4 ms·

> Blacks are not equal to whites. Therefore the “inequality” between these races is expected and makes perfect sense. (This also explains why progressives are u

> Blacks are not equal to whites. Therefore the “inequality” between these races is expected and makes perfect sense. (This also explains why progressives are unable to come up with a black martyr who was not killed while committing a crime.) I'm about to step into a minefield here, but whatever. So the black martyr thing I don't really care to touch since that's pretty unrelated to the other statement of inequality between races. It seems you are calling that statement crazy. If it makes you so uncomfortable to think about black people (on average) having a lower IQ than white people. What about black people's domination of most sports? Is there systemic discrimination against white people in basketball and football? Or could it be that there are more black people who are more well suited to play these sports than whites?

bjourne 9y ago
I think is fairly weak of you to create a throw-away account because you are afraid to stand for your opinions. Be a man or woman, not a coward. That said: > If it makes you so uncomfortable to think about black people (on average) having a lower IQ than white people. People who make this statement always, always, always use the thoroughly debunked "IQ Map" (https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country) as their source. It is based on data fabricated by Lynn and Vanhanen and jotted down in their book IQ and the Wealth of Nations. > What about black people's domination of most sports? Even if we assume that is true (which it isn't -- 972 medals were awarded at the 2016 Summer Olympics and only a fraction of them went to (really) "black people"), why on earth would domination of most sports imply low IQ? Claiming a race is inferior to another based on faulty information is racist.
- poster123 9y ago
  The average score of American blacks on IQ tests such as the WISC and Stanford-Binet is about one standard deviation below that of whites, and the performance of blacks on standardized tests such as the SAT and ACT is consistent with that IQ difference. You can debate the origins of the IQ difference, but it does exist.
- supreme_sublime 9y ago
  First of all, this isn't a throw-away account. I have been browsing HackerNews for a while, but only recently started commenting myself. > People who make this statement always, always, always use the thoroughly debunked "IQ Map" (https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country) as their source. It is based on data fabricated by Lynn and Vanhanen and jotted down in their book IQ and the Wealth of Nations. In terms of the debunked "IQ Map", that's not really what I was referring to. The Bell Curve is also a (admittedly controversial) source. I would like to know how that map is "debunked", you simply assert that it is. > Even if we assume that is true (which it isn't -- 972 medals were awarded at the 2016 Summer Olympics and only a fraction of them went to (really) "black people"), I'm confused by your qualification of "(really)" black people. Of course "race" is a bit arbitrary, what I really mean is genetic populations, which certainly exist in a scientific sense. >why on earth would domination of most sports imply low IQ? What? That's not what I was saying at all. We are talking about the inequality between races. There is an overrepresentation of black people in the most popular professional sports in the US, namely basketball and football. It is less the case with baseball, and there are very few black people who play hockey. So I was trying to figure out why we see this inequality of representation of whites in basketball and football, despite there being plenty of them in high school. Ultimately what I was getting at was that races (genetic populations) aren't perfectly equal in every way. I honestly don't see why that is a particularly controversial thing to say. Are heights uniform across countries through all the world? Humans have lot of different populations that only recently have been interacting in meaningful ways, and even with that there are still lots of places that are largely racially homogenous. I'm an individualist, so I don't really think that you should pre-judge a person as being dumb or smart simply based on race. But we do have statistics that can help us understand the world as it is, along with trends. This can also help us make the world a better place. IQ seems to be largely genetic, but there are certainly environmental factors that play a role. Malnutrition being a very large one, considering how much energy the brain takes. I shouldn't say I'm surprised at how hostile you are being, as I said in my comment before, I was aware of the minefield I was walking into. I do find it unfortunate how you simply assume the worst intentions about people. I think you might want to take a look inside yourself, consider how you deal with other people, and determine if it is productive.
jancsika 9y ago
> So the black martyr thing I don't really care to touch since that's pretty unrelated to the other statement of inequality between races. I have to ask: 1. Why do you say it is unrelated? The author is making a direct connection between the first two sentences and the claim in the parentheses. 2. Are you saying you don't care to touch it because a) you don't feel comfortable making a nuanced argument in a hostile environment, or b) it is indefensible? > It seems you are calling that statement crazy. I asked two questions assuming respondents would have read the article. I may have missed something, but AFAICT the article in no way implied the blogger from my first quote is Urs. What I found crazy is that somewhat that high up at Google would interrupt the usual HR process and attempt to get an employee in line using a Nazi metaphor. Especially when the metaphor implies to ignore whether your colleagues are Nazis. And most especially given how badly it turned out for tech companies that literally ignored the consequences to humanity that came from working with Nazis. So, another question-- does my characterization of the alleged statement seem level-headed to you? To characterize the first quote-- I don't find that statement crazy, but I do find it sad and alarming. Sad because the loose reasoning and fallacious argument is easily avoidable by iterating over a list of names, which is presumably something everyone poster here knows how to do. Alarming because I'm starting to get the sense there is some kind of underground racism railroad in tech where people whisper and reinforce opinions with each other, but without subjecting them to the same rigor and potential public ridicule that, say, sloppy patches to the kernel would receive.
- supreme_sublime 9y ago
  >1. Why do you say it is unrelated? The author is making a direct connection between the first two sentences and the claim in the parentheses. Yes, but it isn't something I agree with and I'm not obligated to support all of his positions. > 2. Are you saying you don't care to touch it because a) you don't feel comfortable making a nuanced argument in a hostile environment, or b) it is indefensible? I don't know if it is exactly indefensible, but I do think it is stated quite poorly and loosely. It is more of a smear than anything else and I don't really care to argue for it. I make an attempt at a generous reading (more devil's advocate) of it in another comment in this thread. It was also tangential to the point I was trying to make. >What I found crazy is that somewhat that high up at Google would interrupt the usual HR process and attempt to get an employee in line using a Nazi metaphor. Especially when the metaphor implies to ignore whether your colleagues are Nazis. And most especially given how badly it turned out for tech companies that literally ignored the consequences to humanity that came from working with Nazis. Ah I see. So you don't really think it is inappropriate to bring politics into the workplace? I generally don't (bring politics into the workplace), not because I really feel I'd be persecuted for my opinions, but because it simply isn't the place to talk about politics. I have worked at places where there were some conversations about religion and politics. What I found most amazing about them, was even if you agreed 99% things could get very heated about the 1% you disagree on. Which is a total distraction of the task at hand. Your company pays you to get work done, not to talk politics. Now, if you want to go to a happy hour after hours and talk about politics, that's fine. If you want to quit because someone else has an opinion that you disagree with, that's fine too. I do think it is a really shitty thing to do to attempt to get someone fired for an opinion they have. If you can prove it affects their job in some way, or how they interact with others, that's job performance. Of course, it is within a company's power to fire that person. I just think it is an underhanded tactic and potentially incredibly damaging, without much of a positive side. If you think the prevailing attitude at your company is Nazi-sympathy, you have to determine if you want to work there. Hell, maybe you can expose that to the public in some way too. But if it is the tiny minority of people that it really is in the real world, and you didn't have any reason to believe it affected their job performance, let them have their dumb opinions. I have spoken to an admitted racist who wants a fascist state, because individualism has led to too much prosperity, which made me laugh out loud. I asked him how he treated minorities at his job. Of course I have no way of knowing if it is the truth, but he said he was paid to treat them like anyone else, so he did his best to not show his personal feelings. I think that free markets and economics ultimately favor people who don't discriminate. > To characterize the first quote-- I don't find that statement crazy, but I do find it sad and alarming. Sad because the loose reasoning and fallacious argument is easily avoidable by iterating over a list of names, which is presumably something everyone poster here knows how to do. Alarming because I'm starting to get the sense there is some kind of underground racism railroad in tech where people whisper and reinforce opinions with each other, but without subjecting them to the same rigor and potential public ridicule that, say, sloppy patches to the kernel would receive. Well it depends on what you mean by "in tech". There are spaces online where that kind of thing happens, sure. I can't really speak for other people's experience, but I've never worked with anyone who showed the slightest hint of discriminatory behavior or attitudes. The closest thing I've seen are elitists who resent people who didn't go to college. I hope that poor arguments see the light of day and people can do their best to disprove them. I agree with Urs in the sense that work is not the appropriate place to talk about these things. Google has backed themselves into a corner in this situation though. They constantly publicly champion diversity initiatives, so how could you not expect people to talk about it internally?

bjourne 9y ago

I think is fairly weak of you to create a throw-away account because you are afraid to stand for your opinions. Be a man or woman, not a coward. That said: > If it makes you so uncomfortable to think about black people (on average) having a lower IQ than white people. People who make this statement always, always, always use the thoroughly debunked "IQ Map" (https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country) as their source. It is based on data fabricated by Lynn and Vanhanen and jotted down in their book IQ and the Wealth of Nations. > What about black people's domination of most sports? Even if we assume that is true (which it isn't -- 972 medals were awarded at the 2016 Summer Olympics and only a fraction of them went to (really) "black people"), why on earth would domination of most sports imply low IQ? Claiming a race is inferior to another based on faulty information is racist.

poster123 9y ago
The average score of American blacks on IQ tests such as the WISC and Stanford-Binet is about one standard deviation below that of whites, and the performance of blacks on standardized tests such as the SAT and ACT is consistent with that IQ difference. You can debate the origins of the IQ difference, but it does exist.
supreme_sublime 9y ago
First of all, this isn't a throw-away account. I have been browsing HackerNews for a while, but only recently started commenting myself. > People who make this statement always, always, always use the thoroughly debunked "IQ Map" (https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country) as their source. It is based on data fabricated by Lynn and Vanhanen and jotted down in their book IQ and the Wealth of Nations. In terms of the debunked "IQ Map", that's not really what I was referring to. The Bell Curve is also a (admittedly controversial) source. I would like to know how that map is "debunked", you simply assert that it is. > Even if we assume that is true (which it isn't -- 972 medals were awarded at the 2016 Summer Olympics and only a fraction of them went to (really) "black people"), I'm confused by your qualification of "(really)" black people. Of course "race" is a bit arbitrary, what I really mean is genetic populations, which certainly exist in a scientific sense. >why on earth would domination of most sports imply low IQ? What? That's not what I was saying at all. We are talking about the inequality between races. There is an overrepresentation of black people in the most popular professional sports in the US, namely basketball and football. It is less the case with baseball, and there are very few black people who play hockey. So I was trying to figure out why we see this inequality of representation of whites in basketball and football, despite there being plenty of them in high school. Ultimately what I was getting at was that races (genetic populations) aren't perfectly equal in every way. I honestly don't see why that is a particularly controversial thing to say. Are heights uniform across countries through all the world? Humans have lot of different populations that only recently have been interacting in meaningful ways, and even with that there are still lots of places that are largely racially homogenous. I'm an individualist, so I don't really think that you should pre-judge a person as being dumb or smart simply based on race. But we do have statistics that can help us understand the world as it is, along with trends. This can also help us make the world a better place. IQ seems to be largely genetic, but there are certainly environmental factors that play a role. Malnutrition being a very large one, considering how much energy the brain takes. I shouldn't say I'm surprised at how hostile you are being, as I said in my comment before, I was aware of the minefield I was walking into. I do find it unfortunate how you simply assume the worst intentions about people. I think you might want to take a look inside yourself, consider how you deal with other people, and determine if it is productive.

jancsika 9y ago

> So the black martyr thing I don't really care to touch since that's pretty unrelated to the other statement of inequality between races. I have to ask: 1. Why do you say it is unrelated? The author is making a direct connection between the first two sentences and the claim in the parentheses. 2. Are you saying you don't care to touch it because a) you don't feel comfortable making a nuanced argument in a hostile environment, or b) it is indefensible? > It seems you are calling that statement crazy. I asked two questions assuming respondents would have read the article. I may have missed something, but AFAICT the article in no way implied the blogger from my first quote is Urs. What I found crazy is that somewhat that high up at Google would interrupt the usual HR process and attempt to get an employee in line using a Nazi metaphor. Especially when the metaphor implies to ignore whether your colleagues are Nazis. And most especially given how badly it turned out for tech companies that literally ignored the consequences to humanity that came from working with Nazis. So, another question-- does my characterization of the alleged statement seem level-headed to you? To characterize the first quote-- I don't find that statement crazy, but I do find it sad and alarming. Sad because the loose reasoning and fallacious argument is easily avoidable by iterating over a list of names, which is presumably something everyone poster here knows how to do. Alarming because I'm starting to get the sense there is some kind of underground racism railroad in tech where people whisper and reinforce opinions with each other, but without subjecting them to the same rigor and potential public ridicule that, say, sloppy patches to the kernel would receive.

supreme_sublime 9y ago
>1. Why do you say it is unrelated? The author is making a direct connection between the first two sentences and the claim in the parentheses. Yes, but it isn't something I agree with and I'm not obligated to support all of his positions. > 2. Are you saying you don't care to touch it because a) you don't feel comfortable making a nuanced argument in a hostile environment, or b) it is indefensible? I don't know if it is exactly indefensible, but I do think it is stated quite poorly and loosely. It is more of a smear than anything else and I don't really care to argue for it. I make an attempt at a generous reading (more devil's advocate) of it in another comment in this thread. It was also tangential to the point I was trying to make. >What I found crazy is that somewhat that high up at Google would interrupt the usual HR process and attempt to get an employee in line using a Nazi metaphor. Especially when the metaphor implies to ignore whether your colleagues are Nazis. And most especially given how badly it turned out for tech companies that literally ignored the consequences to humanity that came from working with Nazis. Ah I see. So you don't really think it is inappropriate to bring politics into the workplace? I generally don't (bring politics into the workplace), not because I really feel I'd be persecuted for my opinions, but because it simply isn't the place to talk about politics. I have worked at places where there were some conversations about religion and politics. What I found most amazing about them, was even if you agreed 99% things could get very heated about the 1% you disagree on. Which is a total distraction of the task at hand. Your company pays you to get work done, not to talk politics. Now, if you want to go to a happy hour after hours and talk about politics, that's fine. If you want to quit because someone else has an opinion that you disagree with, that's fine too. I do think it is a really shitty thing to do to attempt to get someone fired for an opinion they have. If you can prove it affects their job in some way, or how they interact with others, that's job performance. Of course, it is within a company's power to fire that person. I just think it is an underhanded tactic and potentially incredibly damaging, without much of a positive side. If you think the prevailing attitude at your company is Nazi-sympathy, you have to determine if you want to work there. Hell, maybe you can expose that to the public in some way too. But if it is the tiny minority of people that it really is in the real world, and you didn't have any reason to believe it affected their job performance, let them have their dumb opinions. I have spoken to an admitted racist who wants a fascist state, because individualism has led to too much prosperity, which made me laugh out loud. I asked him how he treated minorities at his job. Of course I have no way of knowing if it is the truth, but he said he was paid to treat them like anyone else, so he did his best to not show his personal feelings. I think that free markets and economics ultimately favor people who don't discriminate. > To characterize the first quote-- I don't find that statement crazy, but I do find it sad and alarming. Sad because the loose reasoning and fallacious argument is easily avoidable by iterating over a list of names, which is presumably something everyone poster here knows how to do. Alarming because I'm starting to get the sense there is some kind of underground racism railroad in tech where people whisper and reinforce opinions with each other, but without subjecting them to the same rigor and potential public ridicule that, say, sloppy patches to the kernel would receive. Well it depends on what you mean by "in tech". There are spaces online where that kind of thing happens, sure. I can't really speak for other people's experience, but I've never worked with anyone who showed the slightest hint of discriminatory behavior or attitudes. The closest thing I've seen are elitists who resent people who didn't go to college. I hope that poor arguments see the light of day and people can do their best to disprove them. I agree with Urs in the sense that work is not the appropriate place to talk about these things. Google has backed themselves into a corner in this situation though. They constantly publicly champion diversity initiatives, so how could you not expect people to talk about it internally?