HN user
The views in the article represent the scientific consensus.
Scott Alexander covers some of the most salient points here:
http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagger...
See Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate for a book-length treatment.
(all male, all white) scientists
This is both ad hominem and wrong (the fourth scientist featured, Dr. Debra W. Soh, is an East Asian woman).
I appreciate the thoughtful response. I understand the argument you're making about economic signaling, and indeed YC(b)'s milquetoast declaration of encouraging women and minority applicants would be a cheap sop to political correctness. But I think you elide an important point, which is that YC(a)'s signaling, though expensive, is also motivated by political correctness. In other words, you've tweaked two variables, when in fact only one has changed; a more accurate rendering is
YC(a) is serious about being politically correct, while YC(b) merely cares about appearing to be politically correct.
Political correctness is common to the two cases for the simple reason that YC(a) would inevitably help wealthy, well-connected female and black/Latino founders to the exclusion of, say, poor, less-privileged Asian founders. It's hard to explain this behavior in humanitarian terms, but it's easy to explain in political terms. Nobody gets in trouble these days for expressing the sentiment that we need more women, blacks, and Latinos in tech, no matter how rich and well-connected they may be.
The only other possibility I can think of is that YC(a) genuinely wants to help especially deserving founders, and such founders are so overrepresented among women and blacks/Latinos that specifically targeting those groups achieves the goal well enough for YC's purposes. In other words, the cost of reaching such founders may be so much lower when targeting specific self-identified groups that it's worth the minor cost of helping the occasional privileged member of one of those groups. Still, it's hard to avoid the observation that this policy is generally aligned with political correctness, which would appear to justify some skepticism.
(My guess is that YC's policy isn't Machiavellian in the least, but it works adaptively because of a political environment in which explicitly helping women and blacks/Latinos is strongly favored both by custom and by law.)
Burke's an interesting case. Although revered by many contemporary American conservatives, he was a member of Britain's more left-wing political party, the Whigs (the counterpart to the more right-wing Tories).
Like most Whigs, Burke was a supporter of the American Revolution, but he was horrified by the excesses of its French sequel. He famously wrote his major work on the subject, Reflections on the Revolution in France, as a letter to French aristocrat Charles-Jean-François Depont, and later expanded it into a short book. In the Reflections, Burke predicted—over three years before the Reign of Terror—that the French Revolution would lead to disaster. Moreover, he specifically cited among the causes its abstract foundations disconnected from the reality of human nature.
La Terreur proved Burke right, of course, and yet the French Revolutionary principles—among them liberté, égalité, and fraternité—are for the most part as fresh as a daisy. Perhaps in the 21st century we could add diversité and inclusivité to the mix, but the basic lesson is clear: the Revolution hasn't ended. Burke's Reflections is thus more than a historical curiosity—it's also an urgent warning for the present.
The ancien régime was deeply flawed, but don't forget that the winners write history. Indeed, we live inside the Revolution still, so you can trust barely anything you've ever read on the subject. If you'd like an alternate perspective, I can recommend this volume: http://www.amazon.com/French-Revolution-Revolutions-Modern-W...
I just found the obituary [1] and was considering replying with the "correct" quote, but did some more digging and discovered that you are absolutely correct [2]: the Times has, without notification, edited (some might say "airbrushed out") the original phrasing. Shameful.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/science/space/yvonne-brill...
[2] http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/yvonne-brill-and-...
"Group X tends to do Y."
"How dishonest. You're saying all members of Group X do Y and should therefore be ignored."
"I said none of those things. I said Group X tends to do Y, which implies that some members of the group don't do Y."
"Pedantry is a poor defense."
Calling me dishonest or pedantic is pure projection. If you have trouble seeing it, here's a mirror: http://www.amazon.com/SJWs-Always-Lie-Taking-Thought-ebook/d...
They want to censor what might be called secular heresy—anything that questions the reigning "mainstream" (progressive) orthodoxy.
ill-defined cohort
The group I mentioned is precisely defined, and 100% opt-in—it's the set of all people who say "I'm only intolerant of intolerance."
all members of the group are irrational and should be ignored
Are you accusing me of thinking that? Because I didn't say that, and I don't think that. Reread my comment: saying "you'll likely be met with vitriol" implies that the converse—that you won't be met with vitriol—is also possible.
It's also a lie. Try engaging the "I'm only intolerant of intolerance" crowd on, say, climate change, abortion, or the death penalty. It takes tortuous logical contortions to frame any of these issues in terms of "intolerance," and yet you'll likely be met with vitriol nonetheless.
This is well-done, but I wish such treatments spent more effort establishing that climate change projections are (a) reliable and (b) catastrophic. Those two points are the essence of the case, and yet they're usually just assumed. (Note that whether climate-change is anthropogenic or not is utterly beside the point. That so much attention is paid to this peripheral issue is a major red flag.)
Indeed, there's a lot of Schadenfreude going on here. The chickens are coming home to roost.
It's not about politeness; it's about political power. In particular, the definition of "polite" is entirely asymmetric, with "marginalized groups" (basically, everyone but straight white males) given carte blanche to police others' speech and actions. In the case of Halloween costumes, you can see the asymmetry easily: a Native American man can dress as the Lone Ranger, but a white man can't dress as Tonto. (More precisely, a white man complaining that it's racist for a Native American to dress as the Lone Ranger would probably be ignored, and might even be called a racist himself.)
This has a rationalization, of course; it's OK because straight white males perpetuate "structural racism," imposing a "heteropatriarchy" on gays, women, and people of color. The practical result involves stripping power from straight white males and giving it to everyone else.
From an adaptive point of view, ripping off chunks of power and giving them to your supporters is a winning political formula. But pleasant nostrums about sticking up for the downtrodden are little more than a thin veneer over a good old-fashioned tribal throwdown.
I believe that many people genuinely feel unsafe when in the presence of someone whose political beliefs offend them. The problem arises when that person, or those beliefs, do not in fact represent a threat. In such a case, feeling unsafe is delusional. Indulging this delusion just invites more delusion, which predictably spirals out of control.
The solution is to explain that feeling unsafe is unjustified when there is no credible threat. This strategy is not presently a reliable route to political power, which is why it's not being pursued. On the contrary, every concession to the delusion—e.g., the creation of "safe spaces" to protect people from largely imaginary threats—is testament to the present power of complaint. As long as there are special "protected" classes under the law (in the name, of course, of equality), we can expect more of the same.
It's disappointing to see a potentially valuable educational program frame its activities in terms of closing a diversity gap rather than simply helping people. Can you imagine a similar academy dedicated to closing the gap between whites and people of color? The latter are overrepresented in tech, and yet I know of no one concerned with that gap. (Yes, I said that people of color are overrepresented in tech. The only way to avoid this conclusion is to ignore people with recent ancestors from Asia.)
Understanding Human History is one of my favorite books. I finished it and immediately reread it. This was especially instructive given that a decade ago I read Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel twice as well, quite innocent of the political subtext.
accuse and manhandle vast numbers of innocent Americans of race A
One doesn't need to advocate accusing and manhandling to think the police should use statistically valid inferences in the name of justice. I myself am a member of a minority group—men—that is responsible for a vastly disproportionate share of crime, especially violent crime. You could mandate that cops ignore this reality and treat men and women with equal suspicion, but the result would be worse policing. For example, if you look at the statistics for New York's supposedly racist "stop-and-frisk" policy, you'll find that the disparity between whites and blacks is smaller than the disparity between men and women—indeed, smaller even than the disparity between white men and black women. Why have you never heard stop-and-frisk described as "sexist"?
This inconsistency is best explained politically: complaining about racial injustice against blacks is an effective route to power; complaining about gender injustice against men is not. It's the same reason you hear constant complaints about how white tech is, but not about how black sports are. Jesse Jackson can effectively shake down Apple and Intel [1], but there is no white equivalent shaking down the NFL. (Can you imagine if "increasing diversity in the NFL" meant "increasing the relative proportion of white players"? It would be a different world—not, incidentally, one I would particularly want to live in.)
Being male means people will infer based on a superficial assessment that I'm more likely to be a criminal than, say, my sister. But that inference is correct. Being a member of such a group is my lot in life, and complaining doesn't change what is.
[1]: See, e.g., http://www.mercurynews.com/census/ci_29048321/q-jesse-jackso...
I didn't say there are no valid examples of bias, just that many people assume unequal outcomes must result from unequal opportunity, ignoring the possibility of real group differences. Surely you know many real-life Alans who see bias every time a particular Group X is underrepresented in Field Y. Moreover, the values of X aren't random; you'll almost never hear complaints of bias regarding, say, trash haulers, or NFL cornerbacks. (But NFL quarterbacks—ah, plenty of bias there!)
Hey rewqfdsa, maybe shoot me an email some time. Address is in profile.
could easily be either
Or both. They're not mutually exclusive. Do Jamaican sprinters excel because they grow up around other sprinters or because they are blessed with natural ability? Yes. Simply put, or != xor.
A straightforward application of evolutionary biology to Homo sapiens yields group differences as the null hypothesis. You've done nothing but construct a ridiculous strawman to refute this. Moreover, discrimination and group differences aren't mutually exclusive—it's possible that Group X's underrepresentation in Field Y is the result of both discrimination and group differences. The only way to know for sure that it's pure discrimination is to show that group differences are negligible. This requires actually measuring them (which in fact has been done in exhausting detail [1]), but even suggesting the possibility of group differences frequently leads to accusations of racism and sexism—as you've just so ably demonstrated.
[1]: See, for example, The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker. Then, once you get over your knee-jerk "That's racist!!!" reflex, take a look—I mean actually read for comprehension—The Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray. Maybe add a little Cavalli-Sforza (via Steve Sailer) to the mix (http://www.vdare.com/articles/052400-cavalli-sforzas-ink-clo...). You can then graduate to basically anything by Arthur Jensen. As a topper, read "Rational"Wiki's entry on Human Biodiversity (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Human_biodiversity) and cringe at the smug, supercilious tone, endless strawmanning and distortion, and at the realization that you, too, were once taken in by the ridiculous "mainstream" views. (I certainly was.)
Indeed. The problem is that people frequently infer unfair rules from unequal outcomes, without taking into account the possibility of systematic group differences.
Alan: I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
Bob: How do you know there isn't equality of opportunity?
Alan: Well, just look at how unequal the outcomes are!
Bob: Can you give me an example?
Alan: Group X is underrepresented in Field Y.
Bob: Maybe Group X isn't as good at Field Y.
Alan: What? That's racist and/or sexist!
Indeed, there's pretty much nothing bawdier in English literature than "The Miller's Tale" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Miller%27s_Tale). Some Shakespeare comes close, though. Which kind of proves your point.
sex outside marriage isn't so much taboo as explicitly ruled out by definition
You're using different definitions. By "sex outside of marriage," the previous commenter means "two unmarried people having sex," i.e., what's sometimes called "premarital sex." This indeed is no longer taboo in much, probably most, of the West.
It has one star on Yelp.
At the time of writing, there are only two reviews total, one of them obviously post-Odom.
just 12 of the state’s 16 counties
Just? 12/16 = 75%. That's not "just."
Who is editing this stuff?
Indeed often true; I've noticed the same. In this case, there was a correct use of "it's", so I had to add an extra word to the substitution.
Everything I wrote is genuine and polite (perhaps even overly so). What you wrote is distinctly impolite. Is the irony lost on you? Think of that the next time you're tempted to call someone a nasty name.
Everything in my statement is genuine. What's more impolite, saying something, or letting someone continue to make a mistake? Like I said in my comment, it's a tough call.
Implying someone is an asshole is always impolite. Take that as you will.
I always prefer to correct in private. Most people don't list email addresses in their profiles, so I didn't think to check. Next time I will.
By the way, despite logic, "truly" doesn't contain the substring "true", so "truely" is a misspelling. Your email address, unfortunately, isn't in your profile (and nor could I find it via opencagedata.com), so I hope (though doubt) you'll forgive a public correction.
Correcting grammar and spelling errors—especially in public—is always a tough call: upon judging that an error is systematic and not a simple typo, do you help the writer avoid the error in perpetuity—even if it embarrasses them a little, and even if you'll probably get downvoted for being pedantic or offtopic? In this case, I've determined the downsides are worth the possibility of sparing the author a lifetime of error. So, without further ado:
s/it's hosting/its hosting/gBrits are also less shocked by "fag" because of its use to mean "cigarette." In college I had a French teacher who scandalized her American class by casually dropping the word into conversation. Turns out she had learned English in England, and was unaware of the American usage.