American blacks consistently underperform whites on IQ tests, not because of cultural differences, but rather due to (statistically significant) genetic inferiority. This doesn’t make them (much) less morally significant than whites, but it should have public policy implications.
In each case, you don’t struggle to find great legions of table-thumping hacks loudly demanding to be allowed to speak about these issues without being crushed by the mighty machine of modern liberalism. They’re all over the broadcast and print media, bleating about their fictional victimisation.
Let’s be blunt here. If the PC Brigade are strangling discussion of these controversial issues, they’re not very good at it, are they? I mean, at present, they can’t even get a light entertainer sacked for saying he wants to see innocent citizens shot dead in front of their families. A terrifying New-Age Gestapo, this is not.
I know this is irrelevant, but I skimmed the article looking for context and couldn’t work out which light entertainer they were referring to—do you happen to know?
This is what I always assume that such comments are referring to, so I voted you up (which seems reasonable for survey-like questions where no criterion of correctness is likely).
Very alarming. I’d say that the only good Schelling point here is to treat all people who fit the current definition of “capable of human thought” and aren’t wilfully destructive towards others as EXACTLY equal in “moral significance”. Then again, I’ve always been a staunch egalitarian on this point.
This doesn’t make them (much) less morally significant than whites, but it should have public policy implications.
Too cliched for me. The null action could also be a “policy implication” under some worldviews in that case, as could affirmative action 2.0 on a massive scale or something else very much acceptable to mainstream ethics.
Right. These are suppressed LW opinions, so we shouldn’t be expecting an endorsement of genocide. Those public policy implications might very well be a new affirmative action plan, or something much stranger and less expected.
Too cliched for me. The null action could also be a “policy implication” under some worldviews in that case, as could affirmative action 2.0 on a massive scale or something else very much acceptable to mainstream ethics.
Really? Assuming you are a conventionalist name a utility function that will generate these policy implications under the assumption that
American blacks consistently underperform whites on IQ tests, not because of cultural differences, but rather due to (statistically significant) genetic inferiority.
and I will tell you why the policy implications of your utility function aren’t what you thing they are.
and I will tell you why the policy implications of your utility function aren’t what you thing they are.
I don’t “think” anything through because I flinch from the thought, because I see no way to avoid taking on the “Cold-hearted racist white asshole” manufactured identity when thinking it through seriously!
Could you please send me a private message with some examples of what you have in mind, assuming some utility function you could find agreeable? I promise I’ll take them lightly.
I don’t “think” anything through because I flinch from the thought, because I see no way to avoid taking on the “Cold-hearted racist white asshole” manufactured identity when thinking it through seriously!
Ok, let’s dump race, it’s a red herring here anyway. Would you favor “affirmative action 2.0 on a massive scale” for people with low IQs?
Would you favor “affirmative action 2.0 on a massive scale” for people with low IQs?
I don’t know! This is a painful, confusing and ethically hazardous topic that I’m currently trying to learn how to handle. Again, could you please message me with a list of your tenative policy suggestions for such a situation?
Are you still glad that you sought beyond the outer gates? It is possible that the shadowy elite refrain from discussing these topics because most people are not sane or prepared enough to handle them. Not that I claim membership; I’m not quite ready for it yet.
I mustn’t run away. I mustn’t run away. I mustn’t run away. I mustn’t run away. I mustn’t run away.
I mustn’t run away. I mustn’t run away. I mustn’t run away. I mustn’t run away!
I have little that binds me to the comfort of ignorance. Don’t have any explicit grand goals or long term plans; my relations with the people in my life are emotionally impaired (although better than they could’ve been, given the ways in which my wiring and psychology appears deviant); peace of mind appears overrated to me anyway.
Color-blind policies and other “objective” policies in hiring, etc can easily be taken to an absurd conclusion when you end up rewarding and punishing people, by means of status at the very least, for their genes.
Imagine that racial group X, which makes up 20% of a given nation, has been proven at great length to be strongly genetically predisposed towards inferiority at all but 5% of jobs in that society. What do you do when the remaining 15% are forced to compete in an environment where most of them are more or less handicapped from birth? Do you leave them to beg and scrounge? Put them on welfare? Create low-status make-work?
The racial part here is irrelevant and is only serving to mind-kill you.
which makes up 20% of a given nation, has been proven at great length to be strongly genetically predisposed towards inferiority at all but 5% of jobs in that society.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. The distribution of jobs in society isn’t written down on tablets. If they have some comparative advantage then the market can find niches for them. Or are you saying that the 15% have zero marginal product? In that case, it’s going to be a problem no matter how you organize society and pretending the problem doesn’t exist won’t make it go away.
Or are you saying that the 15% have zero marginal product
They would have had a pretty good marginal product if not for the top 25% of their minority, but they’re only genetically predisposed towards one thing, and others like them (the top 25% who get hired) are superior to them at it. Nonetheless, the bottom 75% could still compete with people outside the group, if there was enough demand on the market for the only job they do so well. Yes, it’s going to be a problem in any society—but it already is in some regards; there’s no perfect solution, but what would you do about it in practice?
but they’re only genetically predisposed towards one thing,
You seem to be confusing being “predisposed” to do something, with being unable to do anything else. Perhaps, I should have mentioned in my previous post how extremely implausible the zero marginal product scenerio, i.e., that they are literately incapable of doing anything else is.
Read the Wikipedia article on comparative advantage I linked to above. From the first example:
Two men live alone on an isolated island. To survive they must undertake a few basic economic activities like water carrying, fishing, cooking and shelter construction and maintenance. The first man is young, strong, and educated. He is also faster, better, and more productive at everything. He has an absolute advantage in all activities. The second man is old, weak, and uneducated. He has an absolute disadvantage in all economic activities. In some activities the difference between the two is great; in others it is small.
Despite the fact that the younger man has absolute advantage in all activities, it is not in the interest of either of them to work in isolation since they both can benefit from specialization and exchange. If the two men divide the work according to comparative advantage then the young man will specialize in tasks at which he is most productive, while the older man will concentrate on tasks where his productivity is only a little less than that of the young man. Such an arrangement will increase total production for a given amount of labor supplied by both men and it will benefit both of them.
I realize I should probably have just quoted the above rather than dancing around the topic for two comments. My apologies.
For example.
We’ve already had one extended debate about this one. Reminds me of the Thought Police section of this recent post.
That may have been inspired by this blog post:
I know this is irrelevant, but I skimmed the article looking for context and couldn’t work out which light entertainer they were referring to—do you happen to know?
Jeremy Clarkson: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/video/2011/dec/01/jeremy-clarkson-strikers-shot-video
Your and ciphergoth’s links hardly inspire confidence that such thoughts would be met with calm and fair-minded criticism.
Do you have a link? What was said?
See here for instance.
Thank you.
This is what I always assume that such comments are referring to, so I voted you up (which seems reasonable for survey-like questions where no criterion of correctness is likely).
Very alarming. I’d say that the only good Schelling point here is to treat all people who fit the current definition of “capable of human thought” and aren’t wilfully destructive towards others as EXACTLY equal in “moral significance”. Then again, I’ve always been a staunch egalitarian on this point.
So far as human decision-making in a society run by humans goes, I completely agree.
Too cliched for me. The null action could also be a “policy implication” under some worldviews in that case, as could affirmative action 2.0 on a massive scale or something else very much acceptable to mainstream ethics.
Right. These are suppressed LW opinions, so we shouldn’t be expecting an endorsement of genocide. Those public policy implications might very well be a new affirmative action plan, or something much stranger and less expected.
Really? Assuming you are a conventionalist name a utility function that will generate these policy implications under the assumption that
and I will tell you why the policy implications of your utility function aren’t what you thing they are.
I don’t “think” anything through because I flinch from the thought, because I see no way to avoid taking on the “Cold-hearted racist white asshole” manufactured identity when thinking it through seriously!
Could you please send me a private message with some examples of what you have in mind, assuming some utility function you could find agreeable? I promise I’ll take them lightly.
Ok, let’s dump race, it’s a red herring here anyway. Would you favor “affirmative action 2.0 on a massive scale” for people with low IQs?
I don’t know! This is a painful, confusing and ethically hazardous topic that I’m currently trying to learn how to handle. Again, could you please message me with a list of your tenative policy suggestions for such a situation?
Are you still glad that you sought beyond the outer gates? It is possible that the shadowy elite refrain from discussing these topics because most people are not sane or prepared enough to handle them. Not that I claim membership; I’m not quite ready for it yet.
Also:
I have little that binds me to the comfort of ignorance. Don’t have any explicit grand goals or long term plans; my relations with the people in my life are emotionally impaired (although better than they could’ve been, given the ways in which my wiring and psychology appears deviant); peace of mind appears overrated to me anyway.
I more-or-less agree with Eric Raymod’s suggestions in this blog post.
Color-blind policies and other “objective” policies in hiring, etc can easily be taken to an absurd conclusion when you end up rewarding and punishing people, by means of status at the very least, for their genes.
Imagine that racial group X, which makes up 20% of a given nation, has been proven at great length to be strongly genetically predisposed towards inferiority at all but 5% of jobs in that society. What do you do when the remaining 15% are forced to compete in an environment where most of them are more or less handicapped from birth? Do you leave them to beg and scrounge? Put them on welfare? Create low-status make-work?
The racial part here is irrelevant and is only serving to mind-kill you.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. The distribution of jobs in society isn’t written down on tablets. If they have some comparative advantage then the market can find niches for them. Or are you saying that the 15% have zero marginal product? In that case, it’s going to be a problem no matter how you organize society and pretending the problem doesn’t exist won’t make it go away.
They would have had a pretty good marginal product if not for the top 25% of their minority, but they’re only genetically predisposed towards one thing, and others like them (the top 25% who get hired) are superior to them at it. Nonetheless, the bottom 75% could still compete with people outside the group, if there was enough demand on the market for the only job they do so well. Yes, it’s going to be a problem in any society—but it already is in some regards; there’s no perfect solution, but what would you do about it in practice?
You seem to be confusing being “predisposed” to do something, with being unable to do anything else. Perhaps, I should have mentioned in my previous post how extremely implausible the zero marginal product scenerio, i.e., that they are literately incapable of doing anything else is.
Sigh. Of course they’re perfectly able to do other things! It’s just that all the other people on the market are better at those other things.
Read the Wikipedia article on comparative advantage I linked to above. From the first example:
I realize I should probably have just quoted the above rather than dancing around the topic for two comments. My apologies.
That makes sense… I’ve got to try and figure out while things aren’t so rosy in a real market, then.
Sterilize them all? Wire their brains to make them get extreme pleasure from servitude, then enslave them all?