6 ms·

>"The first thing to remember is that the differences among individuals are far greater than the differences between groups." All this means is that there is s

by ebfd 9y ago

>"The first thing to remember is that the differences among individuals are far greater than the differences between groups." All this means is that there is some degree of overlap between the two curves; that not every member of group A is more intelligent than every member of group B. Which is trivially true; even the most virulent racists would agree without hesitation that Clarence Thomas is more intelligent than a mentally disabled white person. The height differences among Filipinos is greater than the difference in average height between Filipinos and the Dutch. Yet we can still say that on average Dutch people are taller than Filipinos, and understand that the underrepresentation of Filipinos in fields that select for height is not the result of societal oppression.

tptacek 9y ago
If you want to reduce white supremacy to basic statistics, you can do that, but as intellectual three-card Monte games go, this isn't a very good one: it's pretty easy to see the trick. If you believe that, in the aggregate, "white" people are intellectually superior to any other race of people, you're a white supremacist. That's not a value judgement; it's literally what it means to be a white supremacist. I guess you could be a mild, benevolent white supremacist? I can grant you that all white supremacists do not wear hoods and burn crosses?
- brandonhsiao 9y ago
  This is unfair. You want to call people white supremacists based on the literal, objective content of their views, i.e. using the phrase in a narrow, technical sense, while knowing full well that calling someone a white supremacist will rally behind you a whole train of people who are happy to free-associate all sorts of horrible things with the phrase.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    You think it's unfair for me to call people who believe in the objective supremacy of one race over another "supremacists", simply because people have very dim opinions of racial supremacists?
    - brandonhsiao 9y ago
      It's weird to claim you're simply using a technical term to categorize someone's views, but then choose such a charged phrase. Edit: rethought comment
      - tptacek 9y ago
        The term is charged for a reason. If a white supremacist feels bad that they're being compared to Richard Spencer, I think they should do some soul searching. There's a solid argument to be made that the quiet white supremacists do far more damage than the cartoon characters do.
    - dionidium 9y ago
      I just want to make the syllogism you're operating with clear here: 1. If two groups have statistical differences in IQ across the population, then the group with the higher average is superior to the other 2. Person A believes that Group 1 has a higher average IQ than Group 2 3. Therefore, Person A is a Group 1 supremecist I would want to very strongly and categorically denounce point #1 in this list. Point #2 is just a matter of scientific observation. I don't have strong opinions on it one way or the other. But point #2 only implies #3 if you believe #1.
      - orangecat 9y ago
        I would want to very strongly and categorically denounce point #1 in this list. Well stated and I fully agree.
      - tptacek 9y ago
        Handwaving. Literally the only reason the topic of "statistical differences in IQ across the population" comes up on this site is as a defense for why there's a microscopic population of African Americans and Latinos in our industry. The reason, the logic goes, is that the supposed racial IQ differences mean that there simply aren't enough African Americans intellectually qualified for the field. There are plenty of reasons why a cohort of US persons of African descent could have lower recorded IQ scores than US persons of European descent. I'm not the one making the logical leap that the reason is a genetic disposition towards lower intelligence, rather than socioeconomic, environmental, or methodological issues. The white supremacists are the ones saying that†. If you're not, and you're not bringing the topic up unbidden as a defense of the status quo, I'm not saying anything about you. I'm not interested in pretending that there's a good or rational kind of white supremacist. Several people on this site, and this thread, seem determined to do so. You can, too, and I won't stop you, but "good kind" or "bad kind" I'm going to call them what they are. † (much to the consternation of some of the best-known people doing the actual science)
- dionidium 9y ago
  "White supremacy" as a movement, as a phrase in common usage, and as a matter of common sense, implies a whole host of beliefs and policy desires that aren't held or sought by Charles Murray or his defenders. Not holding those beliefs doesn't render you a "benevolent supremacist;" it means, very plainly (and using ordinary definitions of ordinary words) that you're not a supremecist. It is plainly misleading and obfuscatory to apply that term to anyone investigating population differences in good faith. Perhaps you mean to say that all such investigations are evidence of nefarious motives? I think that's wrong, but it's at least a coherent worldview.
- Dylan16807 9y ago
  >If you believe that, in the aggregate, "white" people are intellectually superior to any other race of people, you're a white supremacist. That's not a value judgement; it's literally what it means to be a white supremacist. Is this 'any' as in 'a single group' or 'all other groups'? Either way it's not true. You can think a race has better average X without thinking it's superior. A dedicated white supremacist will take a list of advantages that are supposedly inherent to non-white people and make a just-so argument about how that actually makes them inferior. Edit: If you downvoted, please tell me where you disagree, I'm very curious.
  - dionidium 9y ago
    "You can think a race has better average X without thinking it's superior." Ironically, what this argument tends to reveal is the degree to which the upper crust fetishizes intelligence and believes in the primacy of IQ as the measure of the person. Google practically invented the big, scary interview process that proves you're smart enough to belong. Is it any surprise that the winners of that genetic lottery believe in the supremacy of that measure? And once accepted as an organizing principle, you really, really need to believe that there are no statistical differences between groups, because to discover them would, by the original logic, entail grotesque conclusions. I can only imagine the dissonance this must generate.
    - tptacek 9y ago
      This is more or less the response Curtis Yarvin gives when his racism, which seems (if you can hack your way through his prose) virulent, is challenged. To paraphrase: "I'm not saying black people are worse than white people. I'm saying that white people are smarter than black people, and that our society is biased against those who aren't as smart as white people. Oh, the unfairness of it all". I have no idea who you are or of this is what you mean; you're just an abstraction to me, a nick on this site I have no association with whatsoever and will presumably soon forget about. But if you're interested (you responded to me upthread), it might be useful to you to know how this kind of logic comes across to me.
      - 9y ago
- Klockan 9y ago
  > If you believe that, in the aggregate, "white" people are intellectually superior to any other race of people, you're a white supremacist. Good, then we can agree that all these people who believe that Asians are smarter than whites aren't white supremacists.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    Gross.
- sbierwagen 9y ago
  If you believe that, in the aggregate, "white" people are intellectually superior to any other race of people, you're a white supremacist. Were the 52 professors who signed Mainstream Science on Intelligence in 1994 white supremacists?① Is the APA a white supremacist organization?② If so, with 117,000 members, it would be by far the biggest white supremacist organization in the US. Thomas, I understand that this is an emotionally charged topic, and you want to attack Damore's argument from all possible angles, but group differences in intelligence has been settled science for many decades, and misrepresenting the facts is not exactly making us look good. It's a long-running conservative meme that people who are interested in promoting equality ignore science for ideological reasons, and this is, you know... exactly that. Group differences in intelligence are obviously bad, and they seem to be narrowing over time by Flynn effect actions, but they do actually exist. Saying that anyone who measures a difference between groups is literally promoting the supremacy of the white race is pretty wild. What measured difference makes you a white supremacist? 10 IQ points? 0.1? If you measure a difference of 0.000001 IQ points, should you instantly lose your job for being A Racist, as you've argued elsewhere?③ === ①: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_Science_on_Intellig... ②: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence:_Knowns_and_Unknowns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence:_Knowns_and_Unkno... ③: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14953843 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14953843

by ebfd 9y ago

tptacek 9y ago

If you want to reduce white supremacy to basic statistics, you can do that, but as intellectual three-card Monte games go, this isn't a very good one: it's pretty easy to see the trick. If you believe that, in the aggregate, "white" people are intellectually superior to any other race of people, you're a white supremacist. That's not a value judgement; it's literally what it means to be a white supremacist. I guess you could be a mild, benevolent white supremacist? I can grant you that all white supremacists do not wear hoods and burn crosses?

brandonhsiao 9y ago
This is unfair. You want to call people white supremacists based on the literal, objective content of their views, i.e. using the phrase in a narrow, technical sense, while knowing full well that calling someone a white supremacist will rally behind you a whole train of people who are happy to free-associate all sorts of horrible things with the phrase.
- tptacek 9y ago
  You think it's unfair for me to call people who believe in the objective supremacy of one race over another "supremacists", simply because people have very dim opinions of racial supremacists?
  - brandonhsiao 9y ago
    It's weird to claim you're simply using a technical term to categorize someone's views, but then choose such a charged phrase. Edit: rethought comment
    - tptacek 9y ago
      The term is charged for a reason. If a white supremacist feels bad that they're being compared to Richard Spencer, I think they should do some soul searching. There's a solid argument to be made that the quiet white supremacists do far more damage than the cartoon characters do.
  - dionidium 9y ago
    I just want to make the syllogism you're operating with clear here: 1. If two groups have statistical differences in IQ across the population, then the group with the higher average is superior to the other 2. Person A believes that Group 1 has a higher average IQ than Group 2 3. Therefore, Person A is a Group 1 supremecist I would want to very strongly and categorically denounce point #1 in this list. Point #2 is just a matter of scientific observation. I don't have strong opinions on it one way or the other. But point #2 only implies #3 if you believe #1.
    - orangecat 9y ago
      I would want to very strongly and categorically denounce point #1 in this list. Well stated and I fully agree.
    - tptacek 9y ago
      Handwaving. Literally the only reason the topic of "statistical differences in IQ across the population" comes up on this site is as a defense for why there's a microscopic population of African Americans and Latinos in our industry. The reason, the logic goes, is that the supposed racial IQ differences mean that there simply aren't enough African Americans intellectually qualified for the field. There are plenty of reasons why a cohort of US persons of African descent could have lower recorded IQ scores than US persons of European descent. I'm not the one making the logical leap that the reason is a genetic disposition towards lower intelligence, rather than socioeconomic, environmental, or methodological issues. The white supremacists are the ones saying that†. If you're not, and you're not bringing the topic up unbidden as a defense of the status quo, I'm not saying anything about you. I'm not interested in pretending that there's a good or rational kind of white supremacist. Several people on this site, and this thread, seem determined to do so. You can, too, and I won't stop you, but "good kind" or "bad kind" I'm going to call them what they are. † (much to the consternation of some of the best-known people doing the actual science)
dionidium 9y ago
"White supremacy" as a movement, as a phrase in common usage, and as a matter of common sense, implies a whole host of beliefs and policy desires that aren't held or sought by Charles Murray or his defenders. Not holding those beliefs doesn't render you a "benevolent supremacist;" it means, very plainly (and using ordinary definitions of ordinary words) that you're not a supremecist. It is plainly misleading and obfuscatory to apply that term to anyone investigating population differences in good faith. Perhaps you mean to say that all such investigations are evidence of nefarious motives? I think that's wrong, but it's at least a coherent worldview.
Dylan16807 9y ago
>If you believe that, in the aggregate, "white" people are intellectually superior to any other race of people, you're a white supremacist. That's not a value judgement; it's literally what it means to be a white supremacist. Is this 'any' as in 'a single group' or 'all other groups'? Either way it's not true. You can think a race has better average X without thinking it's superior. A dedicated white supremacist will take a list of advantages that are supposedly inherent to non-white people and make a just-so argument about how that actually makes them inferior. Edit: If you downvoted, please tell me where you disagree, I'm very curious.
- dionidium 9y ago
  "You can think a race has better average X without thinking it's superior." Ironically, what this argument tends to reveal is the degree to which the upper crust fetishizes intelligence and believes in the primacy of IQ as the measure of the person. Google practically invented the big, scary interview process that proves you're smart enough to belong. Is it any surprise that the winners of that genetic lottery believe in the supremacy of that measure? And once accepted as an organizing principle, you really, really need to believe that there are no statistical differences between groups, because to discover them would, by the original logic, entail grotesque conclusions. I can only imagine the dissonance this must generate.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    This is more or less the response Curtis Yarvin gives when his racism, which seems (if you can hack your way through his prose) virulent, is challenged. To paraphrase: "I'm not saying black people are worse than white people. I'm saying that white people are smarter than black people, and that our society is biased against those who aren't as smart as white people. Oh, the unfairness of it all". I have no idea who you are or of this is what you mean; you're just an abstraction to me, a nick on this site I have no association with whatsoever and will presumably soon forget about. But if you're interested (you responded to me upthread), it might be useful to you to know how this kind of logic comes across to me.
    - 9y ago
Klockan 9y ago
> If you believe that, in the aggregate, "white" people are intellectually superior to any other race of people, you're a white supremacist. Good, then we can agree that all these people who believe that Asians are smarter than whites aren't white supremacists.
- tptacek 9y ago
  Gross.
sbierwagen 9y ago
If you believe that, in the aggregate, "white" people are intellectually superior to any other race of people, you're a white supremacist. Were the 52 professors who signed Mainstream Science on Intelligence in 1994 white supremacists?① Is the APA a white supremacist organization?② If so, with 117,000 members, it would be by far the biggest white supremacist organization in the US. Thomas, I understand that this is an emotionally charged topic, and you want to attack Damore's argument from all possible angles, but group differences in intelligence has been settled science for many decades, and misrepresenting the facts is not exactly making us look good. It's a long-running conservative meme that people who are interested in promoting equality ignore science for ideological reasons, and this is, you know... exactly that. Group differences in intelligence are obviously bad, and they seem to be narrowing over time by Flynn effect actions, but they do actually exist. Saying that anyone who measures a difference between groups is literally promoting the supremacy of the white race is pretty wild. What measured difference makes you a white supremacist? 10 IQ points? 0.1? If you measure a difference of 0.000001 IQ points, should you instantly lose your job for being A Racist, as you've argued elsewhere?③ === ①: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_Science_on_Intellig... ②: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence:_Knowns_and_Unknowns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence:_Knowns_and_Unkno... ③: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14953843 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14953843