Good grief, you got this completely backwards; did you even read the thing I mentioned about the reckless driving deaths? That is a prime example of a sudden increase in bad things happening disproportionately to YBM because of a non-racist change in policy which could and should be reversed to the also-not-racist former policy. Of cours…
Good grief, you got this completely backwards; did you even read the thing I mentioned about the reckless driving deaths? That is a prime example of a sudden increase in bad things happening disproportionately to YBM because of a non-racist change in policy which could and should be reversed to the also-not-racist former policy. Of course we should look for and act upon those things, duh!
But guess what, we can't, because common sense, fair law enforcement has disparate impact and the usual suspects are going to call it racist and by doing so, successfully oppose it anyway.
It's like saying I'm against gardening which I should recognize is a good, easy, and fun way to get some fresh, tasty produce. Hardly! I am an avid gardener! However, we are currently under Mongol invasion, and it doesn't make sense to plant a garden when it is predictably going to get immediately crushed under the hooves of golden hordes cavalry, just like for each of the last 40 attempts. It is suicidally foolish to indulge in any of these futile distractions while the enemy is at your gates and within them. You need to defeat the Mongols first, there is no alternative. Loury, "As Euclid taught, if we start by assuming there are no Mongols, then ..." No! The problem is the systemic embrace of the claim that reality is such that when one sees disparate impact on protected groups, one should presume that unjust discrimination is to blame. That claim is false, and everything that stems from it is wickedly unjust, and there is no end to possible newly wicked innovations that are variations on that theme that will eventually grow like a cancer to infect and control all human affairs without exception or place of refuge. This is exactly analogous to what occurred with the false tenets of socialism in all "actually existing" communist societies, and with this stuff it's now happening to us. Genghis Khan is right there staring us in the face, and Loury is saying maybe we should focus on what we can do that won't make him try to conquer us. Um, hello, he's a Khan, his business is conquering, and business is good. Especially when people are trying really hard not to do anything that might actually stop him.
You are mostly right about your driving example. But I can't follow your train of thought. I can't see how it fits with what you said before that. I don't know what aspect of all this the Mongols is supposed to be an analogy for. I don't know what you are accusing Loury of. Are we at least agreed he isn't claiming the differences are mostly the result of racism?
Maybe I should try to summarize a little and you tell me what I'm missing. There are lots of likely and possible contributors to unequal outcomes. Without getting too precise or detailed, they include:
- racism at an individual level (maybe discrimination is more relevant)
- systemic racism (ignoring it's precise definition and whether/how it continues today)
- unintended consequences of govt policies
- intelligence (both genetic and losses correlated to poverty)
- motivation-killing assumptions on ability to succeed or self-doubt as a result of being told one can't succeed because of racism.
- self-segregation
- correlations with poverty (ignoring the cause of the poverty)
- single parent
- cultural differences besides anything listed.
I'm not aware that Loury is denying any particular contributor exists. Does he? As I understand it, he want to add another possibility to the list. "That is, would an observer be prepared to consider that the apparent inequality was really an artifact, and not a deep or essentialist feature of the two groups?" Is there a problem with proposing this contributor to inequality?
Imagine you are comparing two historical populations that differ significantly in height, say wealthy Americans in 1850 and Chinese peasants. You say you will consider lots of explanations but you will be anti-hungerism. You will not consider any explanations involving differences in nutrition. You conclude that race is a cause, income is a cause, lots of other things are causes. But if you present your results as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, you will be committing a fraud because you left out the most important cause at the beginning. And in so doing, you let in some spurious causes, ironically, like race.
Who within this conversation is dismissing any causes other than you?
Did you read the transcript I linked? In what way does the cause Loury proposes exclude ANY other possibilities?
In your analogy, how is race or income anything more than a correlation? Isn't assuming they are causes without other evidence a totally different problem?
How do you know what is "the most important cause"?
From the transcript, Loury seems to be dismissing possible causes. He very perceptively says,
"That’s a very fine setup to characterize the three different possible explanations: (1) external forces of oppression, (2) internal lack of coordination and development of the cultural nexus to support success, or (3) “there’s something wrong with these people.” And it hymns in the discourse, the fear that you might give credit to the essentialist theory, and the injury, that any entertainment of the idea that Black people are somehow inferior or unfit or somehow in their nature, not able to, you know, accommodate the modern world. There’s a threat to the psyche, to the sense of value. So yes, that’s all true. And I’m an internal man.
He goes on to say that ,"I’m acknowledging that there might be something wrong with Black people." But he is at pains to distinguish himself from "the essentialist out there who would want to use the confession of dysfunction as evidence of intrinsic unfitness". This throws out any genetic explanations, anything like "the average IQ of blacks is a standard deviation below the average IQ of whites." I don't know if that's true but I see it from "race realists". And if it is true, it would explain so much about "the gap" in education and high IQ jobs. I really wish we had good research on this rather than treating it like a third rail that nobody respectable should touch.
There is excellent research on average IQs, although it is not publicized much for reasons you mention. Research on the causes of the gap in average IQs is both more third-raily and less solid - it is hard to establish causation in the best of times - but it does tend to rule out go-to progressive explanations as causes (not enough books in the home, underfunded schools, lead, redlining and so on). As for Loury, it shouldn't surprise anybody that it sticks in his craw to say "we blacks as a group are genetically less intelligent on average and because of that we will not in the foreseeable future be represented on equal footing in most prestigious and/or remunerative roles and occupations". Imagine yourself having had a dumb child and having to admit to yourself (never mind in public) that he's going to flip burgers instead of going to Harvard. Loury's problem is that he can't credibly offer whites to trade whites' shutting up about racial essentialism for blacks' shutting up about racism and external forces of oppression, which if anything have been solidly in the negative territory for decades.
Average IQ - absolutely. I listened to a few YouTube clips and skimmed a couple one-on-one talks of Loury. With Peterson he completely recognizes the impact of G. In another talk he seems to completely dismiss our ability to determine intelligence and I'd argue he dismisses it as a factor, though he really never says the latter explicitly. Anyway, with Peterson they talk about one way intelligence isn't genetic. They agree (mostly Peterson talking) intelligence can be destroyed via malnutrition, lack of stimulation, etc. Your comments miss that the measured IQ differences between groups aren't necessarily genetic, or more likely, might be part genetic and a large component not,
Causation ("success," not IQ) - Right. I know of no research determining how IQ impacts outcome, though there have to be studies corelating IQ with income, wealth or other outcomes. Of course correlation doesn't tell us the cause either.
Agreed racism has been in negative territory. I don't think it is wise to shut up about racism or IQ but it would be nice if proponents of each cause were a little smarter about what and how they do and say.
Perhaps he is more interested in the possible and pragmatic, in both getting us off this path and maintaining an atmosphere of comity.
The sort of pragmatism that led Washington to reverse course, ignore his own ingrained feelings on the matter, from the relationships he was used to, and permit blacks to serve in revolutionary army.
Good grief, you got this completely backwards; did you even read the thing I mentioned about the reckless driving deaths? That is a prime example of a sudden increase in bad things happening disproportionately to YBM because of a non-racist change in policy which could and should be reversed to the also-not-racist former policy. Of course we should look for and act upon those things, duh!
But guess what, we can't, because common sense, fair law enforcement has disparate impact and the usual suspects are going to call it racist and by doing so, successfully oppose it anyway.
It's like saying I'm against gardening which I should recognize is a good, easy, and fun way to get some fresh, tasty produce. Hardly! I am an avid gardener! However, we are currently under Mongol invasion, and it doesn't make sense to plant a garden when it is predictably going to get immediately crushed under the hooves of golden hordes cavalry, just like for each of the last 40 attempts. It is suicidally foolish to indulge in any of these futile distractions while the enemy is at your gates and within them. You need to defeat the Mongols first, there is no alternative. Loury, "As Euclid taught, if we start by assuming there are no Mongols, then ..." No! The problem is the systemic embrace of the claim that reality is such that when one sees disparate impact on protected groups, one should presume that unjust discrimination is to blame. That claim is false, and everything that stems from it is wickedly unjust, and there is no end to possible newly wicked innovations that are variations on that theme that will eventually grow like a cancer to infect and control all human affairs without exception or place of refuge. This is exactly analogous to what occurred with the false tenets of socialism in all "actually existing" communist societies, and with this stuff it's now happening to us. Genghis Khan is right there staring us in the face, and Loury is saying maybe we should focus on what we can do that won't make him try to conquer us. Um, hello, he's a Khan, his business is conquering, and business is good. Especially when people are trying really hard not to do anything that might actually stop him.
You are mostly right about your driving example. But I can't follow your train of thought. I can't see how it fits with what you said before that. I don't know what aspect of all this the Mongols is supposed to be an analogy for. I don't know what you are accusing Loury of. Are we at least agreed he isn't claiming the differences are mostly the result of racism?
Maybe I should try to summarize a little and you tell me what I'm missing. There are lots of likely and possible contributors to unequal outcomes. Without getting too precise or detailed, they include:
- racism at an individual level (maybe discrimination is more relevant)
- systemic racism (ignoring it's precise definition and whether/how it continues today)
- unintended consequences of govt policies
- intelligence (both genetic and losses correlated to poverty)
- motivation-killing assumptions on ability to succeed or self-doubt as a result of being told one can't succeed because of racism.
- self-segregation
- correlations with poverty (ignoring the cause of the poverty)
- single parent
- cultural differences besides anything listed.
I'm not aware that Loury is denying any particular contributor exists. Does he? As I understand it, he want to add another possibility to the list. "That is, would an observer be prepared to consider that the apparent inequality was really an artifact, and not a deep or essentialist feature of the two groups?" Is there a problem with proposing this contributor to inequality?
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2021/11/a-contentious-conversation-on-systemic-racism-in-america/
Imagine you are comparing two historical populations that differ significantly in height, say wealthy Americans in 1850 and Chinese peasants. You say you will consider lots of explanations but you will be anti-hungerism. You will not consider any explanations involving differences in nutrition. You conclude that race is a cause, income is a cause, lots of other things are causes. But if you present your results as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, you will be committing a fraud because you left out the most important cause at the beginning. And in so doing, you let in some spurious causes, ironically, like race.
Who within this conversation is dismissing any causes other than you?
Did you read the transcript I linked? In what way does the cause Loury proposes exclude ANY other possibilities?
In your analogy, how is race or income anything more than a correlation? Isn't assuming they are causes without other evidence a totally different problem?
How do you know what is "the most important cause"?
From the transcript, Loury seems to be dismissing possible causes. He very perceptively says,
"That’s a very fine setup to characterize the three different possible explanations: (1) external forces of oppression, (2) internal lack of coordination and development of the cultural nexus to support success, or (3) “there’s something wrong with these people.” And it hymns in the discourse, the fear that you might give credit to the essentialist theory, and the injury, that any entertainment of the idea that Black people are somehow inferior or unfit or somehow in their nature, not able to, you know, accommodate the modern world. There’s a threat to the psyche, to the sense of value. So yes, that’s all true. And I’m an internal man.
He goes on to say that ,"I’m acknowledging that there might be something wrong with Black people." But he is at pains to distinguish himself from "the essentialist out there who would want to use the confession of dysfunction as evidence of intrinsic unfitness". This throws out any genetic explanations, anything like "the average IQ of blacks is a standard deviation below the average IQ of whites." I don't know if that's true but I see it from "race realists". And if it is true, it would explain so much about "the gap" in education and high IQ jobs. I really wish we had good research on this rather than treating it like a third rail that nobody respectable should touch.
There is excellent research on average IQs, although it is not publicized much for reasons you mention. Research on the causes of the gap in average IQs is both more third-raily and less solid - it is hard to establish causation in the best of times - but it does tend to rule out go-to progressive explanations as causes (not enough books in the home, underfunded schools, lead, redlining and so on). As for Loury, it shouldn't surprise anybody that it sticks in his craw to say "we blacks as a group are genetically less intelligent on average and because of that we will not in the foreseeable future be represented on equal footing in most prestigious and/or remunerative roles and occupations". Imagine yourself having had a dumb child and having to admit to yourself (never mind in public) that he's going to flip burgers instead of going to Harvard. Loury's problem is that he can't credibly offer whites to trade whites' shutting up about racial essentialism for blacks' shutting up about racism and external forces of oppression, which if anything have been solidly in the negative territory for decades.
Average IQ - absolutely. I listened to a few YouTube clips and skimmed a couple one-on-one talks of Loury. With Peterson he completely recognizes the impact of G. In another talk he seems to completely dismiss our ability to determine intelligence and I'd argue he dismisses it as a factor, though he really never says the latter explicitly. Anyway, with Peterson they talk about one way intelligence isn't genetic. They agree (mostly Peterson talking) intelligence can be destroyed via malnutrition, lack of stimulation, etc. Your comments miss that the measured IQ differences between groups aren't necessarily genetic, or more likely, might be part genetic and a large component not,
Causation ("success," not IQ) - Right. I know of no research determining how IQ impacts outcome, though there have to be studies corelating IQ with income, wealth or other outcomes. Of course correlation doesn't tell us the cause either.
Agreed racism has been in negative territory. I don't think it is wise to shut up about racism or IQ but it would be nice if proponents of each cause were a little smarter about what and how they do and say.
Perhaps he is more interested in the possible and pragmatic, in both getting us off this path and maintaining an atmosphere of comity.
The sort of pragmatism that led Washington to reverse course, ignore his own ingrained feelings on the matter, from the relationships he was used to, and permit blacks to serve in revolutionary army.