4 ms·

Do you want to take this percentage game further? Let's talk about Jews. If a system is truly meritocratic, how is it that 0.2% of the population of a particul

Do you want to take this percentage game further? Let's talk about Jews. If a system is truly meritocratic, how is it that 0.2% of the population of a particular demographic has 20% of the Nobel prizes? Do you think, by your standards, there is some sort of a Jewish "discriminatory behavior" at play here? I'm sure you see by now that playing this percentage game quickly gets very discriminatory itself. I think a certain percentage of a population (may that be white nerds or jews) can be over-represented not because of discrimination but because of other factors like affinity to particular subjects or being unwanted in other places (e.g white nerds might not have the social savvy to do banker schmooze jobs).

sago 12y ago
> Do you think, by your standards, there is some > sort of a Jewish "discriminatory behavior" at > play here? Yes. No doubt. Jewish men have certain forms of privilege, which makes it easier for some of them to access elite scientific institutions. They also have several axes in which they lack privilege. Those axes are less significant in the earning of a Nobel prize. You seem to think you've discovered intersectionality and it is a huge surprise. Or that people who are interested in a more just society would somehow recoil from identifying power differentials favouring groups that also suffer forms of oppression. That is the opposite of my experience dealing with the people who actually write and research on this topic.
- jqm 12y ago
  It could be less privilege and more a long cultural history of intellectual activity and thus, being raised in an environment that encourages these kind of endeavors.
  - sago 12y ago
    When 'privilege' is used in these topics, it is often rather broadly defined to mean any feature of the accident of your birth that is beneficial compared to others who lack it. So yes, a long history of intellectual achievement is a privilege in that sense: the prevalence of expectation (you can do this), of value (it is worth doing this), of role-models (so and so, who is similar to you, did this), mentorship (so and so, who your uncle knows, knows people who do this), and so on. So yes, a long history of achieving X in a group tends to act as a privilege for children born in to that group, because there is a well-worn and understood path to going in that direction. I get why people hate the word 'privilege' so much, but that is basically the hegemonic term of art.
    - proveanegative 12y ago
      >'privilege' is used in these topics, it is often rather broadly defined to mean any feature of the accident of your birth that is beneficial compared to others who lack it. Is that meaningfully different from "luck"?
      - sago 12y ago
        From an individual's point of view, no. But when privilege is correlated with a particular group, then it isn't helpful to see it as random. It self perpetuates. But an individual can be lucky to be born into a rich family, but the rich family probably isn't lucky to be rich: it tends to retain its status over generations. Not in terms of absolute dollar value, but its social status.
- moultano 12y ago
  Do you honestly believe that all differences are due to privilege?
  - sago 12y ago
    No, not at all. I think a large amount of diversity among individuals has nothing to do with privilege. Privilege is an inherently probabilistic bias, it doesn't determine anything. When you find achievement highly correlated with a cultural group, however, it is pretty likely to be a function of privilege (in the social science sense). The alternative hypothesis is that, for example, Jews are just innately better at science. I think the research that has been done into racial differences in intellectual abilities has generally failed to find anything that suggests the latter is likely.
    - moultano 12y ago
      We won't be able to tease apart the two hypotheses for certain until we can trace the attribution to individual genes, but at least at an individual level, IQ has been shown to be mostly genetic. It seems inplausible that individual differences are mostly genetic but group differences are entirely cultural. The mean IQ of Ashkenazi Jews is a standard deviation higher than the European average. In a group so genetically isolated that it has its own set of endemic genetic diseases, I'm not willing to assume without evidence that privilege is the primary contributor.
      - sago 12y ago
        Here's where I'm not an expert, so I'm happy to defer to others who know about this research. So this is a genuine question. IQ has been shown to be mostly genetic Can you give a citation that controls for cultural privilege? I'm not willing to assume without evidence that privilege is the primary contributor. Why would one need to assume it is the primary contributor. If there was a genetic advantage, isn't is equally if not more morally important to not add social advantages on top? I know this wasn't the point I made, which I'm not yet conceding, but is another statement that sounds black-and-white all-or-nothing.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

sago 12y ago

> Do you think, by your standards, there is some > sort of a Jewish "discriminatory behavior" at > play here? Yes. No doubt. Jewish men have certain forms of privilege, which makes it easier for some of them to access elite scientific institutions. They also have several axes in which they lack privilege. Those axes are less significant in the earning of a Nobel prize. You seem to think you've discovered intersectionality and it is a huge surprise. Or that people who are interested in a more just society would somehow recoil from identifying power differentials favouring groups that also suffer forms of oppression. That is the opposite of my experience dealing with the people who actually write and research on this topic.

jqm 12y ago
It could be less privilege and more a long cultural history of intellectual activity and thus, being raised in an environment that encourages these kind of endeavors.
- sago 12y ago
  When 'privilege' is used in these topics, it is often rather broadly defined to mean any feature of the accident of your birth that is beneficial compared to others who lack it. So yes, a long history of intellectual achievement is a privilege in that sense: the prevalence of expectation (you can do this), of value (it is worth doing this), of role-models (so and so, who is similar to you, did this), mentorship (so and so, who your uncle knows, knows people who do this), and so on. So yes, a long history of achieving X in a group tends to act as a privilege for children born in to that group, because there is a well-worn and understood path to going in that direction. I get why people hate the word 'privilege' so much, but that is basically the hegemonic term of art.
  - proveanegative 12y ago
    >'privilege' is used in these topics, it is often rather broadly defined to mean any feature of the accident of your birth that is beneficial compared to others who lack it. Is that meaningfully different from "luck"?
    - sago 12y ago
      From an individual's point of view, no. But when privilege is correlated with a particular group, then it isn't helpful to see it as random. It self perpetuates. But an individual can be lucky to be born into a rich family, but the rich family probably isn't lucky to be rich: it tends to retain its status over generations. Not in terms of absolute dollar value, but its social status.
moultano 12y ago
Do you honestly believe that all differences are due to privilege?
- sago 12y ago
  No, not at all. I think a large amount of diversity among individuals has nothing to do with privilege. Privilege is an inherently probabilistic bias, it doesn't determine anything. When you find achievement highly correlated with a cultural group, however, it is pretty likely to be a function of privilege (in the social science sense). The alternative hypothesis is that, for example, Jews are just innately better at science. I think the research that has been done into racial differences in intellectual abilities has generally failed to find anything that suggests the latter is likely.
  - moultano 12y ago
    We won't be able to tease apart the two hypotheses for certain until we can trace the attribution to individual genes, but at least at an individual level, IQ has been shown to be mostly genetic. It seems inplausible that individual differences are mostly genetic but group differences are entirely cultural. The mean IQ of Ashkenazi Jews is a standard deviation higher than the European average. In a group so genetically isolated that it has its own set of endemic genetic diseases, I'm not willing to assume without evidence that privilege is the primary contributor.
    - sago 12y ago
      Here's where I'm not an expert, so I'm happy to defer to others who know about this research. So this is a genuine question. IQ has been shown to be mostly genetic Can you give a citation that controls for cultural privilege? I'm not willing to assume without evidence that privilege is the primary contributor. Why would one need to assume it is the primary contributor. If there was a genetic advantage, isn't is equally if not more morally important to not add social advantages on top? I know this wasn't the point I made, which I'm not yet conceding, but is another statement that sounds black-and-white all-or-nothing.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]