This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
New Harvard class of 2028 Demographic data just dropped
Predictably, the Supreme Court decision hasn't changed anything. Whites are not even represented in the demographic statistics, they are an implied residual.
Harvard's data indicates that at least 68% of the class of 2028 is non-White. That leaves 32% of the class as categorized as "White", but the best data we have suggests that Jewish population of Harvard is about 10%, so Gentile Whites, who make up over 60% of the country and founded this country and these institutions, have probably about 20% representation in the Harvard class of 2028, certainly being by far the least represented group by population.
I mean, wasn't the whole Supreme Court ruling about the fact that it doesn't matter what percentage of the population a group makes up, all students have to get in on merit. The Supreme Court didn't say that Harvard should get more white people because they're the majority, the Supreme Court said that Harvard should stop discriminating against Asians in spite of their high academic achievement. Given well-documented racial differences in intelligence and grades, we shouldn't expect a purely meritocratic Harvard to be representative of the makeup of the country.
That said, it doesn't look like Harvard has pivoted to meritocracy just yet. It looks like the school changed their measures (no doubt deliberately) but this article does suggest the AA share has reduced from 18% to 14%, while the white/other share has increased from 29% to 32%. Asian enrolment hasn't changed and the proportion of students who refuse to share demographic identity has doubled from 4% to 8%, therefore the new figures are only based on those students who did give their ethnicity. I would assume the non-sharing group is mostly white or Asian which might explain why the Asian share doesn't seem to have increased.
The entire concept of merit-based admissions is bullshit on multiple levels. On one level, because there is such an enormous pool of applicants with stellar academic credentials you are invariably going to need to rely on other criteria, and the criteria you choose is equivalent to choosing a demographic pool. This doesn't apply as much to Black/Latino applicants, as their academic credentials surely fall woefully short of the application pool of Asians and Jews/Whites.
But among the latter groups, how would you possibly select a subpopulation in a way that isn't subjective, and by extension subject to the cultural and political sensibilities of the admissions committee? That admissions committee which, in the future, is going to be composed of the people who are selected based on the criteria of Racial Spoils?
How about- for every person in the world who speaks English, when they are 18, they receive an invitation to a proctored IQ test. The top N are admitted. Wouldn't that be the most meritocratic? If the future Harvard class is 100% Chinese would you be satisfied because that's the most meritocratic outcome?
Why should this not sit well for you? Because these Institutions are feeders into the political, economic, and cultural institutions that rule over us. If you succeed in making Harvard 100% Chinese, you don't get to pat yourself on the back for accomplishing meritocracy, you are accountable for the political and cultural impact for handing over these institutions to Chinese people.
I don't want my children to compete against the entire world to attend the Institutions I had access to. I want those institutions to be partial to them. Why are Europeans the only people in the world that have to open their institutions, the ones they founded, to global competition?
It's time for people, especially Rationalists with an IQ fixation, to accept that admissions to elite institutions can and should never be based on merit alone, it should be based on the type of world you want to build. It should be noted that opening up college admissions- more meritocracy, did not erase ethnic spoils in the college admissions process it just led to those institutions being tipped against the White people who founded them.
The only Meritocracy that matters is on a Civilizational level, and it's not Europeans demanding access to Civilization and institutions founded by Asians or Jews. A pool of billions of Indians and Chinese competing against my child for access to an institution founded in my home state by Europeans, using a roundabout and fancy IQ test, to the extent that's "meritocratic" is the extent to which meritocracy is a false idol.
For posterity should be the goal, and it was the goal of the Founders of all these institutions which are being handed away. Meritocracy wasn't the impetus and it shouldn't be.
Easy peasy, a lottery system that picks X students out all applicants with test scores/GPAs higher than Y threshold.
Ok, so you end up with an entirely Indian/Chinese student body in the Ivy League.
That does beg the question: if they have the most merit why are they the ones seeking access to our institutions and not the other way around?
No, there will still be whites (and blacks and hispanics) over the threshold for the lottery too, just fewer per capita. That said, I would wholeheartedly support severely restricting the amount of student visas we hand out to prioritize American students (and similar solutions).
But why do you support restricting Visas if you care so much about meritocracy? The reason you wouldn't just give every slot to the top N of the world with no visa restrictions shows that it's not all about "meritocracy." There are other, important considerations.
More options
Context Copy link
None of the Ivies / other elite colleges have obscene numbers of international students; the great majority of eg. Asian admits are US citizens.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link