4 ms·

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 l

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.
ewofwkweoifd 11y ago
You are racist iff you believe races exist or should exist. If you are using the word race to denote cluster even though you know better, you are being irresponsible on purpose and I consider you a racist in the "races should exist" sense. Moldbug knows better, he's not a stupid cookie. A good environment and good genetics are necessary for high IQ. You can't meaningfully measure the contribution of genetics in the absence of a good environment. We may as well debate AGW. I don't have a problem with identifying genetic clusters (descendants of people from Africa), I don't have a problem with the existence of stereotypes (African Americans a.k.a. blacks do poorly on IQ tests), I just have a problem with people knowingly jumping to conclusions on the basis of science that isn't there (the black race has a genetically lower IQ and that's why they fundamentally make good slaves). Moldbug isn't insidious because he's wrong, he's insidious because he knows he's wrong. Perhaps more accurately, he knows that he can't prove that he's right but he hides it. The Eulering article was interesting, cheers. I think the anthropologists probably have a lot to say about all this, filed under ethnocentrism. P.S. Just as an aside, I think you need to consider that genes dilute fairly rapidly into a gene pool, that humans have been migrating forever, and that there are no real purebreeds or biracial people from a population biology perspective. That said, this isn't a denial of clustering. P.P.S. It's probably just as intellectually lazy to claim that all population groups have the same level of genetic intelligence, it's just a lot less offensive.
- Tycho 11y ago
  Wasn't Moldbug's mention of genetics in reference to physical attributes?
  - Tycho 11y ago
    (apparently not)
    - ewofwkweoifd 11y ago
      Yeah I think it's primarily intelligence. (Although I've read only a tiny portion.) Odd in a way, because the physical attributes are easier to argue and test. My guess is that Moldbug would rather shoot for him being smarter by nature than him being weaker by nature.
shanacarp 11y ago
https://chd.ucsd.edu/_files/winter2009/Gottlieb.probabilistic.pdf https://chd.ucsd.edu/_files/winter2009/Gottlieb.probabilisti... Race, or exposure to lead 2 generations back, which is why we can observe white people with the exact same tendency based on where their grandparents lived? Or slavery 5 generations back, which is why we can observe similar traits in Americo-Indian populations that are not in the Us but were enslaved? Maybe some other characteristic that we are not observing clearly yet is the factor that turns on and off genes? Maybe we can turn the right set of genes back on? We've seen weirder cases of epigenetics and behavior without being racist, as you are being here. For all you know, maybe you turned on the wrong set of genes from doing too many deadlifts and squats with the kind of twitch muscles that you predominantly have, and you've not only disrupted your back, but you've also disrupted your children and your children's children's musculoskeletal support system (and you'll need surgery every 10-15 years from now on too. You might want to compute the epigenetic probabilities of that. It is enormously difficult, but it is more realistic than intelligence being racial/computable in the kinds of inheritance models you tend to link to/imply about via models you link to about race. "Race" is ultra-broad term, genetically speaking, where we are talking about sets of markers and characteristics established multi millions of years ago around the time when humans were first migrating out of Africa. WE've been evolving and mutating since then everywhere - and there are trends for all of humanity for more intelligence, genetic speaking. It is considered a positive, multi-gene trait, and tends to be bred for and become dominant quickly in any population it gets into. Intelligence as a genetic trait (or set of traits) is racially blind) You quoting SSC on the subject == you confirming your own racial biases and not keeping up on the subject of intelligence. Drop it. Or choose to admit you can be not scientific, not logical, and not mathematically inclined when it suits you.

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.

ewofwkweoifd 11y ago

You are racist iff you believe races exist or should exist. If you are using the word race to denote cluster even though you know better, you are being irresponsible on purpose and I consider you a racist in the "races should exist" sense. Moldbug knows better, he's not a stupid cookie. A good environment and good genetics are necessary for high IQ. You can't meaningfully measure the contribution of genetics in the absence of a good environment. We may as well debate AGW. I don't have a problem with identifying genetic clusters (descendants of people from Africa), I don't have a problem with the existence of stereotypes (African Americans a.k.a. blacks do poorly on IQ tests), I just have a problem with people knowingly jumping to conclusions on the basis of science that isn't there (the black race has a genetically lower IQ and that's why they fundamentally make good slaves). Moldbug isn't insidious because he's wrong, he's insidious because he knows he's wrong. Perhaps more accurately, he knows that he can't prove that he's right but he hides it. The Eulering article was interesting, cheers. I think the anthropologists probably have a lot to say about all this, filed under ethnocentrism. P.S. Just as an aside, I think you need to consider that genes dilute fairly rapidly into a gene pool, that humans have been migrating forever, and that there are no real purebreeds or biracial people from a population biology perspective. That said, this isn't a denial of clustering. P.P.S. It's probably just as intellectually lazy to claim that all population groups have the same level of genetic intelligence, it's just a lot less offensive.

Tycho 11y ago
Wasn't Moldbug's mention of genetics in reference to physical attributes?
- Tycho 11y ago
  (apparently not)
  - ewofwkweoifd 11y ago
    Yeah I think it's primarily intelligence. (Although I've read only a tiny portion.) Odd in a way, because the physical attributes are easier to argue and test. My guess is that Moldbug would rather shoot for him being smarter by nature than him being weaker by nature.

shanacarp 11y ago

https://chd.ucsd.edu/_files/winter2009/Gottlieb.probabilistic.pdf https://chd.ucsd.edu/_files/winter2009/Gottlieb.probabilisti... Race, or exposure to lead 2 generations back, which is why we can observe white people with the exact same tendency based on where their grandparents lived? Or slavery 5 generations back, which is why we can observe similar traits in Americo-Indian populations that are not in the Us but were enslaved? Maybe some other characteristic that we are not observing clearly yet is the factor that turns on and off genes? Maybe we can turn the right set of genes back on? We've seen weirder cases of epigenetics and behavior without being racist, as you are being here. For all you know, maybe you turned on the wrong set of genes from doing too many deadlifts and squats with the kind of twitch muscles that you predominantly have, and you've not only disrupted your back, but you've also disrupted your children and your children's children's musculoskeletal support system (and you'll need surgery every 10-15 years from now on too. You might want to compute the epigenetic probabilities of that. It is enormously difficult, but it is more realistic than intelligence being racial/computable in the kinds of inheritance models you tend to link to/imply about via models you link to about race. "Race" is ultra-broad term, genetically speaking, where we are talking about sets of markers and characteristics established multi millions of years ago around the time when humans were first migrating out of Africa. WE've been evolving and mutating since then everywhere - and there are trends for all of humanity for more intelligence, genetic speaking. It is considered a positive, multi-gene trait, and tends to be bred for and become dominant quickly in any population it gets into. Intelligence as a genetic trait (or set of traits) is racially blind) You quoting SSC on the subject == you confirming your own racial biases and not keeping up on the subject of intelligence. Drop it. Or choose to admit you can be not scientific, not logical, and not mathematically inclined when it suits you.