This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I think you do. Your argument is just a dressed-up version of "You HBD proponents are just a bunch of racists, if you really believed in HBD rather than just hating the blacks, you'd apply your lens to poor people as well."
No, if that was all human bio-diversity said, only the most radical tabula rasa leftists would disagree. HBD as it is normally espoused also says that distinct populations of humans have different average levels of ability, which are genetically determined.
I'm really not seeing what your point is here, you've just restated a weaker version of the point I'm making. Who the cap fit let them wear it. You haven't provided any counter evidence. Just because you view it as a gotcha doesn't mean it didn't get ya.
Yes, and it generally settles on identifiable racial categories as everyday shorthand for those genetic traits. But I fail to see how or why that observation would be limited to one, messy, shorthand when society provides us with an excellent, individually tested shorthand: income and education level. Fine argue that one or the other is better or worse; if I accept HBD's moral bases why wouldn't I want to apply both to benefit myself, my family, my nation? Without a strong racist or wignat element introduced, focusing purely on the IQ supremacy and criminality planks that typically define HBD discourse, what justification is there to not discriminate against poor whites? They've demonstrated all the outcomes you decry as evidence of genetic inferiority.
How many generations of stupidity do I need evidence of before I can write it off as genetics? The stupid children of stupid parents? Stupid children with 3/4 stupid grandparents? We can find many millions of those in America.
I gave you the main reason it's not true. I don't need to go through a lot of effort to refute a cheap gotcha with an obvious flaw, I merely need point to the flaw.
The people who are really into it have various sorts of categories. HBD Chick is well known for talking about groups which originate on one side or the other of the Hajnal line. As I mentioned, castes in India fit the bill too. But race pretty much works in the US (at least as long as you split "Asian" up somewhat), and is the most relevant politically.
More than one, which is why "poor people" doesn't work as a relevant group.
This seems silly? What exactly is lost by treating "poor people" as a relevant group? I guess I don't see the relevant differences.
It would be quite surprising if they were the same along all traits as elites, because of factors like those originally pointed out by @FiveHourMarathon: there is obviously selection going on as people find their positions in society, and assortative mating will help those clusters to be distinct. I see no reason not to look at additional, smaller, clusters beyond race.
Our default assumption should be that it is partially genetic, since that seems true of a great many things about human differences.
It's fine to compare groups even if they interbreed, as long as it's not an even mixing between them—statistical differences should be preserved (for how long depends on how strong the selection and interbreeding is).
They're not a separate population; all they have in common is being poor. Same reason it makes sense to consider Ashkenazi Jews as a population (in the sense of HBD) but not people born on the Fourth of July.
I literally argued that we can treat them as a separate population in a useful manner. Are you going to address that, instead of merely asserting it?
Or is your complaint that there's no clear lines, and only a spectrum? I see no reason why that should change our ability to talk about it.
Nor is there any reason why only having one feature in common should mean that we can't look at things with respect to that feature. (and, of course, it's not quite the one feature in common—everything that correlates with poverty will be something they are statistically more likely to have as well, and vice versa)
It's obvious why people born on the Fourth of July is useless: it has no correlation with genetics, and it causes no persistent groups. Socioeconomic class is not like that. Yes, there is class mobility, and intermarriage, but statistically, people are more likely to stay somewhere around where they started, relatively speaking. Of course, this varies from individual to individual, but there's no reason for it not to be useful on a population level.
There's no reason to require millenia-old groups to be able to talk about human genetics. All that matters are group differences derived in part from genotypes.
The way in which they can be treated as a different population is not the same in terms of magnitude or direction.
To put it another way, poor people don't show up in PCA of genes. There is no genetic difference when compared to race.
Well, there's presumably a handful genetic differences statistically, but you're right that it would be far more minor than groups with centuries or millenia of variation without intermarriage. (And unlikely to show up on a PCA, unless maybe you get to extreme minor quite-possibly-statistical-noise components)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
And what grouping usefully includes both dirt-poor Zeke from Appalachia and dirt-poor Malcolm from Alabama? You can see how blacks are a useful (if fuzzy at the edges) group; they've got sub-Saharan African ancestry. Same for Scots-Irish, or Cajuns or various other ethnicities. But "poor people" in America just don't work as such a group.
Sure, I could treat poor people as a whole as a group and maybe note that "Hey, people who are poor also tend to do poorly on standardized tests". And that would be interesting. But I don't think it falls within HBDs domain.
Likewise, what grouping usefully includes both the Namibian bushman, and the South African Zulu? Those are more genetically distinct groups than Zeke from Appalachia and Malcolm from Alabama? (I'm unsure whether you mean Malcolm to be black—looking it up, it looks like it makes up about the same proportion of each. It doesn't matter, though, as the Zulu is genetically more like you than like the bushman.) Further, HBD people seem perfectly fine talking about categories like "hispanic" which is itself a messy category, where different people have different portions of native american ancestry (and also, of course, different native american groups, depending on where the people are from), and sometimes black ancestry, making it less precise, than, say, "chinese".
But that's no reason to stop. If it yields consistent useful statistical information, that's good enough. You just have to be willing to recognize that your nice group there is actually more of a hodgepodge of different groups that might not all be the same, each of which themselves consist of a handful of non-identical individuals.
I'm not of course making any sort of claim at all like "poor people and rich people are as genetically distant as [insert two groups of your choice]." All I'm saying is that statistically they have genetic disparities along some relevant axes.
So what is HBD about, then, if not that some groups are genetically more capable than others along axes, or otherwise vary in traits?
Very little, but there's only about 100,000 bushmen in the world, so they don't really figure into much. Zeke (white) and Malcolm (yes, intended to be black), on the other hand, are quite common archetypes in the US.
Yeah, "Hispanic" is messy and I don't trust a lot of generalizations about that category either. Some of the HBD people do try to quantify things about percent of indigenous versus European ancestry among Hispanics, which seems more valid as a general approach.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link