4 ms·

I think it's because he's basically correct, or convincing enough to seem so, about a set of facts that we've all decided to politely ignore for the good of soc

by strken 4y ago

I think it's because he's basically correct, or convincing enough to seem so, about a set of facts that we've all decided to politely ignore for the good of society. As the rationalists might say, scientific racism is (seen as) an infohazard that will destroy many useful cultural institutions if it spreads beyond the small community of researchers with sufficient context to understand it, and he's spreading it. The thing about infohazards is that even true information can be hazardous. Other middlebrow blogs either talk about different things, have less reach, or aren't as vulnerable.

yterdy 4y ago
I think we should be clear that scientific racism is a case of an infohazard that is not, in fact, true (even if one can make a convincing, though ultimately fallacy-dependent, argument for it, usually by ignoring the falsification of the "sets of facts" which underpin it). The trouble is that admitting that is also a sort of infohazard, for certain people.
- strken 4y ago
  I have absolutely no idea whether it's actually correct or not, make no claims about it, and don't think the object level question matters compared to whether it's harmful. Discussing its validity in any way is falling into the trap of publicising it.
  - yterdy 4y ago
    It matters because the topic refuses to stay buried (say, when brought up as an example of a controversial figure's purported views), and the prospect of it not being a closed question invites bad actors to rationalize social inequity, and their own tainted views and actions, through its lens. This is a topic where a conscientious person should have an idea of its correctness and should stake that claim firmly. Best of all, doing so eliminates one's part in the harm of its nature as an infohazard.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- darawk 4y ago
  Why are you so confident that it's not true? The best study I'm aware of on the topic is this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption... This concludes that there is 3-5 point genetic IQ gap between blacks and whites. This study is imperfect in a lot of ways, and fundamentally and irreconcilably confounded by the fact that even though the kids grow up in different environments raised by different families, there is no way to blind their childhood experience from the color of their own skin. So, in no way do I mean to argue that this study is dispositive in favor of scientific racism. However, I do mean to argue that the existing state of the evidence points in that direction, albeit rather weakly.
  - woooooo 4y ago
    The Flynn Effect is what we call the phenomenon of IQ rates going up across the board over the last 75 years, it's established as true yet nobody will claim that we all got genetically smarter.
    - tuatoru 4y ago
      It has now come to an end, perhaps. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#Possible_end_of_progression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#Possible_end_of_p...
    - darawk 4y ago
      That is true, and an important criticism of IQ as a measure in general. However, it's not clear that the Flynn effect is relevant to the conclusions of this study. Why do you think it is?
      - woooooo 4y ago
        It was more of a general rebuttal to the idea of "the numbers move so it must be genetic". The study you linked was interesting but adopted kids are an abnormal case to begin with and the effect indicated was tiny compared to societal things IMO.
zozbot234 4y ago
Our "useful cultural institutions" are irredeemably racist and sexist anyway. Destroying a history of racism and sexism may well be preferable to an enduring status quo where many people are excluded, marginalized and made invisible.
gjm11 4y ago
Except that he isn't spreading it. What his detractors claim is that he secretly believes in some variety of "scientific racism", which makes him a Bad Person. Maybe he does and maybe it does, but believing something secretly isn't spreading it. I guess it depends on what "it" is. He has (not very often, but more than zero times: see https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/26/the-atomic-bomb-considered-as-hungarian-high-school-science-fair-project/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/26/the-atomic-bomb-consid..., specifically section III) said positive things about the idea that Ashkenazi Jews are on average unusually smart, perhaps as a result of evolutionary pressure arising from centuries of persecution. This isn't usually what people mean by "scientific racism", and it doesn't seem obviously very infohazardous to me. (Maybe a bit infohazardous. I can see ways in which you could start there and end up being Just Plain Racist. But I haven't seen much evidence that this is in any way common.)
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  In a recent post he said that people couldnt handle the scientific fact that black people are more criminal. Let me just dig out the exact quote so I'm not paraphrasing: > True facts can be hyperstitious slurs. “Black people commit more crime” [...] This leads to another sort of vicious cycle: half of people understand it’s a true fact that they’re not supposed to say for signaling reasons, the other half have never heard it before and assume it must be a vicious lie, and you end up with situations where someone notices that some police department arrests more blacks than whites, accuses that specific police department of racism, and everyone is afraid to explain what’s going on. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/give-up-seventy-percent-of-the-way https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/give-up-seventy-percen... It's a classic from the "I'm not racist, black people are just scientifically interior and I can't let that fact go unacknowledged" school of race-"realism". And how you get people like Steve Sailer to be regular commenters, saying things like: > It's OK to be white" was created to be a wholly unobjectionable statement that is still widely objected to. The goal is to demonstrate that wokeness is driven by anti-white racist animus. It works. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Steve_Sailer https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Steve_Sailer
  - woooooo 4y ago
woooooo 4y ago
Late comment but thanks for the thoughtful response

by strken 4y ago

yterdy 4y ago

I think we should be clear that scientific racism is a case of an infohazard that is not, in fact, true (even if one can make a convincing, though ultimately fallacy-dependent, argument for it, usually by ignoring the falsification of the "sets of facts" which underpin it). The trouble is that admitting that is also a sort of infohazard, for certain people.

strken 4y ago
I have absolutely no idea whether it's actually correct or not, make no claims about it, and don't think the object level question matters compared to whether it's harmful. Discussing its validity in any way is falling into the trap of publicising it.
- yterdy 4y ago
  It matters because the topic refuses to stay buried (say, when brought up as an example of a controversial figure's purported views), and the prospect of it not being a closed question invites bad actors to rationalize social inequity, and their own tainted views and actions, through its lens. This is a topic where a conscientious person should have an idea of its correctness and should stake that claim firmly. Best of all, doing so eliminates one's part in the harm of its nature as an infohazard.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
darawk 4y ago
Why are you so confident that it's not true? The best study I'm aware of on the topic is this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption... This concludes that there is 3-5 point genetic IQ gap between blacks and whites. This study is imperfect in a lot of ways, and fundamentally and irreconcilably confounded by the fact that even though the kids grow up in different environments raised by different families, there is no way to blind their childhood experience from the color of their own skin. So, in no way do I mean to argue that this study is dispositive in favor of scientific racism. However, I do mean to argue that the existing state of the evidence points in that direction, albeit rather weakly.
- woooooo 4y ago
  The Flynn Effect is what we call the phenomenon of IQ rates going up across the board over the last 75 years, it's established as true yet nobody will claim that we all got genetically smarter.
  - tuatoru 4y ago
    It has now come to an end, perhaps. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#Possible_end_of_progression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#Possible_end_of_p...
  - darawk 4y ago
    That is true, and an important criticism of IQ as a measure in general. However, it's not clear that the Flynn effect is relevant to the conclusions of this study. Why do you think it is?
    - woooooo 4y ago
      It was more of a general rebuttal to the idea of "the numbers move so it must be genetic". The study you linked was interesting but adopted kids are an abnormal case to begin with and the effect indicated was tiny compared to societal things IMO.

zozbot234 4y ago

Our "useful cultural institutions" are irredeemably racist and sexist anyway. Destroying a history of racism and sexism may well be preferable to an enduring status quo where many people are excluded, marginalized and made invisible.

gjm11 4y ago

Except that he isn't spreading it. What his detractors claim is that he secretly believes in some variety of "scientific racism", which makes him a Bad Person. Maybe he does and maybe it does, but believing something secretly isn't spreading it. I guess it depends on what "it" is. He has (not very often, but more than zero times: see https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/26/the-atomic-bomb-considered-as-hungarian-high-school-science-fair-project/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/26/the-atomic-bomb-consid..., specifically section III) said positive things about the idea that Ashkenazi Jews are on average unusually smart, perhaps as a result of evolutionary pressure arising from centuries of persecution. This isn't usually what people mean by "scientific racism", and it doesn't seem obviously very infohazardous to me. (Maybe a bit infohazardous. I can see ways in which you could start there and end up being Just Plain Racist. But I haven't seen much evidence that this is in any way common.)

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
In a recent post he said that people couldnt handle the scientific fact that black people are more criminal. Let me just dig out the exact quote so I'm not paraphrasing: > True facts can be hyperstitious slurs. “Black people commit more crime” [...] This leads to another sort of vicious cycle: half of people understand it’s a true fact that they’re not supposed to say for signaling reasons, the other half have never heard it before and assume it must be a vicious lie, and you end up with situations where someone notices that some police department arrests more blacks than whites, accuses that specific police department of racism, and everyone is afraid to explain what’s going on. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/give-up-seventy-percent-of-the-way https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/give-up-seventy-percen... It's a classic from the "I'm not racist, black people are just scientifically interior and I can't let that fact go unacknowledged" school of race-"realism". And how you get people like Steve Sailer to be regular commenters, saying things like: > It's OK to be white" was created to be a wholly unobjectionable statement that is still widely objected to. The goal is to demonstrate that wokeness is driven by anti-white racist animus. It works. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Steve_Sailer https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Steve_Sailer
- woooooo 4y ago

woooooo 4y ago

Late comment but thanks for the thoughtful response