The non-obvious differences can still be ascertained—it is not as if one has to get there via the superficial differences.
Surely you’ve heard about the weak correlation between height and IQ?
It’s a weak correlation. if I wanted to ascertain someome’s intellgece formally, i’d use therir academic record, or an IQ test. if I wanted to do so informally, I’d talk to them. If all I had to go on was their height or skin colour, I would suspend judgement, because the infomation is too weak to be worthwhile. I dont want false confidence.
But racists do it the other way round. They argue that Bush is smarter than Obama just because he is white (Someone actually said that to me)..They
don’t even bother paying attention to the way the two men speak. They discard higher quality information in favour of lower.
Also, while I realize that white/black is the prevalent form of racism in America, it certainly isn’t the only one. For example, there’s a lot of racism involved between Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese. Slightly more difficult to find any difference there.
Equating racism with discrimination based on skin colour and calling all other forms xenophobia will only make you confused.
Many species are divided into taxonomical subspecies (races) which clearly differ in terms of intelligence, or aggression, or sociality, or whatever. The question isn’t whether races are different, but whether homo sapiens can reasonably be divided into such subspecies. That’s a scientific question, but several of your statements such as “racism is crazy” and “if it’s not superficial, it’s not racism” strike me as naïve and motivated by some weird sense of moral superiority instead.
Current scientific consensus amongst those who seem to be the least driven by ideological agenda is “no”, except of course if you talk about extinct subspecies. Surely you know this?
Yes. I was assuming that since concerns about race are not driven by scientific consensus, they are driven by something else. I was speculating about what, and what the consequences might be for cognitive efficiency. Why did you bring ins science, when there is no science to bring in?
You did not “speculate” about anything. You labelled a belief as crazy that seemed to be based on scientific facts, was supported by scientific authorities, and has only very recently fallen into disfavour; demonstrating that you’re as least as ideologically motivated as those who propagated the belief in the first place. If you’d lived about 50 years ago, you’d say the same about the belief that ethnicity has little or no impact on intelligence/aggression/sociality/whatever and any such perceived differences must be the result of cultural differences, communication problems, and selective evidence.
You did not “speculate” about anything. You labelled a belief as crazy
I argued that it was congnitively inefficient.
that seemed to be based on scientific facts, was supported by scientific authorities, and has only very recently fallen into disfavour
Ermm..it’s not based on current science though. Are you trying to say that the cognitive error of racism is not what i said it was, but rather that it was merely based on outdated science? I do wish you guys would drop the dog whistle and say what you mean.
If you’d lived about 50 years ago, you’d say the same about the belief that ethnicity has little or no impact on intelligence/aggression/sociality/whatever and any such perceived differences must be the result of cultural differences, communication problems, and selective evidence.
Whereas it has a slight impact. Maybe. But that gets back to what I was saying originally. Racism treats unimportant factors as important. That;s the bias that’s going on here.
ETA:
And here’s someone (edit: someone ELSE) self-daignosing what I was saying:-
As someone from the southern US, I was asked (jokingly) about whether or not I was a racist when I went north for college. At first I was repulsed by the question, until I noticed that I automatically got more nervous when passing a black person on the street at night. I am going to college in Cleveland, and so I have some actual reason for this since every mugger I’ve seen for five years in incident reports has been black. My problem (though I only started defining it this way within the past few months of reading LW) is that I was weighting race far too strongly in my everyday interactions.
After I realized I was doing this, I decided to switch my threat assessment style to a more clothing-based approach, with some success. Everyday interactions with other races than my native white within the university also felt easier and less forced. Taking an implicit association test helped me to realize that I was racist to some degree despite my intense repulsion to the idea. I now encourage everyone to examine their thought process for racism, especially if they would feel dismay if someone accused them of racism.
especially if they would feel dismay if someone accused them of racism.
I think this is the root of your problem. You didn’t make the above cognitive changes because they were rational, you made them because you didn’t want to be accused of “racism”, i.e., because you wanted to fit in. While this is itself a perfectly understandable and reasonable human motive, it causes problems if one wants to discover what is true.
You didn’t make the above cognitive changes because they were rational, you made them because you didn’t want to be accused of “racism”, i.e., because you wanted to fit in.
This seems like an anti-updating sort of argument. It seems analogous to telling someone who has decided to be a nicer person that —
“You didn’t make the above cognitive changes because they achieved the good; you made them because you didn’t want to be accused of ‘being a jerk’, i.e., because you wanted to fit in.”
Quite. It’s perfectly possible for rationality and some other goal to coincide. And asserting that updates don’t count unless they are motivated by a pure desire for raitonality for its own sake is setting the bar rather high.
The non-obvious differences can still be ascertained—it is not as if one has to get there via the superficial differences.
It’s a weak correlation. if I wanted to ascertain someome’s intellgece formally, i’d use therir academic record, or an IQ test. if I wanted to do so informally, I’d talk to them. If all I had to go on was their height or skin colour, I would suspend judgement, because the infomation is too weak to be worthwhile. I dont want false confidence.
But racists do it the other way round. They argue that Bush is smarter than Obama just because he is white (Someone actually said that to me)..They don’t even bother paying attention to the way the two men speak. They discard higher quality information in favour of lower.
If it’s not superficial, its not racisim: its xenophobia. The various Balkan factions hate each other just fine even though outsiders can’t detect the differences](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbo-Croatian#Present_sociolinguistic_situation
Equating racism with discrimination based on skin colour and calling all other forms xenophobia will only make you confused.
Many species are divided into taxonomical subspecies (races) which clearly differ in terms of intelligence, or aggression, or sociality, or whatever. The question isn’t whether races are different, but whether homo sapiens can reasonably be divided into such subspecies. That’s a scientific question, but several of your statements such as “racism is crazy” and “if it’s not superficial, it’s not racism” strike me as naïve and motivated by some weird sense of moral superiority instead.
Then quote the science.
I don’t understand what you want me to quote, or why. Can you be more specific?
“The question isn’t whether races are different, but whether homo sapiens can reasonably be divided into such subspecies. ”
Well.can it?
Current scientific consensus amongst those who seem to be the least driven by ideological agenda is “no”, except of course if you talk about extinct subspecies. Surely you know this?
Yes. I was assuming that since concerns about race are not driven by scientific consensus, they are driven by something else. I was speculating about what, and what the consequences might be for cognitive efficiency. Why did you bring ins science, when there is no science to bring in?
You did not “speculate” about anything. You labelled a belief as crazy that seemed to be based on scientific facts, was supported by scientific authorities, and has only very recently fallen into disfavour; demonstrating that you’re as least as ideologically motivated as those who propagated the belief in the first place. If you’d lived about 50 years ago, you’d say the same about the belief that ethnicity has little or no impact on intelligence/aggression/sociality/whatever and any such perceived differences must be the result of cultural differences, communication problems, and selective evidence.
This might be an interesting read for you.
I argued that it was congnitively inefficient.
Ermm..it’s not based on current science though. Are you trying to say that the cognitive error of racism is not what i said it was, but rather that it was merely based on outdated science? I do wish you guys would drop the dog whistle and say what you mean.
Whereas it has a slight impact. Maybe. But that gets back to what I was saying originally. Racism treats unimportant factors as important. That;s the bias that’s going on here.
ETA:
And here’s someone (edit: someone ELSE) self-daignosing what I was saying:-
As someone from the southern US, I was asked (jokingly) about whether or not I was a racist when I went north for college. At first I was repulsed by the question, until I noticed that I automatically got more nervous when passing a black person on the street at night. I am going to college in Cleveland, and so I have some actual reason for this since every mugger I’ve seen for five years in incident reports has been black. My problem (though I only started defining it this way within the past few months of reading LW) is that I was weighting race far too strongly in my everyday interactions.
After I realized I was doing this, I decided to switch my threat assessment style to a more clothing-based approach, with some success. Everyday interactions with other races than my native white within the university also felt easier and less forced. Taking an implicit association test helped me to realize that I was racist to some degree despite my intense repulsion to the idea. I now encourage everyone to examine their thought process for racism, especially if they would feel dismay if someone accused them of racism.
I think this is the root of your problem. You didn’t make the above cognitive changes because they were rational, you made them because you didn’t want to be accused of “racism”, i.e., because you wanted to fit in. While this is itself a perfectly understandable and reasonable human motive, it causes problems if one wants to discover what is true.
This seems like an anti-updating sort of argument. It seems analogous to telling someone who has decided to be a nicer person that —
“You didn’t make the above cognitive changes because they achieved the good; you made them because you didn’t want to be accused of ‘being a jerk’, i.e., because you wanted to fit in.”
Quite. It’s perfectly possible for rationality and some other goal to coincide. And asserting that updates don’t count unless they are motivated by a pure desire for raitonality for its own sake is setting the bar rather high.
Who is that comment addressed to?