cousin_it comments on A Parable On Obsolete Ideologies - Less Wrong

113 Post author: Yvain 13 May 2009 10:51PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (272)

Comments (272)

Sort By: Best

Show:

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

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 15 May 2009 02:48:27PM 5 points [-]

If all of science agreed that members of one race really were slighty smarter on average than members of another race, that could be extremely demoralizing for the people of the slightly-dumber race. See stereotype threat. This seems like a high price to pay to eliminate a popular falsehood--I imagine their are other falsehoods that would be easier to eliminate for a smaller price. And unlike religion, there's no long-term benefit associated with its removal.

Comment author: cousin_it 15 May 2009 02:57:29PM * 3 points [-]

Science makes a lot of vastly more demoralizing conclusions like Darwinism or the possibility of nuclear weapons. If you really believe what you say you believe, you should focus on debunking those first.

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV comment score below threshold [+] (27 children)

Comment author: cousin_it 17 May 2009 04:32:26PM * 14 points [-]

What's the benefit of knowledge about this being disseminated?

For one, a lot of people would find their accurate reasoning no longer denounced as racist by others. Example: before the crisis SWPL popular opinion blamed bankers for discriminatory mortgage lending to blacks. Government went in and fixed this by fiat. Today the same crowd turns around and blames bankers for disproportionate foreclosures among blacks, not realizing the implicit admission that outlawed lending practices must've been fair.

In short, you didn't succeed in impressing upon me the costs of truth.

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 17 May 2009 05:04:07PM * 3 points [-]

Yes, alright, I see how incorrect egalitarian views could be a problem in scenarios unrelated to college admissions.

Comment deleted 17 May 2009 05:18:24PM * [-]

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 17 May 2009 05:20:57PM 0 points [-]

Sorry, I edited my comment a bunch of times, and I'm unsure which version you're replying to.

In any case, if that's really your view, I'm not sure I like you very much.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 30 April 2013 06:48:45PM * 1 point [-]

But the outlawed lending practices weren't fair. My next door neighbor took forever to get a business loan even though he was an excellent risk. The new system was also broken, but the old one wasn't good.

Edited to Add: To be more specific, his white wife handled the application and it was all smooth sailing until he walked in to sign the bottom line, and then the offer was unceremoniously retracted with no explanation.

Incidentally, when these lending rules came into effect and he did get a loan, his business boomed and he paid it off without incident. So...

Comment author: gwern 30 April 2013 09:43:14PM 6 points [-]

"You say X on average, but a friend of mine did ~X, so you must be wrong!"

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 01 May 2013 01:48:54PM 1 point [-]

It was often enough that it got to be a nationally known problem that needed a solution, right? That the solution was terrible doesn't change that.

Comment author: gwern 01 May 2013 02:45:24PM 3 points [-]

That the solution was terrible doesn't change that.

If the solution didn't work, maybe one should consider the possibility that whatever problem there was, it wasn't what one thought it was.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 01 May 2013 04:04:16PM 1 point [-]

The solution DID work. It just came with a bunch of other problems. Unforeseen consequences do not negate the original problem.

Comment author: gwern 01 May 2013 04:13:30PM 2 points [-]

Actually, they sorta do. ("The operation was a complete success! Unfortunately, the patient died.")

continue this thread »

Comment author: EHeller 01 May 2013 03:09:09PM * 1 point [-]

If the solution didn't work, maybe one should consider the possibility that whatever problem there was, it wasn't what one thought it was.

The solution actually wasn't THAT bad- the community banks actually regulated by the community reinvestment act had/have lower rates of foreclosure then the national average, and lower rates of foreclosure on their loans to minorities.

Edit: this is because they are generally required to keep more skin-in-the-game, not BECAUSE they were regulated by the CRA (most fall under various patches of the regulations put in place after the S&L crisis). My point being, community banks were able to responsibly lend to a diverse population, and certainly the CRA wasn't causal in the foreclosure crisis.

Comment author: gwern 01 May 2013 03:27:21PM 1 point [-]

The solution actually wasn't THAT bad- the community banks actually regulated by the community reinvestment act had/have lower rates of foreclosure then the national average, and lower rates of foreclosure on their loans to minorities.

That doesn't necessarily address my point: if there were unjust discrimination, discrimination which was not a rational reaction to the credit risk, then saying "well, they didn't cause as many losses as some aggregate measure of loss during the greatest period of property-related losses in the history of America" isn't proving that. To prove that, you need to show something like that the loans turned out to have been made profitably on net in the long-term after adjusting for risk and opportunity cost etc.

continue this thread »

cousin_it comments on A Parable On Obsolete Ideologies - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (272)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (272)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login