= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Or possibly they are accurate measurements of the rates of Facebook use among these two groups. Maybe it's a good thing if people who are concerned about existential risk do serious things about it instead of participating in a Facebook group.
The success of a Facebook group depends a lot on how it get's promoted and whether there are a few people who care about creating content for it.
Why aren't you seeking to explain why White's get more likely to be killed by police than Asian's? Why do you think it's a question that people like Clinton don't address?
She didn't address it because it wasn't relevant to the discussion at hand. Is the disparity between Whites and Asians killed by police significant? Is it an issue that is pressing in terms of it's current effect on the body politic?
Making winning decisions is about agency. Hillary Clinton could say that she wants that all police wear body camera's. If she can win a majority for that policy she can implement it.
On the other hand you can't pass a law that people shouldn't have implicit bias anymore. Speaking about it is useful if Hillary Clinton wants to engage in virtue signaling but not actually focus on getting policies changed.
If she wanted to do rational policy making she could say: "We should do controlled trials that try different policies in different area's to find out which policies actually help with changing the status quo."
You speak about this is a very definitive way, as if you know exactly what would work. I don't know what would work. It seems to me these are complex issues. I just noted it was good and, I think, useful to hear someone mention the everyone is subject to bias as opposed to the same old Red v. Blue talking points. I'd have praised anyone who said something similar, regardless of which team they played for.
In what kind of ontology do you believe if you think that a police shooting could be racist, even in principle? That there are some police shootings that are racists and other that aren't? If you want to use the word "racist" to be a property of events and not a property of people than it means something qualitatively different than what the term "implicit racism" is about.
This looks like your conceptualization of racism is the standard meaning of the word and has little to do with the academic term of "implicit racism".
My phrasing was poor.
I don't think race is a factor in every police shooting. Despite this, the left seems to try and make every single police shooting involving an African American into another example of blatant, explicit racism. I don't agree with this at all and I think it detracts from the effort to improve things. Every police shooting ought to be examined based on the objective facts.
The idea that an officer (or judge, or anyone) could have an implicit bias against a group of people, and that that bias is consequential, seem to me to be worth exploring.
Is the disparity between Whites and Asians killed by police significant?
In 2016 the difference is slightly stronger than the difference between Whites and Black getting killed. It's a fact that easily knowable if you care to look for the numbers of police killings by race. Anybody who cares enough about the issue to know the fact should know it if the can read numbers in a straightforward way instead of just trying to validate their party line.
You speak about this is a very definitive way, as if you know exactly what would work. I don't know what would work.
You don't know what would work because Clinton doesn't speak about the evidence for what works. It's not the conversation she tries to have on the subject. There's good evidence that body camera's do work.
The fact that creating legal structure where police can effectively prosecuted for wrongdoing seem obvious to me. I don't have specific evidence for it, but it feels like an elephant in the room.
Evidence-based policy making and running trials to see which policies perform best is a framework that applying rationality. In fairly confident that it's better than blaming people for having biases and hoping that they will change as a result. I don't have studies that validate that claim but it again seem obviously true.
I don't think race is a factor in every police shooting.
If you think that the logical conclusion would be that Clinton was wrong when she claimed that everybody suffers from implicit bias.
That's exactly why it's unproductive. You don't actually think in terms of "implicit racism" but simply use the new name to label concepts that you already knew beforehand.
Every police shooting ought to be examined based on the objective facts.
That sounds again like a rejection of using the framework of implicit bias. You don't see evidence of implicit bias in a case by case basis. You see it when you look in aggregate on choices. A person with implicit bias has higher availability for certain action and thus likely reacts a little faster, even if both cases result in a dead suspect.
In response to
Open thread, Oct. 10 - Oct. 16, 2016
If we knew that AI will be created by Google, and that it will happen in next 5 years, what should we do?
Possibly, but I wouldn't say the popes started science by being terrible rulers, thereby creating a clearer distinction between religious and secular.
Asking on StackExchange gives a variety of people before Newton: http://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/5275/was-isacc-newton-the-first-person-to-articulate-the-scientific-method-in-europe/5277#5277
In response to
Open thread, Oct. 10 - Oct. 16, 2016
My partner has requested that I learn to give a good massage. I don't enjoy massages myself and the online resources I find seem to mostly steeped in woo to some degree. Does anybody have some good non-woo resources for learning it?
The standard way to learn massage is through taking a course.
I would also recommend Betty Martin's 3-Minute game as a secular message like practice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auokDp_EA80
In response to
Open thread, Oct. 10 - Oct. 16, 2016
There is 5 times more members in the group "Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT)" (9800) in Facebook than in the group "Existential risks" (1880). What we should conclude from it?
Nothing. I don't think facebook membership counts are a good measurement.
Possibly, but I wouldn't say the popes started science by being terrible rulers, thereby creating a clearer distinction between religious and secular.
thereby creating a clearer distinction between religious and secular.
Given that Newton was a person who cared about the religious that would be a bad example. He spent a lot of time with biblical chronology.
You claimed that science wouldn't have been invented at the time without Newton. It's historically no accident that Leibniz discovered calculus independently from Newton. The interest in numerical reasoning was already there.
To get back to the claim, following the scientific method and explicitly writing it down are two different activities. It takes time to move from the implicit to the explicit.
They also don't ask the obvious questions such as whether the fact that more Whites get killed than Asians is also due to implicit bias. That a very straightforward question if you look at the data and want to use implicit bias as a cognitive tool for explaining the data of police killers.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you restate it?
Gender studies
You mentioned "gender studies" a couple times in a negative light—Why? It doesn't have anything to do with this discussion.
...
Generally, the idea that (a) we all have implicit biases based on how our brain works and our life experiences, (b) these biases may significantly obscure our map of the territory, and (c) in the special case of police—where men and women need to quickly make highly consequential decisions under extreme stress—this obscured map may lead to irrational, "non-winning", decisions seems uncontroversial. Certainly nothing you've said has rebutted it.
For the record, I don't think every police shooting is racist. Not even close. And I think the left goes way too far trying to spin this.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you restate it?
Why aren't you seeking to explain why White's get more likely to be killed by police than Asian's? Why do you think it's a question that people like Clinton don't address?
You mentioned "gender studies" a couple times in a negative light—Why? It doesn't have anything to do with this discussion.
Because it's difficult to have a conservation about the quality of the public debate without accounting for the cultural forces that are responsible for the public debate being the way it currently is.
where men and women need to quickly make highly consequential decisions under extreme stress—this obscured map may lead to irrational, "non-winning", decisions seems uncontroversial. Certainly nothing you've said has rebutted it.
Making winning decisions is about agency. Hillary Clinton could say that she wants that all police wear body camera's. If she can win a majority for that policy she can implement it.
On the other hand you can't pass a law that people shouldn't have implicit bias anymore. Speaking about it is useful if Hillary Clinton wants to engage in virtue signaling but not actually focus on getting policies changed.
If she wanted to do rational policy making she could say: "We should do controlled trials that try different policies in different area's to find out which policies actually help with changing the status quo."
For the record, I don't think every police shooting is racist. Not even close. And I think the left goes way too far trying to spin this.
In what kind of ontology do you believe if you think that a police shooting could be racist, even in principle? That there are some police shootings that are racists and other that aren't? If you want to use the word "racist" to be a property of events and not a property of people than it means something qualitatively different than what the term "implicit racism" is about.
This looks like your conceptualization of racism is the standard meaning of the word and has little to do with the academic term of "implicit racism".
In response to
Six principles of a truth-friendly discourse
Egalitarianism - Someone high-status holding a belief must never be offered, in itself, as a reason to believe something. It’s OK to take track records into account, but the default response to naming an authority figure’s or local celebrity's beliefs as reason for someone else to believe something is for it to be perceived as an argument from authority. Therefore, the track record argument should be made very explicitly, and with great care. if at all.
I don't think the problem is about naming authority figure's. Developing trust in institutions is a useful social mechanism. We can't reason in detail about every belief we have.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Do you have a preferred source?
Who's doing this?
We have implicit biases. Biases based on race are a pretty big deal in this country, historically. In my view, the level of bias in police shootings doesn't reach any reasonable threshold to be called anything like "racism" in many, many cases.
Perhaps this is true for you. I often think about ways my view may be biased when relating to people. And then I act to better understand and, hopefully, neutralize the bias. My efforts are clumsy and likely often fail, because I'm not particularly intelligent or skilled at overcoming bias.
At any rate, the first step toward being productive in this regard is recognizing bias exists.
Sure you could. I'd agree the aggregate data would be (perhaps more) revealing, but the facts of a particular case (including the video) could also tell you something about what biases might exist and how they effected the event.
I'm tapping.
What are your political leanings? I'd like to better understand our interaction by knowing how you view yourself generally on the U.S. political spectrum. Thanks.
I use the Guardian as the source https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database
The academic notion of implicit racism isn't about any other threshold than statistical significance. The tool that they developed have gotten good at picking up effects in many people so the threshold is quite low and most people suffer from implicit racism.
If you reject that concept, then it doesn't make sense to see Hillary using it as progress.
I'm not on the U.S. political spectrum. He Facebook political status is currently "Continental". My formal political associations put me left of center in Berlin.