Yeah, we've been at this for a few days now. I think I've humored you enough at this point.

If you want to get past raw assertions and have a more serious discussion about academic bias and race, try finding the relevant studies and reading the relevant history instead of giving us more of your armchair impressions. Also, lay off the right wing press. It obviously isn't helping you. Also, don't reflexively downvote comments from people you're arguing with. Also, don't ignore their questions and responses. Also, stop shifting topics instead of acknowledging a fair point.

I pause to add to a different comment of mine from elsewhere in this thread, where I stated that right-wing libertarians are over-represented. I happen to think that this is a good thing, even if I think that right-wing libertarian ideology is wrong, and if consistently implemented, morally awful.

At the university level, at least, they tend to be much more interesting to talk to than people who agree with me. They also provide an excellent service: if you want to know what's wrong with particular government policies you've never heard of, libertarians will happily assist you.

What standard are you using to judge whether they're correct or not?

Several. Here's an example: do they tend to promote true ideas over false ones, even on politicized topics? Yes. It makes a lot of movement conservatives and radical environmentalists angry, but they do. This is anecdotal, but I have an easier time finding people willing to listen to my unpopular ideas amongst students and faculty than I do with my neighbors.

I'm guessing that pressed you enough, you'd wind up answering "the gate keepers (especially the ones at universities) are more-or-less doing a good job, I know this because they told me so".

And you'd be guessing incorrectly. See the previous response. I suppose you're working on the response to a previous comment of mine wherein I asked you to describe what you think the political atmosphere at universities to be like. I will also refer back to my first comment, wherein I asked whether or not intellectual diversity has been improving or not - I think it has been.

Here's a fun exercise. Try going to your nearest black underclass neighborhood, preferably at night. See how well this advice serves you.

My advice implied this where... I wonder... Hate to have to say it, but I wouldn't advise doing that. I wonder if in some alternate universe where I, a black man, was explaining to a black Eugine Nier about adjustments in behavior he should consider around groups of unfamiliar white people, whether that black Eugine Nier would suggest I try it out in rural West Virginia.

This seems like a total non sequitur.

From your previous comment and others you've made in this thread, you seem to think that talking about any racial distinctions is taboo and verboten, especially in academic circles. That just isn't true.

A century ago this was much closer to the standard stereotype.

We could talk about that, just like we tend to have to talk about new topics whenever you tire of the original ones. I could pick a new thing to talk about too, like problems with "model minority" stereotypes. Or I can get closer to the original, and ask for what relevant similarities you see between Asian people and black people - apart from their being minorities - that makes you seriously wonder "why black people haven't done it."

The evidence for their being better at this than laymen is at best mixed. Editors and media are bad at sufficiently filtering things like climate change denial and creationism, while faculty and administrators are better. I would argue that everyone on that list is likely to have a "neutrality bias", by which I mean they are often more concerned with appearing "objective" or "centrist" than they are with saying true things. Both the left and right operate large "flak industries" to try to shift what counts as "objective" in one direction or the other.

They became better with racism, but only with the help of popular movements. Legislation made them better about persons with disabilities. We're seeing similar shifts right now concerning sexism and homophobia.

It would be difficult to get an very accurate picture of where such elites do well and badly. The metric would have to involve a specification of what counts as "correct" or "popular" morality, as well as the epistemic merit of a huge variety of politically-charged positions. If you want to get past simple outcome-based statements concerning a specific position, it's a hard problem. Do they do well enough to maintain a diverse, intellectually stimulating environment?

Media editors? No. Corporate boards and managers? Sometimes, but very often no. Publishers? A mix. University administrators and faculty? Mostly yes.

Are they "getting it right" when they select against racialists and Stalinists? Yes.

If you like, you can pick something other than Stalinism. I only said that one because it was something you obviously dislike. Think of some other rare left-wing idea, if you like.

If you'd be so kind, I'd also appreciate some presentation of what you think the political atmosphere in American Universities is like, preferably with citations. I think you and I are coming from entirely different places on this.

All of us, to some extent, though publishers, administrators, corporate boards, managers, faculty, and editors have much more say. Is there some interesting followup to the obvious here?

Where are all these Stalinists, again? I used an example from the original link, btw.

I thought you would be able to interpret that as "all of it" and be able to find the obvious reasons why, but ok.

So, what specific behaviors did you have in mind?

I behave differently around groups of young men like myself, at company meetings, when visiting a synagogue, at family gatherings, with friends, at dinner with a family of asian immigrants, at bars, with strangers...

I will behave differently around feminists and strict conservatives. I will behave differently with a group of black strangers. I use background knowledge and empathy to make my adjustments, usually automatically - the automatic process only being sufficiently reliable in relatively familiar situations. An example: if at any point you become tempted to defend "race realism" or talk about how not racist you are, you're probably doing it wrong. If you are at any point accused of racism, you're probably doing something wrong, but even if you weren't, don't argue. Black people don't usually like white strangers appointing themselves the local expert on white-on-black racism. If you get as nervous as Derbyshire, it might be best to follow his advice and avoid such situations. If you're new to it, be prepared to make mistakes however well-intentioned you are. The key is owning up to them when you make them. Most of all, remember that the point of your being there is to share in some common activity with your fellow human beings.

A note from personal experience: like most groups of young men, young black men like ribbing each other. If you can't keep your cool, you're in for a hard time. 99% of the soured situations I've seen have run as follows: me and other white dude and some black guys are hanging out, having a good time, trading jokes, and killing brain cells. Black guy makes a joke at other white dude's expense, and the other white dude can't keep chill. I swear you can see the bullseye appearing on his forehead as soon as he starts. Everybody notices instantly, and it's all downhill from there.

My advice is almost entirely commonsensical, and your experience may vary.

Yes, if you insist of seeing X in everything, it's not hard to miss the X "underline" in everything, whether X is racism, Illuminati influence, or the hand of Satan.

Yeah, seeing racism in US politics is like seeing Illuminati. I don't think I can improve this one for you.

In particular recognizing difference in behavior between people of different races (even if one isn't willing to consciously admit the difference for fear of being "racist") is system 1.

It is system 1. There are behavioral differences. I don't think we're as panic-stricken as you think we are.

Somehow this effect didn't seem to stop Asians.

Because the stereotypical Asian is a subhuman, primitive brute incapable of self-control, especially around white women. Also, descendant of slaves.

A high burden of proof for both.

The answer is that about everybody makes this determination whether you want them to or not.