Considering the profound and innate difference between races beyond superficial physical characteristics, including intelligence, we can dispense with the idea of ‘ignoring race’ and pretending we’re just individuals without any connection or association with larger collective entities. Mankind is racist, tribal, and socially hierarchical by nature. There is no ‘cure’ for racism or ignoring obvious cognitive and behavioral differences between groups when two or more races come into direct contact within the same environment.
"There is no ‘cure’ for racism or ignoring obvious cognitive and behavioral differences between groups when two or more races come into direct contact within the same environment."
I kicked this topic around a fair amount with John Tooby and Leda Cosmides in the early 2000s. My view has always been that race is broader than just what continent you are from, it's about who your ancestors are. I assume humans have talked about that since the origin of language.
I had left Santa Barbara by the time the 2000s began, so I was gone by the time those discussions took place. In his book Human Universals, Don Brown—also at UCSB—discusses “classification of kin” and distinguishing near from far kin as universals. Generally, I agree that such discussions probably reach quite far back in deep time.
If you include in "merit" their tendency (or not) to bring other members of their group with them. You might want to individuals others but maybe that's not how they actually operate.
I thought my question implied. How are you going to separate the people with merit from those without merit? Do you expect them to be okay with you doing that? I'm basically saying a simple rule for life isn't going to get you very far because life's complicated. My country is destroyed by the wishful thinking of people who prattle on about individual merit.
For the love of god are you actually mentally retrograde? I'm saying how can you split populations? Don't you get it? You can't just say I'm having one or two people from this race but not the rest. Have you tried saying that. Have you been outside in the last 50 years? Everyone in the world is acting as a group, they don't care about your individual identity ideology. They're not going to let you pick one or two. You either say no to all of them or you say yes to all of them. You don't get to pick and choose.
"For the love of god are you actually mentally retrograde?"
You are full of shit. You really can't comprehend the English language.
"Don't you get it? You can't just say I'm having one or two people from this race but not the rest."
I did not say pick one or two people from a race; I said nothing about race. But you can certainly say that to immigrate to the United States, you have to meet certain criteria, such as having the needed talent or meeting an intelligence standard. Likewise, with a job opportunity or college admission, you have to have merit.
"You don't get to pick and choose."
The hell I don't.
Your cognitive ability does not allow you to comprehend a simple concept.
WASPs who have higher IQ and higher openness may not say they notice race, yet I was automatically assumed to be an engineer or computer technician in a library or shopping mall with white males making assumptions about me and asking for computer aid or asking if I was in a computer science program just because I look asian.
In my private school, besides the Americanized individuals -- there were delineations of racial groups at least for day/boarding/international students -- this was seen at dining tables at lunch.
Whites downplay their language around blacks. A cop called me ''BS'' for having a westernized first-name while questioned when I didn't say my last name yet. Homophily amongst similar looking groups is a real thing. You can call it race, ethnic group or breeding group or clines but it is the same thing.
Not all groups are capable of suppressing their overt/covert ethnocentrism, as they vary in their clan cliquishness such as consanguineous in-bred groups being even more conscious of their racial status. This effect is downtoned and mediated in a more pluralistic society but in voting patterns you see the same in-group preference amongst the dependent populations. For those endowed with metacognitive aptitudes, it is true that race is not an explicit consideration but a subtle influence of contention when choosing ''neighborhoods'' through associative connotations. The reality is, for most of humanity -- similar looking humans get higher trust scores.
"Not all groups are capable of suppressing their overt/covert ethnocentrism, ..."
I'm of SE European Caucasian descent, my family being relatively late arrivals during the early 20th C immigration waves. We lived a fairly insular private life, with almost all early socialization happening within this ethnic group.
So as I got older and was introduced to the idea that only Caucasians can be racist in ways found offensive to self-identified people of color, I at first rejected this mainly because by that time I had personally seen people of multiple ethnicities/races express opinions based on observation of races other than their own. Racial generalizations, in other words.
But then I began to think that maybe each distinct group might indeed exhibit different levels of ethnocentrism that was beyond simple celebration of one's own culture--as in multiculturalism public policy--but more along the lines of how members of these ethnic groups individually expressed their awareness of racial/ethnic traits--including phenotype--that differed from their own.
I then entertained the idea that Causasian cultures--and especially European ones, and NW European, especially, tend to be very aggressive and individualistic, and that they may, in fact, have no more actual deep recognition and reaction than other groups, but have historically been very comfortable in aggressively pointing out differences and openly expressing race/ethnicity based conclusions, and that *this* is the part that is objectionable, and not necessarily the *level* of recognition.
So it's not actually *recognition* of racial/ethnic differences, but how this recognition is expressed that is what is the basis for saying that only Caucasians can be racist.
And no social observation is complete without irony: as NW European Caucasians began to feel a sort of social burden to disavow their former open expression that often concluded that they felt themselves superior in many ways, they have merely swapped polarity and are loudly expressing (true to form) they they are NOT superior in many ways. Which is extremely annoying, but in a different way.
Maybe we don't have to, but it seems computers do. Maybe that's a fundamental difference in people's outlook, whether they prioritize sociology and psychology over math. Therefore they can see optimal statistical clusters of genes as dismiss-able or secondary to softer narratives. Maybe most people are like that.
Very artful way of testing whether we categorize race automatically or not. I suppose if you work in the social sciences then you should be able to think up such neat experiments but I still find it impressive. Nice to think we aren't forever condemned to categorize by race while all the time pretending that we don't. (I still haven't caught up with the latest twist that we actually should always categorize by race).
Really engaging article and I find the overall thesis to seem sound, and got me thinking about internal wired systems, and which could be fused-together to note Race and if it had the depth of cognitive processing priority as systems like 'lower-eye spotting snake - instinct response'
And tribal conflicts and wars would make anyone of your environmental region you and tribe optimized for - your race. So those outside your Dunbar number known and your race would be more threat than some group of different race travelers - that you may seek to know and share tribe with.
There was a Fraud use of color bias in corporations to finger and twist anyone (likely enforced mostly white men employees with others given a pass) that paused a short time longer when image of different race was displayed, even toddlers had the pause - processing deeper that which is different - absolutely sane reaction wired low level, and such people that paused a little longer (QI dependent?)
And those were sent to anti-racist training and labeled in permeate employee records as 'racist' .. might as well put 'has trouble with women' and-or 'accused of sexual assault' and-or 'porn images found on computer, some underage' to make complete this decades long racist abuse of white men we have suffered along with unJust unemployment - because whistleblowers throughout West report that in HR dept white men applications are routinely thrown out without looking at them - and people wonder that workplaces and schools are shot-up!
I like your writing style, and find the topic interesting. I have a large quibble (oxymoron notwithstanding), though, with this: “humans don’t have a special ability or propensity to notice race.” This is false on the face of it. How can one not “notice” white skin, epithelial folds, etc.? One notices, of course, but one does not have to give it importance.
The word “special” is doing some work in that sentence. My claim here is that there is no functionally specialized system for this function. My claim is not that we do not notice differences in color, morphology, etc. And thanks for the kind words!
I’d be interested to know, specifically, what feature of the research causes you to consider it “junk.” I’m confident the lead author, Sng, would also be very open to criticism and any notes you have to improve the research going forward. In terms of your claim here, just for the record, I sent the first draft of this essay to Bo on 9/27; at the time I was unaware of the Guardian piece.
Considering the profound and innate difference between races beyond superficial physical characteristics, including intelligence, we can dispense with the idea of ‘ignoring race’ and pretending we’re just individuals without any connection or association with larger collective entities. Mankind is racist, tribal, and socially hierarchical by nature. There is no ‘cure’ for racism or ignoring obvious cognitive and behavioral differences between groups when two or more races come into direct contact within the same environment.
"There is no ‘cure’ for racism or ignoring obvious cognitive and behavioral differences between groups when two or more races come into direct contact within the same environment."
But, individuals should be judged on their merit.
Yes and no. Individuals largely correlate to average intelligence levels and patterns of behavior we see in various groups.
"Individuals largely correlate to average intelligence levels and patterns of behavior we see in various groups."
However, there is a broad spectrum of intelligence and behavior across different groups, making it wise to examine the individual.
Within reason.
I kicked this topic around a fair amount with John Tooby and Leda Cosmides in the early 2000s. My view has always been that race is broader than just what continent you are from, it's about who your ancestors are. I assume humans have talked about that since the origin of language.
I had left Santa Barbara by the time the 2000s began, so I was gone by the time those discussions took place. In his book Human Universals, Don Brown—also at UCSB—discusses “classification of kin” and distinguishing near from far kin as universals. Generally, I agree that such discussions probably reach quite far back in deep time.
Individuals should never be judged on their race or ethnicity...only on their merit.
If you include in "merit" their tendency (or not) to bring other members of their group with them. You might want to individuals others but maybe that's not how they actually operate.
"If you include in "merit" their tendency (or not) to bring other members of their group with them."
By merit, I mean merit alone, not allegiance to group members.
I thought my question implied. How are you going to separate the people with merit from those without merit? Do you expect them to be okay with you doing that? I'm basically saying a simple rule for life isn't going to get you very far because life's complicated. My country is destroyed by the wishful thinking of people who prattle on about individual merit.
"How are you going to separate the people with merit from those without merit?"
WTF, you don't know how to tell if someone has merit? You determine if they have the ability to perform a task or hold a position with acuity.
"Do you expect them to be okay with you doing that?"
If they want a job or position, they will.
"I'm basically saying a simple rule for life isn't going to get you very far because life's complicated."
Life is complicated partly because people are given responsibilities or positions for which they are vastly unqualified.
"My country is destroyed by the wishful thinking of people who prattle on about individual merit."
Expecting excellence is not prattle.
For the love of god are you actually mentally retrograde? I'm saying how can you split populations? Don't you get it? You can't just say I'm having one or two people from this race but not the rest. Have you tried saying that. Have you been outside in the last 50 years? Everyone in the world is acting as a group, they don't care about your individual identity ideology. They're not going to let you pick one or two. You either say no to all of them or you say yes to all of them. You don't get to pick and choose.
"For the love of god are you actually mentally retrograde?"
You are full of shit. You really can't comprehend the English language.
"Don't you get it? You can't just say I'm having one or two people from this race but not the rest."
I did not say pick one or two people from a race; I said nothing about race. But you can certainly say that to immigrate to the United States, you have to meet certain criteria, such as having the needed talent or meeting an intelligence standard. Likewise, with a job opportunity or college admission, you have to have merit.
"You don't get to pick and choose."
The hell I don't.
Your cognitive ability does not allow you to comprehend a simple concept.
Individualise others*
WASPs who have higher IQ and higher openness may not say they notice race, yet I was automatically assumed to be an engineer or computer technician in a library or shopping mall with white males making assumptions about me and asking for computer aid or asking if I was in a computer science program just because I look asian.
In my private school, besides the Americanized individuals -- there were delineations of racial groups at least for day/boarding/international students -- this was seen at dining tables at lunch.
Whites downplay their language around blacks. A cop called me ''BS'' for having a westernized first-name while questioned when I didn't say my last name yet. Homophily amongst similar looking groups is a real thing. You can call it race, ethnic group or breeding group or clines but it is the same thing.
Not all groups are capable of suppressing their overt/covert ethnocentrism, as they vary in their clan cliquishness such as consanguineous in-bred groups being even more conscious of their racial status. This effect is downtoned and mediated in a more pluralistic society but in voting patterns you see the same in-group preference amongst the dependent populations. For those endowed with metacognitive aptitudes, it is true that race is not an explicit consideration but a subtle influence of contention when choosing ''neighborhoods'' through associative connotations. The reality is, for most of humanity -- similar looking humans get higher trust scores.
"Not all groups are capable of suppressing their overt/covert ethnocentrism, ..."
I'm of SE European Caucasian descent, my family being relatively late arrivals during the early 20th C immigration waves. We lived a fairly insular private life, with almost all early socialization happening within this ethnic group.
So as I got older and was introduced to the idea that only Caucasians can be racist in ways found offensive to self-identified people of color, I at first rejected this mainly because by that time I had personally seen people of multiple ethnicities/races express opinions based on observation of races other than their own. Racial generalizations, in other words.
But then I began to think that maybe each distinct group might indeed exhibit different levels of ethnocentrism that was beyond simple celebration of one's own culture--as in multiculturalism public policy--but more along the lines of how members of these ethnic groups individually expressed their awareness of racial/ethnic traits--including phenotype--that differed from their own.
I then entertained the idea that Causasian cultures--and especially European ones, and NW European, especially, tend to be very aggressive and individualistic, and that they may, in fact, have no more actual deep recognition and reaction than other groups, but have historically been very comfortable in aggressively pointing out differences and openly expressing race/ethnicity based conclusions, and that *this* is the part that is objectionable, and not necessarily the *level* of recognition.
So it's not actually *recognition* of racial/ethnic differences, but how this recognition is expressed that is what is the basis for saying that only Caucasians can be racist.
And no social observation is complete without irony: as NW European Caucasians began to feel a sort of social burden to disavow their former open expression that often concluded that they felt themselves superior in many ways, they have merely swapped polarity and are loudly expressing (true to form) they they are NOT superior in many ways. Which is extremely annoying, but in a different way.
Oh. well...!
Anyway, that's where I am at the moment.
it is rational to take account of statistical priors. (eg Asians and IT).
Maybe we don't have to, but it seems computers do. Maybe that's a fundamental difference in people's outlook, whether they prioritize sociology and psychology over math. Therefore they can see optimal statistical clusters of genes as dismiss-able or secondary to softer narratives. Maybe most people are like that.
The tenuous validity of the conclusions of this research hinges on maintaining the prosperous, non-zero-sum environment in which it was conducted.
Right. How much does a black guy wearing a red MAGA hat instantly transform someone's impression of what he's about and what coalition he belongs to?
Very artful way of testing whether we categorize race automatically or not. I suppose if you work in the social sciences then you should be able to think up such neat experiments but I still find it impressive. Nice to think we aren't forever condemned to categorize by race while all the time pretending that we don't. (I still haven't caught up with the latest twist that we actually should always categorize by race).
That is why I keep saying: Racism is a virtue, not an instinct for many
Really engaging article and I find the overall thesis to seem sound, and got me thinking about internal wired systems, and which could be fused-together to note Race and if it had the depth of cognitive processing priority as systems like 'lower-eye spotting snake - instinct response'
And tribal conflicts and wars would make anyone of your environmental region you and tribe optimized for - your race. So those outside your Dunbar number known and your race would be more threat than some group of different race travelers - that you may seek to know and share tribe with.
There was a Fraud use of color bias in corporations to finger and twist anyone (likely enforced mostly white men employees with others given a pass) that paused a short time longer when image of different race was displayed, even toddlers had the pause - processing deeper that which is different - absolutely sane reaction wired low level, and such people that paused a little longer (QI dependent?)
And those were sent to anti-racist training and labeled in permeate employee records as 'racist' .. might as well put 'has trouble with women' and-or 'accused of sexual assault' and-or 'porn images found on computer, some underage' to make complete this decades long racist abuse of white men we have suffered along with unJust unemployment - because whistleblowers throughout West report that in HR dept white men applications are routinely thrown out without looking at them - and people wonder that workplaces and schools are shot-up!
God Bless., Steve
I like your writing style, and find the topic interesting. I have a large quibble (oxymoron notwithstanding), though, with this: “humans don’t have a special ability or propensity to notice race.” This is false on the face of it. How can one not “notice” white skin, epithelial folds, etc.? One notices, of course, but one does not have to give it importance.
The word “special” is doing some work in that sentence. My claim here is that there is no functionally specialized system for this function. My claim is not that we do not notice differences in color, morphology, etc. And thanks for the kind words!
How can you be colourblind in science?
Black men have the highest prostate cancer incidence rate in the world
If science becomes colourblind, more men will die of cancer.
Junk science. Assume this article is to counter signal the Guardian/HNH hit piece. Such cowardice portrayed by this publication. What a shame.
I’d be interested to know, specifically, what feature of the research causes you to consider it “junk.” I’m confident the lead author, Sng, would also be very open to criticism and any notes you have to improve the research going forward. In terms of your claim here, just for the record, I sent the first draft of this essay to Bo on 9/27; at the time I was unaware of the Guardian piece.
“Humans don’t have to see race … Doing so is a choice.”
I saw that he was white, black, whatever, and then I chose not to see that fact—ever again.
Is that plausible? Is it even intelligible?
https://jclester.substack.com/p/belief-and-libertarianism
https://jclester.substack.com/p/race-racialism-and-racism-some-clarity/comments
Ultimately it's thin gruel for the authors preferred take