Not to mention that we'll never solve the problem of large amount of black-on-black crime if we can't admit it's cause.

What is it's cause in your view? How do we solve it?

Under a common definition of racism as belief in meaningful differences between races, these views are racism. So?

I mean "racism" in a way that is significantly consequential for those who are discriminated against. An active racism.

If there truly are meaningful genetic differences between races, then so be it. But that seems to be the justification for the portion of "white supremacist" Trump supporters I mentioned above. It's an angry racism that seems likely to be problematic.

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts.

Extreme in terms of U.S. then? Extreme is relative, right? That's what you're saying?

"More important" for what and "other factors" from which set?

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.

What do you think are transmission mechanisms which would show how having, say, great-great-grandparents who were slaves affects you now?

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.

Do you think the somewhat worse conditions of the American blacks explain the gap in outcomes looking at the present day?

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?

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.

Hm. These views seem very likely to lead to racism.

I've read Breitbart frequently since Steve Bannon was added to Trump's campaign because I'm fascinated with how Trump (an obvious hustler/fraud/charlatan in my view) has managed to get this close to the Oval Office. It's been illuminating (in a disturbing way) in understanding where I now believe a lot of the Trump support is coming from.

I'm confident a portion of his support is just Red-Team-no-matter-what Repubs. And some are one issue Pro-Life Christians. And some are fiscal conservatives who are sincerely just concerned about the debt and spending. And some are blue collar workers in areas (Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc.) where the global economy/technology caused manufacturing to dry up decades ago and they are mad as hell about the facts of the world and will just keep voting to change something, anything until they day they die...

But there is also this (disturbingly large) element of the movement that think non-white people are less than white people. Like, this group of Trump supporters are literally white supremacists—they believe white people are better suited for civilization. And, of course, no one can say that and politically get away with it in 2016, so they use all sorts of dog whistle-y language to imply it—including the main Trumpian slogan, "Make America Great Again­™"

Did anyone else find the banner at the top of the article (about preferring secondary and tertiary sources to primary ones) more interesting (about the problems with wikipedia) than the article itself?

So e.g. if I want to run a dangerous experiment that might destroy the world, it's totally OK as long as I can purchase enough of a risk budget.

And how does this system determine the probability that the experiment might destroy the world? You do realize that's the hard part.

I also enjoyed the linked Politics Is Upstream of Science, which went in-depth on the state interventions in science talked about in the beginning of this piece.

Imagine a drug with no effect except that it cures its own (very bad) withdrawal symptoms. There's no benefit to taking it once, but once you've been exposed, it's beneficial to keep taking more because not taking it makes you feel very bad.