[exo-pla-net]

> Are you saying that the author has no rational to say that?

Sure, instrumental rationale: PR.

And, because I believe that Bostrom says what he means, Bostrom probably does think what he said was repugnant, but probably not in a way that you would find satisfying. Bostrom probably thinks that speaking truthfully about vulnerable people, in a manner that could distress them (e.g. owing to their misunderstanding of the truthful words, or in a "truth hurts" sort of way), is morally repugnant. Better to spare them suffering. If I am correct, I disagree with Bostrom. Having to cater to delicate and low-IQ sensibilities is a wrench in the wheels of intellectual discourse, as well as a dystopian blow to personal expression. Don't let the scolds win.

> It really looks like nowadays we cannot say "that looks racist"

You don't have a license to denigration. Think very carefully, and consider the possibility that you are wrong, before you cast stones.

> You can, if you want, defend that according to you this statement was fine and not racist.

But what I quoted contained my rationale? If it ain't good enough for you, the impetus is on you to prove that Bostrom is, in fact, a witch. The ball is in your court.

> Difficult to not see there exactly a "cancelation" of an opinion you just don't like.

Any opinion at all, and especially opinions that differ from my own, I'd welcome at the table, as long as said opinion is articulated and epistemically rationalized by someone who is smart and who has given it careful thought. If you're not capable of that, then yes, your silence would improve the forum.

[notahacker]

A statement that Race X is "more stupid" than Race Y is almost tautologically racist.

The idea that Nick denigrating an entire race as 'stupid' is "accurate and mild", whereas any suggestion that the statement contains racism requires a "license to denigrate" is truly through the looking glass...

[exo-pla-net]

He's not saying the race is stupid. He is saying that it is more stupid, an operant he expounds on, revealing his underlying meaning as both accurate and mild. A factual statement is not and is never denigration.

If you and you specifically were the sole member of a race, for instance, his operant would rank your race below that of Black. This would be an observation, not a denigration.

But, if you are not Black, you are the recipient of favorable averaging. Your race would be less stupid than Black, despite you.

I hope that helps.

[notahacker]

> He's not saying the race is stupid. He is saying that it is more stupid

I think the fact that you're reduced to asserting that it's logically possible to assert that a group is "more stupid" without asserting that they are in any way stupid pretty neatly demonstrates my point about comparisons between races with disparaging adjectives being almost tautologically racist.

(The second half of your post is even more pointless to engage with. :)

[davidgerard]

dang, you need to consider what sort of site you're running

[helboi4]

Yup. Like are we moving the goalposts as to what racism is. I'm not sure how you could come up with a statement which is more unequivocally racist.

It really is telling that somehow none of these people that care about reasonable debate are criticising the guy saying that implying some racists are stupider than others is "accurate and mild". Apparently, him saying that is fine. But ever suggesting anything is racist is not.

Clearly, the only logical conclusion here is that nobody is allowed to call anything racist. This sounds like something you would only try and enforce if you are invested in more rampant racism.

[hackinthebochs]

Do facts not have any relevance to this debate? Is it all just vibes? I.e. Bostrom is racist because his vibe was off?

[cauch]

Who is saying that Bostrom is racist because his vibe was off?

The fact is that Bostrom gave credit to science quackery just because he wanted to be cool and rebel. I personally don't think Bostrom is "racist", more that he is an idiot with edgelord tendencies (and I think this alone justifies to not consider him for intellectual jobs: in a similar way, it is sometimes funny how some people are arguing that they are not racist or sexist, they just are a dick to other people regardless of their skin color or gender, as if it does not mean that society would be better without them too)

[hackinthebochs]

>The fact is that Bostrom gave credit to science quackery

The measured IQ difference between races is not science quackery. It's a fact accepted by most who seriously study the issue. For example, the American Psychological Association issued a review of the evidence and concluded there is a Black-White IQ testing gap[1]:

> The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks and Whites (about one standard deviation, although it may be diminishing) does not result from any obvious biases in test construction and administration, nor does it simply reflect differences in socioeconomic status. Explanations based on factors of caste and culture may be appropriate, but so far have little direct empirical support. There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation. At present, no one knows what causes this differential.

So the question remains, do facts have any place at all in this debate, or is it just vibes? Presumably stating a fact in and of itself cannot reasonably be construed as evidence of racism. And so what is left is to condemn Bostrom for his vibe.

[1]: https://sci-hub.yncjkj.com/10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.77

[helboi4]

I read the area that talks about race. 1. This only mentions African americans, who are mixed West Africans and are a tiny portion of the black race. 2. It specifically says that black people's scores on tests have improved since the 1970s. Around the time they got civil rights. So this is to do with poverty and systemic oppression (the combination of these, and cultural impacts of these, not JUST socioeconomic factors), not race. The statement "blacks are stupider than whites" is very different to "African Americans do worse in tests due the legacy of systemic racism". This is why Bostrom updated his comments to say exactly that.

[hackinthebochs]

I mean, you're extrapolating much more than the evidence warrants. Everyone on all sides of this debate believe environment has some significant role in measured IQ. So the fact that the IQ gap has reduced since African American's material condition has improved does not imply the entire gap is due to environmental influences.

You're also changing the subject. The issue is whether the widely accepted Black-White IQ gap exculpates Bostrom of the charge of racism. The question of the source of the IQ gap is a separate issue. Whether that source turns out to be fully environmental or only partially is a separate concern.

[helboi4]

Dunno why i can't reply to your reply, but I pointed out earlier than West African immigrants (sharing West African ancestry with AAs) are some of the most successful immigrant families in the US. Others have tried to debunk this for me saying only the best emigrate to the US. Okay, well why is this the same case in the UK where all black people are immigrants? Caribbean immigrant families have worse outcomes than Nigerian immigrant families. So it's not genetic. It's about transatlantic slavery, the legacy of oppression that that has had, and the cultural distrust of the system that thrives amongst these people in the wake of such systemic oppression.

[hackinthebochs]

>Dunno why i can't reply to your reply

There's a timeout between when the comment is first posted and when the reply button is visible.

>Others have tried to debunk this for me saying only the best emigrate to the US.

It's not about the US specifically, but about some avenues for immigration costing significant money, time, educational attainment, etc. I don't know much about the UK immigration system, but probably Black immigrants to the UK are similarly selected to be higher IQ than average. It's not like they can just walk across the border.

>Caribbean immigrant families have worse outcomes than Nigerian immigrant families.

You can't just naively compare two very different political situations and social contexts and expect them to be equal on all relevant traits. What political systems in place may make it easier for a Caribbean family to immigrate to the UK compared to Nigerians? Who knows, but these are relevant facts that you can't just assume are identical or irrelevant. These things need to be studied carefully if they are to be taken as conclusive evidence.

[cauch]

Did you even read the article you point to? It looks like you just cherry picked a sentence that says what you want to hear.

The passage that you highlight does not say that there is a gap not explained by socio-economical status, it says "it is not ONLY socio-economical". It does not say there is no biases in the the test construction, it says "there is no OBVIOUS biases". And it ends up with "At present, no one knows". It was in 1996. Since then, more studies have been done, based on a black people sample that sees its socio-economical status evolving, and the picture became clearer, showing that what the authors did not know in 1996 are now understood, and it turns out it's mainly bias and socio-economical status.

So, yes, in 1996, believing in "Whites are smarter than Blacks" was quackery, the same way that few months ago, falling for the LK-99 superconductor craze was falling for quackery: you had to be an idiot to not notice you cannot jump to conclusion. The article you quote here is saying exactly that: you cannot reliably say "Whites are smarter than Blacks", because we don't know why we see a gap, it can be a simple statistical fluctuation or a spurious correlation that we haven't discovered yet. It is explicitly said in the article conclusion: "In a field where so many issues are unresolved and so many questions unanswered, the confident tone that has characterized most of the debate on these topics is clearly out of place". They say that Bostrom confident tone that Whites are smarter than Blacks is clearly out of place.

[hackinthebochs]

> It looks like you just cherry picked a sentence that says what you want to hear.

I cherry-picked a sentence from the summary section for the sake of providing a representative statement of the content of the article relevant to the discussion. There's nothing bad form about that. Nothing you say undermines the relevance of the point or somehow minimizes it.

>and the picture became clearer, showing that what the authors did not know in 1996 are now understood, and it turns out it's mainly bias and socio-economical status.

Feel free to provide the studies that demonstrate this.

[cauch]

You are pretending that you are welcoming any opinion, especially opinions that differ from your own. Yet, you were very quick to invent unfunded hypotheses to cast opinions different from yours as "not smart and therefore discardable".

Your "PR" hypothesis or "cater to delicate and low-IQ sensibilities" falls flat as the author has demonstrated before and after that he does not want to play in this PR game. It's exactly the point he is making in the first statements and the point he is making in his excuse: "I do think that provocative communication styles have a place". He also explains that he apologized 24h after having sent that message, when he had no idea that he will need one day some kind of PR considerations, and at a time when he was not even pressured to make any kind of apologies.

So, no, I call bullshit: he is giving the proof, himself, by explaining that, 24h after having said that, he properly realised his words went further than his thoughts. Without any need for PR, without even any pressure pushing him to do so. (and again, if it is a lie, it's a stupid one, as someone can check, and a totally useless one, because it does not need to invent that if he just want to do some PR clean-up)

The funny part is that I think the quote is indeed racist but the guy is not, he is just one of these edgelords who want to provoke to feel themselves smart (based on what he himself says when he explains that he is biased towards provocative ideas). But now you are yourself painting him as a smart guy for defending something that himself explained is in fact not smart and not his opinion at all. It feels like some silence would have improved the forum and also avoided some people to look pretty stupid ...