= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Brillyant 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)
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.
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...
As an example of how such discrimination can be rational and indeed reasonable...
You have a resume. It provides some noisy data about someone. Including that person's race. Let's trim it down. You have an IQ test result and the person's race. Let's say that two candidates has the same IQ in the test, but one came from a group known to have a significantly lower IQ on average.
If we assume that an IQ test result has any measurement noise - and they do - then the Bayesian conclusion is the candidate from the group with higher average IQ is likely to actually have a higher IQ.
Now resumes constitute very noisy data. People often even lie in their resumes. There are large differences between groups in the US. The dispute is about the reasons for the differences not whether they exist.
A study would need to overcome these effects to demonstrate irrational discrimination. They would need to show that e.g. there was consistent out-performance for the group discriminated against post recruitment.
The two kinds of discrimination -- (1) because I prefer people-like-me, and (2) because I have informative priors about groups -- can perfectly well co-exist.
It's debatable whether or not it's specifically anti-black. Or anti-some-other-group. At any rate, a bias against those-not-like-me would be sufficient in this case to cause blacks a significant deficit in opportunity for employment in a historically majority white nation.
As usual, I phrased my comment poorly. Let me try a different tack...
You are saying black Americans have a genetic deficit in the form of lower average IQ. Because IQ is heritable and very important toward social "success", this is a (or even the?) major factor in why they lag behind in certain social metrics (avg. income/wealth, crime rates, etc.) in American society.
I'm saying slavery/segregation/discrimination has created a very significant deficit for blacks to overcome in America, to the extent that we would expect to see something like we see in terms of the disparity in avg. income/wealth, crime rates, etc. I'd hypothesize slavery/segregation/discrimination has been consequential to the extent that even if blacks had a higher average IQ than whites, they would still be in a similar situation. (i.e. the discrimination is that bad and that significant.)
Plainly, advanced IQ (or other genetic advantages) aren't enough to overcome significant discrimination in all cases. The disadvantages can be too steep in a given society.
I'd propose a good portion of the U.S. is a bit more racist than I think you are taking into consideration. And this may have caused a deeper deficit for blacks than you are appreciating.
Things can change. Slowly.
Will it? I agree that it will cause some harm, but I'm not sure about "significant". Note that race-based discrimination is explicitly illegal and agencies such as EEOC do prosecute. Moreover, EEOC uses the concept of "disparate impact" which basically means that if you statistically discriminate regardless of your intent, you are in trouble.
Also, did a bias against those-not-like-me cause employment problems for, say, the Chinese? Why not?
I am saying people with African ancestry (regardless of their citizenship) belong to a gene pool which has average IQ lower than that of people with European ancestry. Lest you think that the whites are the pinnacle of evolution, the European gene pool has lower average IQ than, say, Han Chinese.
I don't know if "deficit" is a useful word -- there is no natural baseline and the fact that the IQ scale has the average IQ of Europeans as the "norm" (100) is just a historical accident. I think it's more correct to just say that different gene pools have different IQ distributions.
There are two separable questions here. The first one is do you agree that people with African ancestry have lower average IQ (by about one standard deviation) than people with European ancestry? That question has nothing to do with slavery and segregation. If you do not, we hit a major disagreement right here and there's not much point in discussing why contemporary black Americans have different outcomes than whites or Asians. If you do, we can move on to the second question: what is the relative role of various factors which determine the current state of the black Americans?
I might suggest the following approach. If you agree that the average IQ of blacks is lower, then let's estimate the effect of that on social outcomes. It might be that this cause will explain a great deal of what we observe. If so, there's no need to bring in the history of slavery and segregation as a major factor because there wouldn't be much left to explain.
Ashkenazi Jews have higher average IQ than whites and were segregated and discrimated against. Are they in a similar situation? Were they in a similar situation at the time when the segregation was just ending?
Besides, you're forgetting that one can just go and measure IQ. There is a lot of data on the average IQ of racial groups in the US. Hint: American blacks do not have higher IQ.
Yes, but we're not talking about "all cases". We are talking about the very specific case of the United States of America.
Um, things have changed. Already.
Citation required. What is strange about this is that when you go looking, you don't see good studies that track people through generations and show that this is in fact the case.
This idea "slavery is the cause" seems not to be an actual active idea but only functions as a thought terminating cliche.
It could have been slavery so it was.
It reminds me of religious apologists talking about the problem of evil, and how it 'could' be caused by man's sin (causing human evil) and possibly by Satan's sin (causing natural evil), which is required if we are to have free will. There is zero, I mean zero, interest in exploring just how 'sin' causes all the various forms of evil. How does sin cause our flawed DNA which allows cancer? <crickets> Etc.