Is it wrong to be racist?

[MrRubix]

As a top-grade quad major from the best business school in the world, I don't have to. I actually know how to apply analysis to the real world.

I'm not a naive sucker like you who thinks that we can handwave macro trends and pretend that the variance melts down in smaller subsets. That's just complete retardation.


I also showed your arguments to a friend of mine who is doing her dissertation on this stuff -- she's a Harvard/Penn graduate, btw -- and she, too, says you are full of it. Exactly the kind of thinking that perpetuates ignorance and general stupidity regarding racism. You absolutely cannot solve the problem with arguments like yours.

[Vendetta21]

Originally Posted by mrrubix

as a top-grade quad major from the best business school in the world, i don't have to. I actually know how to apply analysis to the real world.

I'm not a naive sucker like you who thinks that we can handwave macro trends and pretend that the variance melts down in smaller subsets. That's just complete retardation.


I also showed your arguments to a friend of mine who is doing her dissertation on this stuff -- she's a harvard/penn graduate, btw -- and she, too, says you are full of it. Exactly the kind of thinking that perpetuates ignorance and general stupidity regarding racism. You absolutely cannot solve the problem with arguments like yours.

bahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[Vendetta21]

*chortles and wipes a tear*

Today. Today has been a good day.

[MrRubix]

Yeah, laugh because you have nothing of substance to refute with

You're way of of your league son

[Vendetta21]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

Yeah, laugh because you have nothing of substance to refute with

You're way of of your league son

Kind've like you're argument was a non-sequitor argument from authority?

Oh here let me respond with a stock rebuttal:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/1lo/high_sta...stupidity_why/

[MrRubix]

you miss the point
I only bring the status to show that I've studied statistics/mathematics/finance/econ/all this ****. it's not like i'm pulling stuff out of my ass, here.

what you're doing is completely ****ting on statistics for a utopian ideal, and it's completely bunk.

[MrRubix]

oh no dev :O

the thread's done for

[MrRubix]

how about this vendetta

take a statistics course. understand what variance is. look at the implications of given distributions and what it means to take a random sample and what that implies. learn what bayes rule is and how it may apply to "day to day"/"case by case" situations as you seem to think this is all that matters. learn a little bit more about the intersection of racism and classism.

actually read the books you refer to (Guns, Germs, and Steel is an excellent start) -- and understand what this implies for the different races we see today.

^everything i've quoted above is INCREDIBLY basic **** and shouldn't be too hard for someone who claims to be a voracious reader

then maybe we'll talk again

[Vendetta21]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

you miss the point
I only bring the status to show that I've studied statistics/mathematics/finance/econ/all this ****. it's not like i'm pulling stuff out of my ass, here.

what you're doing is completely ****ting on statistics for a utopian ideal, and it's completely bunk.

no dude this is an irrelevant tangent i was saying something simple for simple people to be simply understood and that is to make judgments about people on a case-by-case basis

it's utopian yes but if someone tries to do that they can make some successes on it and be a better person

you're making irrelevant tangents to this incredibly basic point because you pride yourself on being a sophisticated arguer and it seems like you value knowledge only insofar as it helps you win arguments, and because you feel you have such high status as being intelligent you can't just say "yeah i get that's its pretty ****in' simple any plebian could understand it"

[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by Vendetta21

no dude this is an irrelevant tangent i was saying something simple for simple people to be simply understood and that is to make judgments about people on a case-by-case basis

it's utopian yes but if someone tries to do that they can make some successes on it and be a better person

you're making irrelevant tangents to this incredibly basic point because you pride yourself on being a sophisticated arguer and it seems like you value knowledge only insofar as it helps you win arguments, and because you feel you have such high status as being intelligent you can't just say "yeah i get that's its pretty ****in' simple any plebian could understand it"

good luck solving real problems with utopian approaches. far worse than connecting dots on a scatter plot. let's just repeat the mistakes of history, shall we.

[Vendetta21]

Young FFR CT Poster: "Is it wrong to be racist?"
Ivy-League Promethian Genius Mr Rubix "Well if you study as much as I do about this issue that's very important to me you can begin to use macro-statistics to understand the elements of racism to have some poignant analysis that will help you live your life. But you can't possibly understand it because I'm way out of your ****ing league and I've read more books than you could possibly ever attempt it HAHAHAHA, plebians!"
Young FFR CT Poster: "So it's okay to be racist?"

[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by Vendetta21

Young FFR CT Poster: "Is it wrong to be racist?"
Ivy-League Promethian Genius Mr Rubix "Well if you study as much as I do about this issue that's very important to me you can begin to use macro-statistics to understand the elements of racism to have some poignant analysis that will help you live your life. But you can't possibly understand it because I'm way out of your ****ing league and I've read more books than you could possibly ever attempt it HAHAHAHA, plebians!"
Young FFR CT Poster: "So it's okay to be racist?"

Maybe if you looked into the points I raised and the statistical concepts I quoted in the above paragraph, you'd realize why your argument is actually complete ****.

[devonin]

As someone who has also read Guns, Germs, and Steel, I have to say that Rubix is reaching a little bit for his conclusion, but it's not any less valid for the reaching than V's is for being closer to the obvious thesis of the book as a whole.

The issue here is that Diamond et al provide a reason for the superior advance of white europe over the rest of the world that had nothing at all to do with genetics, culture or anything else that we use as a basis for racism, that is to say, that the reason white people ended up being the dominant culture had, if nothing else, nothing at all to do with their being white.

To suggest that racism does, however have -some- basis in truth isn't -false- Historically various cultures have done things before, better than, or instead of various other cultures in a way that has given them advantages militarily, culturally, socially, etc etc so as to suggest that they must have some special something which makes them better.

The issue is that the conclusion (That a given race actually -is- naturally better than another) isn't true. It's a false conclusion based on false premises, which is what Diamond was getting at all along.

So while a -consequence- of the entirely non-genetic causes of european cultural, scientific and military advancement ahead of the rest of the world was an idea that therefore such people were intrinsically better than other people, the -reason- for that advancement had nothing to do with race, and so racism as a concept is bunk.

[MrRubix]

Dev: Incorrect. I'm not reaching at all for my conclusion -- it's the result of history, evolution, and statistics. These things are *well* supported. The conclusion you assume "reaches" is statistical truth.

We can say that a person selected from a race distribution is, on average, going to have statistically significant comparisons to a person selected from another race distribution, because these distributions are derived from very discrete sets that stem from widening gap effects on a variety of metrics.

To the extent that one race is "naturally" superior over another is only as strong as the extent of the benefits granted from historical causality based on initial conditions stemming from geography and resource. Diamond agrees with this, I agree with this, and I am pretty sure you agree with it. That's it.

"Racism" as a genetic concept is bunk. But that doesn't mean it is informationless and without attribute. To ignore this is naive statistics. It's flawed to say race X is naturally superior to race Y, as if biology somehow influences all this directly. But it's correct to say that race X is typically better than race Y in certain areas due to historical chains stemming from a resource and position issue.

[devonin]

And if I'd -said- it was informationless or without attribute then your objection would have been relevent.

All I said was "If there's a reason why -now- an average person from one race tests out in advance of an average person from another, the reason for that is NOT because of their race, but because of the long-term effects of myriad factors that have NOTHING to do with race or genetics."

[MrRubix]

I'm not objecting to your latter points -- I'm objecting to your initial claim that my conclusion was "reaching" when it isn't. We're in general agreement on everything after that.

The problem I have is with people who try to handwave the problem away as if it'll solve itself by solving things case-by-case. It's completely naive and deleterious. If we approached it this way, we'd be in lines forever as the problems worsened.

[jchinzilla]

turning people into statistics and assigning them numerical values isn't going to work

[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by jchinzilla

turning people into statistics and assigning them numerical values isn't going to work

says the 13 year old without a clue about how statistics works

[Emo_Saur_]

Rubix, in all honesty you talk about how much you've done with your life how smart you are. If so, why argue with kids that are way below the maturity level of you? To me, you're no better than any other idiot that argues you over simple subjects. The question was, "Is it wrong to be racist." The subject was about racism, now if your life decisions are based on number and statistics I'm sorry.

[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by Emo_Saur_

Rubix, in all honesty you talk about how much you've done with your life how smart you are. If so, why argue with kids that are way below the maturity level of you? To me, you're no better than any other idiot that argues you over simple subjects. The question was, "Is it wrong to be racist." The subject was about racism, now if your life decisions are based on number and statistics I'm sorry.

If you'd pay attention, the question "is it wrong to be racist" is not a simple, clear-cut problem. To address the question fully, you have to delve into this stuff.

BTW you base plenty of decisions in your life on generalizations and statistics whether you're aware of it or not. It's how our brains even work to begin with.

The problem isn't about how "we should just be nice to everyone" -- that doesn't solve the root of the issue. Racism isn't only limited to how we treat our friends and how we interact with people at a bar. The implications run deep, and only through a proper knowledge of psychology, history, statistics, and finance will the problem ever come close to being properly solved.