Hacker News Reader

Comment by reinhardt | Hacker News Reader

Indeed, the myth of equality across racial and cultural lines must be protected at any cost.

The myth of equality of opportunity is indeed to be protected; but it is a myth, because uncountably more opportunities are afforded to the children of the privileged - things like affirmative action are tiny in the overall scale.

I really don't like what you are insinuating. You appear to be implying that some people are inferior due to the ancestry of their parents, or the daily practices of their parents.

You should learn something: that variance within groups is far larger than variance in the averages of groups; and thus race and culture are poor signals for use in judgement. To protect against this bias, we do hold to equality across racial and cultural lines; to do otherwise, is to be racist and simply morally wrong.

You appear to be implying that some people are inferior due to the ancestry of their parents, or the daily practices of their parents.

No, the implication is that P(inferior | race X) != P(inferior | race Y).

...we do hold to equality across racial and cultural lines;

There are two types of equality under discussion:

a) Statistical equality - P(Q > cutoff | race X) == cdf(Q > cutoff| race Y), where Q is some quality measure which is not a function of race.

b) Equality of treatment - using the same cutoff value for race X and race Y.

Which type of equality are you referring to?

I'm referring to "equality" in this statement:

    Indeed, the myth of equality across racial and cultural lines must be protected at any cost.

and trying to tease out its meaning in the context at hand.

The context at hand appears to be in making decisions about people's lives. I don't see how to read it in any other way than "people should discriminate on the basis of race and culture"; and given reinhardt's previous comment against positive discrimination, he can only mean negative discrimination. Statistical equality does not seem relevant at all; I don't know why you brought it up. I'm suspicious that you are dissembling.

I interpreted "equality" in reinhardt's statement to mean statistical equality. Statistical equality is an empirical claim - if people wrongly believe it to be true, it would be a "myth".

I don't want to take either side, but it sounds like you have a huge taboo that you want to put to bed by saying 'I don't like what you are insinuating'.

I'm not taking neither reinhardt's nor your side. But this 'don't touch this subject because it's sensitive' strategy is getting old and pretty ridiculous to resource to.

A few lines after you wrote this

__You should learn something: that variance within groups is far larger than variance in the averages of groups; and thus race and culture are poor signals for use in judgement.__

So, race and culture are poor signals for use in judgement, but you still admit that they are signals (poor or not) and that their averages does vary, even if less than within the group.

All I can conclude is that you are afraid to touch the subject. You start by saying that it doesn't exist then you prove it is not relevant. That is not coherent, you can't believe them both because they are exclusive.

Not saying that I agree or disagree with you, but if we're going to have discussions about this topic we're getting nowhere if we're stuck to the old taboos.

I think taboos exist for very good reasons. The fact that something is a taboo does not, in and of itself, mean that it needs to be challenged. The problem is that very few people are rational. There are a lot of people who gain courage to do very unpleasant things once they've heard arguments that they can use as internal justifications, when they are not themselves sophisticated enough to understand how sound the arguments are.

I live in a poor area of London. Racism isn't an abstract taboo; it's a daily sight, and it's disturbing to hear the rationales some people come out with. It's clear they didn't come up with it themselves.

I completely disagree with you. You might want whatever taboos you like, I'm ok with that and won't challenge them.

But heck, if you are going to discuss something then you must be free of taboos in that particular mater, or else your opinion is just bananas. I mean, of what value is your opinion on something you're afraid of talking about?

EDIT: I don't want to be a downvote bitch. But it I am noticing my comments on this thread are all downvoted. I guess some people has the taboo so strongly imprinted on their minds that they don't even want me to mention it.

A taboo is a means of enforcement of a group norm. I don't think supporting or opposing a taboo prevents you from having a valid opinion on the group norm itself.

For example, talking to children about sex with children is a major taboo. Supporting this taboo doesn't mean an opinion on the immorality of sex with children is automatically invalid.

Basing your values on provably incorrect myths is building a house on the sand. Values must be fundamental and universal. They must be ends in themselves. They should not be based on trivia. They definitely should not be based on provably incorrect non-facts unless you plan on those values crumbling.

Good Value: All human beings deserve a basic, dignified standard of living regardless of their intelligence, who their parents are, or what their culture is like.

Stupid Value: All races deserve a basic standard of living because they have the same intelligence.

Fact: Jews score higher on intelligence tests than other races. Society widely agrees that intelligence tests measure intelligence. Therefore, Jews are more intelligent than other races.

If you base your values on stuff like "all races being the same" you are basing your values on non-truths and those values will crumble when faced with reality. Not all humans are the same. Not all cultures are the same. Not all biology is the same. Values should transcend petty questions about biology - they should be ethical value statements that recognize the value of all human life.

We should give minority groups fair treatment and a helping hand not because they "deserve" it but because it is fair and because we believe in the values of fairness and equal treatment for all human beings. Because we believe in the inherent value of human life - the sanctity of human life - and want to promote human life regardless of which culture it comes from, regardless of what biological quirks it displays.

I really don't like what you are insinuating. You appear to be implying that some people are inferior due to the ancestry of their parents

Is this just willful blindness? Do you really believe all ethnicity are perfectly matched in their potential?

It's hard to study academia because we don't understand the brain well enough, but do a little reading about ethnicity and genetics as it relates to sports.

I don't think "all ethnicity are perfectly matched in their potential" is an interesting statement one way or the other. I believe individuals are more interesting than arbitrarily chosen groups. I believe we should judge people on their own merits, rather than choosing groups, taking averages of those groups, and then using those groups to make judgements.

While I am all for treating individuals as individuals, this discussion thread is not about individuals, it is about groups.

I thought the thread was about college admissions, which at their best, really ought to be about individuals, not groups.

Perhaps in an ideal world, but for better or worse we're currently stuck with everyone looking at ethnic distributions and being really upset about them. Affirmative action, for example, is probably the counterpoint to admissions being about individuals...

"In the mosaic of America, three groups that have been unusually successful are Asian-Americans, Jews and West Indian blacks — and in that there may be some lessons for the rest of us."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/opinion/07kristof.html?_r=...

"Do African immigrants make the smartest Americans? The question may sound outlandish, but if you were judging by statistics alone, you could find plenty of evidence to back it up. In a side-by-side comparison of 2000 census data by sociologist John R. Logan at the Mumford Center, State University of New York at Albany, black immigrants from Africa average the highest educational attainment of any population group in the country, including whites and Asians."

http://thesouthern.com/news/opinion/editorial/page/article_2...

I think it is more cultural than genetics.

I don't mean to make any particular assertions about one ethnicity or another. My point is simply that, given the (genetically driven) physical variance between ethnicities, I expect there is a reasonable chance of (genetically driven) mental variance as well. In what way? I have no idea, and no opinion.

Culture is often inherited along with genes.

"black immigrants from Africa average the highest educational attainment of any population group"

-- this is because of selection bias: only the brightest Africans get the chance to immigrate to the US.

So, isn't it also so with Asians?

Not to the extent of African immigrants, no.

First, there's already an established Asian community that has been here for a long town. There are old Chinatowns, Little Tokyos, etc. There's no Little Nairobi that I've ever heard of. So many Asians aren't actually recent immigrants.

Second, regarding those who are, many Asians aren't here by merit alone. Sure, there are some (like my parents) who came from a poorer background and managed to make it to the US. But increasingly they are supplemented by people who were born into rich families (fu er dai, "second generation rich people"). Now, I don't have statistics to back this up, but this seems to be more prevalent now because of China's recent economic boom. It's just my own theory, anyway.

Also, if you were to visit some Chinese social event (church for example), there are distinct groups of people. It's not just middle class white collar workers, there are also lower class people and older people. There are multiple generations, from the older people (mostly Cantonese speaking, at least where I live), to the middle aged people, to the young people (either ABCs or international students).

> You should learn something: that variance within groups is far larger than variance in the averages of groups; and thus race and culture are poor signals for use in judgement. To protect against this bias, we do hold to equality across racial and cultural lines; to do otherwise, is to be racist and simply morally wrong.

I don't want to take sides in this debate, but I often see your above post appearing on debates about this issue.

Can you explain what your first three sentences even mean? It is basically vague, ambigiuous and devoid of any meaning (while sounding academic - perfect for online debates).

That spiel is known as Lewtonin's Fallacy (please look it up).

PS: typed from cellphone so please forgive typos.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com