Hacker News Reader

Comment by zzzeek | Hacker News Reader

from that logic, the only reason that nationwide higher education achievement for African Americans and Latinos being about half of what it is for whites would be...that people of those backgrounds are inherently more lazy. What other reason can you offer ? If we live in a pure "meritocracy" as you claim, why does this "merit" seem to correlate so highly with racial background? Specific reasons please

(note to the repliers - the assumption given by the parent is, we live in a pure meritocracy and the reason people achieve less is strictly because "they're lazy". I did not say I believe that. )

View on HN

I don't really have any skin in this or strong feelings one way or another, so I'll offer one potential reason...

The focus here is on race, but what about culture? In my region of the world, there are many Indian immigrants. For whatever reason, the boys are treated like princes and given a ton of freedom, while the girls are given a lot more responsibility and pressured to succeed academically.

As a result, at the local highschool only about 70% of the Indian males are graduating, while the females have close to 100%, higher than ANY other ethnic group.

In my class, a disproportionate amount of the Indian women I grew up with are now doctors and scientists (this is especially impressive as the area is very rural and low SES).

I'm pretty sure I've seen American research on how much pressure and resources different ethnic groups put towards the academic success of their children. You can quantify this in a bunch of different ways, including making sure homework is done, helping them with it, reading with them, etc.

There were pretty stark difference, with black families dedicating a lot less, and Asian ones dedicating a lot more.

Why does that need to boil down to useless concepts like "laziness" or proto-racist bullshit about genes we barely understand?

Maybe populations should have these things measured, and resources should be poured into helping them correct it. Eg, after school programs dedicated for groups that are lagging behind. Extra time and resources in school to bolster reading time for groups that might not be getting it at home.

Culture.

I'll use the relatively non-controversial example of the Chinese. In Malaysia, they're a small minority of the population yet totally dominate business.

Why? Because they are extremely entrepreneurial, work crazy hours, and do this consistently up and down, from the tiny boutique in the streets to the multinational.

Why? I have no idea. But somehow its ingrained in their culture. I don't believe they have a special gene that uniquely benefits them. They're simply culturally centered around business and productivity.

On the opposite end there's the culture of apathy. To live by the day, accept one's state even if bad, and to make zero effort to improve it, even if opportunities present themselves.

These cultural differences very much exist and are plain to see and replicable, and lead to drastically different outcomes. But I guess simple truths are too controversial now, so let's go with the "systemic" nonsense.

Another (extreme) example of that is Australian Aboriginals. The government literally forces companies to give them jobs and they still remain poor.

There's a whole strain of academic sociological research that asks why efforts to fix this always fail. I read one of the papers once, it got linked to from somewhere and it was interesting. It described the cultural issues reasonably well but bent over backwards to paint the problems as mere differences, not something they should fix but as things others should just learn to somehow work around (they had no suggestions for how). The possibility that the aboriginals are fine as they are and don't care about getting richer didn't really come up either which was interesting.

The major problem is timekeeping. Apparently you can't say to an aboriginal, "let's meet at 10am" because they might just turn up at 2pm instead and not see anything wrong with that. Or they might go walkabout and you don't see them for days. In turn it means they can't be integrated into any kind of team-based workforce, which in turn means they can't hold down any kind of job (like mining).

Another issue is the cultural fixation with funerals. They're expected to travel back to attend a funeral for almost anyone in their village, at any time, at short notice, and they always do it even if it conflicts with work commitments. They don't care if they lose their job as a consequence.

The sociologists have a neat way to describe this cultural feature - they say aboriginals view time as circular and endless, vs the linear time that everyone else uses. To what extent this is a rationalization of western academics vs something real is a bit of a open question.

I'm surprised there's enough separation between aboriginal australians and everyone else for differences that intense to still be possible. No subgroup in the US is that different from everyone else.

That's an example that sounds mildly similar to island culture in the Caribbean. Many there take a slow life approach and don't live by the clock.

Culturally, there are ants and there are grasshoppers. It's a story as old as time.

> the only reason … would be...that people of those backgrounds are inherently more lazy

Why would laziness be the only possible reason?

I grew up in a fundamental religious cult. The culture within that bubble instills a world view that does not value learning, and from the earliest age, kids in that environment are indoctrinated to believe certain things about the nature of the world that if true, would legitimately make “worldly” pursuits a bad use of time.

I escaped the bubble, but plenty (most) of the people I grew up with did not. They work hard, provide for their families, and are absolutely not lazy.

When a meaningfully large portion of your worldview is shaped and informed by those around you in childhood, there’s a lot more working against you than some notion of laziness.

I’m well into my 30s and still work hard in therapy to undo the damage. I don’t think most people who haven’t experienced a broken upbringing can understand its impact.

And for every “but so and so was fine despite everything”, there are 100 who were not.

do people who grew up in these religions and really had no choice but to be indoctrinated in that culture therefore have less "merit" and are less deserving of success?

Merit is orthogonal to religion, and not the same thing as opportunity. Everyone deserves an opportunity. Merit is earned.

If you expand that question a bit to include a concrete scenario, the problem quickly becomes apparent:

“Are people who had no choice but to be indoctrinated that pianos are evil less deserving of the award for best emerging pianist?”

That question would depend entirely on whether or not that person learned to play the piano at an advanced level.

We might marvel that someone with such early beliefs about pianos could overcome those beliefs (and this might even increase “merit” in the minds of some), but at no point does it make sense to invert the argument and conclude that children of the anti-piano cult are any more or less deserving of the award regardless of whether or not they ever pursued piano. It’s simply an irrelevant point.

We might draw other conclusions like: anti-piano cults threaten equal opportunity, because they lead some to believe that they shouldn’t try the piano to begin with.

Meritocracy is an equalizing force in that it allows people from all backgrounds to reach success regardless of background. I never finished a degree, but still acquired the skills to succeed, got accepted by a major employer and that’s all that matters. Meritocracy is the thing that actually allowed me to succeed despite my upbringing.

Breaking out of the bubble to begin with is a separate problem entirely, and one that still needs solving.

They deserve the same opportunity. They have already been unjustly denied it by the time they reach university, and no amount of pretending their B+ is as good as someone else's A+ is going to undo that. University slots are scarce, and therefore giving a spot to one person means taking it from another. Jim doesn't get to take Steve's first place sprint trophy just because Jim's chainsmoking stepdad diminished his lung capacity.

The above post kindoff answers this. If the religion makes the persuit of learning certain things meaningless, then eventually you will find that the people who adopted that worldview are less capable in those things, than those who didn't.

so what is the "religion" that Black and Latino people belong to which is similarly making this pursuit "meaningless" as they have half the rate of higher education than white people ?

Ultimately, religion is just another expression of culture, and culture directly shapes what we believe is possible in the world.

It seems unsurprising (but tragic) that the enslavement of a race over hundreds of years would leave deep imprints about the nature of meaning on the resulting culture.

Does this fully account for the discrepancy you mention? I’m sure there are other factors that play a part, and the fact that racism is still alive and well almost certainly is one of those factors - and another cultural artifact that hasn’t been fully addressed.

that people of those backgrounds are inherently more lazy

No more than the average Southern white American is inherently more racist. Your culture is an influence, an advantage or disadvantage for any particular endeavor. If the endeavor in question is academic and economic success in the academic and economic environment of early 21st century America and Western Europe, growing up in most Asian immigrant cultures will confer upon you an advantage in the form of habits, behaviors, and attitudes.

Doesn't it then follow that children of wealthy parents who have been tutored, been able to afford going to better schools, and not had to keep down a job to for pay for their college are more meritorious?

You're entirely correct, but DEI doesn't only concern itself with class differences. If it did there would be no D or I in it. It deepens socio-ethnic divides by declaring that what color your skin is determines what your grades are worth, what opinions you're allowed to express, whether or not you are worthy to occupy a particular place in academics or business or society.

Is there a way to reduce the divides? If DEI increases them and the status quo sustains them, how do we make things better? Or are things fine as they are?

Advantage applicants based on their perceived accomplishment, ability, and effort without taking into account their ethnicity.

Ah, ok, so you're saying things were fine before DEI?

Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN or do gotcha things like this. There is more than one site guideline against it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

No, I am saying racial discrimination is wrong regardless of whether or not you expect it to make the world a better place.

Also, Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

Would you agree then, that we need to deal with the racial discrimination in society to ensure that those groups who are disadvantaged so that they aren't able to compete on the same playing field when applying for jobs which hire based upon merit can have a chance? Right now DEI is trying to solve a problem at the finish line that should be solved before the job race starts? If so, how do we do so without considering race?

Absolutely.

Right now DEI is trying to solve a problem at the finish line that should be solved before the job race starts?

Kinda. DEI is trying to address an outcome that is in large part caused by disadvantage and discrimination. The outcome itself, in this case the ethnic makeup of academic and business positions not precisely reflecting the ethnic makeup of the country, is not by itself bad or good, just as it isn't "evil" that most nail techs are women. It's an indicator, not a disease. Artificially manipulating the racial makeup of a company or university is like dunking your head in ice water and saying "look, no fever!"

If so, how do we do so without considering race?

You address disadvantages that include those stemming from race without counting race itself. If your admissions process, for example, gives X points for coming from a single parent household, then those points will be distributed to each race in exact proportion that race experiences disadvantage from having single-parent households. Same for poverty and other factors.

Precisely. If a particular race is disproportionately poor, then by helping all of the poor, you are disproportionately helping that race.

>Latinos

Wait until you find high disparity between Latinos themselves. Ever heard of Severo Ochoa? Ramon y Cajal? Torres Quevedo?

Not every Latino it's lazy. Not every American rides a walking device and it's overwight. Not every Brit/Irish it's deeply drunk at pubs.

Did the poster-you-are-replying-to change their comment, because I don't see the literal (quoted) "they're lazy".

I see instead:

  "People with a cultural background that fosters academic achievement"

  "Korean friend growing up who spent his every afternoon and weekend studying while I was playing videogames"

Which, to me, isn't at all the same as the (insulting) phrase "lazy". Plenty would say Asian cultural prioritisation of academic success is even too extreme e.g. tiger parenting.

Also, as an aside, as someone with a recognisable name, I'm surprised you are using your regular account for these controversial political topics.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com