This is a weird paradox. Because I’m not willing to go on record saying that a person I don’t know of is an idiot. But if that proves one of his major points, then one of his major points must either be trivial or wrong, which would make him an idiot, wouldn’t it?
Fortunately, like most paradoxes, this one has a resolution. If I go on record as saying that YOU’RE an idiot, then your if-then statement is trivially ignored.
You could actually listen to the podcast episode (I linked to it, as well as one of his Quillette pieces upthread) and then offer an actual opinion instead of dodging because, I assume, you are shitting yourself at the prospect of potentially having to call a young black scholar an idiot. So you will keep dodging, like Trump did all through 2016 when asked about his taxes. (FTR, although it should be obvious, I will spell it out: there is no paradox here, because it was reasonable for me to assume you would either already be, or make yourself with the help of my links, familiar with the person we are discussing before spouting off.)
Well, as others are noting in this thread, blacks from the West Indies were also forcibly brought to the Americas. But you’re talking about a selected subgroup of those descendants of enslaved persons who have immigrated to the U.S. It’s a fair and interesting point.
But Hughes notes that these differences persist after multiple generations and affect people you would not guess superficially were descendants of immigrants as opposed to just regular African American folks. Are you acknowledging that these AAs’ forebears may have been genetically superior and their genes have passed down? Or is it their family culture? You and others here are raising an interesting and I think important point, but immediately collapsing into vagueness. Let’s hear a hypothesis for mechanisms for these differences!
Snark aside, a serious question: this self-selection persists after multiple generations how, exactly? Via culture or genetics?
Hughes, in the podcast, talks about West Indian blacks being more self-sufficient during slavery, operating small farms and things like that; it’s not clear if he thinks this altered their culture compared to American blacks, or provided a different kind of selection pressure on their genes. Either one is a potentially controversial hypothesis, as Sam notes.
That’s pretty vague, as I said to Andy. And as I noted in my response to LHOD just above talking about selection pressures over the past few hundred years, it’s not true that genetics can’t possibly be involved.
Furthermore, even if we can lay all the differences between descendants of U.S. slaves and West Indies slaves (or Asians, or Jews, etc.) at the feet of the “go-getter” nature of immigrants: why is the oppressive racism of 2018 America unable to overcome these positive traits and smash these people back down regardless? Aren’t you then at the very least acknowledging that most of the handicap American racism caused for descendents of U.S. slaves is stuff that was done in the past? Therefore, reparations are deserved (something I’m all for!), but blame (and therefore redress) should not be apportioned to people and structures of the present day. Right?
A lot of what I’m saying here was presented by Hughes in the podcast, which I highly recommend listening to. However, I think Hughes—a Hillary Clinton voter, BTW, who on the podcast called out the GOP as the home of truly vile “neo-Nazi types”—actually does not even support reparations; and I’d love to debate him on that point.
I looked at Hughes essay, and couldn’t find evidence or a link for the claim that higher achievement for Caribbean black Americans is sustained after multiple generations. If it’s there, I missed it.
There’s a shit-ton to read and listen to. The stuff you link to tends to be really dumb, so I don’t waste my time with it.
What a dumb assumption. I have no problem calling a person an idiot when they’re being an idiot, and race doesn’t enter into that.
But you don’t mind spending the time spouting off about it anyway—you’re proud to be noise rather than signal. Do you go to threads for movies you haven’t seen and yak about them? :dubious:
That’s too bad. He sounded sure enough that I am going to assume he has his facts straight unless and until I see counter-evidence, but you’re obviously under no obligation to do the same.
Are you skeptical of the truth value of his other factual statements, like a significant amount of the black-white wealth gap (which is much larger than the income gap) being attributable to black women’s fondness for jewelry and luxury cars? If any of that is provably untrue, I’d like to know.
You tell me, in this thread it is clear that you, Harris, Murray and now Hughes have not read what liberals or geneticists are telling us about the issue.
I gave up when in his article cited he goes for a monumental straw man in his first paragraph, and he props up more thereafter.
There may be something to that, but it deserved another thread, there was no need to remind all how underwhelming your “I will let others mention what the writer’s main points are, or guess what I’m going to discuss” and not citing more about what is the issue to consider, in this case: what in heck does this unnecessary bump shows about what genetics has to do with this? And it has virtually nothing to counter what many have posted before in this thread already.
Why is that in any way surprising in light of what we know about socioeconomic status? Socioeconomic advantages and disadvantages very frequently persist after multiple generations among all ethnic groups. Descendants of advantaged individuals inherit not only material assets but middle-class lifestyles, while descendants of disadvantaged individuals don’t.
AFAICT, nobody at all is claiming that genetics can’t possibly be involved in any way. It’s just that there’s no scientific evidence for genetics causing these differences.
You have set yourself up in an eternal labyrinth of unfalsifiable cherry-picking speculation. You’re randomly selecting certain phenomena that could potentially be explained by genetics and hopefully presenting them as proposed evidence for genetic explanations. In the process, you’re ignoring contradictory phenomena and the total lack of rigorous testing of your casual, constantly-shifting hypotheses.
This is not, never was, and never will be how scientific investigation of the influence of genetic factors on social outcomes is carried out. Your endless loop of haphazard chin-stroking what-iffery is never going to accomplish anything except to exasperate other posters with your obtuseness. Which is where all the name-calling is coming from.
I doubt that sort of statement is provably true, either, at least without more data on the comparative purchasing habits of black and white women. Maybe the jewelry doesn’t account for that much as a share of income or wealth; maybe black women skimp elsewhere. Maybe he’s just wrong.
But IIRC he doesn’t even claim that a significant amount of the wealth gap is specifically due to black women buying fancy cars and jewelry; he’s making a broader claim that purchasing habits for blacks in the aggregate explain much of the wealth gap. Whether that’s true I can’t say, though I’d take more convincing than a blog post. Even if true, I don’t see how it disproves the culpability of historical and continuing racism — is it not racism if part of its impact cashes out in the attitudes of future generations?
This helps explain a lot. You really think your interlocutors are such minority-worshipping social justice cartoon characters that they’d “shit themselves” rather than criticize a black man? You are seriously out of touch here.
Hey, Coleman Hughes isn’t a idiot, but he’s dead wrong here and espouses dangerous attitudes. OH GOD A MOB OF LIBERAL ARTS UNDERGRADS ARE BREAKING DOWN MY DOOR TO DRAG ME OFF TO SJW RE-EDUCATION CAMP CHARLES MURRAY WAS RIGHT HELLLLLllllppppp…
“He sounded sure enough”? Seriously? Someone sounded sure about something that just so happens to confirm your preconceived notions about a difficult topic, and that’s enough for you to assume he’s correct?
Depends on his evidence. I haven’t looked through his essay for support for every one of his claims.
Me either. Hughes does cite a study showing that blacks of recent Caribbean ancestry have more wealth than blacks of American ancestry, but that’s a different point.
One can’t determine how much of such statements is “provably untrue” unless it’s clear what’s actually being stated and exactly what quantitative claims it’s making. I personally don’t think pundits chatting with guests on podcasts produces much in the way of illumination in that regard. It’s a low-information version of an actual research panel where audiences get to see hypotheses supported by documented facts and figures, with references to published research. And in its second- or third-hand version filtered through a listener’s selective memory, which is usually what’s invoked to start discussions, it decays into something little better than the old-fashioned village-store rumor mill.
But because I’m nice that way, I decided to go looking for actual documentation underlying Coleman Hughes’ specific claims concerning causes of the black-white weath gap, especially concerning “a significant amount” of it allegedly “being attributable to black women’s fondness for jewelry and luxury cars”. They appear to be taken from this July 2018 article that you linked earlier, “Black American Culture and the Racial Wealth Gap”, which contains the following remarks:
The findings cited here appear to refer to this 2007 paper “Conspicuous Consumption and Race”. Some findings from that paper that Hughes doesn’t mention in that quote include the fact that although black people spend more than white people of comparable income on so-called “conspicuous” or “visible” goods, defined as cars, jewelry and clothes, they spend significantly less on other forms of what would generally be deemed “frivolous” or “unnecessary” consumption, including entertainment and home furnishings.
That right there raises a bunch of red flags for me. Why is Hughes deliberately limiting these comparisons to a very specific subset of forms of “frivolous” consumption? Another article from April 2018, “What We Get Wrong About Closing the Racial Wealth Gap”, addresses racial spending habit differences more generally:
That “conventional wisdom” is exactly the stereotype that Hughes appears to be buying into, backing it up with some very selectively chosen data about a few specific sorts of material consumption.
Note, for the lulz, this lively Twitter debate involving the authors of both these articles, and some other interesting observations:
To conclude, SlackerInc, here’s a tip for you: if you want some more respect around here, then the next time you feel like saying “I’m going to assume” or “I’d like to know” more details about some vague cracker-barrel pontificating you more or less remember having heard on one of your podcasts, how about you yourself do a little googling and thinking to learn more about it and explain it to others. Limply sitting around challenging other posters to put in the effort to critically analyze your own anecdotes and speculations may save you some work, but it isn’t doing anything for your image as an intelligent or responsible debater.
That was way more work than that particular poster deserves, but thank you for doing it. Strange how the actual underlying data directly contradicts his claim, and that it was available on the internet if he had what it takes to go look it up.
Also strange how this particular poster claims to be intelligent, but has none of the hallmarks of actual intelligence (I’m specifically speaking of intellectual curiosity here, but this also applies to other hallmarks of intelligence, such as reading comprehension, logic, life success, etc.)
Again, only time now to read and briefly comment. More later.
Kimstu, good stuff, although your complaint about crowdsourcing strikes me as antithetical to the nature of this forum. How many posts/threads could be threadshit upon with “Google it yourself!”? :dubious:
EE, I see you have decided that enough time has elapsed from your epic fail for you to go back into a holier-than-thou, trash talking mode. It’s an…interesting choice.
By epic fail you mean I misread something and then admitted it? Yes, admitting error is the first step on the path to learning, and something that is also a sign of intelligence. I’ll note that, along with intellectual curiosity, it’s something else that you don’t do.
To be fair, it’s very difficult to find a college undergrad who’s overly confident in their opinions. Teenagers and those just out of their teens are famous for their lack of sureness, in their understanding of the complexities of the world, for their hesitance to make any sort of overreaching statement. When you finally find one who sounds sure of themselves, it’s so unusual, of COURSE you’re going to believe them! especially when they say what you want them to say.
No, there was quite a bit more to it than that, as anyone who wants to peruse the thread can see for themselves.
Well, admittedly any kind of reasoned analysis is antithetical to the nature of this particular forum, namely the Pit. But if you mean the Dope as a whole, I don’t see anything at all un-Doper-like about actually doing some research off your own bat before asking other people to find out what you want to know.
It’s not as though I have any specialist knowledge in this subject (if you don’t count math/stats training for understanding the quantitative stuff and research scholarship experience for knowing how to find and read papers, both of which merely qualify as “general research skills” rather than “sociology/economics expertise”). All I did was to look at the footnotes in the article you linked to find the 2007 article Hughes’ claim was based on, and then google “black white wealth gap” which led me to a Bloomberg article on the Darity et al. paper and consequently to the paper itself (as well as that Twitter exchange). Of course, you have to be willing to put in the effort to actually read the stuff you find.
The real significant difference here is that I admitted my mistake, while you didn’t and don’t. It’s called having intellectual integrity. You should look into it.
Also, note that I admit my errors. Note that I’ve called you an idiot. Do you see me calling that a mistake? Apparently I would if I thought it was.
I’ve know some legitimately intelligent people, including Nobel Laureates, highly regarded scientists, etc. Not one of them, who was actually intellectually interested in a subject, would passively consume information from a podcast, the way **SlackerInc **does. If they cared, they’d care enough to expand their horizons.
**SlackerInc **'s purpose is basically to regurgitate what other, smarter, people have said (provided it’s about a specific topic). Let’s face it, if anyone here cared what Sam Harris thought they could go hear it from Sam Harris himself.
Now I’m not one of those people who cares enough about what Sam Harris thinks to want to listen to him, so I’ll have to ask: did Sam actually have the ability/desire to educate himself enough about the topic to ask pointed questions, or did he just swallow whatever his guest was feeding him, the way he did with Murray?