Historically, proposing policies that are set to help the specific strengths of a minority group are not generally indicative of actually positive feelings about those groups.
The IAT is the best measure of ‘genuinely like X people’ we have now, though that’s not saying much. (I believe the only place he published it is VDare, which is currently down.)
Historically, proposing policies that are set to help the specific strengths of a minority group are not generally indicative of actually positive feelings about those groups.
What are the competing hypotheses and competing observations, here?
It seems to me the natural interpretation for “genuine” is “unconscious,” and if that post is relevant, it seems that it argues for more relative importance for the IAT over stated positions and opinions.
What evidence leads to this conclusion?
He published his IAT results and he’s proposed policies that play to the strengths of blacks.
Historically, proposing policies that are set to help the specific strengths of a minority group are not generally indicative of actually positive feelings about those groups.
The IAT is the best measure of ‘genuinely like X people’ we have now, though that’s not saying much. (I believe the only place he published it is VDare, which is currently down.)
What are the competing hypotheses and competing observations, here?
...for a particular value of genuine. (See this, BTW.)
It seems to me the natural interpretation for “genuine” is “unconscious,” and if that post is relevant, it seems that it argues for more relative importance for the IAT over stated positions and opinions.