This is a good way to put it and it will help me illustrate the point I have tried to make many times.
It’s true that it’s mostly “little pockets”, although when you see something like the firing of the “Google Memo” guy, from one of the biggest companies in the world, they start to look bigger. But leave that aside and go back to the little pockets. Where are those pockets? In progressive circles. So they are irksome and frustrating to people like me, a longtime progressive who was on Daily Kos from the beginning and was, for instance, calling for nationalizing the banks (plus single payer health care thrown in for good measure) in 2009. It’s not fun when the club you want to be in treats you as sort of a low caste member in some kind of inchoate payback for things having been the other way in the wider world for so long—even though this doesn’t make a lot of sense since it inflicts the most hurt on those who are the most sympathetic to you.
But I don’t need “fun”, even if I’d like it. I am mature enough to continue to do the right thing because it’s the right thing, and not bolt to the GOP out of pique. But you know who’s not mature? Teenage boys. And it’s a big ask, to offer a straight white adolescent boy the “opportunity” to join a movement that will treat him contemptuously, or make him the butt of jokes (and teenage boys just love being mocked and ridiculed, right?) for characteristics he was born with and cannot change.
So since it’s just a “little pocket”, maybe more and more of these boys will just stay out of the pocket, and go become a Jordan Peterson acolyte, or worse. And since some of them would have been open to at least casually joining the progressive ranks, if that was seen as the “cool thing to do” among their generation (which it is), and they thought they would be treated as cool guys for doing it, it is massive political malpractice to deter them—since, again, white male voters still outnumber black male voters, black female voters, Hispanic male voters, and Hispanic female voters combined. (It’s also ethically wrong, even if only at a misdemeanor level.)
I’m not buying the guy as a white supremacist. You sound hostile and unwilling to engage with the guy in a rational manner. Not sure why you want to come off as angry and unhinged. Should be able to talk about this stuff in an adult manner.
I’d just like to point out that politically a big progressive. I’m working under the assumption that most political progressives are for all people.
I like it when candidates, like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez don’t play the ‘I’m a minority, vote for me’ card. Or ‘I’m a woman, vote for me.’ They have platforms that, I believe, can be appealing to a great many people.
Anyway. I agree that there’s a larger white supremacy problem, than there are teachers that shame young boys. I would say the ‘pockets’ of such a phenomenon Are getting larger and aren’t helping.
We all should try to keep cooler heads IMHO and actually listen to each other. We are more than white males, or black females, or whatever. Though those things are important to our individuality, we are all alone in our heads, and empathy is the best pathway to understanding.
There is, empirically speaking, such a hierarchy (with overlap of course). The testing evidence is indisputable on that point. The only question is whether it is partly biological, or all a result of a pervasive racism that diffuses its way into even the Jack and Jill echelon of black America. I’m willing to entertain the possibility that it’s the former, and wrestle with the policy implications—especially for education.
But unlike the bogeyman you conjure with your “white supremacist” epithet, I don’t have enmity toward nonwhites for traits they were born with and cannot change. I have sympathy for them, and deep appreciation for their stalwart support of my political party (it should be noted that in presidential primaries I consistently find that the candidate I prefer is the same as that preferred by most black Democrats). Due to that sympathy, I favor a much stronger safety net and—as I keep mentioning—reparations for slavery. I also believe all police everywhere should be required to wear body cameras that can’t be turned off. Generally, I try to live by Rawls’s “original position” ethos.
But no, I’m the bad guy, because I believe the most civilized and intelligent people on Earth should organize society around a progressive, humanist and nurturing paradigm, and move away from dog-eat-dog workaholic consumerism. :dubious:
You’re the bad guy because you spread bullshit, evidence-free, white supremacist pseudo-science, like this shit, unapologetically, and try to pretend that somehow this is okay as long as you don’t hate. Slave owners would swear up and down that they didn’t have enmity for black people either. Your “deep appreciation” and “sympathy” is meaningless when you continue to spread this evidence-free white supremacist nonsense.
Fuck that. There’s no evidence for this bullshit. Test scores aren’t evidence for anything but test scores. The “blacks are inherently inferior in intelligence” hypothesis has been tested (the Scarr study I’ve referenced numerous times) and explicitly rejected.
Own your white supremacist beliefs. That’s what they are. And you cowardly hide behind bullshit to try and justify them. Just own it – you think your group is inherently superior (“…most civilized and intelligent people on earth”??? – shove that racist bullshit up your ass, you coward), and others inherently inferior, and that makes you feel good about yourself.
BTW, something we haven’t paid sufficient attention to in this whole debate: regardless of the reason for the IQ differences, they are there. When the rubber hits the road, the reason doesn’t change the reality in people’s lived experience and in their roles in the economy.
There are test score differences. These differences have changed over time and will probably continue to change. There are also income differences, which have changed over time and will probably (hopefully) continue to change. I haven’t seen test score differences broken down by gender, but I did post a thread about income differences in America broken down by gender which showed that there was no difference between black women and white women who were raised by parents of the same income levels – all the income differences between black and white people were due to differences in incomes between black and white men with the same parental income. Which, IMO, shows that something about how society treats and interacts with black men is responsible (in addition to whatever broader inequalities affect parental income). If test scores were broken down for the same criteria – by parental income – and the results were the same, then this would put further nails into the white supremacist pseudo-science bullshit you’re willfully spreading.
I still have hope that one day you’ll decide you’d prefer not to spread harmful white supremacist bullshit. And that you’ll realize that your beliefs about ethnicity are related to your sense of personal pride and affection for your own ethnic group. When you do, I’ll happily stop calling you a white supremacist.
In countries with lower gender equity, women tend to do a little worse than men on IQ. With more gender equity they do betteron average.
IQ is a distribution though, and discussions that don’t reflect that fill me with nerd-rage. I actually get a little angry. Variability in the female group is apparently substantially smaller than in the male group. Males have more representation on the low and high ends of the spectrum. Exaggerated graph here: Men are both dumber and smarter than women
The funniest part about that is those “studies” that are sometimes cited that purport to show that a certain group has an average IQ of 70. I laugh every time I think about it and it reflects more on the intelligence of those who would believe that than on the intelligence of the population. Because half of the people would have an average below that and it’s hilarious to think about entire villages and shantytowns filled with people unable to perform basic tasks, perhaps staring uselessly trying to figure out a flush toilet or range and wondering how is babby formed.
That’s not an accurate description of what you’re doing. I am “willing to entertain the possibility” that racial-group-level testing differentials may have a genetic component, simply because although it doesn’t look likely it hasn’t been definitively ruled out. But as a rational science-regarding person, I’m not going to do anything more than merely “entertain the possibility” unless and until there is actual scientific evidence unambiguously confirming that hypothesis, which so far there is not.
You, on the other hand, are not only “entertaining the possibility” but taking the possibility home, keeping it in your best bedroom, marrying it and having its babies. You are already (and have been for a long time) far more committed to the “genetic causes” hypothesis than the science on this issue warrants.
No, Kimstu, sorry: I’m calling bullshit on that. Idioms, like individual words, have meanings. The widely understood meaning of “I’m willing to entertain the possibility of X” is not congruent with “If pressed, I will not unequivocably rule out the remote possibility of X, although I will express deep skepticism about it and will castigate those who show less skepticism.”
And what if my rating of the probability of it being so is somewhat lower than it was when we began the conversation/debate? You act like you value it when people actually listen and credit the points others make, but I guess if it’s not a 100% road-to-Damascus conversion, it’s worthless and only the high (or low) water mark at whatever point is counted?
Yes, and as I understand it, pointing out this fact was the most important nail in the Google Memo guy’s coffin.
While we may quibble about the maximum allowable amount of skepticism consistent with the standard meaning of the phrase “willing to entertain the possibility”, there is no denying that that phrase is much more accurately applicable to my views on the hypothesis of genetic influence on racial IQ-score differences than to yours.
You are, and always have been since the start of our discussions on this issue, doing much more than merely “entertaining” that possibility: you are actively embracing and espousing it to a degree far beyond what any scientific evidence at present justifies.
Good question. Can we see the estimated numbers you assign to those “before” and “after” probability ratings of yours, so we can figure out where they fall on the spectrum between “entertaining” and “embracing” the possibility?
Interesting question about precise numbers on the probability I assigned. I would say it has been as high as 75-80%, and is now more like 60%.
Now, something I composed before seeing you had already responded, which I think is still worth saying (or at least still worth pasting in, since I already wrote it):
————
Expanding and extending my previous remarks to Kimstu:
I feel certain if we went back over that thread, I could find several instances where I credited you with a “good point” or “good points”. (I doubt we could find anything like that in the other direction, which I say not to pout but to note who in this debate has been more stubbornly inflexible.). Apparently you heard an imaginary “…but your good points make zero impact on me intellectually.” If so, that attempt to read between the lines was a fail.
The Economist Magazine did a takedown of his science. They addressed his point about tails of distributions, which was analytically sound but empirically lazy. The article is subscription only, I’ll quote a pitworthy snippet. [INDENT] Last week this newspaper said Alphabet’s boss should write a “detailed, ringing rebuttal” of a viral anti-diversity memo sent at Google. Here is how we imagine it
Created on: 15 August 2017 at 15:15 (Delivered after 1 seconds)
From: Larry Page <@google.com>
To: James Damore <**@hotmail.com>
cc: <all-staff-worldwide@google.com>
Subject: Re: “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber”
…
I am happy to acknowledge that you state your support for gender diversity and fairness. Your memo starts: “I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes.”
So, you and anyone else who reads this may be wondering, why the fuss? Why did your memo go viral? Why did it cause such fury? Why did we fire you? In interviews and an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal you have said it’s because Google is “ideologically driven and intolerant of scientific debate”, and therefore unable to tolerate your “reasoned, well-researched, good-faith argument”. You’ve driven the point home with your “Goolag” T-shirt and new twitter handle, @Fired4Truth.
Your interpretation is wrong. Your memo was a great example of what’s called “motivated reasoning”—seeking out only the information that supports what you already believe. It was derogatory to women in our industry and elsewhere. Despite your stated support for diversity and fairness, it demonstrated profound prejudice. Your chain of reasoning had so many missing links that it hardly mattered what your argument was based on. We try to hire people who are willing to follow where the facts lead, whatever their preconceptions. In your case we clearly made a mistake. [/INDENT]
His analytic point was correct: differences in variance can have a disproportionate effect on the tail of the distribution, assuming a bell shaped curve. That of course, is not the only thing that can be gleaned by not limiting your analysis to the simple mean of the distribution. Specifically, one key takeaway is that you can’t make generalizations about 2 groups based merely upon the differences in their mean performance. Without evaluating the variance, you won’t have any idea about the quality of that sort of metric.