohnson 24 April 2012 04:25:03PM *  4 points [-]

Not really it is perfectly possible to be explicitly aware of one's racial preferences and not really be bothered by having such preferences, at least no more than one is bothered by liking salty food or green parks, yet not be a Nazi or prone to violence.

Indeed I think a good argument can be made not only that large number of such people lived in the 19th and 20th century, but that we probably have millions of them living today in say a place like Japan.

And that they are mostly pretty decent and ok people.

Edit: Sorry! I didn't see the later comments already covering this. :)

Comment author: gjm 12 April 2012 09:43:10PM 1 point [-]

Negative subconscious attitudes aren't the same thing as (though they might cause or be caused by) conscious opinions that such-and-such people are inferior in some way.

Comment author: thomblake 12 April 2012 09:44:36PM 3 points [-]

Ah yes - it's extra-weird that someone isn't allowed in that framework to have conscious racist opinions but not be a jerk about it.

Comment author: Normal_Anomaly 12 April 2012 10:53:14PM 1 point [-]

If one has conscious racist opinions, or is conscious that one has unconscious racist opinions (has taken the IAT but doesn't explicitly believe negative things about blacks) but doesn't act on them, it's probably because one doesn't endorse them. I'd class such a person as a Racist1.

Comment author: thomblake 12 April 2012 10:56:53PM 5 points [-]

I don't think not being an "insensitive jerk" is the same as not acting on one's opinions.

For example, if I think that people who can't do math shouldn't be programmers, and I make sure to screen applicants for math skills, that's acting on my opinions. If I make fun of people with poor math skills for not being able to get high-paying programmer jobs, that's being an insensitive jerk.

Comment author: Normal_Anomaly 14 April 2012 05:07:57PM *  -1 points [-]

That's true. I was taking "racist opinions" to mean "incorrect race-related beliefs that favor one group over another". If people who couldn't do math were just as good at programming as people who could, and you still screened applicants for math skills, that would be a jerk move. If your race- or gender- or whatever-group-related beliefs are true, and you act on them rationally (e.g. not discriminating with a hard filter when there's only a small difference), then you aren't being any kind of racist by my definition.

ETA: did anyone downvote for a reason other than LocustBeamGun's?

Comment author: [deleted] 14 April 2012 08:31:33PM *  4 points [-]

(ETA: I didn't downvote, but) I wouldn't call gender differences in math "small" - the genders have similar average skills but their variances are VERY different. As in, Emmy Noether versus ~everyone else.

And if there is a great difference between groups it would be more rational to apply strong filters (except for example people who are bad at math, conveniently, aren't likely to become programmers). Perhaps the downvoter(s) thought you only presented the anti-discrimination side of the issue.

Comment author: Normal_Anomaly 14 April 2012 11:15:38PM *  0 points [-]

I think in most cases the average is more important in deciding how much to discriminate. But I deleted the relevant phrase because I'm not sure about that specific case and my argument holds about the same amount of water without it as with it.

EDIT:

Perhaps the downvoter(s) thought you only presented the anti-discrimination side of the issue.

Huh, I was intending to say that it's acceptable to discriminate on real existing differences, to the extent that those differences exist. Not sure how to fix my comment to make that less ambiguous, so just saying it straight out here.

Comment author: wedrifid 14 April 2012 07:16:05PM 5 points [-]

If people who couldn't do math were just as good at programming as people who could, and you still screened applicants for math skills, that would be a jerk move.

Not to mention a bad business decision.

Comment author: Normal_Anomaly 14 April 2012 11:17:51PM 0 points [-]

That too, thanks for pointing it out.

Comment author: [deleted] 25 April 2012 11:44:57AM *  0 points [-]

Indeed. For some reason I'm not sure of, I instinctively dislike Chinese people, but I don't endorse this dislike and try to acting upon it as little as possible (except when seeking romantic partners -- I think I do get to decide what criteria to use for that).

Comment author: TheOtherDave 25 April 2012 12:46:45PM 1 point [-]

Can you expand on the difference you see between acting on your (non-endorsed) preferences in romantic partners, and acting on those preferences in, for example, friends?

Comment author: [deleted] 25 April 2012 01:57:20PM *  0 points [-]

As for this specific case, I don't happen to have any Chinese friend at the moment, so I can't.

More generally, see some of the comments on this Robin Hanson post: not many of them seem to agree with him.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 25 April 2012 02:15:46PM 1 point [-]

I don't understand how not having any Chinese friends at the moment precludes you from expanding on the differences between acting on your dislike of Chinese people when seeking romantic partners and acting on it in other areas of your life, such as maintaining friendships.

Yes, the commenters on that post mostly don't agree with him.

That said, I would summarize most of the exchange as:
"Why are we OK with A, but we have a problem with B?"
"Because A is OK and B is wrong!"

Which isn't quite as illuminating as I might have liked.

Comment author: [deleted] 25 April 2012 02:37:54PM 0 points [-]

I don't understand how not having any Chinese friends at the moment precludes you from expanding on the differences between acting on your dislike of Chinese people when seeking romantic partners and acting on it in other areas of your life, such as maintaining friendships.

Since I'm not maintaining any friendships with Chinese people, I can't see what it would even mean for me to act on my dislike of Chinese people in maintaining friendships. As for ‘other areas of my life’, this means that if I attempt to interact with a Chinese-looking beggar the same way I'd behave I'd interact with an European-looking beggar, to read a paper by an author with a Chinese-sounding name the same way I'd read one by an author with (say) a Polish-sounding name, and so on. (I suspect I might have misunderstood your question, though.)