There is a strong local convention against discussing topics for which certain positions are strongly enough affiliated with tribal identities that the identity-signalling aspects of arguments for/against those positions can easily interfere with the evidence-exploring aspects of those arguments. (Colloquially, “mindkilling” topics. as you say.)
That said, there’s also a strong local convention against refraining from discussing topics just because such identity-signalling aspects exist.
So mostly, the tradition is we argue about what the tradition is.
For my own part, I prefer to avoid partisan-political discussions (sometimes “Blue/Green discussions” colloquially) here, but I don’t mind policy-political discussions. In the US, race is more typically the former than the latter.
I had assumed he was an outlier on lesswrong,
I certainly agree that he’s an outlier.
that most folks here would take an agnostic-leaning-not-racist stance in the issue.
There are interpretations of this sentence I would agree with, and interpretations I would not agree with, and I would expect the exercise of disentangling the various interpretations to be difficult.
Analogous to “agnostic atheist”. A person who, in absence of compelling evidence for or against the claim that racial differences in intelligence are genetic in origin, prefers to refrain from opining on the issue. If pressed for an answer such a person would guess that racial differences are probably not genetic, because they judge this to be the more parsimonious answer.
Well...on one hand, mindkilling, strong social pressure to signal non-racism, political undertones, potentially triggering topic for people on the receiving end of racism, etc.
On the other hand, working through this practical question is a great way to learn about a variety of topics which are of interest to this forum (factors which contribute to the traits we associate with intelligence, how we test intelligence, etc).
I suppose this is largely a question of how dispassionately people can handle this sort of issue. I think a early teenage version of me would probably have have gotten defensive at the allegation that my ethnic group was genetically inferior, but I think most people on Lesswrong seem to be able to maintain a level of abstraction that keeps things from getting heated. Although, I’m not sure that people could resist the temptation to debate, rather than to contribute relevant information and update accordingly.
My general impression is that there actually two different fault-lines about race -related questions on Lesswrong.
One is: Are there biologically-determined differences in politically-sensitive traits like intelligence between races? (One should note here that a) there is more to biology than genes and b) “race” is an amorphous term and the layman’s use of it based on a rough eyeballing of skin color doesn’t necessarily line up well with “genetic cohort”; a desire not to have to explain these nuances over and over again is another reason for people to take the agnostic-leaning against position.)
The second fault line I’ve observed is about statistical discrimination—given an individual from a supposedly “inferior” cohort who has nevertheless provided independent bits of information about their intelligence (e.g. scored far above the mean on an IQ test) , should one argue that the more individualized bits screen off whatever information one might have argued just based on their cohort, or should one privilege the cohort information and assume the individual bits of information would just regress to the mean on further investigation. (Someone who is less inclined to the former position than I am might do a better job phrasing the latter; I suspect I’m strawmanning it somewhat but I leave it to its advocates to articulate it better.)
Confirming: the question you’re referring to is “are racial differences in intelligence genetic in origin?”
is a great way to learn about a variety of topics which are of interest to this forum (factors which contribute to the traits we associate with intelligence, how we test intelligence, etc).
It would surprise me if the differential benefits to be gained from this, relative to instead exploring some other question with fewer mindkilling, signalling, blue/green, etc, aspects, was worth the differential costs.
and yes, I think you’re right. Although in any study of intelligence, cultural differences will inevitably become involved, and someone is eventually going to bring up population-level genetic differences as a confounding factor. Preferably, it’s kept as a side issue, rather than the main one.
There is a strong local convention against discussing topics for which certain positions are strongly enough affiliated with tribal identities that the identity-signalling aspects of arguments for/against those positions can easily interfere with the evidence-exploring aspects of those arguments. (Colloquially, “mindkilling” topics. as you say.)
That said, there’s also a strong local convention against refraining from discussing topics just because such identity-signalling aspects exist.
So mostly, the tradition is we argue about what the tradition is.
For my own part, I prefer to avoid partisan-political discussions (sometimes “Blue/Green discussions” colloquially) here, but I don’t mind policy-political discussions. In the US, race is more typically the former than the latter.
I certainly agree that he’s an outlier.
There are interpretations of this sentence I would agree with, and interpretations I would not agree with, and I would expect the exercise of disentangling the various interpretations to be difficult.
Analogous to “agnostic atheist”. A person who, in absence of compelling evidence for or against the claim that racial differences in intelligence are genetic in origin, prefers to refrain from opining on the issue. If pressed for an answer such a person would guess that racial differences are probably not genetic, because they judge this to be the more parsimonious answer.
Well...on one hand, mindkilling, strong social pressure to signal non-racism, political undertones, potentially triggering topic for people on the receiving end of racism, etc.
On the other hand, working through this practical question is a great way to learn about a variety of topics which are of interest to this forum (factors which contribute to the traits we associate with intelligence, how we test intelligence, etc).
I suppose this is largely a question of how dispassionately people can handle this sort of issue. I think a early teenage version of me would probably have have gotten defensive at the allegation that my ethnic group was genetically inferior, but I think most people on Lesswrong seem to be able to maintain a level of abstraction that keeps things from getting heated. Although, I’m not sure that people could resist the temptation to debate, rather than to contribute relevant information and update accordingly.
My general impression is that there actually two different fault-lines about race -related questions on Lesswrong.
One is: Are there biologically-determined differences in politically-sensitive traits like intelligence between races? (One should note here that a) there is more to biology than genes and b) “race” is an amorphous term and the layman’s use of it based on a rough eyeballing of skin color doesn’t necessarily line up well with “genetic cohort”; a desire not to have to explain these nuances over and over again is another reason for people to take the agnostic-leaning against position.)
The second fault line I’ve observed is about statistical discrimination—given an individual from a supposedly “inferior” cohort who has nevertheless provided independent bits of information about their intelligence (e.g. scored far above the mean on an IQ test) , should one argue that the more individualized bits screen off whatever information one might have argued just based on their cohort, or should one privilege the cohort information and assume the individual bits of information would just regress to the mean on further investigation. (Someone who is less inclined to the former position than I am might do a better job phrasing the latter; I suspect I’m strawmanning it somewhat but I leave it to its advocates to articulate it better.)
Confirming: the question you’re referring to is “are racial differences in intelligence genetic in origin?”
It would surprise me if the differential benefits to be gained from this, relative to instead exploring some other question with fewer mindkilling, signalling, blue/green, etc, aspects, was worth the differential costs.
confirmed.
and yes, I think you’re right. Although in any study of intelligence, cultural differences will inevitably become involved, and someone is eventually going to bring up population-level genetic differences as a confounding factor. Preferably, it’s kept as a side issue, rather than the main one.