4 ms·

My understanding is as follows. The root problem is that merely identifying races on a genetic basis is racist. If you believe that the race of a human refers

My understanding is as follows. The root problem is that merely identifying races on a genetic basis is racist. If you believe that the race of a human refers to anything more than a social / ethnic / cultural construct, you are a racist. This seems like a fairly neutral belief. However it's wrong scientifically by definition. In population biology, races are formed when there is absolute geographical isolation of a population. Without isolation, you get clustering of alleles but you don't get distinct races. Over time, the clustering of alleles diminishes, much like gas dissipating into a room. If you're really struggling with this, just ask which race does the child of a man from race A and a woman from race B belong to? And when that child reproduces with more people from either race A or race B, what race do they belong to? And then ask how long has there has been contact between human populations? Do we know if there was ever a time that human populations were truly isolated? End result is that biologists agree there is only one human species, Homo sapiens, and one human race (a.k.a. subspecies), Homo sapiens sapiens. The page on Wikipedia about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism > Scientific racism is [...] the practice of classifying individuals of different phenotypes into discrete races. So what happens here is that first Moldbug puts forth the false premise that there are genetic / biological races. Then he says stuff like black people have a lower IQ, but he's not discriminating, rather it's the belief that having a higher IQ is better that's discriminatory. (This was in the recent blog post about how he's not a racist.) Not only is this a really slippery position, but everyone gets so caught up in his arguments built on the false premise of the existence of races that it actually starts to implicitly build support for the false premise. I personally believe that getting people to accept this premise is the point of the trolling.

brighteyes 11y ago
But he doesn't say there are biological races. All he says in that quote is that biology is the simplest explanation for different outcomes of slavery for different groups of humans. (Of course, he's wrong, there are other equally simple explanations, like "culture".) In any case, it's not clear if he is implying that the simplest explanation is even true. He changes the subject in the next sentence after it: this isn't an article about genetics. One interpretation is that, yes, he's a racist and he sees no reason to explain further since he sees his racism as self-evident. Another is that he doesn't care about the cause, and just mentions a simple explanation in order to be able to move on to what he actually wants to talk about. I don't know which of those (or something else) is true. It's an offhand sentence in a long article, many interpretations are possible.
- ewofwkweoifd 11y ago
  His whole deal is genetics, it's the core of his argument. But if you read it carefully you notice all this rhetorical sleight of hand. The guy is one of the most transparently disingenuous writers I've ever encountered. I feel like the arrogance is just a cover for a weak argument that is just too painfully tedious to deconstruct. https://medium.com/@curtis.yarvin/why-you-should-come-to-lambdaconf-anyway-35ff8cd4fb9d#.bmwo7ie22 https://medium.com/@curtis.yarvin/why-you-should-come-to-lam... > Here’s how you are not-racist. You hold two beliefs: one, neurological problem-solving performance (ie, “intelligence”) is homogenously distributed across the genetically inhomogeneous human species. Two, it’s better to be smart than stupid. > Ergo, no race is better than any other race, because all races are equally smart. Is that right? I hope I have it right. > Here’s how I’m not-racist: I share neither belief. But he's a racist because he uses the word race in a genetic context, and so are you if you do the same - which is what he's trying to get you to do. [ Sorry, I realize that this isn't the most coherent post... ]
  - brighteyes 11y ago
    He is saying something dangerously close to racism. I don't think it is racist, for the following reasons. I also think it's wrong, for other reasons, mentioned at the end. He says he doesn't think "intelligence" is uniform across human populations. That sounds racist because e.g. the Nazis said Jews were mentally inferior, and racists in the US said black people were mentally inferior. Racists believe such things, and they believe them about an entire race as a whole. However, the tricky part is that it's hard to avoid the topic without being anti science. For example, black people are far more likely to have sickle cell anemia for genetic reasons. That's a well-known fact, and it isn't racist to mention it. What Yarvin mentions in that post is that he thinks intelligence might work the same as sickle-cell anemia. When put that way, it's not racist. It's not about races as a whole, it's about genes not being uniform across all groups. However, obviously the difference between the racist statement and the non-racist scientific one is worryingly close. For that reason, a lot of people take the easy way and oppose even considering genetic differences in populations. That's not a good solution. The good solution is that Yarvin is wrong for other reasons. Intelligence is NOT like sickle-cell anemia. Intelligence is a very amorphous concept, with changing definitions over time. It's not an objective, scientific quality like "has sickle-cell anemia". And we know that that ill-defined aspect of intelligence has been misused in the past, when "intelligence" tests were used to prove that black people, Jews, and Italians were mentally inferior, for example. Instead, when intelligence is studied carefully, it's actually a mix of a huge array of skills, and many of them depend on culture and training and context. Even if genes affect brains which affect mental abilities, the mediation of culture, training and context are so large that it is meaningless to talk about intelligence differences in race. There is also a huge amount of relevant genes; sickle-cell anemia has one. The bottom line is that we know Yarvin is wrong because this was studied. For example, black children raised in adopted families have noticeably different results on IQ tests than non-adopted children with similar genetics. We know genes matter here, but we know they matter in such a complex way, and other factors matter just as much, that saying "group X is inferior" is wrong. So no, I don't think Yarvin is being racist there - even if he cuts it close - but he is in fact wrong on the facts of the matter. We don't need to call him a racist to show he's wrong, the facts do that.
yummyfajitas 11y ago
So what happens here is that first Moldbug puts forth the false premise that there are genetic / biological races. Then he says stuff like black people have a lower IQ... According to Moldbug, there is a cluster of humanity called "black". It may not meet your requirement of perfect separation, but is merely a cluster, and biracial individuals exist who break perfect separation. So lets call it a "cluster in genotype/phenotype space" ("cluster" for short) instead of a "race" to disambiguate these concepts. If Moldbug used the word "cluster" instead of "race", would he not be racist? (I.e., s/race/cluster/g in his post.) What if he used the word "race" but his definition agreed with the definition of your word "cluster"? Moldbug claims this cluster has an IQ distribution which is has a lower mean than that of other clusters (e.g. whites and asians). Do you believe this claim is false? If this claim were true, would a person who believes it be a racist? I'll also link to a slatestarcodex article on Eulering, which I think applies here: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/12/does-race-exist-does-culture/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/12/does-race-exist-does-cu...
- pron 11y ago
  > Do you believe this claim is false? Yes. > If this claim were true, would a person who believes it be a racist? Yes. Well, it's complicated (not because it's nuanced but because you haven't rigorously defined what "it" means in a way that covers all relevant variables), but yes. And here's why. As usual, the reason some people have a hard time understanding this is that they construct a model with their own set of axioms, then follow some inference rules, reach a conclusion, and then convince themselves that they're rigorous. This is plainly false, because their choice of axioms and variables not only uniquely determines the outcome, but a different choice of variables and axioms would lead to a completely different outcome, and that other choice may be far more reasonable given the facts. So far the preamble. Now for the explanation: You make an axiomatic assumption that "black" is just an arbitrary "cluster". This is factually false. A far more historically correct axiomatization would be that "black" is a "cluster of people singled out by Europeans, and then systematically tortured, killed, enslaved, disenfranchised, humiliated and marginalized for generations". Now, is it possible that a test could be constructed that would statistically yield lower score for a cluster of people singled out for humiliation and marginalization? Absolutely, but your question was about a person who believes IQ etc.. Most people clearly understand that such a test is meaningless (i.e. that it does not measure intelligence) in the ethics of distributing power, and therefore "believing it" is not even something they consider. It's like asking me if I believed that the people living in some distant galaxy eat something similar to cheese. Yes, it's possible, but it's not something you think about. Now, in order to precisely answer your question, I need to understand exactly what you mean by a "person who believes it". Do you mean a person who thinks it's feasible to construct a test that a marginalized group would score lower on than the hegemony? In that case, no, they would not be racist. If, OTOH, they believe that a marginalized group happens to be intrinsically less intelligent and therefore less deserving of power in society, then yes; they would 100% be racist. So the flaw is (as always) in the premise that "black" is an instance of the free variable "cluster". That assumption needs justification, which frankly would be very hard to come by given historical evidence. In fact, "black" and "IQ test" having a very strong causal bond (with IQ tests being designed for the very purpose of excluding marginalized group). It would even be more correct (although very, very far from accurate) to say that "IQ" is defined to be "that which gives blacks lower scores", or even "blacks is those who score less" (which is even far less accurate, but still more accurate than your premise), than presuming (counter to historical evidence) that the two are independent variables.

brighteyes 11y ago

But he doesn't say there are biological races. All he says in that quote is that biology is the simplest explanation for different outcomes of slavery for different groups of humans. (Of course, he's wrong, there are other equally simple explanations, like "culture".) In any case, it's not clear if he is implying that the simplest explanation is even true. He changes the subject in the next sentence after it: this isn't an article about genetics. One interpretation is that, yes, he's a racist and he sees no reason to explain further since he sees his racism as self-evident. Another is that he doesn't care about the cause, and just mentions a simple explanation in order to be able to move on to what he actually wants to talk about. I don't know which of those (or something else) is true. It's an offhand sentence in a long article, many interpretations are possible.

ewofwkweoifd 11y ago
His whole deal is genetics, it's the core of his argument. But if you read it carefully you notice all this rhetorical sleight of hand. The guy is one of the most transparently disingenuous writers I've ever encountered. I feel like the arrogance is just a cover for a weak argument that is just too painfully tedious to deconstruct. https://medium.com/@curtis.yarvin/why-you-should-come-to-lambdaconf-anyway-35ff8cd4fb9d#.bmwo7ie22 https://medium.com/@curtis.yarvin/why-you-should-come-to-lam... > Here’s how you are not-racist. You hold two beliefs: one, neurological problem-solving performance (ie, “intelligence”) is homogenously distributed across the genetically inhomogeneous human species. Two, it’s better to be smart than stupid. > Ergo, no race is better than any other race, because all races are equally smart. Is that right? I hope I have it right. > Here’s how I’m not-racist: I share neither belief. But he's a racist because he uses the word race in a genetic context, and so are you if you do the same - which is what he's trying to get you to do. [ Sorry, I realize that this isn't the most coherent post... ]
- brighteyes 11y ago
  He is saying something dangerously close to racism. I don't think it is racist, for the following reasons. I also think it's wrong, for other reasons, mentioned at the end. He says he doesn't think "intelligence" is uniform across human populations. That sounds racist because e.g. the Nazis said Jews were mentally inferior, and racists in the US said black people were mentally inferior. Racists believe such things, and they believe them about an entire race as a whole. However, the tricky part is that it's hard to avoid the topic without being anti science. For example, black people are far more likely to have sickle cell anemia for genetic reasons. That's a well-known fact, and it isn't racist to mention it. What Yarvin mentions in that post is that he thinks intelligence might work the same as sickle-cell anemia. When put that way, it's not racist. It's not about races as a whole, it's about genes not being uniform across all groups. However, obviously the difference between the racist statement and the non-racist scientific one is worryingly close. For that reason, a lot of people take the easy way and oppose even considering genetic differences in populations. That's not a good solution. The good solution is that Yarvin is wrong for other reasons. Intelligence is NOT like sickle-cell anemia. Intelligence is a very amorphous concept, with changing definitions over time. It's not an objective, scientific quality like "has sickle-cell anemia". And we know that that ill-defined aspect of intelligence has been misused in the past, when "intelligence" tests were used to prove that black people, Jews, and Italians were mentally inferior, for example. Instead, when intelligence is studied carefully, it's actually a mix of a huge array of skills, and many of them depend on culture and training and context. Even if genes affect brains which affect mental abilities, the mediation of culture, training and context are so large that it is meaningless to talk about intelligence differences in race. There is also a huge amount of relevant genes; sickle-cell anemia has one. The bottom line is that we know Yarvin is wrong because this was studied. For example, black children raised in adopted families have noticeably different results on IQ tests than non-adopted children with similar genetics. We know genes matter here, but we know they matter in such a complex way, and other factors matter just as much, that saying "group X is inferior" is wrong. So no, I don't think Yarvin is being racist there - even if he cuts it close - but he is in fact wrong on the facts of the matter. We don't need to call him a racist to show he's wrong, the facts do that.

yummyfajitas 11y ago

So what happens here is that first Moldbug puts forth the false premise that there are genetic / biological races. Then he says stuff like black people have a lower IQ... According to Moldbug, there is a cluster of humanity called "black". It may not meet your requirement of perfect separation, but is merely a cluster, and biracial individuals exist who break perfect separation. So lets call it a "cluster in genotype/phenotype space" ("cluster" for short) instead of a "race" to disambiguate these concepts. If Moldbug used the word "cluster" instead of "race", would he not be racist? (I.e., s/race/cluster/g in his post.) What if he used the word "race" but his definition agreed with the definition of your word "cluster"? Moldbug claims this cluster has an IQ distribution which is has a lower mean than that of other clusters (e.g. whites and asians). Do you believe this claim is false? If this claim were true, would a person who believes it be a racist? I'll also link to a slatestarcodex article on Eulering, which I think applies here: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/12/does-race-exist-does-culture/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/12/does-race-exist-does-cu...

pron 11y ago
> Do you believe this claim is false? Yes. > If this claim were true, would a person who believes it be a racist? Yes. Well, it's complicated (not because it's nuanced but because you haven't rigorously defined what "it" means in a way that covers all relevant variables), but yes. And here's why. As usual, the reason some people have a hard time understanding this is that they construct a model with their own set of axioms, then follow some inference rules, reach a conclusion, and then convince themselves that they're rigorous. This is plainly false, because their choice of axioms and variables not only uniquely determines the outcome, but a different choice of variables and axioms would lead to a completely different outcome, and that other choice may be far more reasonable given the facts. So far the preamble. Now for the explanation: You make an axiomatic assumption that "black" is just an arbitrary "cluster". This is factually false. A far more historically correct axiomatization would be that "black" is a "cluster of people singled out by Europeans, and then systematically tortured, killed, enslaved, disenfranchised, humiliated and marginalized for generations". Now, is it possible that a test could be constructed that would statistically yield lower score for a cluster of people singled out for humiliation and marginalization? Absolutely, but your question was about a person who believes IQ etc.. Most people clearly understand that such a test is meaningless (i.e. that it does not measure intelligence) in the ethics of distributing power, and therefore "believing it" is not even something they consider. It's like asking me if I believed that the people living in some distant galaxy eat something similar to cheese. Yes, it's possible, but it's not something you think about. Now, in order to precisely answer your question, I need to understand exactly what you mean by a "person who believes it". Do you mean a person who thinks it's feasible to construct a test that a marginalized group would score lower on than the hegemony? In that case, no, they would not be racist. If, OTOH, they believe that a marginalized group happens to be intrinsically less intelligent and therefore less deserving of power in society, then yes; they would 100% be racist. So the flaw is (as always) in the premise that "black" is an instance of the free variable "cluster". That assumption needs justification, which frankly would be very hard to come by given historical evidence. In fact, "black" and "IQ test" having a very strong causal bond (with IQ tests being designed for the very purpose of excluding marginalized group). It would even be more correct (although very, very far from accurate) to say that "IQ" is defined to be "that which gives blacks lower scores", or even "blacks is those who score less" (which is even far less accurate, but still more accurate than your premise), than presuming (counter to historical evidence) that the two are independent variables.