= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
someonewrongonthenet comments on Don't Get Offended - LessWrong
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 (588)
Ah, let me clarify.
Doing a little bit of research will lead you to be fairly confident that racial differences are genetic, because the differences 1) do exist and 2) cannot be explained by sociological factors alone. Most people assume that if it is not sociological, it is genetic.
However, if you do a lot of research, which means taking into account maternal factors in the womb, epigenetics, nutrition...and if you further spend time researching how IQ tests work and what contributes to high IQ in general (not just with race), your confidence that racial differences are genetic will drop steeply.
It just happens to be a topic where the first impression upon reading the literature has a particular tendency to lead you to a wrong conclusion.
Ah, I see! "Does insufficient research" != "fails to do sufficient research" in this context.
Neat. Sometimes it's a miracle we communicate at all.
Thanks for the clarification.
I suspect that a lot of people also come to racism[1] without doing any research at all, but I don't disagree with anything you say here.
That depends on what you mean by "any research at all". I suspect most people who come to racism do so via the logic I mentioned in this comment.
Just to clarify the claim, because language can be slippery... if we chose humans at random and until we found 1000 who believe whites are superior to blacks, and we looked at their history, I expect the majority of them came to that position prior to reviewing empirical correlations between race and IQ among a statistically significant population. I understand you to be saying that you expect the majority came to that position only after reviewing empirical correlations between race and IQ among a statistically significant population, either personally or through reading the reports of others.
Have I understood you correctly?
We can get into debates about what constitutes "statistically significant" but yeah I suspect most of the racists[1] around today came to that conclusion after reviewing correlations between race and intelligence (and related behaviors) in most cases from their own experience using their system I.
OK, thanks for clarifying.
For my own part, most of the people I've met personally whom I've identified as racist[1] with regards to white and black people have not met very many black people at all, so I doubt that's true of them for any reasonable standard of statistical significance (1).
But of course the racists I've knowingly met might not be representative of racists more generally.
(1) Many were also racist[1] with regards to the superiority of whites to other non-white races, such as Native Americans and Asians, as well as with regards to the superiority of "whites" to other identifiable subcultures that include Caucasians, such as gays and Jews. All of which contributes to my sense that they are not arriving at their beliefs based on observation at all.
The south (at least during Jim Crow) wasn't nearly as segregated as the north in terms of where people lived, so white southerners had many occasions to observe their black neighbors.
In fact it's not at all hard to notice the correlation between say race and a lot of behavior traits, for example the the black neighborhood is the one where you're more likely to get mugged. I'm not sure about Asians, as for Jews is their complaint that Jews are stupid or that they're secretly running the world?
It wasn't that Jews are stupid. Mostly it seemed to be that Jews are evil, which I suppose one could argue isn't a question of superiority at all, though it sure felt like one. I actually haven't run into the secret-world-domination thing in person very often at all, though I'm of course acquainted with the trope.
And sure, I'm perfectly willing to believe that the south during Jim Crow was less geographically segregated than the north, and thus provided more opportunities for inter-group observation.
That's my point. They're complaints about different out-groups are limited by what their system I's would find plausible.
Just to make sure I understand your claim: as I understand it, you would predict that if we raised the people I'm referring to in an environment where "Jews are stupid" was (perhaps artificially) a prevailing social belief, they would tend to reject that belief as they came to observe Jews, because their system Is would find that belief implausible, because Jews are not in fact stupid (relative to people-like-them, as a class). But if we raised them in an environment where "blacks are stupid" was a prevailing social belief, they would not tend to reject that belief as they came to observe blacks, because their system Is would find that belief plausible, because blacks are in fact stupid (relative to people-like-them, as a class).
Yes?
Would you also expect that if we raised them in an environment where "Jews are evil" was a prevailing social belief, they would not reject that belief as they came to observe Jews, because their system Is would find that belief plausible, because Jews are in fact evil (relative to people-like-them, as a class)? Or does the principle not generalize like that?
Wait... I took “come to racism” to refer to people who used to be non-racist[1], but become racist[1] as adults. OTOH, many (most?) randomly-chosen racists[1] probably have been so ever since they've had any opinion either way on the matter, which they probably uncritically absorbed from their sociocultural environment while growing up and have had it cached ever since. These two groups of racists[1] are probably very different (just like you wouldn't expect converts to Islam to be representative of Muslims in general -- would you?); in particular, I suspect that most racists are the way you describe here, but most “converts to racism” are the way Eugine_Nier says. (See also “Intellectual Hipsters and Meta-Contrarianism” by Yvain.)
Ah!
Yeah, with that unpacking, I find the claim much more plausible.
Yeah, that's my expectation.
No doubt.
I find that much more plausible than the claim that most racists[1] are the way Eugine_Nier says.
I'm not sure I believe it even so (as compared to, say, converting to racism after a traumatic experience with a member of race X), but at this point I'm just telling just-so stories about hypothetical people I don't have much experience with, so I don't put much weight in my own intuitions.
That's barely half an argument. You would need to believe that there are significant between-group differences AND that they are significant AND that they should be relevant to policy or decision making in some way. You didn't argue the second two points there, and you haven't elsewhere.
I'm with you on the first two, but if the trait is interesting enough to talk about (intelligence, competence, or whatever), isn't that enough for consideration in policy making? If it isn't worth considering in making policy, why are we talking about the trait?
Politics isn't a value-free reflection of nature. The disvalue of reflecting a fact politically might outweigh the value. For instance, people aren't the same in their political judgement, but everyone gets one vote, for instance.
So if we don't base our politics on facts, what should we base it on? This isn't a purely rhetorical question, I can think of several ways to answer it (each of which also has other implications) and am curious what your answer is.
As for your example, that's because one-man-one-vote is a more workable Schelling point since otherwise you have the problem of who decides which people have better political judgement.
You include a copy of the Cognitive Reflection Test or similar in each ballot and weigh votes by the number of correct answers to the test.
(This idea isn't original to me, BTW -- but I can't recall anyone expressing it on the public Internet at the moment.)
This doesn't quite solve the Schelling point problem. You start getting questions about why that particular test and not some other. You will also get problems related to Goodheart's law.
Well... People might ask that about (say) university admission tests, and yet in practice very few do so with a straight face. (OTOH, more people consider voting a sacrosanct right than studying.)
ETA: now that I think about that, this might be way more problematic in a country less culturally homogeneous than mine -- I'm now reminded of complaints in the US that the SAT is culturally biased.
Keeping the choice of questions secret until the election ought to mitigate that.
True, but those people don't generally end up at lesswrong (I hope!)
by "insufficient research" I was trying to convey the difference between cursory research and in depth research. Am I using the word incorrectly? / is there a better fitting word that describes this?
Edit: ooh, you thought I meant "insufficient research" to mean that any amount of research would have helped, hence the analogy to to diseases and medicine - medicines do not cause disease, they cure it. Whereas I actually am saying that in this case, too little "medicine" can cause the disease. Got it :)
No, I meant -- reads edit -- right.