I felt myself wince recently when I wrote “I imagine that if I were a racist.” I realized that I’m not supposed be able to imagine being a racist. Even though a most folks in history have believed, often reasonably given their evidence, that races differ substantially on important qualities. And even though historians, sociologists, etc. regularly study and understand racists.
Thanks, Lemmy. I hadn't seen that article, nor any specific citation. I just know that different genes are in linkage disequilibrium in different ethnic groups. If you do a genome-wide association study of anything and stratify the subjects by race, you get stronger results than if you don't - more so than can be accounted for by the smaller sample sizes.
What if someone paid you millions to write stuff that you knew to be wrong. Would that be a “mistake”? Or would it be a smart and savvy business decision?
"Rationalist" Eliezer Yudkowsky has a "solution" to Newcomb's problem that involves pre-emptively making himself incapable of appreciating the logic of the one-box argument. So even among a sect of "rationalists," "instrumental rationality" is pursued when it conflicts with epistemic rationality.
"The only definitions of “race” that actually exist are social. If you look at the genetics of different populations, there are not genetic differences that fall along what are considered the social “racial” divisions."
This is a myth. It has no basis in reality. It is a myth that many prominent scientists have signed their names to, but it's still a myth.
Can you define racism in a way so that you can say "Blacks are more likely to contract diabetes than whites" without being racist? How about schizophrenia?
What if someone paid you millions to write stuff that you knew to be wrong. Would that be a "mistake"? Or would it be a smart and savvy business decision?
What if your friends treated you with more respect if you treated people who were enemies of your friends with disrespect?
Neutral Observer, you need to come up with an objective definition of "race", or it becomes self-fulfilling bias.
The only definitions of “race” that actually exist are social. If you look at the genetics of different populations, there are not genetic differences that fall along what are considered the social “racial” divisions.
If you substitute the term “social group” for “race” in your statement, does it mean the same thing?
The unstated premise is that the differences in the social groups that are observed are due to fundamental (i.e. genetic) and immutable differences in those groups. There is no data that demonstrates this is correct. All the data seems to indicate that it is false.
If you want to justify it because people simply tend to be wrong a lot and there's nothing you can do about it, that's status quo bias. I'd rather never get questions of fact wrong ever again.
I winced when you wrote that too, because I really hate it when people say/imply that they're not racist/sexist/classist. Of course you and I are all of those things. And the first step to becoming less prejudiced is admitting that you are.
Being ashamed of imagining being bad could be a symptom of a map/territory confusion. Maybe our brains have trouble making map/territory distinctions. Maybe that explanation covers a lot of the same phenomena that the signaling explanation does. We act "as if" because we're not all that clear on the difference.
I remember once being ashamed at being assumed a racist.
Right now, thinking of imagining being a (type A) racist is like thinking of admitting other nasty assumptions, reactions, attitudes and behaviors I have. Usually I shut them out right fast but sometimes I can muster the serenity to face one such thing for a short time, in private.
I feel alienated by the part of the culture that seems to think the solution to hatred, say, is to just not be that way. It baffles me. Like, "blip, Not hate? Okay. blip" Is something supposed to have gone on in there?
Type B is politically incorrect and yet I can't imagine being ashamed about admitting the possibility. But finding out that I was *too* willing to believe some particular claim might be embarrassing. That is, more embarrassing than I would expect feeling about believing an arbitrary scientific claim. Of course, such a willingness might have an impact on how I treated people, as opposed to, say, which vitamins I took.
So It take it that you absolutely rule out the possibility that any individual or group could be completely bonkers? I hope you can forgive the bigotry, but that's totally bonkers.
Feeling that "those other guys are totally bonkers" is a sure sign that you are a racist/bigot.
If you are unable to understand someone the way they understand themselves and substitute anything else for that understanding then you hve dehumanized them and taken away their self-agency.
That's because Steve Sailer uses the term sometimes, and he is a bit of a hub. It originates from a pseudonymous social scientist who goes by La Griffe du Lion. One thing to consider, however, that I think detracts from your point, is that "the fundamental constant" is one of the essential ordering principles around which a group naturally coalesced. The belief was prior to the group. Hell, the "alt right" group, loose structure that it is, is only a few years old.
Thanks, Lemmy. I hadn't seen that article, nor any specific citation. I just know that different genes are in linkage disequilibrium in different ethnic groups. If you do a genome-wide association study of anything and stratify the subjects by race, you get stronger results than if you don't - more so than can be accounted for by the smaller sample sizes.
This article has a discussion of what Phil Goetz means:
http://www.goodrumj.com/Edw...
Wikipedia has a good overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
What if someone paid you millions to write stuff that you knew to be wrong. Would that be a “mistake”? Or would it be a smart and savvy business decision?
"Rationalist" Eliezer Yudkowsky has a "solution" to Newcomb's problem that involves pre-emptively making himself incapable of appreciating the logic of the one-box argument. So even among a sect of "rationalists," "instrumental rationality" is pursued when it conflicts with epistemic rationality.
Phil Goetz,
This is a myth.
Citation?
"The only definitions of “race” that actually exist are social. If you look at the genetics of different populations, there are not genetic differences that fall along what are considered the social “racial” divisions."
This is a myth. It has no basis in reality. It is a myth that many prominent scientists have signed their names to, but it's still a myth.
Can you define racism in a way so that you can say "Blacks are more likely to contract diabetes than whites" without being racist? How about schizophrenia?
What if someone paid you millions to write stuff that you knew to be wrong. Would that be a "mistake"? Or would it be a smart and savvy business decision?
What if your friends treated you with more respect if you treated people who were enemies of your friends with disrespect?
Neutral Observer, you need to come up with an objective definition of "race", or it becomes self-fulfilling bias.
The only definitions of “race” that actually exist are social. If you look at the genetics of different populations, there are not genetic differences that fall along what are considered the social “racial” divisions.
If you substitute the term “social group” for “race” in your statement, does it mean the same thing?
The unstated premise is that the differences in the social groups that are observed are due to fundamental (i.e. genetic) and immutable differences in those groups. There is no data that demonstrates this is correct. All the data seems to indicate that it is false.
Why is being wrong okay?
I can't think of any good justification for it.
If you want to justify it because people simply tend to be wrong a lot and there's nothing you can do about it, that's status quo bias. I'd rather never get questions of fact wrong ever again.
I winced when you wrote that too, because I really hate it when people say/imply that they're not racist/sexist/classist. Of course you and I are all of those things. And the first step to becoming less prejudiced is admitting that you are.
Being ashamed of imagining being bad could be a symptom of a map/territory confusion. Maybe our brains have trouble making map/territory distinctions. Maybe that explanation covers a lot of the same phenomena that the signaling explanation does. We act "as if" because we're not all that clear on the difference.
I remember once being ashamed at being assumed a racist.
Right now, thinking of imagining being a (type A) racist is like thinking of admitting other nasty assumptions, reactions, attitudes and behaviors I have. Usually I shut them out right fast but sometimes I can muster the serenity to face one such thing for a short time, in private.
I feel alienated by the part of the culture that seems to think the solution to hatred, say, is to just not be that way. It baffles me. Like, "blip, Not hate? Okay. blip" Is something supposed to have gone on in there?
Type B is politically incorrect and yet I can't imagine being ashamed about admitting the possibility. But finding out that I was *too* willing to believe some particular claim might be embarrassing. That is, more embarrassing than I would expect feeling about believing an arbitrary scientific claim. Of course, such a willingness might have an impact on how I treated people, as opposed to, say, which vitamins I took.
So It take it that you absolutely rule out the possibility that any individual or group could be completely bonkers? I hope you can forgive the bigotry, but that's totally bonkers.
Feeling that "those other guys are totally bonkers" is a sure sign that you are a racist/bigot.
If you are unable to understand someone the way they understand themselves and substitute anything else for that understanding then you hve dehumanized them and taken away their self-agency.
The definition technically should be A), but the cultural left has expanded it to cover B) as well.
If you acknowledge the potential for there to be average cognitive and/or behavioral differences between population groups, you're called a racist.
If you acknowledge that men tend to find black women less attractive on average, you're called a racist.
If you don't support the funneling of opportunities and resources from Asians and whites to blacks and latinos, you're called a racist.
If you don't support illegal immigration, you're called a racist.
That's because Steve Sailer uses the term sometimes, and he is a bit of a hub. It originates from a pseudonymous social scientist who goes by La Griffe du Lion. One thing to consider, however, that I think detracts from your point, is that "the fundamental constant" is one of the essential ordering principles around which a group naturally coalesced. The belief was prior to the group. Hell, the "alt right" group, loose structure that it is, is only a few years old.