Lumifer comments on Open thread, Oct. 03 - Oct. 09, 2016 - Less Wrong

4 Post author: MrMind 03 October 2016 06:59AM

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

Comments (175)

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

Comment author: Brillyant 05 October 2016 07:02:37PM -1 points [-]

The problem is that the statistics don't show the claimed bias. Normalized on a per-police-encounter basis, white cops (or cops-in-general) don't appear to shoot black suspects more often than they shoot white suspects. However, police interact with black people more frequently, so the absolute proportion of black shooting victims is elevated.

Can you provide any sources for this?

The fact that the incidence of police encounters with blacks is elevated would be the actual social problem worth addressing, but the reasons for the elevated incidence of police-black encounters do not make a nice soundbite.

Is the incidence of police encounters with blacks elevated?

What are the reasons?

Comment author: Lumifer 05 October 2016 08:15:57PM 4 points [-]

What are the reasons?

For example, there were 4,636 murders committed by white people and 5,620 murders committed by black people in 2015 (source). On the per-capita basis this makes the by-white murder rate to be about 2.2 per 100,000 and the by-black murder rate to be about 16.2 per 100,000.

Comment author: Brillyant 05 October 2016 08:24:15PM 0 points [-]

Why is this?

Comment author: Lumifer 05 October 2016 09:00:47PM 3 points [-]

You asked why is "the incidence of police encounters with blacks elevated". This is a direct answer.

If you want to know the reasons for different crime rates, this is going to get long and complicated.

Comment author: Brillyant 05 October 2016 09:09:47PM 0 points [-]

Can/will you TL;DR your view?

Comment author: Lumifer 06 October 2016 02:52:56PM 3 points [-]

As with any complex phenomenon in a complex system, there is going to be a laundry list of contributing factors, none of which is the cause (in the sense that fixing just that cause will fix the entire problem). We can start with

  • Genetic factors (such as lower IQ)
  • Historical factors, which in turn flow into
  • Cultural factors (such as distrust of the government / law enforcement) and
  • Economic factors (from being poor to having a major presence in the drug trade)

The opinions about the relative weights of these factors are going to differ and in the current political climate I don't think a reasonable open discussion is possible.

Comment author: Brillyant 06 October 2016 04:36:12PM *  -2 points [-]

Genetic factors (such as lower IQ)

What is the best source for this in your view?

Historical factors, Cultural factors, Economic factors

Is it your view that past slavery in America still has a large impact on African Americans in the present day U.S.?

It seems obvious to me that it does, and that the effects are wide and deep, as slavery (and Jim Crow) is relatively recent history—We're only a handful of generations from a time where a race of people was enslaved and systemically kept from accumulating wealth and education.

...I don't think a reasonable open discussion is possible.

Meh. Maybe. I'd like to believe I'm a reasonable guy. My views on these issues are largely ignorant and I'm open to learning.

Comment author: Lumifer 06 October 2016 05:07:42PM *  5 points [-]

What is the best source for this in your view?

The raw data is plentiful -- look at any standardized test scores (e.g. SAT) by race. For a full-blown argument in favor see e.g. this (I can't check the link at the moment, it might be that you need to go to the Wayback Machine to access it). For a more, um, mainstream discussion see Charles Murray's The Bell Curve. Wikipedia has more links you could pursue.

Is it your view that past slavery in America still has a large impact on African Americans in the present day U.S.?

My view is that history is important and that outcomes are path-dependent. Slavery and segregation are crucial parts of the history of American blacks.

open to learning

Your social circles might have a strong reaction to you coming to anything other than the approved conclusions...

Comment author: chron 17 October 2016 11:31:04PM *  1 point [-]

My views on these issues are largely ignorant and I'm open to learning.

So have you actually learned anything from these discussions, in particular, are you willing to admit that the Hillary/Kane analysis of the "implicit biases" of police officers you cited in the OC is wrong?

Comment author: Brillyant 18 October 2016 05:10:23PM *  0 points [-]

So have you actually learned anything

Yes, though mostly indirectly. I've learned mostly from reading about neoreactionaries elsewhere. SSC, Moldbug, etc. I'm learning a lot. Very interesting. This discussion was the catalyst for my reading. So, thanks!

from these discussions

Yes, I've learned some directly from this discussion.

Mostly I've learned that people will get internet-hostile about certain topics. I was already aware of this, but my interaction in this discussion has re-cemented the fact in my mind. I've received a recent -37 karma lashing (to date). A lot of my downvoted comments were just simple sincere questions—I'd admitted my ignorance and was really seeking to understand these issues better. Maybe I'm just annoying to people to know more about these things and my questions seem obvious? I could understand people being annoyed... (Note: I kinda like a mixed karma bag. Nothing so negative so as to be perceived as any dumber than I am... but anything north of 90% on LW would worry me.)

I don't recall much of what I learned directly about this topic directly from this discussion. (Lumifer made some nice points that helped some things make more conceptual sense to me.) At any rate, what I actually learned about this topic from this direct discussion was a tiny percentage of what I've learned from reading elsewhere.

Also, it appears your account is very new—I'm hypothesizing this fact, along with my recent negative karma streak, along with the stories I've read about others' similar experiences when engaging in such topics...means you are the sock puppet of Eugine Nier. The Eugine Nier. That's super cool! Nice to meet you, Eugine. I've heard so much about you and I'm honored to... have drawn your ire. :)

in particular, are you willing to admit that the Hillary/Kane analysis of the "implicit biases" of police officers you cited in the OC is wrong.

Yes. Yes, I think there is a bit more to this than I realized.

I still think HRC's point was refreshing in the context of the debate, and potentially useful. But I'm wavering. I still believe people are (1) biased based on race (2) this bias can be unconscious and (3) this unconscious bias' effect would be pronounced in a high stress, high consequence environment where someone needed to act quickly (like what police officers face when they are in close proximity to a suspect). I'm cynical enough about politics not to be excited that HRC's one liner will change anything. Or that she intended it as very much more than a rhetorical judo move in that debate...

Anyway, I'm still thinking and reading about all of this stuff. My current epistemic status is "Oh Shit I'm Soooo Ignorant While Shaking My Head"

A sincere thank you for the interaction.

Comment author: chron 18 October 2016 06:38:41PM 2 points [-]

Yes, though mostly indirectly.

In particular did you know about the different rates of murder commited by blacks and whites before posting the OC?

But I'm wavering. I still believe people are (1) biased based on race (2) this bias can be unconscious and (3) this unconscious bias' effect would be pronounced in a high stress, high consequence environment where someone needed to act quickly (like what police officers face when they are in close proximity to a suspect).

Do you have any evidence for this belief? If so, why haven't you presented it anywhere in this thread? Or does "bias" in this case mean that the cops understand the differences in muder rates?

Comment author: ChristianKl 06 October 2016 08:32:52PM 0 points [-]

Is it your view that past slavery in America still has a large impact on African Americans in the present day U.S.?

What do you mean with that question? How do you compare the present state of the US with a counterfactual US where African Americans weren't in slavery?

Comment author: Brillyant 06 October 2016 09:56:59PM *  -1 points [-]

I think it's pretty easy to hypothesize about the possible effects of slavery vs. no slavery.

In the context of this thread, it was mentioned that the murder rate was much higher for blacks versus whites. If there are socioeconomic reasons for this, then I'm curious about slavery's contribution to those factors.

Politically, I'm generally empathetic toward ideas like affirmative action in the U.S. on the basis of race because there has been serious discrimination in the U.S. on the basis of race in the past. It makes practical sense to posit it created a "headstart" for races who were not... enslaved... and otherwise discriminated against and it makes ethical sense to employ measures to even the score.

I'm open to the idea ideas like AA may not actually practically work and could be persuaded as such by the evidence.

Comment author: ChristianKl 07 October 2016 10:50:01AM *  0 points [-]

I'm open to the idea ideas like AA may not actually practically work

While we are at the topic of cognitive biases, how do you know that's the case? Quite many people believe that they are much more open than they are.

The fact that you for example didn't follow up with the request to explain your own view in this thread is a sign that you don't put effort into engaging in the kind of actions that require you to actually express your ideas explicitly enough to find flaws.

Comment author: ChristianKl 05 October 2016 09:46:15PM 0 points [-]

I would also be interested in your view.