4 ms·

So I do not really understand this. (To me having racial categories is racist already, but this seems to be fine/non racist in the US). So would a statement lik

So I do not really understand this. (To me having racial categories is racist already, but this seems to be fine/non racist in the US). So would a statement like 'Asians perform significantly higher (by so and so amounts of standard deviation) on Math tests than Caucasians' a racist stereotype while still beiing a fact?

Aunche 6y ago
It's not racist to explain why the majority of your quants are Asian. It is racist to hire a quant because they're Asian. In politics, people tend to do the latter.
Pfhreak 6y ago
Good question. There's a big difference between, "These are the observed results" and "These people are inherently X". And especially different than, "Person is Y, therefore they are good/bad at X". The first statement is open ended, it keeps the door open to systemic factors outside of race that might correlate with race. It also doesn't suggest that everyone of a particular group is better/worse at something. The second statement says that there's something intrinsic to that everyone of that race. It sets up expectations for a group of people. Maybe you are an Asian who isn't good at math? How does that make you feel? How will you be impacted by other people making assumptions about you? The third statement is applying stereotypes to individuals, which is just never going to be a good idea. The differences between the first and second statements are subtle, but important.
- andi999 6y ago
  So then you are saying the statement 'Asians are good at math' is not the short version of 'we observed that asians are better at math then other races' but the short version of 'Asians are inherently better at math' and therefor racist?
  - ethbr0 6y ago
    The generic "Asians are good at math", in this context, is probably extended as "We observed that certain groups of Asians are good at math, therefore, all Asians are good at math." And as parent pointed out, it's the leap from observed results to expectations about a racial group (or many groups in this case) that makes it racist.
sdenton4 6y ago
The US writ-large tried the 'color blindness' approach for a long time. The general effect was that shit kept rolling downhill, but that those in power were not expected to discuss or do anything to improve the situation: the heavily racist outcomes of the war on drugs, racially disparate education funding+outcomes, etc etc etc were off-limits for 'polite' conversation. The current thinking is that you have to acknowledge race to fight systemic racism.
- odessacubbage 6y ago
  i also think there is a general concern that 'acknowledging race' is what led to racist outcomes being systematized in the first place. the current thinking also seems to struggle to concretely articulate what it's goals actually are, is success defined as proportional representation across interests and industries? is it 'majority minority' in leadership roles? will these mandates be adjusted as outcomes and demographics predictably shift? and maybe most concerning, are all problems considered on equal merits or is there antipathy and an underlying belief in deserved suffering as atonement for intergenerational guilt?

Aunche 6y ago

It's not racist to explain why the majority of your quants are Asian. It is racist to hire a quant because they're Asian. In politics, people tend to do the latter.

Pfhreak 6y ago

Good question. There's a big difference between, "These are the observed results" and "These people are inherently X". And especially different than, "Person is Y, therefore they are good/bad at X". The first statement is open ended, it keeps the door open to systemic factors outside of race that might correlate with race. It also doesn't suggest that everyone of a particular group is better/worse at something. The second statement says that there's something intrinsic to that everyone of that race. It sets up expectations for a group of people. Maybe you are an Asian who isn't good at math? How does that make you feel? How will you be impacted by other people making assumptions about you? The third statement is applying stereotypes to individuals, which is just never going to be a good idea. The differences between the first and second statements are subtle, but important.

andi999 6y ago
So then you are saying the statement 'Asians are good at math' is not the short version of 'we observed that asians are better at math then other races' but the short version of 'Asians are inherently better at math' and therefor racist?
- ethbr0 6y ago
  The generic "Asians are good at math", in this context, is probably extended as "We observed that certain groups of Asians are good at math, therefore, all Asians are good at math." And as parent pointed out, it's the leap from observed results to expectations about a racial group (or many groups in this case) that makes it racist.

sdenton4 6y ago

The US writ-large tried the 'color blindness' approach for a long time. The general effect was that shit kept rolling downhill, but that those in power were not expected to discuss or do anything to improve the situation: the heavily racist outcomes of the war on drugs, racially disparate education funding+outcomes, etc etc etc were off-limits for 'polite' conversation. The current thinking is that you have to acknowledge race to fight systemic racism.

odessacubbage 6y ago
i also think there is a general concern that 'acknowledging race' is what led to racist outcomes being systematized in the first place. the current thinking also seems to struggle to concretely articulate what it's goals actually are, is success defined as proportional representation across interests and industries? is it 'majority minority' in leadership roles? will these mandates be adjusted as outcomes and demographics predictably shift? and maybe most concerning, are all problems considered on equal merits or is there antipathy and an underlying belief in deserved suffering as atonement for intergenerational guilt?