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 -
This feels like more of a dumb question but why did we have any significant amount of affirmative action for Hispanics in the US?
Thought about it on this tweet on DEI at a UC med school
There are a lot of white hispanics. I would have assumed they could have just picked off to fill their classes with University of Michigan quality white hispanics. Basically Rubio, Cruz, Fernando Mendoza types. And they all for demographic purposes qualify as Hispanic. And you could find a bunch of German Brazilians or Mexican Jews if you needed to. Is the needing to take students that will show a legitimate achievement gap primarily cultural?
The article says the school was 4.6 times more likely to admit a Hispanic student than a white student. I would have assumed that ratio would have been a lot smaller. Is the American hispanic population just a lot browner?
You put racists in charge of implementing a racist policy, and are somehow expecting the race they hate to not be underrepresented?
Harvard is famous for not admitting many ADOS and filling their class with foreign Africans. They probably do the same with Hispanics and fill their class with a bunch of rich white guys from S America.
I am mostly interested in the right-tail of our education system. And a 4.6 factor of more likely to be accepted feels high to me. Med schools are fairly right tail. Maybe not fully top 1% but up there.
Jews count as white and represent historically something like 40% of Nobels despite a small population. So that boost the listed white population but not to justify a 4.6 number. The other thing I come up with is most white hispanics are from Spain which is outside of what’s considered the highest quality hbd but not all. To lower the number though Europeans largely do not go to American schools but Latin America many do. So there is a large population to choose from of foreigners that count as Hispanic.
When we were doing the thing where a good school had to have identical percentages of American demographics a 4.6 benefit for Hispanics just feels high to me for right tail IQ education.
For an example of how stark this is, there was one African-American student who estimated that there were ZERO students at Harvard who had four grandparents who were ADOS (American Descendants of Slaves).
Essentially the entire black population of Harvard is people who didn't qualify academically with the additional twist of the knife that the descendants of African slave dealers are more represented than the descendants of those who were sold.
Selection effects?
Probably, yeah, but good luck getting any data on it.
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