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 -
Hey! First time poster here. Please be critical.
I saw this article last week and am not sure how to think about it. https://www.wsj.com/articles/to-increase-equity-school-districts-eliminate-honors-classes-d5985dee
The TL;DR is that honors classes in this subset of all honors classes had a clear bias in terms of racial makeup relative to baseline. So they stopped offering honors classes.
On the one hand this seems super effective— with a strategy like this maybe in a generation or so when they start offering honors classes again there might be less bias.
On the other hand my intuition says that in general it’s okay to allow students to self-select (or students and whoever is telling them what to do) and decide how much schoolwork they want to do.
It seems relevant to the school-flavor culture war stuff.
Any links to previous threads on similar topics would be appreciated.
Curious to know more.
Edit: not bait, genuine curiosity. Got some good criticism about low-effort top-level-posting, would appreciate suggestions/pointers to excellent top-level posts.
Continued edit: Also curious what about this post codes it as bait? A few people saw it that way.
There’s always going to be racial disparities because there are racial disparities in academic skill as evidenced by testing. Getting rid of honor’s classes because black and latino students do poorly is like getting rid of swimming competitions because short guys do poorly or getting rid of beauty models because fat women feel offended. It is the exact wrong way of looking at the world. The black and latino students, instead of narcissistically believing they are morally harmed, should feel gratitude that they live in a nation where smarter people live and should feel blessed that they have more capable competitors to inspire them. If there is any moral harm occurring, it is that smart students will grow up to have to subsidize the problems of dumb students. In no way do the dumb students possess moral victimhood status, IMHO.
You're essentially arguing that black and Latino students should just accept the reality that they aren't as smart as white people, and be grateful that there are white people around to serve as role models.
Even if this were true, our society is not constructed such that we can assert a modern-day Great Chain of Being and expect the people born into the bottom rungs to accept it.
Isn't this, without the slant, the relationship between a walmart greeter / janitor and a well paid lawyer or software dev? The former are much poorer and less-well-regarded than the latter - much moreso than the difference between a 'median black' and 'median white' - but they 'accept' that, whether by skill or maybe social class, their place is lower. At least in the same sense a black student's is.
Of course it's justified by merit - and if a poor smart person can ace leetcode problems (most can't, even if they try and learn), they have a shot at being richer. But that doesn't make them any less unequal. What makes "I'm (white) not as smart as someone who makes $150k/year (white)" THAT much better (fundamentally, not as a matter of political feasibility) than "I'm (14% black / 60% white) not as smart as someone who makes $150k/year (7% black / 60% white)"?
How does it harm a poor black person much moreso than it does a poor white person?
Black children in families making 200K have the same SAT scores as those born in families making 20K. A child born in the top 1% who is Black (a very rare thing), has the same criminality rate as a 40 percentile who is white. The bottom 50% of Blacks have the same criminality rate as the bottom 1% of Whites by income (again using global not intra-race percentiles). With this in mind let's address your following question.
In an entirely fair society, it is concievable that a poor white janitor or his children might one day have the potential to become something more. The same cannot be said for a black Janitor, and in fact his job might actually merit taking by a black secretary or nurse.
Even unsourced graphs from racist blogs show that, at any IQ level, the number of blacks at it is either less than or decently close to the number of whites. This doesn't demonstrate 'categorical' differences. Sure, regression to the mean means a 90IQ black's probably a bit 'genetically' worse than a 90IQ white, but not that much. A white and black that've sorted into similar skill brackets don't have that much difference in potential. And compared to someone who makes 300k/year, the difference is difficult to notice. I don't see what your stats add to that picture.
To the original points, being a 'low-IQ black' isn't worse than being a low-IQ white, of which there are many.
And, if you (speaking generally) are a 130IQ white talking to a bunch of 125IQ whites, isn't there something odd about drawing a line between a 90IQ black and a 100IQ white?
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