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 -
Would you have a reference of a discussion of these results? I really wouldn't know where to look for something like that.
I could see a number of HBD-compatible explanations for these results. For example the development in race relations which caused the end of segregation has been having an effect on the genetic structure of the 'black' population. While inter-marriage was common during segregation, it is probably more common now. Moreover, it's possible that the children of these mixed unions identify in a different way than they would have 70 years ago.
Here is an analogy from Australia: Indigenous award recipients. Perhaps 2 or 3 of the people pictured look like they have obvious Aboriginal ancestry, 80% would probably pass as 'white'.
I imagine that Americans who could convincingly represent themselves as 'white' in the 1950s probably would, as this would most likely open doors to them. Up to 10% of African ancestry was found in Americans who identify as 'white'. Now in 2024, there are obvious incentives to self-identify as 'black'. People like Barack Obama or Jordan Peele who do look 'black', still had a 'white' mother. Conceivably, they could have a sibling that would look a lot 'whiter' and they could be just as well-achieving. If the 'black' student population of today is actually a lot 'whiter' than before, it's hard to tell if the gains have anything to do with a change in how the education is actually delivered.
Another factor to consider would be that the education system is very much focused on delivering 'good' results on the 'black' education front. It's possible that the way some of these institutions work is influencing the measurements of the outcomes. Perhaps, in the same manner as the progressive DAs immediately release violent offenders without bail, there is some kind of 'systemic anti-racism' at play that would contribute to these alleged gains.
I'm very much curious to read what they attribute the gains to.
Better access to more competent teachers ('white' ones)? Passive diffusion of so-called 'white' values from the 'white' pupils to the 'black' ones? More money taken from 'white' taxpayers? General lowering of expectations as a consequence of the ruin of society brought about by the same forces that ended segregation?
Some stuff here; https://cepa.stanford.edu/educational-opportunity-monitoring-project/achievement-gaps/race/
I don't think this can account for the 1970s and 1980s improvement in black performance. By 1980 black inter-racial marriage rates were a whopping 5%, a figure which increased only quite slowly and gradually over the following years, not really compatible with the quickest convergence being during those years. There is the question you raise about changes in identification, but again I don't think that was occurring - not in most of the country anyway - to any significant extent during the fastest years of decline (during the years to which that data goes back).
That doesn't seem too likely given the nature of the data. It's from the National Assessment of Educational Progress tests, who administer their own nationwide tests to students, which are (obviously) the same for every race. Could there be some increased level of teaching to the tests etc. from teachers/schools in order to boost their numbers. Maybe? But again if this were so you'd surely expect the strongest effect of that to be now, when the schools are under pressure to improve equitable outcomes etc., not in the 1970s. And wouldn't we see that reflected across the board, not just in black students? If this was a case of schools/districts marking their own homework, no pun intended, then one might be more suspicious but I don't think it is.
Well to be clear, if it were either of these that would validate the Brown decision, because it would prove that segregation was lowering the relative quality of the education received by black students.
What forces do you suppose these to have been? I would put the Cold War and WW2 pretty high on the list of things that ended segregation, not sure they brought about the ruin of society though.
Thank you for the source, unfortunately I didn't see an explanation for what is causing these gaps to shrink slightly.
So should the Department of Education start subsidizing 'white' birthrates to ensure an adequate supply of 'white' students to improve education for everybody or?
Modernity, hubris, the Evil One... it's hard to say. Whatever reason there was to blow up a somewhat functional society at the time, even for a lack of foresight, blind optimism, carelessness... Hard lessons the future will have to learn. One should not concern themselves with slippery slopes but with slippery slopes leading to slipperier slopes. Each of our stumbles makes the next more acceptable and the very idea of a stumble confused.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link