You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

group? - Less Wrong Discussion

0 Post author: adamzerner 16 February 2016 09:43AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (64)

CC Licenced

Comments (64)

Sort By: Best

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

Comment author: OrphanWilde comment score below threshold [+] (2 children)

Comment author: OrphanWilde 17 February 2016 06:49:11PM -3 points [-]

Of course, if you refuse to discuss race and crime, someone will point out that more blacks get arrested than whites and claim that this is due to police racism. More generally, once you start lying the truth is ever after your enemy.

The only person who might be considered as pointing this out here is you, I will observe.

For example, you may have heard that social science is in the midst of a replication crisis, well there is one area of social science where that isn't the case, namely IQ research and its correlates. Of course, for most social scientists openly stating that differences of race or gender are significant, or really anything that makes a black, woman, LGBT, or other member of a protected category look bad is career-killing. Hence social scientists are reduced to doing data dredges which unsurprisingly don't replicate. The current state of social science is like what astronomy would be like if astronomers weren't allowed to say anything that might imply the earth might not be flat.

The difference between my intelligence and the intelligence of the average person who makes this argument makes this look, to me, like a bunch of bank robbers, engaged in an argument about how to split their latest prize, accusing one another of theft for trying to argue they should get a bigger take for their particular roles. Which is to say - almost everybody is less intelligent than me, by quite a margin, and certainly a larger margin than may exist between the races. If you want to argue that racism is acceptable on the not-nearly-as-solid-ground-as-you-seem-to-think that black people are less intelligent on average, you're going to have to justify what makes the measures your side intends to take against black people less appropriate if I intended to take them against you. If you think they're subhuman, well, you're sub-me.

But even if you leave me out of it, and there's still somebody smarter than you. While you consider what to do to -your- lessers, consider whether you want your betters to follow your example.

Of course, history also says that people who spread false beliefs about equality are much much more prone to criminal behavior (or at least behavior that would be criminal if the people doing it weren't in charge of the state). This is a special case of the danger posed by people committed to readily falsifiable and false beliefs.

I have little patience for affirmative action and other "social justice" forms of collectivism, because I see where that leads. I have less patience still for collectivists who pretend that their collectivism isn't really collectivism, or who espouse a different kind of social justice - because racial meritocracy is just social justice by another name. Indeed, racism is and was widely practiced in collectivist societies, whose crimes you allude to here.

Comment author: Old_Gold 17 February 2016 10:44:20PM 4 points [-]

The only person who might be considered as pointing this out here is you, I will observe.

There's a world outside LW, you realize that right?

The difference between my intelligence and the intelligence of the average person who makes this argument

Someone has a massive overestimation of his own intelliegence. I've only seen this particular argument made a couple times and the people making it were probably somewhat smarter than the average LWer. Also, judging by this comment of yours alone and the fact that it has almost no connection to what I wrote, you appear to be below average for LW.

If you want to argue that racism is acceptable

I have no idea what you mean by the word "racism". In fact it doesn't appear to have a single meaning, but rather at least two meanings that you switch between as needed in classic motte-and-bailey style.

But even if you leave me out of it, and there's still somebody smarter than you. While you consider what to do to -your- lessers, consider whether you want your betters to follow your example.

That looks like a fully general counter argument against admitting that differences in intelligence exist.

I have little patience for affirmative action and other "social justice" forms of collectivism

Except when a proponent of affirmative action argues that affirmative action is necessary because the process is still racist and the process is clearly racist because fewer blacks are getting admitted, you have no counterargument because you refuse to look at the evidence that would prduce one. This is not hypothetical, this is the standard argument AA proponents actually use.

To put it another way: It's nice that you oppose a bad policy; however, you shouldn't be surprised that if you (collective) endorse intentional ignorance about a topic, the result is bad policy in matters related to that topic.

Comment author: OrphanWilde 17 February 2016 11:49:42PM -2 points [-]

There's a world outside LW, you realize that right?

Yes. If you want to talk to the world, feel free. Right now you are not.

Someone has a massive overestimation of his own intelliegence. I've only seen this particular argument made a couple times and the people making it were probably somewhat smarter than the average LWer. Also, judging by this comment of yours alone and the fact that it has almost no connection to what I wrote, you appear to be below average for LW.

I will note you fail to address the point. Perhaps you missed it, perhaps not.

I have no idea what you mean by the word "racism". In fact it doesn't appear to have a single meaning, but rather at least two meanings that you switch between as needed in classic motte-and-bailey style.

The identification of individuals as their race, rather than themselves. That is the whole of my use of it.

That looks like a fully general counter argument against admitting that differences in intelligence exist.

It is an assertion that the way you treat others should reflect the way you wish to be treated. Your interpretation makes no sense.

Except when a proponent of affirmative action argues that affirmative action is necessary because the process is still racist and the process is clearly racist because fewer blacks are getting admitted, you have no counterargument because you refuse to look at the evidence that would prduce one. This is not hypothetical, this is the standard argument AA proponents actually use.

I am not one of them.

To put it another way: It's nice that you oppose a bad policy; however, you shouldn't be surprised that if you (collective) endorse intentional ignorance about a topic, the result is bad policy in matters related to that topic.

I do not regard people's religions relating to race as being truths.

Comment author: Old_Gold 18 February 2016 05:10:22AM 3 points [-]

The identification of individuals as their race, rather than themselves.

Well, steelmanning your Chomsky sentence, I assume you mean treating someone's race as the only meaningful information about them. In that case you might want to actually read what I wrote.

It is an assertion that the way you treat others should reflect the way you wish to be treated.

In that case it is completely irrelevant to the discussion. For your convenience here is a summary of the debate up to this point:

Me: We should admit that some people are smarter/less prone to criminality/better than others and that these differences correlation with things like race, etc.

You: there's still somebody smarter than you. While you consider what to do to -your- lessers, consider whether you want your betters to follow your example.

Me (slightly confused by your irrelevant assertion but willing to steelman it by using the conversational convention of relevance): That looks like a fully general counter argument against admitting that differences in intelligence exist.

You: That's not what I meant.

In that case what did you mean and how was it relevant to my point?

I do not regard people's religions relating to race as being truths.

Do you agree that there is a fact of the matter on the questions relating to race?

Comment author: OrphanWilde 18 February 2016 02:42:16PM -2 points [-]

Well, steelmanning your Chomsky sentence, I assume you mean treating someone's race as the only meaningful information about them. In that case you might want to actually read what I wrote.

No. I mean treating race as a meaningful property of a person in the first place.

In that case what did you mean and how was it relevant to my point?

You start from where you responded to me - the conversation began before that, so my context for this conversation is apparently different from yours. Which is to say - the problem is not the relevance of what I say to your point, but the relevance of what you say to mine.

Do you agree that there is a fact of the matter on the questions relating to race?

No.

Not as a statement of solipsism, but because "race" isn't a well-defined category system, but a product of people's absurd need to draw well-defined boundaries where no well-defined boundaries exist. There's far more difference between a black-skinned person whose ancestors have lived in America for five generations and a black-skinned person whose ancestry remains rooted in Africa, than there is between the black-skinned American and a white-skinned American - yet these two are grouped together in "black" as if that were a meaningful category.

And then the concept of mixed-race; the insistence on treating edge cases as between categories, rather than demonstrating that the joints can't actually be carved there. It's a bit like insisting that the two ends of ring species are, in fact, distinct species - and the middles are mixed-species. If races can mix - and, indeed, if they've spent the past few centuries doing so - there aren't races anymore, just a spectrum of individuals who can't be sorted in any meaningful way. At which point, well, you might as well just treat people as individuals.

Am I from a small tribe in Polynesia because I have an unusual crown formation? Maybe I'm American Indian because of the way my roots wrap around my jawbone? Well, what about my blonde hair and blue eyes? What about my red beard? Where the hell am I in that spectrum? Well, today, I'm "white", because US slavery made that distinction important in our culture, and nothing else. And the fact that I'm "white" instead of a convoluted mess of a dozen different races - mixed race, in point of fact - means that the categorization at play is the product of cultural historical accident, rather than anything resembling truth.

Comment author: Lumifer 18 February 2016 07:22:15PM 4 points [-]

because "race" isn't a well-defined category system

That seems a very straightforward example of the Fallacy of the Gray.

a spectrum of individuals who can't be sorted in any meaningful way.

Really, just can't be sorted? That's a silly position.

the categorization at play is the product of cultural historical accident

That categorization is strongly correlated with your genes. Black people, for example, have strikingly different prevalence of certain diseases compared to white people. And East Asians have yet another prevalence. You think it's just because of a "cultural historical accident"?

You seem to be hung up on the word "race". Replace it with "gene pool", see if it helps.

Comment author: OrphanWilde 18 February 2016 08:35:32PM -1 points [-]

That seems a very straightforward example of the Fallacy of the Gray.

It isn't. I am not saying "The existence of a spectrum makes it impossible to tell where someone is on the spectrum between white and black". I am saying the notion of race is cultural rather than referring to anything like an innate property; I recall a documentary in which an American black man went to Africa to investigate farming techniques, and was made fun of for calling himself "black" when he was clearly white. http://lesswrong.com/lw/o0/where_to_draw_the_boundary/

Really, just can't be sorted? That's a silly position.

I've given explicit reasons. try some.

That categorization is strongly correlated with your genes. Black people, for example, have strikingly different prevalence of certain diseases compared to white people. And East Asians have yet another prevalence. You think it's just because of a "cultural historical accident"?

Some black people do. Other black people don't. Where did this black person's ancestors grow up in Africa? After all, there's far greater genetic diversity among Africans than among, say, Europeans.

You seem to be hung up on the word "race". Replace it with "gene pool", see if it helps.

You'll notice I refer several times to genetic clusters, which is a more accurate description than gene pool. But once you notice that there are multiple clusters for "black", and also multiple clusters for "white", and all of the clusters overlap, the idea of race starts dissolving. If you notice furthermore that clusters exist for other things - eye color, for example, or hair color, or jaw structure, or dental crown formations - the whole idea of classifying people by skin color becomes... well, ridiculous. The fact that I have an unusual crown formation says -far- more about my genes than my skin color, in point of fact, because there is only one island in the world where the particular formation originates - whereas there are dozens of genetic clusters which have roughly similar skin color.

Comment author: Lumifer 18 February 2016 08:57:27PM * 5 points [-]

I am saying the notion of race is cultural rather than referring to anything like an innate property;

That is a definitional argument -- it's all about how one would define the word "race".

But once you notice that there are multiple clusters for "black", and also multiple clusters for "white", and all of the clusters overlap, the idea of race starts dissolving.

I don't think so. You can look at genetic clusters at different levels of aggregation. At some level each person is unique. At another level a family is similar. One level higher inhabitants of a certain region are similar. Going up, just before the level of "all humans are similar" you encounter race.

the whole idea of classifying people by skin color becomes... well, ridiculous.

That's why I'm suggesting classifying people not by their skin colour, but by the genetic pool / cluster their ancestors belonged to. Of course it's an imprecise, statistical classification that talks mostly about population averages and priors. That classification, however, is correlated with skin colour.

Speaking generally, the usefulness of classifications is determined by their intended use. It all depends on what do you want to do with your classification, so unless you specify the point of the exercise, the whole thing kinda hangs in the air...

Comment author: OrphanWilde 18 February 2016 09:31:09PM * -1 points [-]

That is a definitional argument -- it's all about how one would define the word "race".

Very much so, yes.

I don't think so. You can look at genetic clusters at different levels of aggregation. At some level each person is unique. At another level a family is similar. One level higher inhabitants of a certain region are similar. Going up, just before the level of "all humans are similar" you encounter race.

I'd argue, as our culture defines race, you really encounter a large number of different and distinct ways of classifying groups of people, of which skin color is just one which gets disproportionate attention owing to historic cultural reasons combined with extreme visual salience (black skin is much easier to notice than eye color). In other periods of time, other ways of grouping people by race got more attention.

That's why I'm suggesting classifying people not by their skin colour, but by the genetic pool / cluster their ancestors belonged to. Of course it's an imprecise, statistical classification that talks mostly about population averages and priors. That classification, however, is correlated with skin colour.

The classification is correlated with a whole bunch of things, skin color being just one. You're right to say we can update our priors on somebody having such-and-such ancestry - but we could do the same thing with any number of other characteristics which we almost entirely - but not quite entirely - ignore. Because we do see hints of that - blondes are ditzy, red-heads are angry, blue eyed people are less trusting of others (this is, as I understand, a German stereotype) - but we don't elevate it to the level of -race-, and indeed treat it more like astrology.

[Edit]Because[/Edit] once you arrive at this point, you're left with a foundation which completely fails to hold up the weighty edifice that is "race"

Comment author: Old_Gold 19 February 2016 03:09:43AM 3 points [-]

I'd argue, as our culture defines race, you really encounter a large number of different and distinct ways of classifying groups of people, of which skin color is just one which gets disproportionate attention owing to historic cultural reasons combined with extreme visual salience (black skin is much easier to notice than eye color).

So how do you account for the fact that race as measured by what you consider the "flawed cultural way" correlates as strongly as it does with things like intelligence and criminality?

In other periods of time, other ways of grouping people by race got more attention.

And quite possibly they were dealing with different populations and the groupings they used did in fact correlate with important things.

Comment author: Lumifer 18 February 2016 09:45:14PM 1 point [-]

you really encounter a large number of different and distinct ways of classifying groups of people

Sure. But you're implying a nirvana-fallacy argument: that classification by race is not perfect. Of course it is not. It is, indeed, one of many many different ways. The interesting question is whether this classification reflects (imperfectly) some underlying joint in the territory, or whether it's an entirely arbitrary construct. It doesn't look like an arbitrary construct to me.

the weighty edifice that is "race"

Haven't noticed it being a particularly weighty edifice. A hot button, a battlefront, a trigger, a minefield, a mindkiller, etc. etc., but an edifice..? :-/

continue this thread »

Comment author: Old_Gold 19 February 2016 02:55:15AM 4 points [-]

There's far more difference between a black-skinned person whose ancestors have lived in America for five generations and a black-skinned person whose ancestry remains rooted in Africa, than there is between the black-skinned American and a white-skinned American

Genetics science says otherwise. Or do you believe that genes have no impact on who someone is?

Am I from a small tribe in Polynesia because I have an unusual crown formation? Maybe I'm American Indian because of the way my roots wrap around my jawbone?

I don't know, are you? You can trace your ancestry or get genetic tested if your curious.

Comment author: OrphanWilde 19 February 2016 01:19:43PM -2 points [-]

Genetics science says otherwise. Or do you believe that genes have no impact on who someone is?

This fails to even remotely respond to what I wrote.

I don't know, are you? You can trace your ancestry or get genetic tested if your curious.

Yes, in all cases, and since you apparently don't understand the concept being conveyed here: There are no pure-blooded aryans here. There are no pure-bloods at all.

Comment author: Old_Gold 20 February 2016 04:22:30AM * 4 points [-]

There are no pure-blooded aryans here. There are no pure-bloods at all.

There's also no such thing as 100% pure water, that doesn't mean "water" or even "fresh water" is a meaningless or "socially constructed" concept, and it definitely doesn't mean it's a good idea to drink a glass of sea water.

Comment author: polymathwannabe 18 February 2016 03:24:10PM -1 points [-]

Is there something stronger than an upvote that one can give, like a super-upvote?

Comment author: OrphanWilde 18 February 2016 03:47:55PM -1 points [-]

The appreciation is appreciated. :-)

I'm actually vaguely unsatisfied with this. There's a stronger statement about this I feel like I could make, but I can't translate the strong version of this into words; the discussion so far has been an abstract cloud in my brain that isn't condensing properly into a properly pithy form (which is part of why I was long-winded there). It's where all of this ties back into my opening post - about how, historically, people have been utter rubbish at judging the relative merits of groups, and how a spectrum of beliefs about race is a stronger "group" identifier than skin color. But it's not condensing properly.

Comment author: Old_Gold 19 February 2016 02:50:25AM 3 points [-]

There's a stronger statement about this I feel like I could make, but I can't translate the strong version of this into words

Have you considered taking this as a hint that your beliefs about the subject are incoherent.

Comment author: OrphanWilde 19 February 2016 01:21:02PM 1 point [-]

No. I don't think in words, and the translation from the thing-I-think-in into words is frequently very lossy.

Old_Gold comments on Should we admit it when a person/group is "better" than another person/group? - Less Wrong Discussion

Article Navigation

Comments (64)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Open Threads

Recent Rationality Diaries

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (64)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login