= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
sunflowers comments on [Link] Diversity and Academic Open Mindedness - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (148)
Ok, I can do give and take. First, an inadequately answered question:
To which you said
Where the opening paragraph of the article in this thread states a defender of Apartheid should given diversity have an increased likelihood of being hired by that virtue. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I somehow believe that telling our prestigious institutions to select for cranks will make it even harder for laymen to sort out the truth than it is already and undermine trust in those same institutions. It will also skew scientific consensus even when that consensus is deserved.
Second, a far more important and entirely unanswered question:
Give these items a good effort, and I will return in kind.
I'm looking forward to the give and take, so out of impatience I'm going to add another question. In return I'll give a rough idea of where I am concerning racism. From a different area of the comments:
You can change the "and" to an "or", if you like. I'm interested if you would say something like, "no, but significantly less open than it would have been were it not for X." We might agree.
Racism: I'd make some boilerplate noises about inherent tribalism and group psychology as general background. Then I'd make some more boilerplate noises about the particulars of racial history in America. For the conceptual work, I would avoid any bother with necessary and sufficient conditions and go straight to fuzzy categories and representatives, along with some type distinctions. As a Less Wrong resident, you should know why I'd prefer this approach to what non-nerds typically do when asked what they mean by something: try to give a precise definition. If you try to do that, you'll probably include some true things that should be believed and doesn't make you a racist in any significant sense. For example, "judging people by the color of their skin." That's a terrible definition, but I bet it's a common answer. I can very accurately infer quite a lot about a person using skin color. When I meet a Korean or American-Korean, I've met something locally rare: somebody who knows what I mean when I say I watch professional Starcraft.
So which elements of this fuzzy category do you consider "false and nasty". For example, what do you think of John Derbyshire?
I think Derbyshire is partly right, partly silly, and would have a lot less reason to be nervous around black people if he learned "how to act", as those scary strange black folks say. If you want my opinion on any of his itemized points, feel free to ask, but responding to them all would be a novel - and I didn't disagree with them all. And I think his question is weak-to-moderate evidence for false-and-nasty racism.
But Derbyshire doesn't really work as a general signal flag for racism. Racial essentialism is one obvious answer: the idea that races are essential categories like species. Racism is also correlated with predictable, relatively negative across-the-board outcomes based on race. Racism is realtors directing black people to poor black neighborhoods and white people to relatively affluent neighborhoods. Racism is calling for the prohibition of any attention to racial disparities while pretending that you and everybody else can pretend to be "colorblind."
Some of these are stronger indicators than others, and there are a lot more I could list. The "colorblind" folks aren't always nasty - see e.g. Morgan Freeman before he saw some of the reactions to Obama's election - but they are wrong.
What do you mean by "how to act"? If you mean it's necessary to adopt a different set of behaviors when around blacks, this is precisely Derbyshire's point.
What do you mean by "essentialism"? After all the distinction between species isn't always clear either.
What specific statements of theirs do you believe to be wrong.
There's a difference between "change of behavior" and "RUN!" A party full of black people will tend to have a different atmosphere than a party full of white people, just like parties with different mixes of age groups and genders will have a different atmosphere. Normal, healthy people can pick up on social cues. Black people are used to white people being scared of them. They have a good chance of noticing, and yes, they'll respond to that. Probably negatively. If you get nervous around large groups of black strangers and you can't help it, I would advise avoidance. There are situations where anybody - comfortable or not - should be "sketched out" and make their exit, but the indicator isn't "oh gee lots of black dudes here." A better one would be, "oh gee that's a lot of neck tattoos."
If you're a good Darwinian, sure. But if you think that black people are an intermediate between humans and chimpanzees, or you believe that black people are the cursed "sons of Ham", or...
Here's Morgan Freeman before and Morgan Freeman after. He's dumb in both videos, but suddenly he sees this racist "underline." It's pretty hard to miss a racist "underline" in lots of policies and statements past and present, from "states' rights" to disparity in crack-cocaine sentencing to criminalization of loitering to the war on drugs to...
Recognizing race and making associations based on race is System 1. It doesn't go away. White people will still notice that black people are black, and black people will still notice that white people are white.
I take the fundamental premise to be impossible.
So, what specific behaviors did you have in mind?
Yes, if you insist of seeing X in everything, it's not hard to miss the X "underline" in everything, whether X is racism, Illuminati influence, or the hand of Satan.
In particular recognizing difference in behavior between people of different races (even if one isn't willing to consciously admit the difference for fear of being "racist") is system 1.
Somehow this effect didn't seem to stop Asians.
I'm going to wait for you to try again on this one.
It would help if you said what you didn't like about the parent.
I thought you would be able to interpret that as "all of it" and be able to find the obvious reasons why, but ok.
I behave differently around groups of young men like myself, at company meetings, when visiting a synagogue, at family gatherings, with friends, at dinner with a family of asian immigrants, at bars, with strangers...
I will behave differently around feminists and strict conservatives. I will behave differently with a group of black strangers. I use background knowledge and empathy to make my adjustments, usually automatically - the automatic process only being sufficiently reliable in relatively familiar situations. An example: if at any point you become tempted to defend "race realism" or talk about how not racist you are, you're probably doing it wrong. If you are at any point accused of racism, you're probably doing something wrong, but even if you weren't, don't argue. Black people don't usually like white strangers appointing themselves the local expert on white-on-black racism. If you get as nervous as Derbyshire, it might be best to follow his advice and avoid such situations. If you're new to it, be prepared to make mistakes however well-intentioned you are. The key is owning up to them when you make them. Most of all, remember that the point of your being there is to share in some common activity with your fellow human beings.
A note from personal experience: like most groups of young men, young black men like ribbing each other. If you can't keep your cool, you're in for a hard time. 99% of the soured situations I've seen have run as follows: me and other white dude and some black guys are hanging out, having a good time, trading jokes, and killing brain cells. Black guy makes a joke at other white dude's expense, and the other white dude can't keep chill. I swear you can see the bullseye appearing on his forehead as soon as he starts. Everybody notices instantly, and it's all downhill from there.
My advice is almost entirely commonsensical, and your experience may vary.
Yeah, seeing racism in US politics is like seeing Illuminati. I don't think I can improve this one for you.
It is system 1. There are behavioral differences. I don't think we're as panic-stricken as you think we are.
Because the stereotypical Asian is a subhuman, primitive brute incapable of self-control, especially around white women. Also, descendant of slaves.
I use several heuristics to decide which ones are worth my time. Most of them are the ones mentioned by Paul Graham in his essay What you can't say.
Ok, now use those heuristics to establish the following proposition as a university administrator: we should hire Graham instead of Robert, because Graham is a Stalinist.
Probably not since the far left is already over-represented on campuses.
Ok, so to state the obvious, all this has nothing to do with intellectual diversity, but hatred of the left?
Huh? How does hiring even more members of an already overrepresented fringe group promote intellectual diversity?
If you like, you can pick something other than Stalinism. I only said that one because it was something you obviously dislike. Think of some other rare left-wing idea, if you like.
If you'd be so kind, I'd also appreciate some presentation of what you think the political atmosphere in American Universities is like, preferably with citations. I think you and I are coming from entirely different places on this.
Where are all these Stalinists, again? I used an example from the original link, btw.