= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on Open thread, Oct. 03 - Oct. 09, 2016 - 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 (175)
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.
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.
Not backed by the gov't through the present day but, as you mentioned, since WW2 and certainly long after slavery ended.
But discrimination based on race is still very common. I cited the study showing resumes with black sounding names receive significantly fewer callbacks than resumes with white sounding names...
You've not mentioned this study in your replies—Is this sort of discrimination not consequential in your view?
As a bit of a thought experiment, can you imagine a scenario in a society where a high IQ group of people was discriminated against to the extent where they couldn't overcome the discrimination, despite their advanced higher IQ?
How would the circumstances be different than what blacks have faced in the U.S.? How would they be similar?
I don't know about the study, I have a generic suspicion of social sciences studies, especially ones which come to highly convenient conclusions, and hey! they happen to have a what's politely called "replication crisis". I am not interested enough to go read the study and figure out if it's valid, but on my general priors, I believe that people with black names will get less callbacks. However it seems to me that people with names like Pham Ng or Li Xiu Ying will also get less callbacks. People certainly have a bias towards those-like-me, but it's not specifically anti-black, it's against anyone who looks/feels/smells different.
Sure.
Um, the IQ would be different? It's not a mystical inner quality that no one can fathom. It's measurable and on the scale of large groups of people the estimates gets pretty accurate.
On the clearly visible level there would be very obvious discrimination -- quotas on admissions to universities, for examples. These discriminated-against people would be barred from reaching high positions, but at the level they would be allowed to reach they would be considered very valuable. Even if, for example, such people could not make it into management, managers would try to hire as many of them as possible because they are productive and solve problems.
As to similarities, I was about to write that the discriminated-against will never rise to the highest positions in the society, but oh look! there is that Barack Hussain fellow...
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?