= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on Open thread, Oct. 03 - Oct. 09, 2016 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (175)
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
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.
What is the best source for this in your view?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Your social circles might have a strong reaction to you coming to anything other than the approved conclusions...
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?
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!
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. :)
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.
In particular did you know about the different rates of murder commited by blacks and whites before posting the OC?
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?
I don't think I knew that particular stat was an empirical fact, though I wasn't surprised by it. My view, generally, was that blacks in America earned less, had higher incarceration rates, etc. The causes interest me.
I believe all three of my points are basically non-controversial, specifically #2 and #3. #1 is true in at least some cases based on many, many experiences I've had. How widespread racial bias is, and to what extent it effects people, is the crux of the matter in my view.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean...
Well, the proximate cause of them having higher incarceration rates is them having higher crime rates. The reason for the higher crime rates isn't directly relevant to the discussion of police "racial bias".
How did this "racial bias" manifest itself? Them acting like they believed blacks were more likely to be criminals than whites. Or even willingness to shoot a black who was running at him and grabing for his gun?
It's not? How do you know?
Police bias seems likes it could be directly related to crime rates (since it's the cops who do the arresting).
Judgements based only on race.
I'm not arguing every white cop who shoots a black person is racist. Not even close. I'm trying to understand what impact implicit racial bias might have in policing.
Good chat. I'm out.
I'm not sure what your trying to say here? Are you saying that police framing black suspects is responsible for the statistics showing blacks being over seven times for likely to commit murder than whites, because that's the only way police bias could be the cause of the crime rates.
Well blacks are over seven times more likely to commit a murder than whites so you've failed to establish that the judgement was irrational.
Well somehow every prominent example sited by the type of people arguing for police being "racially biased" up on investigation turns out to be similarly justified.
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?
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.
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.
I don't know. I'm probably biased. But I feel pretty strongly that I'd like to know the truth. I'm sure I'm subject to the same deep, irrational Red v. Blue tribalism as most other humans, but I try to be as rational as I can.
Ah. I assumed your earlier comment in this thread was misplaced and you intended, "Lumifer: I, like Brillyant, am also interested in hearing your view." I am flattered you care about my view.
As I mentioned, I consider myself ignorant on the issue. That is, quite literally, I admit I don't know and have low confidence in my views..
I think I've eluded to those views in this thread...
and
What more would you like to know?
What are the causal steps in between slavery that happened 150 years ago and the present state?
One premise is that if a significant deficit in, say, wealth or education is created for a group of people, then it will be a persistent disadvantage that causes that group of people to lag behind.
Another premise is that slavery wasn't that long ago, relatively.
If, 150 years ago, we had person A start with $100,000 in inherited wealth, a solid education, a well-developed relevant skill in the marketplace, a well-established social and professional network, and a family with a good reputation. And then we had person B start with no money, no education, no marketable skills, no network, no family, no reputation...
If person A and B set out and lived their lives and had offspring, person A with the mentioned significant advantage over person B, I would imagine their offspring would be born into similar circumstances, with the offspring of person A maintaining an advantage over the offspring of person B because of all the obvious reasons people with advantages in wealth, education, etc. tend to maintain an advantage. The advantage may have narrowed (or maybe widened), but the advantage would be carried into the next generation.
Continue this forward 5-7 generations. What would we expect to see? I think we'd see line A maintain an advantage. The advantage may have narrowed (or maybe widened), but the advantage would be carried through generations.
Of course line B could "catch" and surpass line A. It's easy to imagine exceptional scenarios. But it seems probable that line A would enjoy an ongoing advantage.
And this scenario assumes a level playing field for descendants of line A and line B. I don't believe that's been the case in America for blacks and whites. Since the end of slavery, there has been significant discrimination against blacks, much of which continues to the current day.
Sorry, doesn't hold. Some more convincing studies examined the outcomes of Georgia land lotteries which were effectively a randomized controlled trial where the "intervention arm" got a valuable piece of land (by winning the lottery) and the "control arm" didn't get anything. See e.g. this and other studies.
Now, if you have a continuing advantage (IQ) that continues to hold while your group mostly intermarries, things are different.
Culture, on the other hand, persists across generations relatively well.
By the way, while slavery was ended 150 year ago, segregation remained in force until after the WW2 and so is a much more recent phenomenon, within living memory.
Interesting.
In regard to the scenario (person A and person B) I gave above, I'm not sure your study refutes what I'm saying. Wealth can be squandered, sure. But wealth, along with a solid education, a well-developed relevant skill in the marketplace, a well-established social and professional network, and a family with a good reputation can be much more persistent.
The opportunity to have enough money to live and have free time plus a good basis for how to live and use that wealth can be sustained over generations.
I am who I am, in part, because of who my parents are. They taught me, for better or for worse, how to handle money; how to relate to people; how to study, work, play, etc. And my parents are who they are, in part, because of their parents. And so on. Generations of my family incubated the new generation's growth into their own efforts to create sustainable wealth. Perhaps this is some of what you mean when you say...
Can you give me some examples of what you mean by "culture persists across generations"?
Absolutely. And racism still persists and has an effect even today.