Had a few very interesting podcast listens today on the topic of race and color blindness. I'll recap it here with the YouTube links.
It started with a writer and podcaster named Coleman Hughes.
To quote from his website, https://colemanhughes.org/:
Coleman Hughes is a writer, podcaster and opinion columnist who specialises in issues related to race, public policy and applied ethics. Coleman’s writing has been featured in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, National Review, Quillette, The City Journal and The Spectator. He has appeared on many TV shows and podcasts, including Real Time with Bill Maher, Making Sense with Sam Harris, and The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast.
In June 2019, he testified before the U.S. Congress. Born and raised in northern New Jersey, Coleman briefly attended the Juilliard School to study jazz trombone before dropping out to pursue a career as an independent jazz/hip-hop artist. Shortly thereafter, Coleman discovered a passion for applied ethics and public policy at Columbia University, where he graduated with a B.A. in philosophy.
He's very intelligent, very thoughtful, and has loads of common sense.
Coleman was recently invited to do a TED Talk at their annual conference. He selected the topic of Color Blindness which is the subject of an upcoming book of his.
His basic thesis is that abolitionists and civic rights leaders, including MLK, were striving for a color blind situation. He defines it in his talk as not taking race at all into account in personal and public policy matters. He made a passionate case as to why this is the only conceivable way forward. His talk is great and was very well received.
There were, of course, a small but loud minority of Critical Race Theory types who felt mortally wounded by his talk. They felt he had done violence to them by stating these ideas. Some number of these are employees of the increasingly woke TED organization itself, and they demanded of the President of TED that they not release the video to YouTube or promote it in any was as they believed it to be "racist".
Rather than pushing back at these uppity employees, TED compromised with them and eventually agreed to only release it if there was an accompanying debate in which the other side of the argument is heard. This is unheard of for TED and has never been required of any other talk, including talks on controversial race issues. There was some negotiation over the point and Coleman eventually agreed to release a debate two weeks later.
The man he's debating with is Jamelle Bouie, a writer. You can judge for yourself, but I really struggle to understand Jamelle's argument.
However, the talk was basically very suppressed, receiving only a tenth of the views of the immediately surrounding talks due to zero promotion from TED.
Coleman lays this all out on his podcast here:
It's rather Orwellian!
He was also invited onto the All-In podcast where they have a more broad-based discussion about wokeism in the workplace and at TED in particular.
There's this absolute desperate attempt from the Left in general to suppress ideas they don't agree with as a soft form of censorship, and this is a prime example.
In the All-In podcast he mentioned that he had done a podcast with Charles Murray of "The Bell Curve" fame published in 1994.
 |
| Available on Amazon |
This is an excellent survey book of IQ and it's origins and predictive powers. It has one small chapter on race where he reports the fact that the average IQ differs in a statistically significant manner amongst racial groups. This result is not doubted by anyone, though the reasons for the difference are hotly contested (historical oppression, culture, environment, genetics, ...).
Murray went quiet about race and IQ after the controversy eventually hit the fan, but then in 2020 he felt obliged to publish a new book directly on the topic:
 |
| Available on Amazon |
The "two truths" are the persistent difference in IQ and culture amongst black Americans.
He felt obliged to publish this as the CRT types use the argument that any form of group difference in results as it relates to blacks and whites must be due to continuing and ongoing "systemic racism" as there is no other possible explanation. He feels this view is highly toxic, painting blacks as victims and whites as persistent and ongoing (to this day) racist oppressors, and will lead to an extraordinarily bad outcome. He offers the other possible explanation of poor culture (where education is ridiculed rather than applauded) and IQ (which predicts a divergence in outcome when viewed as a group). Throughout, Murray stresses the need to treat individuals as individuals and take everyone on their own merits, irrespective of any group differences.
Murray says he would rather not bring up culture and race, but if the other side persists in saying there is no possible reason for the observed differences in outcomes (e.g, per capita numbers of doctors, engineers, CEOs; violent crime rates; incarceration rates; ...) except ongoing racism from whites, he feels he must.
Well, Coleman takes Murray to task for his views in a long-form discussion well worth listening to:
It turns out they agree on almost everything. The one thing they agree to disagree on is the cost-benefit analysis of bringing up the (valid) IQ differences.
Have a listen to these very interesting ideas and let me know your thoughts.
P.S. Any comments that include ad-hominem attacks will not be published.
My personal view is that before 2008, America was making good progress toward a color blind culture. I had not heard of CRT. Starting in 2008 remarks were made that created small fissures in our shared culture. By 2020, the fissures where wide divides without any reception of ideas. In 2023, our culture has broken down so that crime and violence is common.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. Cynically, I believe the Democrats encouraged the division to create a voting issue for their party, as they have done with climate change and illegal immigration as well. It seems to be their playbook.
DeleteThis isn't a political issue at all. It's packaged as one by people who want to promote one side or the other. The terminology used by conservative or liberals may make it sound like it has something to do with politics. Just as your unwoke bretheren like to say that opposition to affirmative action is their property, it isn't.
DeleteI am solidly against it. I don't care if you can correlate IQ and race. I'm hot saying that black people are genetically less intelligent. I am saying that I don't care what your color or national origin is. You have to earn your place in university admissions based only on your actual qualifications to attend. Period.
If that means that the best schools are almost all one color, so be it. Affirmative action, like any color-based rule, is by definition, racist.
Woo Hoo! Common ground on the important stuff.
DeleteDon't you think there's any benefits at all to affirmative action?
ReplyDeleteMaybe in the past when racism was alive and real. Nowadays? Nowadays it just turns into reverse racism against asians, whites, and men, and this builds bad feelings, you get a sub-optimal result re merit.
DeleteIt also creates a form of "racism". For instance, if someone were looking for a skilled surgeon, it causes a racist action in that person in avoiding the black surgeon for fear that they only attained their position due to affirmative action, not merit. Were there no affirmative action, that person could act completely color blind in their choice of surgeon as may be their preference.
Affirmative action is the wrong solution to the right problem. The problem it tries to solve is racial or gender imbalance in certain areas of society. It was observed that women and certain racial backgrounds of both sexes seemed to be underrepresented in universities, for example. The solution offered was to admit more of the underrepresented groups regardless of qualification. The idea being that by doing this, the problem is solved.
DeleteWouldn't a better solution be to find ways to better educate underrepresented groups so that they would compete successfully against white candidates.
Similarly, the way to shatter the glass ceiling is to provide women and underrepresented minorities with the incentives to climb the corporate ladder. Sure, we do have to make sure that equal work gets equal pay, but we also have to realize that well-qualified people will succeed because business does better when it has better qualified people.
Also, color and gender blindness comes when everyone is treated the same. I may have been born with advantages,not because I am white, but because my parents and their parents before them, struggled to improve their lot. I got the benefit of their struggle by being able to attend very good schools and getg exposed to art and music. Affirmative action isn't a shortcut t for people whose parents didn't get quite so far. It's a sad excuse for lowering the overall quality of our educational system.
Agreed.
DeleteBut after all said and done, it's possible that certain fields may still have disproportionate representation based on genetic or cultural traits, such as rap music, or basketball, or chess grandmasters.
You’ve addressed a fundamental issue here - colorblindness vs. affirmative action.
ReplyDeleteI agree affirmative action (broadly defined) has had negative consequences as well as positive results for some folks. I wish I agreed that pursuing pure colorblindness and nothing else was the right approach - it’s simple and clean.
But two groups in the US are doing particularly worse than others - black people and native Americans. I still feel we should help these communities but in ways that also provide the right incentives for them to invest in themselves. One possible approach is to provide more educational resources in certain communities for elementary through high school.
Rosco
Sure, I'm all for helping any community that is down and out, but in a colourblind fashion.
DeleteRosco,
DeleteTake a look at where blacks predominately live. In cities that Democrats have ruled for decades. Chicago over 80 years, Detroit over 50, Minneapolis 42 years at the time of Floyd’s death. Then look at these cities (dozens of them). Each has high crime and murder rates and failing schools.
NYC is a great case study, pre, during, and post Rudy. Rudy drove crime way down. When the Dems took it back over, they drove it sky ing again.
If Democrat policies are so good, why does every city they rule have these problems? Why are the problems worse the longer they rule them?
It only takes three times for something to be considered enemy action. I can’t even find one exception to how Dems rule their cities.
The Democrats ARE the root cause of our problems.
Yes. And, suspiciously, Democrats have historically been the party of racism. Certainly true in slave days. But even as recently as 2010 Joe Biden famously gave the eulogy at the funeral of Robert Byrd who was a leader within the KKK and filibustered the 1964 civil rights act.
Deletewhat do you see as the value in observing IQ differences among racial groups? Do you have an explanation?
ReplyDeleteI'll echo Murray's point. Normally, there would be no use at all. However, the identity politics side keep insisting that any difference in group outcome is due entirely to racism, and not all to culture and IQ. Well, culture and IQ provide the explanation. Work on those two things. Improve the culture to foster learning and discipline. Early childhood education and nutrition can improve IQ, I'm sure. And any remaining gap in iq, well IQ is not everything. Athletic ability, musical ability, hard work, diligence, practical skills - optimize those.
DeleteThe question was:
Deletewhat do you see as the value in observing IQ differences among racial groups? Do you have an explanation?
You said: "culture and IQ provide the explanation"
So IQ is an explanation for IQ? ???
No, IQ correlates highly to professional success in certain intellectual fields. It partially explains the discrepancies in numbers in those fields, e.g. why are brain surgeons not exactly 13% black as the populations would indicate.
DeleteAlthough I think culture has even more explanatory power than IQ.
And, a reminder, we're doing silly group comparisons of averages, a game I would rather not engage in. There are many brilliant black people, and many black folks are smarter than almost all whites. It's a dumb game, comparing averages, but the left insists on doing it and claiming differences amongst some groups are due to racism only.
I don't understand your position. You say that the left thinks that IQ differences can be explained by culture. You now seem to be saying that IQ differences can be explained by culture. So you seem to be saying the same thing.
ReplyDeleteDo you want to say something different? If so, then what? I don't see the disagreement.
And why do you now call the comparisons "silly group comparisons", if you don't want to talk about them? You brought it up, not the mysterious left.
The left is always bringing up the fact that this group is doing better than that group and it's because of racism. Do you doubt that? The only way to counter this narrative is to provide alternative group-based explanations as this blog post hilights.
DeleteCulture and IQ are two separate things. A self-identifying group can develop its own culture. Some of these cultures are better than others for certain purposes. Asians have developed the "tiger Mom" culture which leads to better scholastic success. Inner cities blacks have developed a culture where doing schoolwork is uncool and criminality is celebrated.
[important caveat that OUGHT TO go without saying: when referring to group traits there are always many exceptions.]
Differences in IQ scores have been linked to many things. Proper nutrition, for example. Early stimulation. Conditions in the womb. And so on... What's left over after all of this is taken into account is genetics.
If culture within a group is improved along these other dimensions, it is highly likely that IQ scores will rise as a result.
However, there still may be a genetic component that remains after the IQ is maximized in this way that might explain any residual difference. And if so, so what? But it would explain any remaining group discrepancy along this one narrow area of not perfect representation in certain high IQ professions without resorting to racism as the only possible explanation.
People get very touchy about group IQ differences, when it is meaningless to individuals, and those same people are happy to embrace and celebrate differences in other inherited group traits (e.g. musicality or sports prowess).
Ok, now you are finally coming out and saying what you were only insinuating before:
DeleteThat you think IQ differences is probably due in part to genetic differences.
Is that correct?
I am trying to understand your position: you were pussy-footing around saying anything concrete in your post.
I'm not hiding it. It's one of many possible explanations for the gap, no doubt all of them contributing to various degrees.
DeleteSo yes, I admit it, asians as a group may well have a genetic component to IQ that predisposes asian IQ to be higher than white IQ as a group, but who cares? I'm an individual and don't care who has a higher iq score than I do. I try to do the best with what I've got, and think I have many better traits than my geek-ass neighbour who measures higher on an IQ score.
ok, thank you for saying something clear.
DeleteIMO it's a bit absurd to think that genetics is a *likely* explanation given the enormous cultural differences.
There are clear (giant) cultural differences. Why propose a genetic effect when there is no independent evidence for such an effect? That's poor science.
There's no doubt that IQ has a significant genetic component. Numerous studies (especially identical twin studies separated at birth) demonstrate this conclusively.
DeleteOther traits cluster amongst racial groups. Why not IQ?
There's a massive IQ gap to Australian Aborigines (mean of 62) that cannot be explained by anything other than genetic clustering.
So, to be intellectually honest, it's certainly a possible component of the explanation as to why asians score higher in IQ as a group than whites, and similar results.
Why are you so hung up on ruling this out, something that I consider to be rather inconsequential in practice? Don't care if asians as a group are genetically predisposed to having a higher IQ than whites as a group. But if there are more brilliant mathematicians that are Asian than white, I'd say that could certainly explain part if it.
pardon me if I don't trust your interpretation of that literature.
DeleteWhen you say that there is an IQ gap for Australian Aborigines, how do you know what these participants understood of the IQ test? This is a giant cultural confound. The people taking the test need to understand what the point is. And they need to be matched on education. Probably not done there. That's all cultural. What's the reference that leads you to this large inference?
Sure, some of IQ is genetic; but to interpret *group* effects as probably genetic seems like an absurd leap, given that the cultural differences are so huge.
It's your desire to interpret group effects as genetic that is not warranted.
I'm not saying it's 100% proven, nor 100% disproven. I don't think it much matters.
DeleteSo you think it's ok to say that some group has an average IQ of 62, and you aren't worried about confounding factors, like understanding the task and education?
DeleteThat just seems like bad science.
There are many confounding factors. Genetics is one of many, obviously.
DeleteI remember a story about a protest cancelling a talk by Murray on a campus. One observer said, “It’s not that they think he’s wrong. They’re afraid he’s right.”
ReplyDeleteThe larger issue here is the strategy of dividing people into groups. Instead of being unique individuals looking for common interests, we are forced onto teams with conflicting interests. While the different teams argue and fight with each other, those in power hope we never notice how unimpressive they are.
There are many types of intelligence besides IQ. Athletic, artistic, social…and measuring everybody by one standard misses a lot. If we measure intelligence by how long you can stay under water, a goldfish will make me look like an idiot. But in a foot race, the fish is so stupid, it won’t even survive.
Instead of trying to force each GROUP to be equally represented everywhere, we need to support and encourage each individual to develop his/her unique talents and abilities to maximize contribution to society and benefits for the individual.
St. Paul was talking about the Christian church and spiritual gifts when he described it as one body with many parts, but a similar analogy could be made about society at large and each person’s talents and abilities. He said the ear can’t be mad it’s not an eye and the foot shouldn’t want to be the head. Each part has an essential role in making the body work properly.
Now if only we didn’t have so many assholes… - david
Well said!
DeleteOne thing that seems to be missing from this discussion: IQ measures something, but it is not necessarily actual intelligence, which is complex and multifaceted. This gets to the core of the problem with using the IQ test to make statements about race and intelligence.
ReplyDeleteWe recognize intelligence when we encounter it, but intelligence exists in many dimensions.
I read Murray's book when it first came out and I thought it was deeply flawed. I think that Murray has been discredited.
I believe that intelligence without curiosity and passion is not terribly useful.
Whatever it is that the IQ test measures is very stable from age 11 up and is highly correlated to succeeding in certain jobs.
DeleteMurray was never "discredited". A mob came after him.
The IQ task is highly culturally dependent. Many groups that have been tested had no familiarity with any of the materials (such as complex shapes in different orientations on the printed page). The fact that some groups in very different cultures do poorly on these tasks is meaningless. That's the problem: the cultural confounds are so large as to make many of the group differences meaningless.
DeleteYour desire to interpret these differences as genetic is absurd.
Scholars have worked hard to eliminate such biases and to adjust for them.
DeleteI am open that genetics plays a part. Seems obvious.
The scholars who you trust have done a poor job of eliminating such biases. You need to look at the source material: it's done very badly for between-group comparisons.
DeleteI'm not the one making the claim, you are. You claim there is definitely no genetic influence, 0%, on group differences. I don't believe that has been demonstrated.
DeleteI never made any such claim.
DeleteWhat I said (and what I think is reasonable) is to investigate what the cultural effects *are* before assuming that there are genetic effects on the between-group effects. I can't see the benefit of talking about the between-group effects as genetic differences when we have zero evidence for that potentially controversial claim.
Fine. You admit there is no conclusive evidence either way. However given it is proven that IQ is hereditary, and that race is hereditary, and that hereditary features cluster, it's a reasonable hypothesis that I am open to. (Many other features work that way, e.g certain genetic diseases are more prevalent in certain races)
DeleteI don't have the extreme distaste to the idea that you do. Maybe that's because I actually understand that comparing averages across groups says nothing at all about individuals and believe it, but it can explain group differences.
wow, ok. I never thought you would say something conciliatory to me.
DeleteThank you.
🤔 my pleasure!
DeleteWho cares
ReplyDeleteI explained that. I a, trying to fight racism in all its forms, encouraging the creed of colourblindness instead.
DeleteThere's a movement from the left to make race central to everything. They cry racism wherever a difference in group outcome is observed. These cries only divide us more and bring actual racism and bad feelings between groups. The so-called "affirmative action" policies that follow are themselves inherently racist.
The photo in the last post of the bare, red, welted bottom and the strap tempts me to think that this is exactly what you should get for yet another reactionary post. I don't actually believe that you should receive corporal punishment for your views, but it is hard to escape the fantasy.
ReplyDeleteDon't encourage me!
DeleteAlthough it is a powerful fantasy. Women should be seen and not heard. Especially if she spouts controversial nonsense. Her husband has a duty, at some point, surely, to course correct her in exactly the manner you suggest...
Mmmmmmm...
If you have never lived in the southern United States you just don’t know. You wouldn’t have to read a book to know racism is continuous and prevalent in all aspects of life.
ReplyDeleteI've never lived in the South of the US. Visited Florida, California, Texas, New Orleans, and did not observe anything I would classify as a racist action by a white person against a black one. But perhaps it's different if you live there. If so, I roundly condemn it.
Delete