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 -
Just to be clear, you're asking me to imagine a lineage of people who were smart and capable but held back by cultural and policy issues like slavery and segregation...
...and the conclusion that you expect me to draw from this example is that cultural and policy issues don't matter?
I think you're going to need to unpack your reasoning for me.
The idea is that the extent to which culture and policy has held them back, in the specific areas of education and the economy, has been significantly reduced over time, by a combination of intentional targeted policy and the general free association and exchange of ideas in the modern world. It makes sense that genes would eventually start taking precedent over culture if massive pressures exist on the part of the gap caused by culture.
This is intended as a reply to both this comment and your comment below.
I interpret the phrase/claim that "it's all genetics" as exactly that. Genetics is the only variable worth considering when it comes to evaluating individual or group outcomes.
Even if I concede the claim that specific issues of policy and culture matter less now than they did say a century ago, how do you get from there to the claim that they are not meaningful now, and will not be meaningful in the future?
Likewise, it seems to me that being a couple generations behind in the "building generational wealth game" due to past policy would be a significant handicap that is non-genetic in nature even after preexisting barriers had been removed.
I do not care about whether self_made_human was lying or being dishonest when he said "its all genetics". Most people, most of the time, are dishonest when they argue. What I care about is if the specific claim "variation in genetics matter more than variation in modifiable environment in contributing to educational outcomes".
The fact that we closed the achievement gap a lot in the past two centuries, but despite more and more effort put into reform the achievement gap isn't closing. And the fact that things like tutoring, while they help, seem to help smarter students as much as they do dumber students, so the gap isn't going to close more.
Crucially, this does not mean better education couldn't help. This means the current ways we approach education aren't helping. Maybe a tutor GPT-7 would add .5 stddevs of test scores to each student.
But the problem is, we've reached severe diminishing returns in 'cultural solutions to student test scores and mathematical/scientific knowledge'. I do think there's still juice left to be squeezed in entirely new cultural paradigms, like the AI 1:1 tutor or perhaps entirely reworking school as a series of practical competitions where students have to use math/science knowledge to do something intermediate to 'playing minecraft/factorio', 'working a real job', and 'self-directed survival-oriented problem solving as a hunter-gatherer'. But I think there's just not that much juice left, and most of the benefit of the new paradigms will be in areas other than 'test scores', like 'being economically productive' or 'capable independent people with character'.
But there's a ton of juice left to squeeze in genes. The easiest way to squeeze, technically, although socially unworkable, would just be to normalize average families adopting the excess children of smart/successful families, and then paying/culturally encouraging the latter to have ten kids and adopt them all out. This would cause test scores to skyrocket. (Crucially, this doesn't have to be done on test scores. If you care about metis or tacit knowledge, just have people adopt the children of parents successful on your metric! You could even have people make individual decisions based on their own preferences.). Then, we have embryo selection and gene editing, with the exact same properties.
There are many rich black people. 20% of black households make $100k+ in household income. 50% of jewish households have $100k+. Those numbers are probably off, but within an order of magnitude. 14% of the population is black, and 2% of the population is jewish. Yet. Is scott alexander black? Yudkowsky? Yarvin? Where are all of the intelligent black bloggers? What about nobel prize winners? I agree historical household income has to have some impact. But let's assume it's responsible for the entire wealth, achievement, and income gaps between jewish and black people. The gap in black vs jewish achievement at the highest levels (e.g. nobel prizes, accomplished mathematicians) that remains is still several factors of ten. Why? Why isn't it intelligence?
Fair enough, and for what it's worth I feel like this here might represent some genuine common ground between us because that is ultimately what I care about as well. At the same time I also expect that we will be butting heads shortly on the definition of "modifiable".
Ironically I agree with the statement as well, whole-heartedly even. The difference, I believe, is in where we lay the blame for the apparent failure. The woke-left and alt-right both are both looking for excuses to blame the kids because their ideology depends on it, but I believe that ultimate responsibility must lie with the adults IE the parents and "the educators".
I'm not convinced this is true. I think that what we have is less a situation of "X was attempted and found impossible" and more a situation of "X was found difficult/inconvenient and then abandoned." DeBeor all but admits that the upward mobility of black families in the bay area was becoming inconvenient to progressive policy goals just around the same time that they decided (for totally unrelated reasons we swear) to
sabotageoverhaul the educational system. What if they had just not done that?Again doubt, or at least I doubt that there is anywhere near as much juice as there is left to squeeze out of overturning obviously counter-productive progressive policies. In my mind this is one of those "If you're serious about ending fossil fuels you should be supporting the construction of nuclear powerplants" type situations where the fact that the median Green-new-dealer/HBDer almost never does, seriously undermines the cause's credibility.
As for the last paragraph, the obvious rejoinder is what exactly makes you think Elizer Yudkowski or Curtis Yarvin is more qualified to be a supreme court justice than Clarence Thomas or more qualified to play quarterback than Patrick Mahomes? Be specific, Be precise.
I think this is an important disagreement. I claim that if you cloned Scott Alexander or Eliezer Yudkowsky a hundred times, 90% of them would be obviously extremely talented in ways that outstrip 95% of the population. I claim this both because of GWAS and twin studies, which find that genes cause >50% of the variation in both personality and intelligence ... and because we have a natural experiment. Scott's brother, who he refers to in the parable of the talents, excelled at piano so much as a child that he was flown out to Japan to meet the piano manufacturers, and is now a world-class musician with a wikipedia page. I also claim that it's obvious that the children of two extremely intelligent parents will in most cases themselves be very intelligent in a way that is obvious to external observers. This basic fact that 'children are like their parents' is both scientifically and intuitively and anecdotally justified. And isn't that the biggest low-hanging fruit of them all? Taken literally, we could just replace every child with a clone-of-the-top-99.9% (and again, even if you dispute IQ and innate talent and all that - whatever clone Thomas and Mahomes, they're still very much above average on some metrics). This isn't happening, but it could, physically, and everyone would be much, much better off. Both the much-more-talented individuals and all of those who can enjoy their fruit.
I do think Thomas is qualified to be a supreme court justice, and isn't distinguishably worse as a justice than other white or jewish conservative justices. (That's held weakly, though, entirely due to my lack of legal expertise). But both parties really want black political figures, and they had to try hard to find him. I think the pool of people who are indistinguishable with respect to qualification for supreme court justice-hood is probably 3% black or lower. And being a good justice doesn't require making novel contributions to either something abstract like mathematics or something practical like setting direction and execution for a massive organization, it just requires being a very good writer and lawyer and choosing between non-obvious tough decisions. I think the skill-cap is a lot lower. Von Neumann as judge or Ramanujan as judge are going to be quite difficult to distinguish from midlevel-math-professor as judge, imo. And in areas that are still practical but require intelligence like engineering, the rate of indigenous blacks is quite low. More generally, the rate of black success in professions that require high intelligence is just ... low. And Jewish success is higher, even for secular jews (and half-jews) raised in a home that's modern culture, not jewish religious culture.
I think the skillset that makes one QB is just less intelligence-loaded than either SCOTUS justices, it depends on reflexes, muscle composition, body shape, and a ton of other niche things. Whereas intelligence genuinely does generalize across domains, from aesthetic writing to engineering to politics to math to philosophy. Thomas (obviously) has a ton more generalizable intelligence than most whites. I think he also obviously outclasses Mahomes.
People love to hate on common core, but it was a genuine attempt to teach better. The often-mocked tricks like "when you add 53 and 49, move 1 from the 53 to the 49 to 50, then 50 + 50 + 2 = 102" are actually the kind of things that smarter kids do (sometimes without being taught it specifically) when adding numbers. But it just ... didn't help much. (DeBoer is much more knowledgeable on this than me). I'm not sure what kind of improvements are available within the current institutional constraints. And I think those institutional constraints hurt smart as much as dumb ones, in terms of educational outcomes. Plenty of smart students only take courses one grade level ahead, when they should be doing two or three. Part of my point is that, even though education sucks, why wouldn't improving education just move the smart kids forward along with the dumb ones?
Like. Let's say you take 15 year old Mahomes and a randomly-selected 15 year old black kid. You fast-track them both for 1 on 1 sports training. Who's going to benefit more? I don't think any gaps will close. The same goes for math students - perfect individualized instruction will make individual achievement gaps caused by genes (and group gaps, if they exist) worse, as you'll remove any environmental
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