= 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)
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.
I suggest you examine the evidence offered above and consider reducing your confidence in your beliefs.
I should clarify. I accept genes are a big part of the picture. I'm more of a nature guy in the debate between nature and nurture.
In the specific case of African Americans' treatment in U.S. history and their current status, I'm not convinced genetics are more important than other factors. Because this specific case is more than just a simple nature vs. nurture issue—it is a very special case where an extreme deficit was created using slavery. And then segregation. And racism and discrimination all throughout up to the present day.
What evidence you cite above is compelling to you? What do you believed based on this evidence?
No it's not. It only seems that way to you because you know almost no non-US history.
Extreme in terms of U.S. then? Extreme is relative, right? That's what you're saying?
However, not necessarily extreme in terms of what some immigrant groups experienced before arriving in the US.
You'll have to be a bit more specific. "More important" for what and "other factors" from which set?
What do you think are transmission mechanisms which would show how having, say, great-great-grandparents who were slaves affects you now?
You might find it interesting to compare them to East European Jews who 150 years ago certainly weren't slaves, but they were segregated and discriminated against, they faced limitations on what they could own, where could they live, and what could they do, plus once in a while a mob of angry peasants would come and burn down a village. They weren't rich either.
Do you think the somewhat worse conditions of the American blacks explain the gap in outcomes looking at the present day?
In regard to social issues, such as the murder rate by race you cited earlier, I'm not compelled to believe blacks are genetically wired to behave poorly and kill more often. Rather, as I've said, I believe there has been an extreme set of circumstances in the U.S. that have led to lots of problems.
As I've said—and as you've said by saying culture can be persistent through generations—I am who I am, in part, because of who my parents and family are. Of course, genetically. But there is more than this. Partly because of material wealth, partly because of availability of education and the opportunity to learn marketable skills, partly because of access to social and professional networks—Simply, there was a deficit created by slavery that takes a while to even out. Slavery wasn't that long ago.
And again, even apart from slavery, there has been, and continues to be discrimination against African Americans in the U.S. Both legally through segregation and just plain old racism (implicit and explicit).
If we compare it to a 100 meter race, it's not as if this was just a simple 20 meter head start for whites because of slavery; it's also that hurdles have been placed every 10 meters in the African American lane through segregation and discrimination.
This is my view, yes. See above.
I cited this earlier.
Imagine something like this type of discrimination is happening at all sorts of levels in the U.S.—Blacks are just less likely to be successful in a professional capacity simply because they discriminated against because are black, and apart from any consideration of actual merit.
So, it takes 15 resumes (instead of 10) to get a callback. Then the black candidate is 33% less likely to score an actual interview from that callback. Then 33% less likely to get to the second interview; 33% less likely to get to the 3rd and final interview.
Then they're employed... How much less likely is it a black person receives a promotion? How much less do they make on average?
Edit: Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you discount the idea slavery, segregation and discrimination has had ill effects for African Americans in the U.S. up to the present day...Why is that?
You and Lumifer have two different theories to explain the difference in murder rate. The rational way to resolve this dispute is to look at areas where the two theories make different predictions and see which set of predictions is correct. This is more or less what Lumifer has been doing in this thread. You have been coming up with incresingly flimsy rationalizations to avoid coming to the obvious conclusions. Furthermore, the only prediction you've made using your theory, the continued existence of "racist attitudes" against blacks, is something Lumifer's theory also predicts.
It's not hard to find people whose ancestors 150 years ago were poor, uneducated, lacking skills and access to social networks... I think you're just describing an average peasant. And yet, there are different outcomes.
As I mentioned in my post upthread, I agree it's a factor. I just don't think it's the sole factor or even the most important factor.
Ongoing segregation and discrimination against blacks in America since slavery doesn't seem to be making it into your math here. Why? It's significant and should be considered.
And it's not hard to imagine how "peasants" might do well when compared to former slaves...(1) being poor and being a slave are very different (2) It's much tougher to segregate and discriminate when everybody looks basically the same. It's easy when their skin color is different.
Do tell: What is the most important factor? Why?
I don't see any ongoing segregation (though, interestingly enough, some Black movements nowadays are trying to revive it, in some places even successfully).
I've mentioned Jews upthread -- they were very consistently discriminated against until after the WW2. Did they have similar outcomes?
On the other hand you have SubSaharan Africa which is doing pretty badly by pretty much any criterion. That includes countries which were colonies only for a very very short period (such as Ethiopia, which is also mostly Christian and the former Emperor of which traced a direct lineage line to King Solomon and Queen of Sheba).
Genetics, in particular IQ. Why? IQ is really really important.