site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   28387 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 19, 2024

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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Richard Hanania writes we need to shut up about HBD.

https://www.richardhanania.com/p/shut-up-about-race-and-iq

He defines HBD as believing:

  1. Populations have genetic differences in things like personality and intelligence. (group differences)

  2. Groups are often in zero-sum competition with one another, and this is a useful way to understand the world. (zero sum)

  3. People to a very strong degree naturally prefer their own ingroup over others. (descriptive tribalism)

  4. Individuals should favor their own ingroup, whether that is their race or their co-nationals. (normative tribalism)

And he goes on to criticize 2-4. I tend to agree with those criticisms, but I think it’s fairly common in these kinds of circles to believe a version of 2 focused on ideological competition, not between racial groups, where the social justice left and its preferred policies to rectify group differences can only be defeated by using the facts to explain group differences that won’t be rectified through policy.

While I accept Hanania’s point that the facts frequently don’t matter in which political ideas rise to the top, I still feel like Cofnas has a point (whom Hanania is responding to).

I’m quite philosemetic, for example. The best argument against antisemitism based on observing Jewish overperformance and concluding it’s due to some kind of plot is explaining that intelligence matters and the Ashkenazim underwent a particular history and we now observe them having very high average test scores.

Hanania himself wrote not so long ago about how Jewish personality traits might be needed to fully explain their political interest and influence, beyond just intelligence.

Using biology to explain overperformance but not underperformance seems like a strange compromise.

In much of today’s polite society, if one points out the achievement gap among groups, you’re a racist.

But if one doesn’t acknowledge the achievement gap between groups to justify affirmative action, you’re a racist.

And that’s without even mentioning biology! Watching lefties like Kathryn Paige Harden and Freddie deBoer try to (admirably) describe these kinds of issues while trying to remain in the good graces of polite society is enlightening.

Now, if you could guarantee me a return to a more race-blind culture and legal system if we shut up about genetics then I would take that. But we are on a path towards learning the murky details of (and being able to influence) genetics of both groups and individuals. I don’t think the elephant in the room will stay quiet.

It’s a bit remarkable to read Hanania write:

Truth in and of itself is never a good reason to talk about something. There are many facts nobody wants to discuss. The idea of sleeping with very short men fills many women with revulsion. The severely handicapped are a drain on society’s resources. And so on.

I think he means, “talk about something publicly” as opposed to at all, but actually I’ll easily bite those bullets and say we ought to understand the disadvantages short men face due to female preferences and that we ought to know just how much we expend society’s resources on the severely handicapped.

Social desirability bias is incredibly powerful and one should choose one’s battles. Polite society in the West went from being quite racist, in ways that didn’t always align with the facts, to correcting hard (thanks, Hitler) to race is only skin deep, which also doesn’t align. And then we got the influence of Kendiism.

Even ignoring immigration (where he doesn’t cover the Garret Jones stance), a lot of US politics comes down to this issue, and HBD was mostly in a quietist tradition the last few decades with little influence for being outside the Overton Window.

I know Trace doesn’t like HBD much, but wow is that like the whole story of his FAA traffic controller storyline. If you listen to the Blocked and Reported episode, he and Jesse aren’t shy about pointing out it was an insane policy to completely jettison meritocracy, but they dance around the general point that if you set a fairly high intellectual bar for a job, it’s going to look like the racists are right. If you allow self-selection, you also very well might make it look like the sexists are right.

The elephant in the room is only growing larger for anyone following the facts. Conceding the present Overton Window is unassailable is I think conceding defeat to the social justice left.

I think he is correct. I find HBD plausible in principle, but it's terrible political tool in practice. For one, its radioactive and attracts a high proportion of radioactive supporters. Second, many better tools already exist (standardized tests, colorblind policy, merit based immigration vetting). HBD is a worse substitute than existing policy frameworks. It purports to partially explain a wide variety of complex human behavior of ill defined groups. Interesting in principle; a bad policy tool for a nation that focuses so much on the individual (culturally and legally).

Second, many better tools already exist (standardized tests, colorblind policy, merit based immigration vetting). HBD is a worse substitute than existing policy frameworks.

HBD isn't a policy tool. It's merely an observation about the world. Standardized tests, colorblind policy, merit based immigration vetting are all compatible with HBD, it merely predicts that the results will be racially "disparate".

And since the disparate impact is one of the main arguments against merit-based policies, HBD is relevant as a defense thereof.

And since the disparate impact is one of the main arguments against merit-based policies, HBD is relevant as a defense thereof.

How so? If the argument is that IQ tests are forbidden in hiring because they cause blacks to be hired less often, thus denying them "equal employment opportunity," the reason why they do so is irrelevant. HBD is a defense against the claim that "disparate impact" is evidence of "invidious discrimination," but I've seen people make the case that much of the legal and academic sectors aren't actually making this claim — they take eliminating "disparate impact" regardless of the cause to be the goal, at which point HBD is irrelevant. Explaining why the disparate impact occurs, how it's a product of biology, does not excuse the disparate impact.

But the disparate impact doctrine is much harder to defend without "all races are equal", so it makes sense as a first step.

But the disparate impact doctrine is much harder to defend without "all races are equal",

Is it, though? I suppose it's not clear on what you mean by "disparate impact doctrine." I'm probably going to have to do that effort-post. But there's a difference between the "disparate impact is evidence of the racial discrimination that civil rights law is intended to fight" position, and the "we define 'racism' as the existence of disparate impact, and the purpose of civil rights law is to achieve racial equity regardless of causes."

There is the view that blacks should not be "overrepresented" in the prison population even if they commit more crimes — even if they are genetically predisposed to higher crime. I've seen someone actually argue and defend this view. It is the position that it doesn't matter if "all races are equal" or not — in cultural terms, genetic terms, whatever — it is our moral duty as a society to make them equal in terms of life outcomes, regardless. That this is what the "fairness" moral axis demands. That "equity" is a terminal moral goal, good in-and-of-itself, and either you share that fundamental moral value, or you don't (in which case, you are a racist moral mutant and an enemy to be defeated).

Yes, both of these are arguments against meritocracy in practice. The former is refuted by HBD, and while the latter is not, it's also weaker, because it relies on a moral axiom that is harder to defend and less shared in the mainstream.

Hence, HBD weakens the case.

and less shared in the mainstream.

And what does "the mainstream" matter? So long as the elites share this moral value, they don't have to defend it, they just have to forcefully impose it on the powerless peasant masses.

but it's terrible political tool in practice. For one, its radioactive and attracts a high proportion of radioactive supporters.

Because the media portrays anyone who gives the slightest whiff of agreeing with these ideas as being practically indistinguishable from from Nazis. So naturally the only people who talk about agreeing with this stuff are people who don't care about being called literal Nazis.

But really, everyone kinda understands HBD already. It's just that you're not allowed to talk about it. The hundreds of millions of people who watch the NBA or NFL and note the lack of, say, Indians or Chinese, nonetheless don't loudly complain that the NBA must be anti-Indian or anti-Chinese.

Oh I totally agree with this assessment. This was true when Murray published The Bell Curve, which is milquetoast compared to HBD (ie it was explicitly agnostic to genetic factors). The radioactivity remains. HBD is the path of most resistance, justly or otherwise, so the realpolitik renders it almost useless in practice. Any substitute is already superior. Moreover, I would argue that HBD has plenty of epistemic problems, which get only magnified in individualistic societies.

Second, many better tools already exist (standardized tests, colorblind policy, merit based immigration vetting).

Sure, and then when you use those tools and a disparate racial impact is found the courts find you've run afoul of the Civil Rights Act.

It is a defense to disparate impact along protected class lines if it can be shown that the discriminatory factor is a business necessity. I'm less confident in how this plays out in practiced, how many bullshit claims of prevailed since the CRA, and how much bullshit claims have trailed off since.

Tons of US companies including elite hedge funds and so on, not to mention the US military itself, use extremely g-loaded standardized testing in recruitment. All your lawyers have to be able to prove is that people who score better on the test do better at their jobs, which should be trivial. Cases where organizations have lost (there was a fire department one semi-recently iirc) usually happen because they’re so incompetent they forgot to collect the data in advance of getting sued.

All your lawyers have to be able to prove is that people who score better on the test do better at their jobs, which should be trivial.

Even if that’s “all” your lawyers have to do (just draw the rest of the owl), that certainly may not be trivial due to range restriction, Berkson’s paradox, and normal distribution tail effects (e.g., Gladwell’s Fallacy).

IQ and (hypothetical) job performance could be strongly correlated in the applicant pool, but weak or even inverted among the employed.

It’s not trivial demonstrating that height is predictive of tennis and basketball performance using data on ATP and NBA players, respectively. Some fans, including hardcore fans, are even under the impression that it can be negatively correlated in some ranges. “Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic show that the optimal height for tennis is around 6’1”-6’2”, and players like Del Potro or taller are just too tall” is a common sentiment.

This is the whole SAT aren’t predictive of college performance. It’s not predictive once you have already filtered for SAT skills plus other categories.

Yes, the disparate impact standard needs to go, and should be a top priority.

How do you expect to convince the legislature or courts to reject the disparate impact standard except through convincing them HBD is true? If it isn't true disparate impact makes perfect sense. If I believed in my heart that every group really was fundamentally equal, I would love the disparate impact standard. Nothing else would make sense!

Yeah, it definitely helps.

Differences in everything else would also matter. Cultures differ, life opportunities, etc. also matter and anything that's influenced by these could have disparate impact in some direction or another.

Pre-existing widespread disparities can cause disparities in otherwise fair measures, and are not indicative of discriminatory intent, the latter of which was what the civil rights act was supposed to address.

Pre-existing widespread disparities can cause disparities in otherwise fair measures, and are not indicative of discriminatory intent

There are a pair of long effort-post replies I made to a mutual on Tumblr (who also posts here rarely) that I should probably slightly edit into an effort-post here, on the legal-academic understanding of "racism" and civil rights law, starting with an argument I encountered pushing back on the usual criticism of Griggs, and extending through a sort of steelman of "Kendiism" (including references to Kendi's works and definitions).

To try to tl;dr summarize, "discriminatory intent" is irrelevant. The EEOC stands for "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission," and they define "equal opportunity" as the absence of "disparate impact." It doesn't matter if there's no discriminatory intent by any party, the mere fact that something (such as IQ tests) causes an ethnic minority to have a lower likelihood of being hired makes it presumptively forbidden. This may not have been the intent behind the civil rights act, on the part of many of its supporters (though I've seen people argue that for many of the more academic sorts, addressing "disparate impact" was always the goal, and "discriminatory intent" mattered only in that it was theorized as the primary cause), but it's how the enforcement bodies, and the academic consensus, very quickly came to interpret it. And, as they say, personnel is policy, therefore, so long as those same people are in charge of enforcement, no amount of "no really, this is about discrimination, we really mean it this time" from legislators is going to stop them from targeting "disparate impact."

That's probably fair. That said, a favorable supreme court ruling might be able to make a little of a difference. The law as it exists is clear enough, just badly misinterpreted. I'd be interested in seeing the effort posts. Could they mandate some standard of evidence, with it specified what sorts of things could count? (explicit evidence of intent counts, ratios that are off does not)

If legislators really wanted to rein in rogue agencies, I bet being able to sue individual employees for agency misbehavior that they participated in would do the trick, though that could be kind of extreme and lead to further breakdown of the government.

Could they mandate some standard of evidence… explicit evidence of intent counts, ratios that are off does not

They could try, perhaps, but if the EEOC decides to ignore that and stick to the current (academic) consensus — "ratios that are off" matter, "evidence of intent" unnecessary — what is the recourse, then

I bet being able to sue individual employees for agency misbehavior that they participated in would do the trick

Requires a number of factors that I find unlikely, most notably cooperative courts. AIUI, there are many precedents holding a broad immunity to this sort of thing, and I doubt they'd like to weaken those. And, of course, even if Congress grants you the ability to sue, they can't grant you the ability to win. If the courts find against the plaintiff and rule that there was no "agency misbehavior" in 100% of the cases brought before them, then does it really matter?

and lead to further breakdown of the government.

What breakdown?

More comments

Also, the HBD strategy requires that almost all whites become GOP voters. That seems unlikely in the near future. The other strategy is the Bannon strategy of aiming for 60% of whites, 40% of Hispanics and 15% of blacks. That’s achievable for the GOP, but probably not if ‘awareness of HBD’ is a major party pillar.

I think this is where HBD is misapplied as a heuristic if the goal is a colorblind meritocratic society. There are 40M blacks in the US. Plenty have merit for various jobs, things get weird at the tails, but there is a skew is already roughly reflected in broad achievement. From a quora post "what is the IQ of blacks"

"It’s about one standard deviation lower than whites or about 85. In practice, this means that individuals at the upper end of the curve are massively underrepresented. Look at two rather meritocratic statistics: 1) about 1% of NIH grants are awarded to black scientists 2) about 1% of CPAs in America are black. In either of these examples, there isn’t a big push to have candidates get external support or preferences (e.g. medical school or Ivy undergrad) so blacks are underrepresented by about 10 fold, which is what would be expected by a bell curve shifted to the left by one standard deviation.

Tally for black achievements (14% of U.S. Population):

1% NIH Grants awarded 1% of CPAs 1% of Fortune 500 CEOs (19 out of 1,800 recorded over history) 1% of American billionaires 1.8% of Law firm partners (virtually zero 0% at big NYC law firms) 2% of U.S. Air Force pilots 0% of Nobel prizes in Physics, medicine, chemistry ~1% of Nobel prizes in Economics (1 in history, note some years multiple recipients creating fuzzy math) 0% of Fields Medalists (considered the closest to Nobel for math) Another way to look at the issue of black intelligence is to pick an IQ required for a demanding job and see how many individuals fall in that category. Some researchers have suggested it takes an IQ of 130 to become a professor, senior executive, physician, tech entrepreneur. One could argue this is a floor, not an average. In the general population, about 2.5% of people would have an IQ this high. If the distribution curve is shifted to the left one SD, only 0.13% or about 1/17th as much (1/17th of 2.5%) of the population reaches this level. This suggests only one out of 770 American blacks would likely be capable of such professions.

This is all explicitly legal (a non-arbitrary business necessity must be demonstrated for disparate achievement to be perfectly legal. Standardized tests are fine). So you'd want to build merit based coalitions which doesn't lump ill defined groups together. HBD is less useful because its too broad. Coleman Hughes has collected wildly disparate outcomes at the group level within the squishy race categories, and HBD misses all of that. There are certainly edge cases of unqualified candidates being pushed forward to everyones detriment (such as the Barpod sadfunny ATC episode), but such instances have been challenged in the courts repeatedly, with ruling which work with HBD anyhow (ie demonstrating the necessity of disparate outcomes for organizational functioning).

All those stats you cited prove systemic racism, which we need a progressive government to eradicate.

I think this is where HBD is misapplied as a heuristic if the goal is a colorblind meritocratic society.

HBD is not a "heuristic", it's an explanation for why your purported colorblind meritocracy seems to be roughly sorted by race. Without that, you've got basically "racism", "culture" (which both doesn't hold up and quickly gets blamed on racism, perhaps in the Lysenkoist way Questionmark used above), and "Huh, I dunno, seems odd" which is taken as "racism but we won't admit it".

Some researchers have suggested it takes an IQ of 130 to become a professor, senior executive, physician, tech entrepreneur. One could argue this is a floor, not an average.

One could argue, but one would be wrong. There are definitely professors and executives who couldn't meet that. Or add two single digit numbers without using their fingers. Probably tech entrepreneurs too, though I don't know about successful tech entrepreneurs.

No I mean using that a explanation as a sorting or policy heuristic. Suboptimal imo. Take the analogy of gender differences and firefighters. Biology explains the difference. All else equal, males will make better firefighters in many circumstances. Is biology the best policy tool are political talking point. I'd argue no. Are there females who could make the cut? Sure. And hiring differences in firefighters has successfully defended against disparate impact (people will argue the test doesn't demonstrate a necessity, but I digress). There is prob a better analogy using evolution (explanatory) to sort or guide something is less optimal than extant sorting or guiding policies. Hope I'm clear enough. But yes, HBD is not a heuristic, but the OP opened that analogy.

If you want to say "HBD not racism or culture explains much of the disparate outcomes", then yeah, fine. I agree. Nevertheless, I'd argue that taking about it in political or policy debates is usually suboptimal imo because the flack (just and unjust), better tools, the fact that society is often sorted that way anyhow. HBD could really illuminate understanding of reality.

Nevertheless, I'd argue that taking about it in political or policy debates is usually suboptimal imo because the flack (just and unjust)

It's optimal, it's just terrible. If you give up HBD and someone claims a test has disparate impact, you have no defense unless you can claim the test is measuring something real. And that's HBD. That the left has successfully taken that explanation off the table means they keep winning; there's no way to counter without putting that explanation back on the table.

The viability of standardized tests, colorblind policy, and merit-based immigration vetting all depend on either their outcomes being race-neutral, or HBD being at least tacitly accepted. The strong belief that all racial groups are equal, combined with the demonstrated fact that they are not, means you have to give up or distort standardized tests and merit-based immigraiton vetting, and discard colorblind policies.

depend on either their outcomes being race-neutral

I may be wrong but I think this is explicitly untrue legally. AFAIK, if you can demonstrate a necessity of hiring in a way that causes a disparate impact, and your methods were not arbitrary (standardized tests are usually used as a defense), then it's perfectly legal.

Are there people making ignorant or bad faith cases about the arbitrariness of the standardized tests? Of course. But as far as I can tell, they lose in court.

AFAIK, if you can demonstrate a necessity of hiring in a way that causes a disparate impact, and your methods were not arbitrary (standardized tests are usually used as a defense), then it's perfectly legal.

Burden of proof of necessity is on you, and if the complaining party can suggest another method of hiring which would solve the same problem without the disparate impact, they win. Obviously they don't have to suggest something which works (how can you tell in the case that it was not used) or is even vaguely practical, just something which sounds plausible to the arbiter.

Are there people making ignorant or bad faith cases about the arbitrariness of the standardized tests? Of course. But as far as I can tell, they lose in court.

  1. The process is the punishment

  2. First you have to get to court. Which means having the administrative process run to conclusion, Which means getting through the EEOC. Which is rather friendly to disparate impact arguments of the right valence.

  3. See point about burden of proof.

Why can't it be like something like the NBA - where EVERYONE can see that certain groups are vastly over- or under-represented, and it's still understood to be almost completely based on merit?

It’s interesting that the NBA is your example, because it’s an example of overrepresentation that probably isn’t genetic- other major sports leagues aren’t that black, and basketball rewards height and hand-eye coordination- things blacks are unexceptional at- more than, say, sprinting speed or hitting puberty early- things blacks have an advantage at. It’s also really easy to tell how well players merit being where they are, and as far as we know those are simply the best players available.

It’s probably cultural reasons, not genetic ones- blacks really like basketball and everyone knows it, so they become good basketball players and not good baseball players. There might be some HBD around the edges, but most of it is that blacks like basketball a lot.

Traits like height, sprinting speed, hand-eye coordination, etc. are approximately normally distributed. That means even small differences in mean or variation matter a lot on the tails. If we are talking about the highest levels of play where only people 2+ standard deviations out can even compete, then even the smallest differences matter more, exponentially more. It's not something that can be consigned to the margin, it's almost the only thing that matters at this level.

Look at someone like Shaq, he has no skill, he's just a big guy who could bully the court with his size.

Sprinting is the obvious one. Also marathons.

Why doesn’t white privilege from all the fancy coaching help them here? Does white culture really not highly prize athletic performance?

It’s pretty obviously not “blacks just like basketball so much more than whites” that explains black overrepresentation here.

Tons and tons of American white boys, far outnumbering blacks, try as hard as they can to make it big in basketball and football.

And there’s a lot more white football players than in basketball. It’s reasonable to think that culture is the main reason for that particular discrepancy.

Blacks make up over half the NFL so they’re still overrepresented by a factor of four.

Culture doesn’t cut it there either as an explanation because both whites and blacks have very strong cultural motivations for those two sports.

Where culture does tend to explain things is when blacks aren’t overrepresented because it’s a sport where black kids are less likely to have a shot or interest. Famously, the Winter Olympics don’t have a lot of Africans on the podium. The NHL is very white and that almost certainly is explained by culture and not by skating genes. Similarly, baseball has a different cultural situation.

Blacks make up over half the NFL in part because they hit puberty earlier, and this is a sport where physical size in high school really matters to whether you get a career or not. They’re also better sprinters, which matters a lot in football.

That being said, blacks are also more willing to accept their sons being injured or missing educational opportunities for the sake of an athletics career, which is very relevant for football. So I think there is a strong cultural component, and that a key piece of evidence for that is the stars being much whiter than the league as a whole, although still probably blacker than genpop- the stars are presumably a pure-talent selection, and we would expect that to match the distribution of talent more closely than any cultural factors.

More comments

You’re forgetting other obvious factors such as leaping - something which involves fast-twitch muscles - and wingspan, which is an incredibly important physical trait in the NBA. Blacks have significantly different bodily proportions than whites; their arms are proportionally significantly longer, as are their legs. Hand size as well. The bodily proportions particular to blacks are especially well-suited to basketball.

Since when does leaping ability not matter in basketball? Which is definitely a think hbd types would point to as a black edge.

From 1984-2022 only one white person won the nba slam dunk contest. 2023/2024 a white person won named Matt McClung won but the competition is weird and filled with g-league players and only one NBA star participated. Honestly looks like white affirmative action.

Obviously other abilities matter in basketball too, but a big one is my launch point for my shot is higher than the defenders ability to block that shot which is heavily aided by jumping ability.

I just have a huge urge to use a cliche but “tell me you’ve never been dunked on without telling me you’ve never been dunked on”.

I wasn't actually even trying to use an example where genetics is the main difference. My point was simply that we should understand that disproportionate representation can come about through other reasons than 'racism'. I agree that culture is a big part of it. If kids in Asia didn't spend so much time studying for various exams and more time playing basketball, there'd probably be more basketball talent produced (though note that I'm saying nothing about proportionality).

Having said that, I do think genetics is a part of it though. Other countries are also crazy about basketball - like, say, the Philippines, and you don't see a mass influx of Philippine basketball talent into the NBA every year. I think fast twitch muscles also help in playing defense, for example. Height also helps one be good at basketball, and I'm not sure how many 6'7 Asian dudes there are.

What happened here? How was puntifex soliciting an opinion from you?

When you do decide to chime in, do so politely, please.

One week ban.

Because the left controls the narrative. Underrepresentation in the NBA? Git gud whitey. Underrepresentation at medical schools? That's racist.

I don't disagree! You should read my question as a wistful "why can't we be treat things that non-black Americans do disproportionately well at like we treat things black Americans disproportionately excel at"?

Or, why can't we strive to change our institutions to be less racist (albeit in the opposite direction from what everyone thinks)?

The viability of standardized tests, colorblind policy, and merit-based immigration vetting all depend on either their outcomes being race-neutral, or HBD being at least tacitly accepted. The strong belief that all racial groups are equal, combined with the demonstrated fact that they are not, means you have to give up or distort standardized tests and merit-based immigraiton vetting, and discard colorblind policies.

This is what's frustrating about talking to "roll the clock back twenty years" temperamental liberals. Let's say you manage to return to a norm of colorblindness and implement effective tests for merit in immigration, education, and criminal justice, all while keeping HBD a studiously quiet truth only known to geneticists and a few internet edgelords.

What is your answer when the black professional class all but evaporates? Or when the AP math and science classes at your local inner city school are entirely asian and white? Or when the black arrest rate increases after a 'fair' new colorblind policing reform?

The answer is that your fancy meritocratic tools get torn down and replaced with racial quotas again.

What is your answer when the black professional class all but evaporates? Or when the AP math and science classes at your local inner city school are entirely asian and white? Or when the black arrest rate increases after a 'fair' new colorblind policing reform?

On the contrary, what is the HBDer’s answer? “Just suck it up, that’s life fam, sucks to be you I guess”? The “promote HBD as an explanation” argument has no answer to what happens when the erstwhile black and Latino professional (or otherwise) class says “I don’t care about your bullshit race science, go fuck yourself”. Are you gonna fight some kind of race war against 50+ million people spread out across the entire United States? Since when is that desirable?

The “promote HBD as an answer” position seems to imagine that all the groups that are publicly identified as genetic losers will just roll over and take it, “oh yes, Sir, I suppose whites and Asians really should be in charge then while me and my children are destined to be poor forever”. That seems pretty unlikely.

On the contrary, what is the HBDer’s answer?

The same as the answer of Jews or Asians when whites complain about them doing too well.

Yeah, and while that answer works it’s a good one. But will it continue to work?

Uh, the Latino professional class are mostly there on merit or something close to it, it won’t just evaporate. Yes, there will be far fewer black med school admits, but nothing about HBD suggests that actually existing black doctors should lose their jobs.

On the contrary, what is the HBDer’s answer? “Just suck it up, that’s life fam, sucks to be you I guess”?

yes_chad.jpg

HBDers can even appropriate a pre-existing set of insults and condescending phrases currently used against white and Asian males who object to affirmative action: “skill issue,” “sucks to suck,” “you’re just a sore loser,” “if you were truly merited you’d succeed regardless.”

Black lives mattering more and catering to and coddling the egos of black (and latino) egos may be the current state of affairs, but it’s not some fundamental law of the universe, especially one where colorblindness is occurring.

Note that the inverse of affirmative action is not colorblindness, but rather massive racial preferences in favor of Asians and whites relative to blacks and latinos. The left has sufficiently controlled the narrative such that even wrong thinkers treat the Overton window as ranging from colorblindness to infinite affirmative action in favor of blacks and latinos.

The policy answer is race-blind policies that treat individuals as individuals and don’t create double standards for certain categories.

Race realism/hereditarianism/HBD is the explanation for why certain disparities will persist in a fair playing field.

This is basically the same situation as Damore faced. It shouldn’t be tenable for it to be a major scandal and firing offense to state well-evidenced facts about reality. The Overton Window has to shift.

The Overton Window has to shift.

Except it won't, because those who would seek to do so lack the power to do it.

Hard evidence and the freedom to tweet are already changing the online discussion of it.

It’s the same issue with gender preferences.

I don’t think the current mainstream position can hold indefinitely.

I don’t think the current mainstream position can hold indefinitely.

Why not? Or at least, if not indefinitely, at least for a few more centuries? So long as one side holds all the power, they can just use that power to suppress all the "heretics" who disagree — see the Medieval Church. One good, hard Albigensian Crusade against HBD, and…

More comments

Why should the 300 million yield to the 50 million, rather than vice-versa?

Yield isn’t binary. The present is clearly undesirable, although in my opinion so is ‘let them rot’. For better or worse, nobody’s going back to the Old World. Some peace, ideally a lasting and prosperous one, is desirable. The question isn’t about yielding but about what must be done to ensure a high quality and functional society.

Discipline, order, a decline in promiscuity and a restoration of marriage, an extreme taboo on children out of wedlock, more limited divorce, strong male role models including male teachers for boys. Even limited affirmative action, to create black elites in professions like medicine and law who will return to black communities professionally aren’t unjustifiable. All this requires money, and whether it’s for police or other programs it won’t be done without (what is ultimately) the tax contributions of other groups.

And, without being facetious, one cannot forget that they did yield, and it ultimately led us here.

Some peace, ideally a lasting and prosperous one, is desirable.

I see no reason to believe peace is possible. Jefferson had it half-right:

Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made ... will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race.

He didn't predict defection of the liberal elite, of course. It took Orwell for that, with the alliance of the high and low against the middle.

The question isn’t about yielding but about what must be done to ensure a high quality and functional society.

The question is exactly about yielding. Do the elites keep forcing whites (and Asians of all sorts, and probably eventually non-black Hispanics) to self-flagellate as 'racists' and continue bending and distorting everything in favor of URM/POC/etc while being unable to hide the extent of the distortion? Or do we quit doing that and let the chips fall where they may?

It’s not the underclass you have to convince. It’s the lawyers and the police force, as well as a democratic majority of the country.

You can’t convince someone that they didn’t deserve position X, any more than you can convince a looter that they can’t afford nice things. One of the reasons for having a police force is so that you don’t have to.

You can also sweeten the pot; I’m not actually a pure meritocrat, a certain amount of redistribution doesn’t bother me. But it’s much better to do it with your eyes open than, ‘This is all temporary, in 25 years none of it will be necessary. Oh, wait, it’s still necessary, our society must be fundamentally irredeemable.’

What is your answer when the black professional class all but evaporates? Or when the AP math and science classes at your local inner city school are entirely asian and white? Or when the black arrest rate increases after a 'fair' new colorblind policing reform?

Well, given some of the people of this type I talk to, the answer is that this will take time. If we "roll the clock back twenty years," return to a norm of colorblindness, etc., we buy ourselves a decade or two, which gives us the time to quietly develop the technological solutions — either genetic engineering to fix the HBD issues (see @mitigatedchaos here), or else we develop the AI singleton god-king that either immanentizes the eschaton or turns us into paperclips.

Should note that for the record, I answer all requests from the left to silence the HBDers with "you first; show that you're serious about not supporting 'racial consciousness' and 'corrective' racial discrimination," so realistically I don't expect to take any actions to silence HBD discussion during the next 10 years.

Only people like tracingwoodgrains have moral standing to even make the request, and they're not powerful enough to make it binding at this time.

Should note that for the record, I answer all requests from the left to silence the HBDers with "you first; show that you're serious about not supporting 'racial consciousness' and 'corrective' racial discrimination,"

At which point, those lefties just ignore you and keep on "supporting 'racial consciousness' and 'corrective' racial discrimination" (and there's nothing you can do to stop them)

so realistically I don't expect to take any actions to silence HBD discussion during the next 10 years.

They don't need you to "take any actions to silence HBD discussion", they'll do that just fine themselves.

Well, you’d have to go back to cultural dysfunction arguments. Progressives will still call them racist but you can still peel off some percent of minorities.

And then the progressives can pull out the adoption studies and demolish your cultural dysfunction arguments, leaving you with racism again.

Wait, do progressives really pull out the adoption studies? That's a risky move.

No, I'm saying that in this counterfactual world where HBD was completely off the table, they could defeat the culture argument with that.

They won’t though.

Besides if they started pulling out adoption studies then progressives themselves are saying they believe in race realism and the GOP is believing in race realism but using a polite euphemism for it.

In a world where HBD was completely off the table, adoption studies simply measure the effect of culture. If achievement follows the child's race instead of the family's race, culture is ruled out, leaving you with racism.

In the real world, it's possible the populations of children of different races are in fact, not statistically identical. But to get that result you have to allow for HBD, not rule it out because it's yucky the way polite anti-HBD conservatives would.

HBD is a worse substitute than existing policy frameworks.

Indeed

I would even go so far as to posit that this is precisely why it is so popular amongst dissident activist types. I suspect that a lot of them recognize on some level that, in a world where people are judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin they would be the ones left out in the cold.

  • -10

All the other things he listed as better alternatives are naked to attack without HBD though. This is evidenced that all those things are under attack (often quite successfully) as we speak, at least partially because HBD is outside the overton window. The correct answer to no blacks at Harvard law without HBD, is probably racism.

You don’t get past the radioactivity without shifting the Overton Window re: point 1.

Let me reemphasize that I also agree with the criticisms he made re: points 2-4 in his description.

What I’m not understanding is how to get point 1 to be commonly accepted based on what he wrote.

standardized tests, colorblind policy, merit based immigration vetting

These are great. Would be a shame if we stopped using them because of incorrect beliefs about the root causes of group differences…

I don’t see how we get back to that glorious past without a broad acceptance of point 1. I’m not sure what Hanania calls that (race realism?) to separate it from HBD (2-4), but it seems trying to downplay it hasn’t worked and won’t work.

Would be a shame if we stopped using them because of incorrect beliefs about the root causes of group differences…

This is essentially what I am earnestly claiming, because I do see how we get back to equal protection without explicitly acknowledging point 1. The courts have been doing this since the 1970's, clarifying that disparate impacts are fine so long as a non-arbitrary business necessity can be demonstrated.

That is a level of optimism I don’t think is justified given the consistent trend the other way the last 50 years.

Sure, the current Supreme Court and many judges out there are sane on this issue, but the problem is a lot bigger than just the courts.

I am optimistic, especially compared to what I gather is the median for themotte. I think institutional bias over fake racism claims is an issue, but Bayesian thinking leads me to think it cannot possibly be a primary concern (ie it cut the other direction for a long time so that is the initial given, and you update towards the current state with examples of it cutting the other direction. Sanity checking my guesswork seems to indicate that outcomes are in line with expectations, and have been for decades (given both the priors, and the explanatory assumptions of HBD). Each individual example of the current bias is infuriating, but I don't yet see dispassionate quantitative reasons to think it has large consequential effects (although I'm open to such reasons).

I agree it’s possible since the current equilibrium is not stable, but if I adjust to that level of optimism myself, I also become more optimistic about point 1 being commonly if quietly accepted in elite circles (in the same way that even a lot of people that dislike markets don’t outright deny supply and demand when push comes to shove).

If the sanity waterline rises then I expect the two to be positively correlated, in other words.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats