4 ms·

> But anyway, the first step is acknowledging that a difference exists And then immediately the second step is acknowledging that these differences are, in mos

> But anyway, the first step is acknowledging that a difference exists And then immediately the second step is acknowledging that these differences are, in most cases, too small to matter, as even Scott Alexander points out when he refers to the existing academic research. There are few studies of birth order effects just like there are few studies of the effect of birthmarks on human psychology. There's mostly just not enough there for it to be an interesting investigative avenue.

olympus 9y ago
Previous researchers said "too small to matter," Scott's sentiments were more along the line of "small, but might matter in some areas." His sentence directly after him acknowledging the small effects: "I agree they may only exist for a few traits, but they can be strong enough to skew ratios in some heavily-selected communities like this one." And the whole "few studies exist because it isn't interesting" is the cycle that he's pushing to break out of. Enumerating the differences could make them interesting to psychologists, because then they might be able to determine a cause and intervene. The second to last paragraph of his post explains it more.
paganel 9y ago
> too small to matter, Matter for what, exactly? Case in point, there's a distinct physiological difference between me, a guy who has lived at almost sea-level altitude for his entire life (I'm in my late-30s now) and a guy who has lived in La Paz, Bolivia, at 3,000 m altitude: I won't be as able to physically perform at that altitude as he is, and that matters (for example if I were a professional footballer and I wanted to win a match against the Bolivian's guy team most probably I would lose, even if I were Messi, one of the best footballers ever). And I could add countless other differences between different groups of people from all over the world from the sports' world alone. That wouldn't make me a racist because I don't believe in races, but I believe (based on my past observations) that there are indeed differences between the 7 billion humans inhabiting this planet.
- olympus 9y ago
  In your example, the difference between the high altitude person and you would be too small to matter if you weren't a mountain climbers or professional athlete. So for most people altitude differences are to small to matter but they do matter to certain subgroups. The analog here from Scott's article is that he mentions that this skew towards first-borns might be STEM specific. A 1.5 point difference in knowledge based (creative) careers might matter. But most people work in training based (vocational) careers, and a 1.5 point difference might not matter there.
  - paganel 9y ago
    > the difference between the high altitude person and you would be too small to matter if you weren't a mountain climbers or professional athlete. I just said that it matters for sea-level people who have to perform physical tasks in La Paz, a populous city, nonetheless. I gave Messi's example because that was the easiest one, but I could have given an example of a Bolivian guy moving to La Paz from the country's planes area and trying to find a job physically carrying stuff in a warehouse. His rate of work would be much diminished compared to a guy born and raised in La Paz, so, presumably, his pay would also be lower. It matters because it shows that our bodies have changed and are indeed different based on certain geographical circumstances, but because some crazy guys in the late 19th-early 20th century have decided to kill millions of people based on some other differences that means that it has become tabu to discuss about this.
- stdbrouw 9y ago
  Small relative to other sources of variation. For example, a professional footballer who is used to sea-level will still perform better at a match in La Paz than an average joe who was born in La Paz. Similarly, Similarly, there might be minute differences between people based on birth order, but in most scenarios these would be swamped by all other factors that go to make up someone's personality. That doesn't make me politically correct, rather it makes me unmotivated to further explore the topic.

olympus 9y ago

Previous researchers said "too small to matter," Scott's sentiments were more along the line of "small, but might matter in some areas." His sentence directly after him acknowledging the small effects: "I agree they may only exist for a few traits, but they can be strong enough to skew ratios in some heavily-selected communities like this one." And the whole "few studies exist because it isn't interesting" is the cycle that he's pushing to break out of. Enumerating the differences could make them interesting to psychologists, because then they might be able to determine a cause and intervene. The second to last paragraph of his post explains it more.

paganel 9y ago

> too small to matter, Matter for what, exactly? Case in point, there's a distinct physiological difference between me, a guy who has lived at almost sea-level altitude for his entire life (I'm in my late-30s now) and a guy who has lived in La Paz, Bolivia, at 3,000 m altitude: I won't be as able to physically perform at that altitude as he is, and that matters (for example if I were a professional footballer and I wanted to win a match against the Bolivian's guy team most probably I would lose, even if I were Messi, one of the best footballers ever). And I could add countless other differences between different groups of people from all over the world from the sports' world alone. That wouldn't make me a racist because I don't believe in races, but I believe (based on my past observations) that there are indeed differences between the 7 billion humans inhabiting this planet.

olympus 9y ago
In your example, the difference between the high altitude person and you would be too small to matter if you weren't a mountain climbers or professional athlete. So for most people altitude differences are to small to matter but they do matter to certain subgroups. The analog here from Scott's article is that he mentions that this skew towards first-borns might be STEM specific. A 1.5 point difference in knowledge based (creative) careers might matter. But most people work in training based (vocational) careers, and a 1.5 point difference might not matter there.
- paganel 9y ago
  > the difference between the high altitude person and you would be too small to matter if you weren't a mountain climbers or professional athlete. I just said that it matters for sea-level people who have to perform physical tasks in La Paz, a populous city, nonetheless. I gave Messi's example because that was the easiest one, but I could have given an example of a Bolivian guy moving to La Paz from the country's planes area and trying to find a job physically carrying stuff in a warehouse. His rate of work would be much diminished compared to a guy born and raised in La Paz, so, presumably, his pay would also be lower. It matters because it shows that our bodies have changed and are indeed different based on certain geographical circumstances, but because some crazy guys in the late 19th-early 20th century have decided to kill millions of people based on some other differences that means that it has become tabu to discuss about this.
stdbrouw 9y ago
Small relative to other sources of variation. For example, a professional footballer who is used to sea-level will still perform better at a match in La Paz than an average joe who was born in La Paz. Similarly, Similarly, there might be minute differences between people based on birth order, but in most scenarios these would be swamped by all other factors that go to make up someone's personality. That doesn't make me politically correct, rather it makes me unmotivated to further explore the topic.