[grzm]

I think the difficulty is how this type of data can so easily be misused to justify (very wrongly) treating individuals in incredibly unjust ways. Each individual is just that. Who knows where one falls among the distribution of whatever category they're currently under consideration? Each person needs to be treated fairly as an individual.

There's also the naturalistic fallacy. What actions should be taken based on this data? Here I'd like to provide an example as I think they're useful, but I'm terrible at coming up with good generic examples and am hesitant to use an actual one for fear of distracting from the general idea. It's all too easy to excuse adverse discriminatory practices when you can point to some statistics that appear to justify them.

I believe you when you say you're not making a case for racial superiority. However, you and I both know that there are plenty of people who would use that data exactly for that purpose, or excuse other negative discriminatory behaviors. It lends so much more credence to one's agenda when you have science to back it up.

Plus, we have to take into account natural human biases towards tribalism. I'm a fan of Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature, and do, in general and on average, believe we're becoming more civilized. I believe part of this ongoing civilization project is to work against this tribalism bias (while necessitates taking into account) where it causes us to treat each other badly, just as we use science to work against our biases to improve our understanding. This work against tribalism bias is clearly (and unapologetically) normative on my part.

It's a very tough question. And one that's difficult to discuss, because to do so effectively requires an overabundance of good faith and good will on behalf of the participants. I have a lot of respect for many members on HN, though I'm still not sure HN is the place to have the discussion. Frankly I'm surprised I took the opportunity of your comment to post.

I'm sure there are those who strongly believe that there are no correlations like you describe. I think there are many who understand it but aren't willing to discuss it because the next step of the discussion is one that's so difficult to have in good faith.

[garanduss]

I think we mostly agree.

As a nationalist and constitutionalist American, I strongly agree about treating individuals as such. However, the problem is that the left has demonized that approach and suggested that if a demographic underperforms, it's inherently because of oppression rather than culture or biology. These days, tribalism is the left's. If we ran an individualistic society, we wouldn't have to ask these hairy and unpleasant questions, but as long as the left phrases white, Jewish, and Asian success solely in terms of oppression, we'll be mistreating individuals of those ethnicities.

I agree that data on this is uncomfortable and can be misused, but (despite academia's wishes) science is not a tool for supporting progressive cosmopolitan perspectives. If people think that current policies are sensible, they shouldn't be afraid of what scientists might uncover about the nature of human genetics. Personally, I think I could logically defend egalitarianism and individualism in the face of significant racial IQ disparities. People who feel wedded to affirmative action and victimhood culture, however, are going to be hostile toward legitimate science in this area because it delegitimizes these institutions.

[grzm]

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Just a point: I try to be very careful to not generalize about groups of people with with charged language like "the left has demonized that approach", "despite academia's wishes", "supporting progressive cosmopolitan perspectives", and "victimhood culture". That actively separates people into for/against camps that I find very detrimental to effective discussion. If there's something in my post that smells that I'm doing so, I'd appreciate you pointing it out to me, because I actively work against it, not because I'm trying to hide anything, but because I don't think it accurately describes my beliefs.

You mention "the left has … suggested that if a demographic underperforms, it's inherently because of oppression rather than culture or biology." I agree, there are issues there. I've also seen a lot of arguments from just the other side as well: there can't be any oppression because any difference can be accounted for due to culture or biology. I think it's both, and when either side isn't willing to talk about both sides objectively, I'm very hesitant to get both of my arms cut off when I reach out.

One phrase that I used that I think may be construed as such would be "tribalism bias", which I believe I'm using in a neutral manner. To be honest, at this point I'm hesitant to even bring up things I've read because I'm afraid you'll consider it part of some suspicious academic agenda.

I don't consider myself on the side of the left or the right, though I have a visceral, negative response when I see people generalizing about either, even if there's some justification for it, as it poisons any discussion that might be had to bridge the two.

I'm sorry if this comes off as defensive. It definitely is. As I expressed in my initial comment, I think there are a lot of people who are gun-shy about talking about this. Perhaps you consider me too weak or sensitive in reacting this way. It's more of being incredibly reluctant to getting piled on from every side.

[garanduss]

>It's all too easy to excuse adverse discriminatory practices when you can point to some statistics that appear to justify them.

Ironically, this is exactly what college administrations do when discriminating against white and Asian applicants.

[grzm]

I understand what you're saying.

As I've said before, I think discussing issues like this is hard. Increasingly hard on the internet: I don't know you other than a couple of comments I've read, and we have no additional context for communication other than the words we type. Tough all over.

I'll give you my honest opinion when I see a statement like this. I believe that there is inequality among demographics in the US. I also think that part of that is due to factors outside of biology. I think we should work to correct this. I understand that affirmative action is one tool to do so. I see where it can help, and I can also see how it can be considered working against the ideal that it's attempting to correct.

When I've just started a conversation on a difficult topic like this, asking me to cede more than a little ground, I do so, listing a number of caveats of why I'm hesitant to do so, and the next two comments I see play right into what I was hoping to avoid, it makes me very hesitant to continue. You've brought up a very common issue with discrimination (affirmative action), without adding any additional context or understanding that there might be some benefit to what it's trying to accomplish, or that those who support it might have rational reasons to do so, even if you don't agree with them. I don't believe you're discussing this in bad faith, but the overabundance of good faith that I think is necessary to make these types of discussions work seems to be lacking.

Maybe you don't agree with the premises that I'm working from above, so maybe that's where the discussion needs to start. Jumping straight to critiquing one attempt at a solution might be getting ahead of ourselves. But given I've already opened up in my other comment, I'm hesitant to continue granting what I think is common ground when I don't see much offered.