Your link seems like a bad idea considering I’m seeing people throwing tantrums and mass down voting certain users. Considering your nick I’m a bit suspicious that you are a troll.
Edit: I should clarify, I don’t find anything wrong with the content written by Lynn, just that some people go instantly into political mode if they see links to a political site, even when the article is by an expert in his field.
Linking some other relevant writing by Lynn would have been preferable.
2nd Edit: Reading the whole article I find nothing wrong with it, the besides politically motivated whining about the site hosting the article I see no good reason to down vote this link. Retracted.
Please do not link to VDARE. It has a large amount of racist material. When you link to sites like this, you make people of color worry that they will be discriminated against. It’s not an unreasonable worry. I would like Less Wrong to be welcoming to everyone.
LessWrong contains material that would upset people taken out of context. (eg. Gwern’s post how to sabotage Intel to slow down unfriendly AI.) I think that this does not make any other article on LessWrong not true.
If I link to Steve Sailer will you be upset as he writes for Vdare?
I don’t know about Eric S. Raymond, but yeah I’d describe John Derbyshire as racist. He describes himself as a (mild) racist and a (mild) white supremacist, incidentally. Do you think he is not racist?
Raymond says Derbyshire uses “racist” ironically. “I think his ‘racism’ is a snook being cocked at bien pensants. He doesn’t think or act like a racist; he’s got a Chinese wife, and he’s not fixated on any racial group being inferior.”
It’s quite possible he’s using the word ironically, I’ll admit. However, he’s still a racist. The claim that he doesn’t think or act like a racist is false, Chinese wife notwithstanding. I have read the article that got him fired from the National Review, and it qualifies as both thinking and acting like a racist. I know Raymond would consider this evidence of a lack of intelligence on my part, but I guess I’ll just have to learn to live with his opprobrium.
As Raymond says you are conceding the truth to real racists.
This might be a convincing argument if I didn’t think Derbyshire was a real racist. But I do. I also probably have a different assessment of the truth than Raymond does.
The use of “racist” is generally very wide and means several different meanings, their only common point is that they are boo lights that are hard to get rid of once someone accuses you of them.
I can’t give you necessary and sufficient conditions for someone to qualify as a racist, if that’s what you’re looking for. I can give you a general (although probably not exhaustive) sense of attitudes/beliefs that I would consider indicators of racism, and I can point at examples of people I consider racist. Given your subsequent request for a taboo on the word I’m not sure what purpose this would serve, but I’ll do it if you’d like.
Can I in the future expect you to stick to the same usage?
If by this you mean something like “Can I expect you to set down a definition of racism and accept in the future that only people meeting that definition are racist?”, then the answer is “no” unfortunately. Like I said, I don’t think I can articulate a necessary and sufficient set of criteria for identifying racists. If you’re asking if I can be expected not to be disingenuous and slippery in the future, then the answer is “yes”, I think.
Can we continue this conversation while holding to a rationalist taboo on “racist”?
Sure. I’m not the one who introduced the word into the discussion. But I’m not sure what this conversation is about, exactly. Would you like me to tell you what I find objectionable about Derbyshire without saying “racist”?
ETA: I’m not sure how advisable it is to continue this conversation, actually. I don’t think discussion of this specific point contributes much to the community, and it is the kind of political clutter that people have objected to in the past. The situation seems to be this: I find certain things Derbyshire says morally repugnant and indicative of a culpable prejudice against black people. You (I’m assuming, otherwise this is just a semantic debate about the word “racism”) don’t. I’m sure you’ve read the sorts of arguments I would make before and been unconvinced. I’m fairly sure I’ve read the sorts of argument you would make and been unconvinced. I doubt either of us is going to get anything substantive out of this discussion, and the mind-killing potential is huge. So let’s drop it, yes?
I’m sure you’ve read the sorts of arguments I would make before and been unconvinced.
Yes because I think the strong moral revulsion the average Western person has towards “racism” comes from ethics based on sacredness (I recommend your read Tinkerbell ethics series by Sister Y to see what I mean by sacred) and not due to consistent application of utilitarian ethics.
Not to say lots of “racism” might not reduce overall or average utility, but the same could be said of the targets of other emotionally charged arational revulsions. For example some people are revolted by sexual promiscuity or material inequality and proceed to sometimes build convincing utilitarian arguments against them.
But clearly their bottom line was written before the rationalized argument.
I’m not trying to put you down here, everyone has sacred spots like that. And we probably share the kinds of spots we have if not their intensity. I’m emotionally disturbed by a high enough setting of “racism” too and I’m pretty sure a high enough level of sexual hedonism might be emotionally disturbing to you.
So let’s drop it, yes?
I can see how these debates might be counter-productive, but are you sure? I find debates on ethics fun. :)
Yes because I think the strong moral revulsion the average Western person has towards “racism” comes from ethics based on sacredness (I recommend your read Tinkerbell ethics series by Sister Y to see what I mean by sacred) and not due to consistent application of utilitarian ethics.
Oh, I have no problem admitting I’m not consistently applying utilitarian ethics. I’m far from a utilitarian. And I’ll also readily acknowledge that some of my moral reactions stem from intuitions about sacredness. I don’t think this means they are wrong or misguided.
I can see how these debates might be counter-productive, but are you sure? I find debates on ethics fun. :)
I do too, sometimes, but again, I know a number of readers won’t be too happy with this discussion dominating the recent comments. Also, this thread is already getting a bit too fighty for my liking (you’re not responsible for this), so it’s probably in my best interest to bow out.
I find certain things Derbyshire says morally repugnant and indicative of a culpable prejudice against black people.
What moral theory are you using to make this judgement? Also what exactly to you mean by “prejudice” and how does it differ from a Beysian prior?
Also since you won’t state your definition of racist, let me ask you some questions about it. Is someone who believes group X has lower average IQ, for example, then group Y a racist? Does it matter how much lower? Does it matter if he has evidence? Does it matter if this belief corresponds to reality? Is the person still morally culpable in some/all of the above cases?
As for me, if someone believes that group X has higher average IQ than group Y and that belief is not caused by them having seen evidence that group X actually has higher average IQ than group Y, I’d call them racist.
Hint: If someone’s belief that white people have higher average IQ than black people was based on evidence that white people have higher average IQ than black people, they’d very likely believe that East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews have even higher average IQ. If they don’t also believe that, I’d strongly suspect their belief is based on something else.
If someone’s belief that white people have higher average IQ than black people was based on evidence that white people have higher average IQ than black people, they’d very likely believe that East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews have even higher average IQ. If they don’t also believe that, I’d strongly suspect their belief is based on something else
I agree with this assessment, since such a person is likely just searching for good things to say about one group and bad things to say about another.
I meant what I said about not wanting to continue the conversation, but since you’re asking me questions, I’ll give you (some) answers. I hope you won’t hold it against me if I don’t answer further questions, though.
What moral theory are you using to make this judgement?
None. I don’t think morality admits of theoretical systematization. I’m sympathetic to moral particularism.
Is someone who believes group X has lower average IQ, for example, then group Y a racist?
No. I believe there are differences in average IQ between racial groups, and I don’t consider myself a racist.
Derbyshire’s belief in racial IQ differences is not why I think he’s a racist. It’s things like advising his children not to assist black people in distress, and offering as a reason a single news story about some black people who killed a man who was helping one of them. Or advising his children not to go to an event where there will be a large number of black people, and offering as support a single news story about a shooting at an event with a large number of black people. Or asserting without evidence that 5% of all black people are ferociously hostile to whites and will go to great lengths to harm them, and that 50% of blacks will passively go along with this 5%. Or saying that one should scrutinize a black candidate for political office much more carefully than a white candidate. These are all claims he makes in the column that got him fired.
According to the data in your link, 12.9 % of murders of white people were committed by black people. Black people constitute 12.6% of the population. I don’t see how this particular data makes it reasonable to advise white children not to help apparently distressed black people, or to believe that 50% of black people will go along with white people being harmed on purely racial grounds, or to believe that black candidates to political office should be scrutinized with more care.
The male-female differential in commission of violent crimes is greater than the black-white differential. Do you really believe that Derbyshire thinks male candidates to political office should be held up to greater scrutiny than female candidates, or that he advises his children not to attend events where there will be a large number of men?
According to the data in your link, 12.9 % of murders of white people were committed by black people. Black people constitute 12.6% of the population.
Well, whites interact more with follow whites then with blacks.
Let’s put it this way. Assuming you live in the US, walk through the nearest black neighborhood at night, every night for about a week. If you aren’t willing to do this, why not?
It is a good thing but it does not follow direct from “refining the art of human rationality”. This needs us to examine fearlessly and rationally all questions even uncomfortable, and that follows direct from “refining the art of human rationality”. You are right it does help this to have more varied people here.
I actually think it does follow. Understanding what people of different races experience is, apparently, a major cognitive blind spot. For instance, lots of people think that racism was a problem forty years ago, but isn’t a problem today. But what did people forty years ago think?
Sure,we’ve probably made progress since then. But if there is still widespread discrimination, would you notice? If you read the recent post from gwern on the psychology of power, you’ll notice that this is just another application of a common set of biases.
There is, of course, also the issue of women; someone else brought up Larry Summers. Having women involved makes teams more effective—that’s instrumental rationality right there. And, of course, we have a fair number of philosophical debates here. It’s well known that women have different philosophical intuitions than men. I would not be at all surprised to learn that the same is true of people of color. As Jef Raskin notes (in a completely different context), intuitive means familiar. Having had a different set of experiences would, of course, change what is familiar. To the extent that our debates rely on intuition, perhaps without our even noticing it, it’s extremely valuable to get a different perspective.
When you link to people like VDARE, you are sending a very strong signal that you would really rather not have people of color here. Nobody likes to be part of a community where their ethnicity or gender is a reason to dismiss them as just not that smart. And this is an especially rough burden on people who are more likely to dissent from the local consensus by reason of their differing intuitions and experiences.
If you really, instrumentally, care about having people of color read Less Wrong, and you really care about coming to the correct conclusions, you ought to do what you can to make this a less unpleasant space to be around. Otherwise, you’ll be excluding a bunch of interesting people and missing a bunch of useful data, and you’ll never even notice.
By the same logic, should we stop promoting atheism since it makes religious people uncomfortable, and religious people definitely bring different perspectives?
The history is, of course, a bit different there. And religion is a matter of belief, rather than something immutable.
Finally, I am bothered by some of the discourse around religion—the sort that is merely racism by another name. I am aware of the standard arguments for the unique awfulness of Islam, but they seem to me to be related to the fundamental attribution error. The reasonable argument against religion is error theory. The rest is a waste of time.
1) People of different races provide different perspectives so we shouldn’t make them feel excluded.
Well, religious people also provide different perspectives, and this effect is much stronger for religion.
We can’t avoid the perspective of religious people, because they are the vast majority of the world. So there is no special need to make them feel welcome (nor is there a special need to make them feel unwelcome). Also, if we look at this in terms of networks of evidence, the rationality node screens off everything from religion, which is not at all true of the perspectives of women and people of color.
2) Not making people feel bad is intrinsically valuable.
This applies equally to religious people.
Have you read the comments to this? This is where the history and state of the world come in. If you are a religious person, and you are bothered by Less Wrong, hey, there’s very nearly the entire rest of the world for you to feel comfortable in. But if you are a woman and you are bothered, where can you go? There is no place on earth free of sexism.
Also, of course, some religious people are offended by the very existence of atheists who are vocal about their beliefs. It is, of course, hard to get them to admit this—usually, it is framed in terms of “tone”. But “tone” is a function of the listener as much as the speaker, and when someone’s views are being attacked, they are more likely to hear the tone of the argument as angry. Similarly, it can be hard to hear the difference between “You’re wrong”, and “You’re an idiot.”
I do think that the comments on Less Wrong sometimes go out of their way to attack religious people, and I do think that this is an error. But I don’t think you could have Less Wrong without having a population of vocal atheists. We could, however, do entirely without the vocal racism.
We can’t avoid the perspective of religious people, because they are the vast majority of the world.
Well, LW has done a remarkably good job of it.
Have you read the comments to this? This is where the history and state of the world come in. If you are a religious person, and you are bothered by Less Wrong, hey, there’s very nearly the entire rest of the world for you to feel comfortable in. But if you are a woman and you are bothered, where can you go?
Just about anywhere else given the prevalence of PC in our culture.
Also, that bit where I was at a conference with ESR, and he pulled one of the attractive young, female organizers onto his lap. Maybe she was into it and maybe not, but she didn’t really have much choice but to be polite to one of the GoHs. So, I’m not really a big fan of ESR.
If you read Steve Sailer’s articles, they more-or-less uniformly have negative things to say about people of color.
No actually they don’t. At least not about “people of colour” (who still uses language like that, did I step back into the 19th century?). I can’t think of say any material that reflects negatively on East Asians and he talks about them more than many other groups. You can make a case most of the material on educational achievement, social dysfunction or crime reflects badly on African Americans, but again that is the data, the alternative is not talking about it at all. And most importantly while some of his commenter are racist he himself I think isn’t.
Indeed as strange as it might sound (but not to those who know what he usually blogs about) Steve Sailer seems to genuinely like black people more than average and I wouldn’t be surprised at all if a test showed he wasn’t biased against them or was less biased than the average white American.
I think a large reason for this is that he is a sports stats buff and talks about it a lot. While talking about say crime rates will probably deplete your warm fuzzy counter for African Americans, talking about say Olympic medals will probably replenish it.
Also for people not familiar with Steve’s regular style of writing, I’ll endorse another LWer’s opinion of him:
Perhaps I’m somewhat biased in my view of him, but generally for example this interesting video seems typical Steve Sailer style.
VDARE is (somewhat) crimethink by my standards, much of their stuff not passing my Voigt-Kampf test if you know what I mean, but Sailer is anything but a racist. In fact, all the ethical flaws I might even begin to suspect him of are tied to his epistemic habits (such as thinking that his mainstream targets just Hate Truth), and generally he sounds like quite a decent person.
All groups fall on a distribution. All groups have high and low. “All whites are better than all blacks” or “all blacks are better than all whites” is wrong and obvious racist.
The problem with HBD is that it’s not pure truth-seeking; there are value judgments attached. Most HBD advocates I’ve encountered don’t just claim that the statistical correlation between race and IQ can be explained by genetics; they also claim that people with high IQs are better than people with low IQs.
I often see HBD presented as a heroic scientific effort, one that is only embraced by those truth-seekers brave enough to swim against the tide of political correctness. But HBD (as presented on the HBD blogs I’ve encountered, at least) is so fraught with value judgments that I have trouble taking it seriously. I have to wade through all sorts of claims about how awful black people are in order to dig out the bloggers’ actual data. Furthermore, I distrust the factual claims of anyone with so obvious an agenda.
I’m not familiar with vdare.com, but I think it’s perfectly reasonable for a truth-seeker to reject a source for making blatant value judgments. If the findings reported in that source are in any way scientific, they will be contained in the academic literature, which is presumably more neutral. A truly conscientious truth-seeker might want to completely avoid bloggers with political agendas, and go straight to the scientific journal articles.
they also claim that people with high IQs are better than people with low IQs.
But they pretty much are by LW standards! It’s not just that higher IQs correlate with irreligiosity and liberalism & libertarianism (as one might expect from LW’s userbase), but they also correlate with honesty, low discount rates, willingness to cooperate, dislike of coercion, judicious investments, positive externalities (from R&D) and so on and so forth. I’ve been compiling cites on all of these if you want to read more.
I looked at the above link, and it’s actually a fairly heavily referenced book review written by Richard Lynn, a professor of psychology. The subject matter of the book is heavily within Lynn’s area of expertise and stays focused on the substance. The guy is both a prominent academic in the psychology of intelligence, and willing to affiliate with publications, organizations, and events associated with nasty and silly ethnocentrism. Some possible heuristics we could apply here:
1) Read everything Lynn writes, both in academic journals and books, and in articles written for non-academic political publications, since he’s an academic with relevant expertise.
2) Read everything Lynn writes, both in academic journals and books, and in articles written for non-academic political publications, but exclude things written for political publications where strongly disapproved writings appear (even if the Lynn article itself is unobjectionable).
3) Only read his academic articles and books, and not popularizations or other writings.
4) Don’t read anything by this guy, either because his associations indicate his academic work is bad, or accepting any lost opportunities to learn as a legitimate cost of supporting norms of tolerance among majorities.
5) Don’t read anything by people with Lynn’s associations, but also extend one more level to exclude people who have associated with them, e.g. Arthur Jensen. Only read people who have political associations for which their research is inconvenient.
What are you thinking of?
Remember that too far down the list, one would also wind up excluding many of the arguments in the scientific literature against hereditarianism, at least on race, as the well-known anti-hereditarian authors often have strong Marxist, socialist and related commitments, e.g. Stephen J. Gould. In some cases, such as Gould’s, that would be justified: Gould was caught in numerous errors and falsehoods skewed in the direction of his politics. But this would still slice away vast swathes of the relevant literature, if not the raw data.
Most HBD advocates I’ve encountered don’t just claim that the statistical correlation between race and IQ can be explained by genetics; they also claim that people with high IQs are better than people with low IQs.
Actually most of them make a factually true statement that high IQ people are more pleasant to be around than low IQ people. I don’t recall them arguing low IQ people have lower moral value. By far the most popular HBDish blog is iSteve by Steve Sailer, who clearly does assign equal value to people of different IQs. Some of the commenter on his blog are clearly racist, but that statement is also true of the comments to many crime stories on any news site.
The only group that really fits your bill are extreme white nationalists, but they basically use the IQ scores as a political bludgeon ignoring the higher Asian and especially Askenazi Jewish scores. They are easy to spot.
I often see HBD presented as a heroic scientific effort, one that is only embraced by those truth-seekers brave enough to swim against the tide of political correctness. But HBD (as presented on the HBD blogs I’ve encountered, at least) is so fraught with value judgments that I have trouble taking it seriously. I have to wade through all sorts of claims about how awful black people are in order to dig out the bloggers’ actual data. Furthermore, I distrust the factual claims of anyone with so obvious an agenda.
I would directly challenge your claim. There are great truth seeking HBD blogs like West Hunter, Gene Expression, Evo and Proud, ect. I would argue that on LW mostly only such blogs ever get linked.
I’m not familiar with vdare.com, but I think it’s perfectly reasonable for a truth-seeker to reject a source for making blatant value judgments. If the findings reported in that source are in any way scientific, they will be contained in the academic literature, which is presumably more neutral. A truly conscientious truth-seeker might want to completely avoid bloggers with political agendas, and go straight to the scientific journal articles.
Actually the linked article is written by Professor RIchard Lynn a controversial scientist but one that is heavily represented in the academic literature. I doubt his positions in the article depart much from his stance in various papers. Judgement by author rather than by site seems much better suited if the author is notable.
It really depends on which blogs in particular your have in mind, since for some the criticism is unwarranted for others it really isn’t mind citing examples?
A truly conscientious truth-seeker might want to completely avoid bloggers with political agendas, and go straight to the scientific journal articles.
Why didn’t you take your own advice and just read the scientists who write on HBD rather than people arguing about it on the internet? Though there is overlap between the two groups, see Harpending & Cochran’s blog and Peter Frost’s blog.
I can prefer some weighted mixture of “finding some truth now,” and “setting pleasant social norms to make my truth-finding community healthier for the future,” while still optimizing for truth.
However there are certainly plenty of reasons to pursue instrumental rationality (in fact, all reasons are reasons for this) and if we value people not feeling bad, I’m not sure what your case against politeness actually consists of.
I can prefer some weighted mixture of “finding some truth now,” and “setting pleasant social norms to make my truth-finding community healthier for the future,”
Given that those “pleasant social norms” seem to consist of declaring investigating certain subjects taboo, this is likely to make truth seeking harder in the future.
Given the current lack of diversity in our community, and that I have some (I will allow somewhat mysterious) sense that diverse perspectives will be useful to rationality, for example, in avoiding projecting our preferences, I personally believe that in a more diverse community we will be able to have a better discussion of the issues at hand which will be more truthful.
I don’t mean to say you should stop having opinions about this, just that the opinion of even one person who is directly targeted would probably make the discussion about a thousand times more practical and useful to our community, whereas right now I feel like there are lots of bad feelings and no practical benefit.
I do agree with you that a permanent taboo would be obviously problematic.
Given the current lack of diversity in our community, and that I have some (I will allow somewhat mysterious) sense that diverse perspectives will be useful to rationality, for example, in avoiding projecting our preferences, I personally believe that in a more diverse community we will be able to have a better discussion of the issues at hand which will be more truthful.
You seem to be confusing racial diversity with ideological diversity.
Edit: Since you seem to have misunderstood me let me clarify. Your argument about the benefits of diversity is about the benefits of ideological diversity, whereas your complaint is about the lack of racial diversity.
People of different races have different life experiences. I think that those other life experiences, not the ideologies commonly associated with them, are what are missing from this conversation.
You seem to be confusing racial diversity with ideological diversity.
Since you seem to be not reading the link:
Of our 1090 respondents, 972 (89%) were male, 92 (8.4%) female, 7 (.6%) transexual, and 19 gave various other answers or objected to the question. As abysmally male-dominated as these results are, the percent of women has tripled since the last survey in mid-2009.
We’re also a little more diverse than we were in 2009; our percent non-whites has risen from 6% to just below 10%. Along with 944 whites (86%) we include 38 Hispanics (3.5%), 31 East Asians (2.8%), 26 Indian Asians (2.4%) and 4 blacks (.4%).
Second-order rationality implies that at some point, you will think to yourself, “And now, I will irrationally believe that I will win the lottery, in order to make myself happy.” But we do not have such direct control over our beliefs. You cannot make yourself believe the sky is green by an act of will. You might be able to believe you believed it—though I have just made that more difficult for you by pointing out the difference. (You’re welcome!) You might even believe you were happy and self-deceived; but you would not in fact be happy and self-deceived.
For second-order rationality to be genuinely rational, you would first need a good model of reality, to extrapolate the consequences of rationality and irrationality. If you then chose to be first-order irrational, you would need to forget this accurate view. And then forget the act of forgetting. I don’t mean to commit the logical fallacy of generalizing from fictional evidence, but I think Orwell did a good job of extrapolating where this path leads.
You can’t know the consequences of being biased, until you have already debiased yourself. And then it is too late for self-deception.
The other alternative is to choose blindly to remain biased, without any clear idea of the consequences. This is not second-order rationality. It is willful stupidity.
By that logic Jews should be worried that they are discriminated against on LW every time someone links to a neo-nazi blog, or to a site that has materials critical of Israel or, say, of Jewish dominance in Hollywood?
Should women feel unwelcome here if someone links to Larry Summers remarks on genetic differences between genders?
Any of those things really does provide Bayesian evidence the relevant groups will have lower status in a community. There are tradeoffs between making a place pleasant for various people and the ability to talk about various subjects. Even if strict general epistemic norms are applied (which would throw out most articles from political sites anyway), relaxing taboos to allow even clinical discussion signals unusual priorities. If avoiding offense or increasing participation of a group is a very high priority, then people will only bring up such evidence if they are relevant to some other very important need.
You seem to be in an argument about where to set the tradeoff seem to be making a claim about where to set the tradeoff, and I wouldn’t say positions become necessarily “irrational” across a wide range.
Any of those things really does provide Bayesian evidence the relevant groups will have lower status in a community.
Sure does. Then again, the WSJ is a complete right-wing garbage politically, but is quite good at economics, so it’s not so that unusual to get some tidbits of wisdom from unsavory sources.
If avoiding offense or increasing participation of a group is a very high priority
I would not expect this forum to bend over backwards to avoid accidentally offending people. The rule of thumb for an online discussion is “do not offend and do not be easily offended”.
I wouldn’t say positions become necessarily “irrational” across a wide range.
Right, where to set the boundary is a personal preference and not an issue of rationality. Expecting others to move their boundary upon your request might be.
There are tradeoffs between making a place pleasant for various people and the ability to talk about various subjects.
For instance: Making it pleasant for fundamentalist Christians makes it hard to talk about biology, because in order to make fundamentalist Christians comfortable you have to lie about biology. Making it pleasant for white-supremacists probably implies not having any informed conversations about the experiences of nonwhite people, since the nonwhite people are not likely to stick around to defend their very existence against the white-supremacists. Making it pleasant for misogynists pretty much implies not having any conversations with much input from women, at least on topics where sex is relevant; making it pleasant for homophobes means not talking about homosexuality in anything but condemning terms; and so on.
It seems safe to conclude that we already know quite a lot about what various supremacist and hate groups have to say, thanks to those views’ significance in history — and that today, we would prefer the input of the much larger and more interesting fraction of humanity that those groups would choose to exclude.
A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other designated sector of society.
I’m not sure you saw my point here. Yes VDARE is a politically oriented site, its goal being immigration restriction thus duh some people with racist attitudes are probably writing for it. Selectively applying such standards for the discussion of some policy issues seems like a bad idea. I can see your point if I was citing someone with a very poor reputation who happens to be right, but I don’t at all agree citing someone who is ok when it comes to data and its interpretation, who happens to have written for a magazine that sometimes isn’t ok.
Here is a statement of editorial policy from VDARE:
We’ve said repeatedly that VDARE.COM is not a White Nationalist webzine—but that we do publish White Nationalists because we regard their focus on white interests as at least as legitimate as Black Nationalism, Hispanic Nationalism, Zionism, etc…and as an inevitable development in the Brave New America created by mass immigration.
Based on this, I don’t know if I’d classify VDARE as a hate group, but I would classify it as racist.
The disclaimer I’ve quoted comes before a piece written by Jared Taylor. VDARE goes on to describe him as “perhaps the most brilliant and accomplished figure among White Nationalists”. This is a man who has written elsewhere: “Blacks and whites are different. When blacks are left entirely to their own devices, Western Civilization—any kind of civilization—disappears. And in a crisis, civilization disappears overnight.” It might be denotationally accurate that he is one of the most brilliant and accomplished White Nationalists, but I don’t like the connotations.
It might be denotationally accurate that he is one of the most brilliant and accomplished White Nationalists, but I don’t like the connotations.
In that case I recommend you make it possible for people to discuss said denotations without automatically being lumped with said connotations. See Eric Raymound’s post on not ceding the truth to racists.
Your approach of “we should/shouldn’t say X in order to include/exclude certain groups” seems to miss something. Specifically there frequently is a fact of the matter regarding X and that should also be a very important consideration.
My approach is not “we should/shouldn’t say X” at all. It is, rather, “if we want to learn about people of category Q, we should listen to (and welcome) those people themselves, in preference to people of category P who make conjectures about people of category Q. And people of category Q often don’t have much patience for being conjectured about in ways that are not only unflattering, but have long ago been debunked.”
For instance, if you want to acquire information about the experiences, psyches, and motives of women, you’re better off listening to women rather than listening to misogynistic pick-up artists. If you want to learn about black people, you’re better off listening to black people rather than listening to white raci(ali)sts. And so on.
(This is, by the way, part of why I think we shouldn’t use religion as a cheap example of irrationality. Religion is a lot more complicated than many skeptics’ models of it would suggest.)
being conjectured about in ways that are not only unflattering, but have long ago been debunked.
Really, could you direct me to where and when this debunking happened? When I look around I see a lot of evidence for these conjectures and a lot of incoherent arguments against them backed up by claims that it’s evil to even consider the possibility that the conjectures are correct.
Yes, I would be deeply worried if people linked to neo-nazi blogs. There is, of course, a difference between criticism of Israel and anti-semitism.
As for Hollywood, my understanding is that most people who are worried that the Jews are over-represented in Hollywood, are worried for anti-semitic reasons. Certainly, it’s rare to see someone comment on it without invoking anti-semitic stereotypes or tropes in the process.
And why should anyone link to Larry Summers if not to make women feel unwelcome? He’s not a famous geneticist, or a famous rationalist, or a famous expert in the world of sex-differences, or really anything else. He’s mostly famous for is this speech, which is full of shoddy reasoning and anecdotal evidence.
I sympathize with your reaction. But one can go overboard with this: if the heuristics disqualifying potential sources for a view are too aggressive, then no one will be qualified to present that view, even if it turns out to be right. For instance, the disqualifying description of Summers in the above comment is questionable:
Larry Summers...He’s not a famous… expert in...really anything else. He’s mostly famous for is this speech,
He won the John Bates Clark medal, awarded to the best economists under 40, basically the Fields medal of economics. He is almost universally acclaimed as brilliant within the economics profession, was Clinton’s Secretary of the Treasury, a major economic adviser for the Obama administration, and Chief Economist of the World Bank.
He’s not a famous geneticist
Is that your real objection? Both James Watson and Francis Crick, who shared the Nobel Prize for their work on the DNA double helix, have expressed pro-eugenics positions, and the view that genetic explanations of ethnic differences in IQ are plausibly to likely significant. I.e. the most famous geneticists ever. Will Shockley, who won a Nobel in Physics for invention of the transistor, also got in a lot of trouble for pro-eugenics positions, and his views on race and IQ. Would you be OK with comments linking to and citing them on their controversial views? Or discussing the reactions to those views?
As GLaDOS knows this is well documented already (in sources that have bias but the facts are good).
Your link seems like a bad idea considering I’m seeing people throwing tantrums and mass down voting certain users. Considering your nick I’m a bit suspicious that you are a troll.
Edit: I should clarify, I don’t find anything wrong with the content written by Lynn, just that some people go instantly into political mode if they see links to a political site, even when the article is by an expert in his field.
Linking some other relevant writing by Lynn would have been preferable.
2nd Edit: Reading the whole article I find nothing wrong with it, the besides politically motivated whining about the site hosting the article I see no good reason to down vote this link. Retracted.
Considering the mass down votings have started again it seems it was a bad idea to bring up your link.
Please do not link to VDARE. It has a large amount of racist material. When you link to sites like this, you make people of color worry that they will be discriminated against. It’s not an unreasonable worry. I would like Less Wrong to be welcoming to everyone.
LessWrong contains material that would upset people taken out of context. (eg. Gwern’s post how to sabotage Intel to slow down unfriendly AI.) I think that this does not make any other article on LessWrong not true.
If I link to Steve Sailer will you be upset as he writes for Vdare?
If you read Steve Sailer’s articles, they more-or-less uniformly have negative things to say about people of color. So, yeah, same problem.
Do you call John Derbyshire or Eric S. Raymond racist?
I don’t know about Eric S. Raymond, but yeah I’d describe John Derbyshire as racist. He describes himself as a (mild) racist and a (mild) white supremacist, incidentally. Do you think he is not racist?
Raymond says Derbyshire uses “racist” ironically. “I think his ‘racism’ is a snook being cocked at bien pensants. He doesn’t think or act like a racist; he’s got a Chinese wife, and he’s not fixated on any racial group being inferior.”
As Raymond says you are conceding the truth to real racists.
It’s quite possible he’s using the word ironically, I’ll admit. However, he’s still a racist. The claim that he doesn’t think or act like a racist is false, Chinese wife notwithstanding. I have read the article that got him fired from the National Review, and it qualifies as both thinking and acting like a racist. I know Raymond would consider this evidence of a lack of intelligence on my part, but I guess I’ll just have to learn to live with his opprobrium.
This might be a convincing argument if I didn’t think Derbyshire was a real racist. But I do. I also probably have a different assessment of the truth than Raymond does.
Can you tell me what the word “racist” means?
The use of “racist” is generally very wide and means several different meanings, their only common point is that they are boo lights that are hard to get rid of once someone accuses you of them.
I can’t give you necessary and sufficient conditions for someone to qualify as a racist, if that’s what you’re looking for. I can give you a general (although probably not exhaustive) sense of attitudes/beliefs that I would consider indicators of racism, and I can point at examples of people I consider racist. Given your subsequent request for a taboo on the word I’m not sure what purpose this would serve, but I’ll do it if you’d like.
If by this you mean something like “Can I expect you to set down a definition of racism and accept in the future that only people meeting that definition are racist?”, then the answer is “no” unfortunately. Like I said, I don’t think I can articulate a necessary and sufficient set of criteria for identifying racists. If you’re asking if I can be expected not to be disingenuous and slippery in the future, then the answer is “yes”, I think.
Sure. I’m not the one who introduced the word into the discussion. But I’m not sure what this conversation is about, exactly. Would you like me to tell you what I find objectionable about Derbyshire without saying “racist”?
ETA: I’m not sure how advisable it is to continue this conversation, actually. I don’t think discussion of this specific point contributes much to the community, and it is the kind of political clutter that people have objected to in the past. The situation seems to be this: I find certain things Derbyshire says morally repugnant and indicative of a culpable prejudice against black people. You (I’m assuming, otherwise this is just a semantic debate about the word “racism”) don’t. I’m sure you’ve read the sorts of arguments I would make before and been unconvinced. I’m fairly sure I’ve read the sorts of argument you would make and been unconvinced. I doubt either of us is going to get anything substantive out of this discussion, and the mind-killing potential is huge. So let’s drop it, yes?
Yes because I think the strong moral revulsion the average Western person has towards “racism” comes from ethics based on sacredness (I recommend your read Tinkerbell ethics series by Sister Y to see what I mean by sacred) and not due to consistent application of utilitarian ethics.
Not to say lots of “racism” might not reduce overall or average utility, but the same could be said of the targets of other emotionally charged arational revulsions. For example some people are revolted by sexual promiscuity or material inequality and proceed to sometimes build convincing utilitarian arguments against them.
But clearly their bottom line was written before the rationalized argument.
I’m not trying to put you down here, everyone has sacred spots like that. And we probably share the kinds of spots we have if not their intensity. I’m emotionally disturbed by a high enough setting of “racism” too and I’m pretty sure a high enough level of sexual hedonism might be emotionally disturbing to you.
I can see how these debates might be counter-productive, but are you sure? I find debates on ethics fun. :)
Oh, I have no problem admitting I’m not consistently applying utilitarian ethics. I’m far from a utilitarian. And I’ll also readily acknowledge that some of my moral reactions stem from intuitions about sacredness. I don’t think this means they are wrong or misguided.
I do too, sometimes, but again, I know a number of readers won’t be too happy with this discussion dominating the recent comments. Also, this thread is already getting a bit too fighty for my liking (you’re not responsible for this), so it’s probably in my best interest to bow out.
What moral theory are you using to make this judgement? Also what exactly to you mean by “prejudice” and how does it differ from a Beysian prior?
Also since you won’t state your definition of racist, let me ask you some questions about it. Is someone who believes group X has lower average IQ, for example, then group Y a racist? Does it matter how much lower? Does it matter if he has evidence? Does it matter if this belief corresponds to reality? Is the person still morally culpable in some/all of the above cases?
As for me, if someone believes that group X has higher average IQ than group Y and that belief is not caused by them having seen evidence that group X actually has higher average IQ than group Y, I’d call them racist.
Hint: If someone’s belief that white people have higher average IQ than black people was based on evidence that white people have higher average IQ than black people, they’d very likely believe that East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews have even higher average IQ. If they don’t also believe that, I’d strongly suspect their belief is based on something else.
I agree with this assessment, since such a person is likely just searching for good things to say about one group and bad things to say about another.
I meant what I said about not wanting to continue the conversation, but since you’re asking me questions, I’ll give you (some) answers. I hope you won’t hold it against me if I don’t answer further questions, though.
None. I don’t think morality admits of theoretical systematization. I’m sympathetic to moral particularism.
No. I believe there are differences in average IQ between racial groups, and I don’t consider myself a racist.
Derbyshire’s belief in racial IQ differences is not why I think he’s a racist. It’s things like advising his children not to assist black people in distress, and offering as a reason a single news story about some black people who killed a man who was helping one of them. Or advising his children not to go to an event where there will be a large number of black people, and offering as support a single news story about a shooting at an event with a large number of black people. Or asserting without evidence that 5% of all black people are ferociously hostile to whites and will go to great lengths to harm them, and that 50% of blacks will passively go along with this 5%. Or saying that one should scrutinize a black candidate for political office much more carefully than a white candidate. These are all claims he makes in the column that got him fired.
Well that’s a start. What about differences in propensity to commit violent crimes?
Near as I can tell, your complaint about Derbyshire is that he takes the implications of this difference seriously and is willing to openly say so.
According to the data in your link, 12.9 % of murders of white people were committed by black people. Black people constitute 12.6% of the population. I don’t see how this particular data makes it reasonable to advise white children not to help apparently distressed black people, or to believe that 50% of black people will go along with white people being harmed on purely racial grounds, or to believe that black candidates to political office should be scrutinized with more care.
The male-female differential in commission of violent crimes is greater than the black-white differential. Do you really believe that Derbyshire thinks male candidates to political office should be held up to greater scrutiny than female candidates, or that he advises his children not to attend events where there will be a large number of men?
Well, whites interact more with follow whites then with blacks.
Let’s put it this way. Assuming you live in the US, walk through the nearest black neighborhood at night, every night for about a week. If you aren’t willing to do this, why not?
Let me ask you a question: do you actually care whether people of color are comfortable at Less Wrong? If not, why not?
It is a good thing but it does not follow direct from “refining the art of human rationality”. This needs us to examine fearlessly and rationally all questions even uncomfortable, and that follows direct from “refining the art of human rationality”. You are right it does help this to have more varied people here.
I actually think it does follow. Understanding what people of different races experience is, apparently, a major cognitive blind spot. For instance, lots of people think that racism was a problem forty years ago, but isn’t a problem today. But what did people forty years ago think?
“[I]n mid-August 1969, forty-four percent of whites told a Newsweek/Gallup National Opinion Survey that blacks had a better chance than they did to get a good paying job—two times as many as said they would have a worse chance?.
Sure,we’ve probably made progress since then. But if there is still widespread discrimination, would you notice? If you read the recent post from gwern on the psychology of power, you’ll notice that this is just another application of a common set of biases.
There is, of course, also the issue of women; someone else brought up Larry Summers. Having women involved makes teams more effective—that’s instrumental rationality right there. And, of course, we have a fair number of philosophical debates here. It’s well known that women have different philosophical intuitions than men. I would not be at all surprised to learn that the same is true of people of color. As Jef Raskin notes (in a completely different context), intuitive means familiar. Having had a different set of experiences would, of course, change what is familiar. To the extent that our debates rely on intuition, perhaps without our even noticing it, it’s extremely valuable to get a different perspective.
When you link to people like VDARE, you are sending a very strong signal that you would really rather not have people of color here. Nobody likes to be part of a community where their ethnicity or gender is a reason to dismiss them as just not that smart. And this is an especially rough burden on people who are more likely to dissent from the local consensus by reason of their differing intuitions and experiences.
If you really, instrumentally, care about having people of color read Less Wrong, and you really care about coming to the correct conclusions, you ought to do what you can to make this a less unpleasant space to be around. Otherwise, you’ll be excluding a bunch of interesting people and missing a bunch of useful data, and you’ll never even notice.
I will consider your post.
By the same logic, should we stop promoting atheism since it makes religious people uncomfortable, and religious people definitely bring different perspectives?
The history is, of course, a bit different there. And religion is a matter of belief, rather than something immutable.
Finally, I am bothered by some of the discourse around religion—the sort that is merely racism by another name. I am aware of the standard arguments for the unique awfulness of Islam, but they seem to me to be related to the fundamental attribution error. The reasonable argument against religion is error theory. The rest is a waste of time.
I don’t see what either of those have to do with your stated reasons.
Near as I can tell your arguments are:
1) People of different races provide different perspectives so we shouldn’t make them feel excluded.
Well, religious people also provide different perspectives, and this effect is much stronger for religion.
2) Not making people feel bad is intrinsically valuable.
This applies equally to religious people.
We can’t avoid the perspective of religious people, because they are the vast majority of the world. So there is no special need to make them feel welcome (nor is there a special need to make them feel unwelcome). Also, if we look at this in terms of networks of evidence, the rationality node screens off everything from religion, which is not at all true of the perspectives of women and people of color.
Have you read the comments to this? This is where the history and state of the world come in. If you are a religious person, and you are bothered by Less Wrong, hey, there’s very nearly the entire rest of the world for you to feel comfortable in. But if you are a woman and you are bothered, where can you go? There is no place on earth free of sexism.
Also, of course, some religious people are offended by the very existence of atheists who are vocal about their beliefs. It is, of course, hard to get them to admit this—usually, it is framed in terms of “tone”. But “tone” is a function of the listener as much as the speaker, and when someone’s views are being attacked, they are more likely to hear the tone of the argument as angry. Similarly, it can be hard to hear the difference between “You’re wrong”, and “You’re an idiot.”
I do think that the comments on Less Wrong sometimes go out of their way to attack religious people, and I do think that this is an error. But I don’t think you could have Less Wrong without having a population of vocal atheists. We could, however, do entirely without the vocal racism.
Well, LW has done a remarkably good job of it.
Just about anywhere else given the prevalence of PC in our culture.
If the prevalence of PC were actually sufficient for women to feel comfortable, we wouldn’t have blogs like this.
I’m not interested in calling someone a racist or not a racist. I’m interested in whether someone’s behavior makes people uncomfortable. So, yeah, I’m bothered by both of their behavior.
Also, that bit where I was at a conference with ESR, and he pulled one of the attractive young, female organizers onto his lap. Maybe she was into it and maybe not, but she didn’t really have much choice but to be polite to one of the GoHs. So, I’m not really a big fan of ESR.
You are changing topic and dodging answer. Does ESR have “racist material”?
I’m not dodging at all—I just haven’t paid attention to ESR in years (that conference was in 2005 or 2006), so I have no idea what he posts.
No actually they don’t. At least not about “people of colour” (who still uses language like that, did I step back into the 19th century?). I can’t think of say any material that reflects negatively on East Asians and he talks about them more than many other groups. You can make a case most of the material on educational achievement, social dysfunction or crime reflects badly on African Americans, but again that is the data, the alternative is not talking about it at all. And most importantly while some of his commenter are racist he himself I think isn’t.
I think a large reason for this is that he is a sports stats buff and talks about it a lot. While talking about say crime rates will probably deplete your warm fuzzy counter for African Americans, talking about say Olympic medals will probably replenish it.
Also for people not familiar with Steve’s regular style of writing, I’ll endorse another LWer’s opinion of him:
From a different poster:
From casual reading, I don’t get the impression that black middle class and upper class people get noticed by HBDists. Have I missed something?
All groups fall on a distribution. All groups have high and low. “All whites are better than all blacks” or “all blacks are better than all whites” is wrong and obvious racist.
I’m talking about availability bias, not theory.
But isteve is linked on LessWrong frequently. It is unclear how far you feel the curse by association goes.
Do not put marketing considerations above the rational search for truth.
Since when is making everyone feel welcome a “marketing consideration”? I actually care about how actual people of color feel. Don’t you?
So what you’re saying is that you prefer lies that don’t make anyone feel bad to searching for truth.
The problem with HBD is that it’s not pure truth-seeking; there are value judgments attached. Most HBD advocates I’ve encountered don’t just claim that the statistical correlation between race and IQ can be explained by genetics; they also claim that people with high IQs are better than people with low IQs.
I often see HBD presented as a heroic scientific effort, one that is only embraced by those truth-seekers brave enough to swim against the tide of political correctness. But HBD (as presented on the HBD blogs I’ve encountered, at least) is so fraught with value judgments that I have trouble taking it seriously. I have to wade through all sorts of claims about how awful black people are in order to dig out the bloggers’ actual data. Furthermore, I distrust the factual claims of anyone with so obvious an agenda.
I’m not familiar with vdare.com, but I think it’s perfectly reasonable for a truth-seeker to reject a source for making blatant value judgments. If the findings reported in that source are in any way scientific, they will be contained in the academic literature, which is presumably more neutral. A truly conscientious truth-seeker might want to completely avoid bloggers with political agendas, and go straight to the scientific journal articles.
But they pretty much are by LW standards! It’s not just that higher IQs correlate with irreligiosity and liberalism & libertarianism (as one might expect from LW’s userbase), but they also correlate with honesty, low discount rates, willingness to cooperate, dislike of coercion, judicious investments, positive externalities (from R&D) and so on and so forth. I’ve been compiling cites on all of these if you want to read more.
I looked at the above link, and it’s actually a fairly heavily referenced book review written by Richard Lynn, a professor of psychology. The subject matter of the book is heavily within Lynn’s area of expertise and stays focused on the substance. The guy is both a prominent academic in the psychology of intelligence, and willing to affiliate with publications, organizations, and events associated with nasty and silly ethnocentrism. Some possible heuristics we could apply here:
1) Read everything Lynn writes, both in academic journals and books, and in articles written for non-academic political publications, since he’s an academic with relevant expertise.
2) Read everything Lynn writes, both in academic journals and books, and in articles written for non-academic political publications, but exclude things written for political publications where strongly disapproved writings appear (even if the Lynn article itself is unobjectionable).
3) Only read his academic articles and books, and not popularizations or other writings.
4) Don’t read anything by this guy, either because his associations indicate his academic work is bad, or accepting any lost opportunities to learn as a legitimate cost of supporting norms of tolerance among majorities.
5) Don’t read anything by people with Lynn’s associations, but also extend one more level to exclude people who have associated with them, e.g. Arthur Jensen. Only read people who have political associations for which their research is inconvenient.
What are you thinking of?
Remember that too far down the list, one would also wind up excluding many of the arguments in the scientific literature against hereditarianism, at least on race, as the well-known anti-hereditarian authors often have strong Marxist, socialist and related commitments, e.g. Stephen J. Gould. In some cases, such as Gould’s, that would be justified: Gould was caught in numerous errors and falsehoods skewed in the direction of his politics. But this would still slice away vast swathes of the relevant literature, if not the raw data.
Actually most of them make a factually true statement that high IQ people are more pleasant to be around than low IQ people. I don’t recall them arguing low IQ people have lower moral value. By far the most popular HBDish blog is iSteve by Steve Sailer, who clearly does assign equal value to people of different IQs. Some of the commenter on his blog are clearly racist, but that statement is also true of the comments to many crime stories on any news site.
The only group that really fits your bill are extreme white nationalists, but they basically use the IQ scores as a political bludgeon ignoring the higher Asian and especially Askenazi Jewish scores. They are easy to spot.
I would directly challenge your claim. There are great truth seeking HBD blogs like West Hunter, Gene Expression, Evo and Proud, ect. I would argue that on LW mostly only such blogs ever get linked.
Actually the linked article is written by Professor RIchard Lynn a controversial scientist but one that is heavily represented in the academic literature. I doubt his positions in the article depart much from his stance in various papers. Judgement by author rather than by site seems much better suited if the author is notable.
It really depends on which blogs in particular your have in mind, since for some the criticism is unwarranted for others it really isn’t mind citing examples?
Why didn’t you take your own advice and just read the scientists who write on HBD rather than people arguing about it on the internet? Though there is overlap between the two groups, see Harpending & Cochran’s blog and Peter Frost’s blog.
I take it you also distrust the factual claims of mainstream social scientists for the same reason.
I can prefer some weighted mixture of “finding some truth now,” and “setting pleasant social norms to make my truth-finding community healthier for the future,” while still optimizing for truth.
However there are certainly plenty of reasons to pursue instrumental rationality (in fact, all reasons are reasons for this) and if we value people not feeling bad, I’m not sure what your case against politeness actually consists of.
Given that those “pleasant social norms” seem to consist of declaring investigating certain subjects taboo, this is likely to make truth seeking harder in the future.
Given the current lack of diversity in our community, and that I have some (I will allow somewhat mysterious) sense that diverse perspectives will be useful to rationality, for example, in avoiding projecting our preferences, I personally believe that in a more diverse community we will be able to have a better discussion of the issues at hand which will be more truthful.
I don’t mean to say you should stop having opinions about this, just that the opinion of even one person who is directly targeted would probably make the discussion about a thousand times more practical and useful to our community, whereas right now I feel like there are lots of bad feelings and no practical benefit.
I do agree with you that a permanent taboo would be obviously problematic.
You seem to be confusing racial diversity with ideological diversity.
Edit: Since you seem to have misunderstood me let me clarify. Your argument about the benefits of diversity is about the benefits of ideological diversity, whereas your complaint is about the lack of racial diversity.
People of different races have different life experiences. I think that those other life experiences, not the ideologies commonly associated with them, are what are missing from this conversation.
Since you seem to be not reading the link:
This is not a diverse propulation.
See my edit of the parent.
As far as I can tell, you’ve misunderstood his argument. This thread started out as a thread about racial diversity.
As Eliezer said in this post:
I don’t see how this applies, or disputes my point.
I find such a request irrational.
By that logic Jews should be worried that they are discriminated against on LW every time someone links to a neo-nazi blog, or to a site that has materials critical of Israel or, say, of Jewish dominance in Hollywood?
Should women feel unwelcome here if someone links to Larry Summers remarks on genetic differences between genders?
Any of those things really does provide Bayesian evidence the relevant groups will have lower status in a community. There are tradeoffs between making a place pleasant for various people and the ability to talk about various subjects. Even if strict general epistemic norms are applied (which would throw out most articles from political sites anyway), relaxing taboos to allow even clinical discussion signals unusual priorities. If avoiding offense or increasing participation of a group is a very high priority, then people will only bring up such evidence if they are relevant to some other very important need.
You seem to be in an argument about where to set the tradeoff seem to be making a claim about where to set the tradeoff, and I wouldn’t say positions become necessarily “irrational” across a wide range.
Sure does. Then again, the WSJ is a complete right-wing garbage politically, but is quite good at economics, so it’s not so that unusual to get some tidbits of wisdom from unsavory sources.
I would not expect this forum to bend over backwards to avoid accidentally offending people. The rule of thumb for an online discussion is “do not offend and do not be easily offended”.
Right, where to set the boundary is a personal preference and not an issue of rationality. Expecting others to move their boundary upon your request might be.
For instance: Making it pleasant for fundamentalist Christians makes it hard to talk about biology, because in order to make fundamentalist Christians comfortable you have to lie about biology. Making it pleasant for white-supremacists probably implies not having any informed conversations about the experiences of nonwhite people, since the nonwhite people are not likely to stick around to defend their very existence against the white-supremacists. Making it pleasant for misogynists pretty much implies not having any conversations with much input from women, at least on topics where sex is relevant; making it pleasant for homophobes means not talking about homosexuality in anything but condemning terms; and so on.
It seems safe to conclude that we already know quite a lot about what various supremacist and hate groups have to say, thanks to those views’ significance in history — and that today, we would prefer the input of the much larger and more interesting fraction of humanity that those groups would choose to exclude.
I don’t think VDARE is a hate group.
What is a hate group?
Wikipedia definition:
Yes. VDARE is not a hate group. It is politicaly incorrect. This is not racist.
My opinion on the site:
Here is a statement of editorial policy from VDARE:
Based on this, I don’t know if I’d classify VDARE as a hate group, but I would classify it as racist.
The disclaimer I’ve quoted comes before a piece written by Jared Taylor. VDARE goes on to describe him as “perhaps the most brilliant and accomplished figure among White Nationalists”. This is a man who has written elsewhere: “Blacks and whites are different. When blacks are left entirely to their own devices, Western Civilization—any kind of civilization—disappears. And in a crisis, civilization disappears overnight.” It might be denotationally accurate that he is one of the most brilliant and accomplished White Nationalists, but I don’t like the connotations.
In that case I recommend you make it possible for people to discuss said denotations without automatically being lumped with said connotations. See Eric Raymound’s post on not ceding the truth to racists.
I agree. It is not honest intellectually to stop discussion.
“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” — George Orwell.
Your approach of “we should/shouldn’t say X in order to include/exclude certain groups” seems to miss something. Specifically there frequently is a fact of the matter regarding X and that should also be a very important consideration.
My approach is not “we should/shouldn’t say X” at all. It is, rather, “if we want to learn about people of category Q, we should listen to (and welcome) those people themselves, in preference to people of category P who make conjectures about people of category Q. And people of category Q often don’t have much patience for being conjectured about in ways that are not only unflattering, but have long ago been debunked.”
For instance, if you want to acquire information about the experiences, psyches, and motives of women, you’re better off listening to women rather than listening to misogynistic pick-up artists. If you want to learn about black people, you’re better off listening to black people rather than listening to white raci(ali)sts. And so on.
(This is, by the way, part of why I think we shouldn’t use religion as a cheap example of irrationality. Religion is a lot more complicated than many skeptics’ models of it would suggest.)
Really, could you direct me to where and when this debunking happened? When I look around I see a lot of evidence for these conjectures and a lot of incoherent arguments against them backed up by claims that it’s evil to even consider the possibility that the conjectures are correct.
Yes, I would be deeply worried if people linked to neo-nazi blogs. There is, of course, a difference between criticism of Israel and anti-semitism.
As for Hollywood, my understanding is that most people who are worried that the Jews are over-represented in Hollywood, are worried for anti-semitic reasons. Certainly, it’s rare to see someone comment on it without invoking anti-semitic stereotypes or tropes in the process.
And why should anyone link to Larry Summers if not to make women feel unwelcome? He’s not a famous geneticist, or a famous rationalist, or a famous expert in the world of sex-differences, or really anything else. He’s mostly famous for is this speech, which is full of shoddy reasoning and anecdotal evidence.
I sympathize with your reaction. But one can go overboard with this: if the heuristics disqualifying potential sources for a view are too aggressive, then no one will be qualified to present that view, even if it turns out to be right. For instance, the disqualifying description of Summers in the above comment is questionable:
Take a look at his wikipedia article.
He won the John Bates Clark medal, awarded to the best economists under 40, basically the Fields medal of economics. He is almost universally acclaimed as brilliant within the economics profession, was Clinton’s Secretary of the Treasury, a major economic adviser for the Obama administration, and Chief Economist of the World Bank.
Is that your real objection? Both James Watson and Francis Crick, who shared the Nobel Prize for their work on the DNA double helix, have expressed pro-eugenics positions, and the view that genetic explanations of ethnic differences in IQ are plausibly to likely significant. I.e. the most famous geneticists ever. Will Shockley, who won a Nobel in Physics for invention of the transistor, also got in a lot of trouble for pro-eugenics positions, and his views on race and IQ. Would you be OK with comments linking to and citing them on their controversial views? Or discussing the reactions to those views?