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.

Sorry, doesn't hold. Some more convincing studies examined the outcomes of Georgia land lotteries which were effectively a randomized controlled trial where the "intervention arm" got a valuable piece of land (by winning the lottery) and the "control arm" didn't get anything. See e.g. this and other studies.

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...

Culture, on the other hand, persists across generations relatively well.

Can you give me some examples of what you mean by "culture persists across generations"?

By the way, while slavery was ended 150 year ago, segregation remained in force until after the WW2 and so is a much more recent phenomenon, within living memory.

Absolutely. And racism still persists and has an effect even today.

One premise is that if a significant deficit in, say, wealth or education is created for a group of people, then it will be a persistent disadvantage that causes that group of people to lag behind.

Another premise is that slavery wasn't that long ago, relatively.

If, 150 years ago, we had person A start with $100,000 in inherited wealth, 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. And then we had person B start with no money, no education, no marketable skills, no network, no family, no reputation...

If person A and B set out and lived their lives and had offspring, person A with the mentioned significant advantage over person B, I would imagine their offspring would be born into similar circumstances, with the offspring of person A maintaining an advantage over the offspring of person B because of all the obvious reasons people with advantages in wealth, education, etc. tend to maintain an advantage. The advantage may have narrowed (or maybe widened), but the advantage would be carried into the next generation.

Continue this forward 5-7 generations. What would we expect to see? I think we'd see line A maintain an advantage. The advantage may have narrowed (or maybe widened), but the advantage would be carried through generations.

Of course line B could "catch" and surpass line A. It's easy to imagine exceptional scenarios. But it seems probable that line A would enjoy an ongoing advantage.

And this scenario assumes a level playing field for descendants of line A and line B. I don't believe that's been the case in America for blacks and whites. Since the end of slavery, there has been significant discrimination against blacks, much of which continues to the current day.

While we are at the topic of cognitive biases, how do you know that's the case? Quite many people believe that they are much more open than they are.

I don't know. I'm probably biased. But I feel pretty strongly that I'd like to know the truth. I'm sure I'm subject to the same deep, irrational Red v. Blue tribalism as most other humans, but I try to be as rational as I can.

The fact that you for example didn't follow up with the request to explain your own view in this thread is a sign that you don't put effort into engaging in the kind of actions that require you to actually express your ideas explicitly enough to find flaws.

Ah. I assumed your earlier comment in this thread was misplaced and you intended, "Lumifer: I, like Brillyant, am also interested in hearing your view." I am flattered you care about my view.

As I mentioned, I consider myself ignorant on the issue. That is, quite literally, I admit I don't know and have low confidence in my views..

I think I've eluded to those views in this thread...

Politically, I'm generally empathetic toward ideas like affirmative action in the U.S. on the basis of race because there has been serious discrimination in the U.S. on the basis of race in the past. It makes practical sense to posit it created a "headstart" for races who were not... enslaved... and otherwise discriminated against and it makes ethical sense to employ measures to even the score.

and

It seems obvious to me that [past slavery in America] does [have a large impact on African Americans in the present day U.S.], and that the effects are wide and deep, as slavery (and Jim Crow) is relatively recent history—We're only a handful of generations from a time where a race of people was enslaved and systemically kept from accumulating wealth and education.

What more would you like to know?

I think it's pretty easy to hypothesize about the possible effects of slavery vs. no slavery.

In the context of this thread, it was mentioned that the murder rate was much higher for blacks versus whites. If there are socioeconomic reasons for this, then I'm curious about slavery's contribution to those factors.

Politically, I'm generally empathetic toward ideas like affirmative action in the U.S. on the basis of race because there has been serious discrimination in the U.S. on the basis of race in the past. It makes practical sense to posit it created a "headstart" for races who were not... enslaved... and otherwise discriminated against and it makes ethical sense to employ measures to even the score.

I'm open to the idea ideas like AA may not actually practically work and could be persuaded as such by the evidence.

Genetic factors (such as lower IQ)

What is the best source for this in your view?

Historical factors, Cultural factors, Economic factors

Is it your view that past slavery in America still has a large impact on African Americans in the present day U.S.?

It seems obvious to me that it does, and that the effects are wide and deep, as slavery (and Jim Crow) is relatively recent history—We're only a handful of generations from a time where a race of people was enslaved and systemically kept from accumulating wealth and education.

...I don't think a reasonable open discussion is possible.

Meh. Maybe. I'd like to believe I'm a reasonable guy. My views on these issues are largely ignorant and I'm open to learning.

While it is known that AI could be catastrophic, the only organisation (MIRI) which is doing most serios research on its prevention is underfunded. Providing finding to them could dramatically change probability of human survival, and we could estimate that 1 USD donated to them will save 10 human lives.

Is any of this true? "Most serious"? "Dramatically change probability of human survival"? 10 lives per $1?

Can/will you TL;DR your view?

Why is this?

There is a big controversy in the US over whether the police are racist, not over whether the police have cognitive biases.

Hm. I don't think it's this clear a distinction. Clinton seems to be suggesting there is perhaps more nuance to the issue than just arguing about whether or not lots of cops are racist.

I would be overjoyed if presidential candidates really were discussing cognitive biases.

Interesting. I was very happy to hear Clinton speak of implicit bias because it seemed to be a way to advance the discussion to something more rational.