Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: Lumifer 27 August 2014 03:59:26PM 1 point [-]

there can be many possible adaptions for a similar set of high-altitude environments

Yep. See e.g. this.

Comment author: bramflakes 27 August 2014 08:08:24PM 0 points [-]

Yeah, that's where I learned about the differences between Peruvian, Tibetan and Ethiopian adaptions :)

Comment author: Azathoth123 27 August 2014 04:08:17AM 4 points [-]

Peruvians spent a long time at high altitude

Not nearly as much time as Kenyans, heck they haven't been in South America for as long as human have been in Kenya.

Comment author: bramflakes 27 August 2014 03:49:56PM *  0 points [-]

True. My main point is that there can be many possible adaptions for a similar set of high-altitude environments and not all of them will make you a good distance runner.

Comment author: EGarrett 21 August 2014 10:08:33AM 1 point [-]

Jiro,

The problems are that people speak in terms that assign causation to the race factor. Such as "White Men Can't Jump," and that even if you say "A White Man is less likely to be able to jump than a Black Man," you are still assigning cause based on race instead of environment. Environment is what dictates these likelihoods.

For example, people whose ancestry is in Kenya happen to be more likely to be great distance runners essentially because they live in a higher elevation with less oxygen. But to say "Kenyans are more likely to be great distance runners" is less accurate than saying "People whose ancestors spent uncommonly large amounts of time at great elevation with less oxygen."

Thus, when you really look at it, speaking in terms of race is a mistake in categorization and thinking.

Comment author: bramflakes 26 August 2014 03:36:39PM 4 points [-]

But to say "Kenyans are more likely to be great distance runners" is less accurate than saying "People whose ancestors spent uncommonly large amounts of time at great elevation with less oxygen."

Actually no. Peruvians spent a long time at high altitude but don't fill the ranks of prodigious distance runners. This is because they evolved a different adaption - barrel-chestedness - instead of more/better haemoglobin.

Comment author: EGarrett 24 August 2014 10:11:08PM *  -2 points [-]

Assuming I'm parsing this sentence correctly, you favor "changing short and long term environmental pressures on groups of people". Good, so do I. However, the way racial differences are currently not acknowledged is making this difficult.

First, I hope it's clear that if we chalk up personality traits and other such individual characteristics to race instead of environment, then the solution to removing certain undesirable traits (like criminality) would be banishment/disenfranchisement etc of an entire race of people, or outright genocide. This is why this is a problem.

Secondly, you say that you recognize that environment is the cause, but you immediately go back to referring to them as "racial differences." This is the phrasing that leads to race-based thinking, and thus prejudice and discrimination. I can't stress enough that these aren't racial differences and there's a reason society generally rebukes this classification.

Also, false egalitarian beliefs have killed far more people than false "racist" beliefs. The way is happens is the following logic:

What?? The Communist famines and purges were results of sociopaths killing their political enemies and delusional economic policy. Not egalitarianism, but believing that the country would survive fine if everyone stopped producing food and instead was forced to make metals. Those aren't "egalitarian" failures (not that I believe in egalitarianism), but racial purges are absolutely and explicitly done in the name of "ethnic cleansing."

...and even if this were true, this is a bizarre attempt at a red herring argument. If I killed your dog, would you consider it okay as long as I pointed out that other people have killed more dogs than me?

Um, the genetic aspects of ethnicity quite likely are the cause of a lot of those differences.

This implies that you're ignoring the most fundamental parts of this conversation, so I'm not sure what the point is of this exchange.

Comment author: bramflakes 25 August 2014 02:25:31PM *  0 points [-]

First, I hope it's clear that if we chalk up personality traits and other such individual characteristics to race instead of environment, then the solution to removing certain undesirable traits (like criminality) would be banishment/disenfranchisement etc of an entire race of people, or outright genocide. This is why this is a problem.

I think that might say more about your own attitude to low IQ people than it does about everyone else's ...

Comment author: EGarrett 24 August 2014 09:52:15PM 0 points [-]

Yes in the example the person is viewing a single tendency in an example and acting in a damaging way because of that. It may be more accurate for the speaker to say that he saw a group of Asian people sleeping on a plane and none waved back, while the Hispanic person who was awake, did.

Comment author: bramflakes 24 August 2014 11:02:12PM *  2 points [-]

No it's still not right.

A specific form of the causation-correlation logical fallacy, where a person looks at different tendencies that happen to align among people of different ethnicities

That implies there is a genuine difference in the aggregate group-level behavior. A proper example would be

Black people commit crimes at a disproportionate rate compared to Whites. This is because Black people are inherently more violent and criminal than Whites.

The second sentence doesn't necessarily follow from the first, because there could be other factors that cause Blacks to be more violent.

Your examples are fallacies of generalizing from small and/or unrepresentative samples, not fallacies of inferring causation from correlation.

Comment author: EGarrett 23 August 2014 08:58:24AM *  -2 points [-]

It's not a matter of disputing, it's a matter of not recognizing and taking it into account.

Of course, saying the "environment is the ultimate cause" is like saying "the big bang is the ultimate cause", true but not helpful.

You don't see how a logical thought process that would advocate genocide (removing "bad genes" you believe are responsible for undesirable social characteristics or behavior) over changing short and long term environmental pressures on groups pf people is a bad idea?

Care to define what you mean by "racist thinking", also preferably with an explanation of why your particular definition is a bad thing?

To quote myself from years ago...

Racism: A specific form of the causation-correlation logical fallacy, where a person looks at different tendencies that happen to align among people of different ethnicities and assumes incorrectly that the ethnicity or genetic aspects of the ethnicity are the CAUSE of those differences. The person then usually acts, speaks, or governs in a damaging and incorrect way based on that mistaken assumption.

Examples: 1. I waved hello to a sleeping Asian person once, and he did not respond. This taught me that Asian people are rude, and I have never said hello to one since!

Comment author: bramflakes 24 August 2014 08:04:43PM 2 points [-]

The example doesn't match the definition.

Comment author: hairyfigment 24 August 2014 03:09:30AM -1 points [-]

It talks about people who "despise the Brazilian people because of the manifest admixture of African blood in their make-up." Now this is ambiguous - most people in Brazil have non-zero African ancestry, maybe even more than white US citizens have. But it looks to me like the quoted author is in fact classifying people by skin color alone. They simply assume that Italians and various others have "swarthiness" from the same source (falsely, according to the best info I can find without really caring).

Comment author: bramflakes 24 August 2014 11:06:34AM 1 point [-]

Oh, I see your point now.

Okay, I agree that racial characteristics were sometimes determined by only skin color.

Comment author: hairyfigment 24 August 2014 12:02:16AM 0 points [-]

I'm not at all sure that first part is true, in a practical sense. Though going by the actual method of classifying individuals does bring in other problems.

Comment author: bramflakes 24 August 2014 12:13:02AM 0 points [-]

I don't know if we're talking past each other or if I've catastrophically misunderstood your point - but what does the first link have to do with the distinction between SA natives and Africans in SA?

Comment author: ChristianKl 23 August 2014 09:48:05PM -1 points [-]

But people do group people from Ghana with the same race as people from Somalia even through they differ a lot in DNA.

Comment author: bramflakes 23 August 2014 10:52:32PM 2 points [-]

They're more related to each other than either is to a European.

Comment author: hairyfigment 23 August 2014 07:40:34PM -1 points [-]

I take it the word "nobody" means 'Nobody in some particular club'?

Comment author: bramflakes 23 August 2014 09:03:26PM 1 point [-]

Uhm, neither of those are talking about South American natives as if they were "negroes". I'm pretty sure they're talking about the Afro-descended people living there, since they also distinguish between them and the natives.

I'll grant that some thought the Pacific Islanders were "negroes" though.

View more: Next