Unfortunately, you seem to fall prey to the usual errors:
you do not mention high-education-results subcultures. Analyzing educational results leads to the non-mainstream and actionable-to-you result “tiger moms are awesome” (one prominent LWian does think in that direction). However, when race realists do this analysis, they always conclude (only) “blacks suck”. (To be explicit: you’ve been hanging with white supremacists.)
parents’ social standing is highly influential. Serious civil rights legislation has only been in place for fifty years or so; there are huge confounding factors when inferring “inherent” intelligence from current life outcomes, which should at least be mentioned.
name-calling is not an argument.
you rail against feminism, but that seems somewhat unrelated. More importantly, women do pretty well in society (in particular, in the educational outcomes you cited above), so a straight “black people are poor—women are poor, too” analogy seems to fall flat. (This also furthers the impression that you’ve been hanging with a particular kind of white dude.)
“affirmative action discriminates against whites” is not a fair and full evaluation of that policy, since that is indeed exactly what it’s supposed to do. Your “awesome black doctor” is an argument against affirmative action, but you have not really engaged the core goal (improve chances for black people).
[Pre-EDIT: was: Unfortunately, you seem to fall prey to the usual errors: not mentioning Asian-American or other high-education-results cultures; not mentioning history; name-calling; linking it to unrelated causes including “men’s rights”; attacking affirmative action without even considering whether the good outweighs the bad.]
Asian-American or other high-education-results cultures
I’m not quite sure what you mean here. Asian Americans have lower crime rates than white Americans. And East Asians consistently outscore whites on IQ tests and academic achievement in general.
But we have no evidence at all this is due to high-education culture. East Asians in the US do outperform their IQ scores when it comes to academic performance and income so the effect probably is there.
not mentioning history
The entire planet knows “the history” at this point merely from exposure to US pop culture.
Meh. This post is very unimpressive yet high in karma. And all critical responses to it the good ones and the bad ones are insta down voted. I’m washing my hands of this mess. If the situation changes I’ll edit in a proper response.
Ok I’ll do a proper response later, I hope I didn’t offend you or come of as if acting in bad faith, I was just annoyed at how horribly badly this entire comment section seems to be going.
After my comment and that of JoachimSchipper the situation much improved. It was (is?) a bit hectic and hot-blooded, besides arguments as soldiers and knee jerk down voting apparently even karmassasiantions where going on. I’ve since also retracted the comment.
Not having the willpower to properly respond in this trainwreck of a thread, I’m just going to link to a related post I previously made on the gap (considering the knee jerk down voting all responses to your contrary responses to your post are getting I wonder how long my comment stay at +19).
I see one downvoted response by Aurini (recently edited), one slightly upvoted response from GLaDOS, one slightly upvoted post by you (that is explicitly “not an appropriate post”), and two posts talking about a pattern of kneejerk downvoting. What’s going on?
I seldom see so much reasonable sounding silliness. I don’t have the time to make an appropriate post.
Adoption studies dude. Also once you control tiger moms for the heritable traits they give to their kids you get a big fat zilch in the long term (short term effects can be strong but they wear off).
EY talks about “work ethic” in HPMOR to explain Askenazi success, I’m sure it helps, but Jewish sucess is eight tenths their high IQ. And I’m pretty sure that is genetic in origin.
EY talks about “work ethic” in HPMOR to explain Askenazi success
...
Padma Patil (whose parents came from a non-English-speaking culture and thus had raised her with an actual work ethic), Anthony Goldstein (out of a certain tiny ethnic group that won 25% of the Nobel Prizes)
Padma Patil is not Ashkenazi, she’s Indian. The passage explains Anthony Goldstein’s success via ethnicity simpliciter, but Padma Patil’s via her parents’ cultural parenting style.
I explicitly recalled him talking about an “actual work ethic” as a positive trait of a culture as an explanation for success and I recalled him making a throwaway line about Goldstein’s ethnicity. I morphed them into one.
Bad brain, terrible brain! Trust your recollections less! Or maybe I should just reread HPMOR after all this time, I’m guessing new chapters have been released in 2012 :D
Note that I’m attacking Aurini’s argument, which was based on straight educational outcomes. I do appreciate the additional information; I’m neither American nor a social scientist, so my knowledge is ultimately limited.
EDIT: In case you didn’t notice, I’m not arguing for race realism—my introductory remarks state that I don’t get it. However, I’m arguing against the egalitarian premise. You attack the premises I supposedly hold—what’s your explanation of 2.2 billion dollars failing to achieve anything?
I cite and link that fact—and reference the Colour of Crime study, which I do not link, but is easably searchable.
Can you explain either of these? Or… is it just racism that’s behind it all?
My theory fits the facts. Your theory is comfortable, and fits the political will.
(Based on metatroll’s transcript (thanks!).)
[EDIT: expanded, original below.]
Unfortunately, you seem to fall prey to the usual errors:
you do not mention high-education-results subcultures. Analyzing educational results leads to the non-mainstream and actionable-to-you result “tiger moms are awesome” (one prominent LWian does think in that direction). However, when race realists do this analysis, they always conclude (only) “blacks suck”. (To be explicit: you’ve been hanging with white supremacists.)
parents’ social standing is highly influential. Serious civil rights legislation has only been in place for fifty years or so; there are huge confounding factors when inferring “inherent” intelligence from current life outcomes, which should at least be mentioned.
name-calling is not an argument.
you rail against feminism, but that seems somewhat unrelated. More importantly, women do pretty well in society (in particular, in the educational outcomes you cited above), so a straight “black people are poor—women are poor, too” analogy seems to fall flat. (This also furthers the impression that you’ve been hanging with a particular kind of white dude.)
“affirmative action discriminates against whites” is not a fair and full evaluation of that policy, since that is indeed exactly what it’s supposed to do. Your “awesome black doctor” is an argument against affirmative action, but you have not really engaged the core goal (improve chances for black people).
[Pre-EDIT: was: Unfortunately, you seem to fall prey to the usual errors: not mentioning Asian-American or other high-education-results cultures; not mentioning history; name-calling; linking it to unrelated causes including “men’s rights”; attacking affirmative action without even considering whether the good outweighs the bad.]
I’m not quite sure what you mean here. Asian Americans have lower crime rates than white Americans. And East Asians consistently outscore whites on IQ tests and academic achievement in general.
But we have no evidence at all this is due to high-education culture. East Asians in the US do outperform their IQ scores when it comes to academic performance and income so the effect probably is there.
The entire planet knows “the history” at this point merely from exposure to US pop culture.
Meh. This post is very unimpressive yet high in karma. And all critical responses to it the good ones and the bad ones are insta down voted. I’m washing my hands of this mess. If the situation changes I’ll edit in a proper response.
Consider this a request for a proper response; those are standard objections, after all.
Ok I’ll do a proper response later, I hope I didn’t offend you or come of as if acting in bad faith, I was just annoyed at how horribly badly this entire comment section seems to be going.
Huh? I only see one downvoted descendant, and it’s Aurini’s, and recently edited.
After my comment and that of JoachimSchipper the situation much improved. It was (is?) a bit hectic and hot-blooded, besides arguments as soldiers and knee jerk down voting apparently even karmassasiantions where going on. I’ve since also retracted the comment.
Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification!
Not having the willpower to properly respond in this trainwreck of a thread, I’m just going to link to a related post I previously made on the gap (considering the knee jerk down voting all responses to your contrary responses to your post are getting I wonder how long my comment stay at +19).
I see one downvoted response by Aurini (recently edited), one slightly upvoted response from GLaDOS, one slightly upvoted post by you (that is explicitly “not an appropriate post”), and two posts talking about a pattern of kneejerk downvoting. What’s going on?
Nah.
I seldom see so much reasonable sounding silliness. I don’t have the time to make an appropriate post.
Adoption studies dude. Also once you control tiger moms for the heritable traits they give to their kids you get a big fat zilch in the long term (short term effects can be strong but they wear off).
EY talks about “work ethic” in HPMOR to explain Askenazi success, I’m sure it helps, but Jewish sucess is eight tenths their high IQ. And I’m pretty sure that is genetic in origin.
...
Padma Patil is not Ashkenazi, she’s Indian. The passage explains Anthony Goldstein’s success via ethnicity simpliciter, but Padma Patil’s via her parents’ cultural parenting style.
Sorry I was speaking from memory. Retracted.
I explicitly recalled him talking about an “actual work ethic” as a positive trait of a culture as an explanation for success and I recalled him making a throwaway line about Goldstein’s ethnicity. I morphed them into one.
Bad brain, terrible brain! Trust your recollections less! Or maybe I should just reread HPMOR after all this time, I’m guessing new chapters have been released in 2012 :D
Note that I’m attacking Aurini’s argument, which was based on straight educational outcomes. I do appreciate the additional information; I’m neither American nor a social scientist, so my knowledge is ultimately limited.
EDIT: In case you didn’t notice, I’m not arguing for race realism—my introductory remarks state that I don’t get it. However, I’m arguing against the egalitarian premise. You attack the premises I supposedly hold—what’s your explanation of 2.2 billion dollars failing to achieve anything?
I cite and link that fact—and reference the Colour of Crime study, which I do not link, but is easably searchable.
Can you explain either of these? Or… is it just racism that’s behind it all?
My theory fits the facts. Your theory is comfortable, and fits the political will.
Edited.
(I’ve expanded my comment to hopefully make it more clear what I mean.)
See? You are racist against Asians, you just don’t know it yet! (I’m not, I merely pointed out the racist reference.)
:trollface: