= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl 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)
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.
The claim is that most of that is biology and heritable. Your ancestors had good genes (again, IQ but not only) which allowed them to gain a skill in the marketplace, construct a social network, create a family with good reputation, and acquire wealth. You have skills in the marketplace, able to adroitly navigate society, etc. primarily because you share genes with your ancestors, not because you inherited some money.
This is the nature vs nurture debate and lately the nature side has been winning. Who and what you are is considerably more determined by your genes rather than by your upbringing. Gwern posted about this here, on LW, or you can google up twin studies (studies of (genetically) identical twins who were separated at birth and brought up by different people in different circumstances).
See e.g. Yvain's review of Albion's Seed.
I accept genes are a big part of the picture.
I'm not sure I believe genetics are more important than other factors. And this is not necessarily a simple nature vs. nurture issue. In the case of African Americans' treatment in U.S. history, it's an extreme set of "nurture" circumstances that robbed a group of people of all opportunity for many generations, based on race. I'm not sure "good genes" simply overcomes extremely lopsided (often systemically unfair) circumstances.
Anyway, it won't be resolved here. Thanks for your thoughts.