- There are huge racial differences in average IQ, and large gender differences in IQ standard deviation. And IQ matters a lot (It's one of the top 5 factors, but not the top factor, that predict's a person's life). This undisputable fact of reality accounts for a lot of bullshit discrimination claims by statistically incompetent folks on the left.
- There is massive pre-rational discrimination that occurs at a subconscious level in many people, that is visible in interacting with them, which comprises the reality of a lot of discrimination claims that are reflexively dismissed by a lot of observationally biased folks on the right.
I've been a statistical-differences in IQ kind of guy since before the Bell Curve was published. I went to a no-discrimination-in-either-direction technical school in '90. This is obvious, basic, boring stuff.
I've been a discrimination-huh? kind of guy for most of my life. Never saw it in CA, because I never lived anywhere where there were any minorities...and the 1% who were minorities were often my friends. Moved to Russia...saw it directly and overtly. Moved to Houston...saw it never. Married a black woman from Houston. She'd never seen racism in her life. She thought it was a myth Jesse Jackson dreamed up in order to con some folks. Then we moved back to CA...wife saw racism in folks faces a little bit. I didn't. Moved to Austin...she saw it again a little bit. I didn't. Spent 6 months in rural North Carolina. Saw none of it. Moved to Chicago. In excess of 80% of the people there are viscerally racist. They see you, their faces change based on your race. True of the whites, true of the blacks, all of 'em. Nice areas, poor areas, doesn't matter. The entire midwest has a completely toxic approach to race that simply doesn't occur in healthy cities like Houston. I understand this is also true of many of the big Eastern Cities (DC, New York, Boston), but I can't vouch for that personally. But when you see the racism on people's faces...and you know that faces react before the information hits the conscious mind...it's kinda hard to ignore the reality of aggressive racism.
One of my "jobs" on the web is to point out that both #1 and #2 above are major factors influencing the world. If my commentariat is busy proclaiming that #1 explains everything, or even enough...I become more aggressively pro #2. It's a major part of how decisions get made When folks pop up on the blog arguing against #1, then I point out, with as large a hammer as necessary, that #1 is among the best known things in social science. It's up there with the fact that rationing always creates (a) lines with larger time costs than the $ savings, and (b) scalpers.
Since I don't suffer from a groupist perspective, I don't have any real compulsion to agree with anyone on one topic just because I agree with them on another topic. Indeed, I consider it (to some extent) my duty (it's an inherited trait, my dad does this too) to point out that anyone considering a single-sided view of a problem is probably handicapping themselves by about 30 IQ points in their capability to understand the problem. Tyler Cowen, much less aggressively: "As a simple rule of thumb, just imagine every time you're telling a good vs. evil story, you're basically lowering your IQ by ten points or more."
So .... to answer a question posed (implicitly) by Meh: "Why do you hew so strongly to the Leftist side on race issues?" Because the commentators on the site are all rightists, and as far as I can tell from the comments, they're missing half the actual story, mostly because it doesn't fit their narrative. When Mel, one of my favorite strongly leftist anarchists, used to comment, I would respond to her with Race/Gender/IQ reality discussions.
Posts
7 comments:
Hey, I've never been in a commentariat before, although I'd prefer the name for the group to be aretburo.
Hey, an ancient AOL password worked! Wobbly can comment after all.
Aretae,
Larry Summers was fired for espousing 2? Right?
Normal people can talk openly about 1 while keeping their jobs, right?
The collective internet spazzed out when claims of 2 were proffered by a law student in private email, right?
You may be convinced of 1, but you find ways to muddy your thinking (retards should be called to stop fires and save as many lives and as much property as possible) that put you firmly in the standard lib/race unrealist camp.
And you do have a "groupist perspective." As you've asserted, the only people you believe have special significance to you are friends but mostly FAMILY. (All others are the same. Boy rapists and clit cutters should immigrate to Peoria! It's a moral imperative!) Your group is black through marriage and birth, so you hold standard/unrealist views on race and hiring, etc.. No surprise.
Meh,
As I know you're generally smart, I'm inclined to believe you're trying to support my numbers over Cowen's.
Aretae,
My IQ is shrinking so quickly that I fear this is the last time I'll be able to understand the comment system.
I find the two statements pretty obviously true, but see the first as unimportant, and my “rightist” position on race issues flows entirely from the second.
Firstly, I would point out that your claim that “anyone who denies either of them is hiding from reality, in order to maintain their preferred narrative” seriously overestimates the ability of the vast majority to perform abstract universal logic. As I’ve said before, while universal logic has its strengths, most people can and do manage without it pretty well. They use something which looks superficially similar, but is actually a kind of rough associationism which has greater power at the cost of lower reliability.
Next, while the first of your statements is true, I don’t really see it as a big deal. It’s main practical application is negative, in that lines of reasoning that rely on its contradiction in order to deduce other explanations for large-scale social-science phenomena (what Steve Sailer calls “Occam’s Butterknife”) cannot be relied on.
But your second statement — that’s the key important fact. I don’t see how it can be used to support anything but a “rightist” view of race issues. The important step is not just to apply it to yourself.
Sure, the first thing that follows from it is: “this applies to me. If I take conscious steps to overrule this pre-rational subconscious discrimination, then I will perceive the world more accurately, and will be able to draw better conclusions.”
That’s a good start. But what about everybody else? I do not by any means share your extreme anti-authoritarianism, but the power to dictate how other people see each other is not something I expect to have, want to have, or want anybody else to have, either. So this “pre-rational subconscious discrimination” can be taken to be a fact of life going forward for all mixed societies.
And what follows from that? Bluntly, that, when the chips are down, I want to be surrounded by people who have a positive pre-rational subconscious reaction towards me, not a negative one. Further, I can assume other people think the same way, and will rationally act accordingly, wanting power for their in-group.
To the degree that I live in a society that is stable, peaceful, and populated by the unusually rational — that is, to the degree that the chips stay up — these considerations hold minor importance. If those conditions weaken, or look like they might weaken in the future, the considerations grow in importance. Your potted itinerary entirely bears that out.
AUK,
I haven't had time to respond, but well said. Some disagreements, of course, but well said.
Post a Comment