191–200 of 207 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Am I the only one not seeing the adultery/murder connection here?
If it is true, as is often claimed, that racism is universal and therefore fighting it is pointless or should not be done, then the same should be true of other universally-occurring antisocial behaviors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Framingham, MA is old school New England. I wouldn't be surprised if 75+% of the participants are of direct English/Anglo-Saxon descent, even though the article describes it as "European" descent.
As someone who lives in the area, this is a ludicrous statement. Framingham has one of the proportionally-largest immigrant populations of anywhere in the state, and, by extension, New England. Statistics to the contrary are out-of-date or highly-misleading/inaccurate (counting Brazilians as "non-Hispanic white" and/or, for obvious reasons, undercounting illegal and non-English-speaking immigrants). Further the non-H…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have two thoughts there: 1. Surely very high intermarriage rates between different European ethnicities complicate that. 2. In that case, wouldn't the opposite behavior be expected? If the goal were to have as little genetic variation as possible humans would be better off reproducing asexually.
> Surely very high intermarriage rates between different European ethnicities complicate that Very high intermarriage rates? Wherever did you pick up such an idea? > In that case, wouldn't the opposite behavior be expected? If the goal were to have as little genetic variation as possible humans would be better off reproducing asexually There is no 'goal'. And too little variation seems to be a universally bad idea. I…
To my second point, the whole benefit of sexual reproduction is genetic diversity, so it's odd to have some evolutionarily dictated behavior pulling the opposite way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't mean to start a flame war here, but when you say: People don’t complain when you say: “A lot of the fastest marathon runners are from Kenia”. People will complain if you use that fact to justify an imbalance in your workforce: “Well, it’s obvious that we hire only people from Kenia since marathons show they are much faster!” This is precisely the point. If objectively they are better, why is it discrimination…
One thing you might be mixing up is population vs individual. If you hold some sort of hiring process where the skill tested is similar to that tested in marathon running, then yes, Kenyans will tend to do better as a population. That does not mean you should actively discourage everyone else from applying. Your process should be blind to race/class of applicants, if some race/class does show a higher affinity toward…
Of course, a lot of the discussion is about faulty tests, that claim to test for individual aptitude, but end up testing for demographics instead (eg. interviewers inadvertently giving higher scores to people similar to themselves)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Counterpoint: Here we are, talking about it openly. Even Mr. Damore who previously was employed at Google was and is able to talk about it openly.
"Openly" as in "anonymously through the Internet"
The same is true of spouses, and in fact, the healthiest couples (or at least those with the most children) seem to be third or fourth cousins: "Third Cousins Have Greatest Number Of Offspring, Data From Iceland Shows" https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080207140855.h... Not exactly what you'd expect given how often we see "hybrid vigor" touted as a purported benefit of interracial marriage.
Yeah, I think "hybrid vigor" is probably nonsense. However, interracial couples tend to be left-leaning, which also implies fewer children, so I don't think it makes sense to infer causality (or lack thereof) the way you are. Too many competing factors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s obvious that gender and genetics have an effect on interests. I doubt that anybody challenges that, and you can go talk about that without anyone raising an eyebrow. What is a problem is if you use that to justify discrimination. Just because members of a demographic are statistically different, it isn’t okay to treat individuals differently because they belong to a certain demographic. And that’s what people ar…
I don't mean to start a flame war here, but when you say: People don’t complain when you say: “A lot of the fastest marathon runners are from Kenia”. People will complain if you use that fact to justify an imbalance in your workforce: “Well, it’s obvious that we hire only people from Kenia since marathons show they are much faster!” This is precisely the point. If objectively they are better, why is it discrimination…
> variance within demographics is much larger than variance of the mean between demographics. So if you hire people based on them being part of a “good” demographic, you will end up with worse hires than if you actually selected for individual aptitude.
did you not read the comment fully? that last part seems to pretty clearly address what you're asking here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't mean to start a flame war here, but when you say: People don’t complain when you say: “A lot of the fastest marathon runners are from Kenia”. People will complain if you use that fact to justify an imbalance in your workforce: “Well, it’s obvious that we hire only people from Kenia since marathons show they are much faster!” This is precisely the point. If objectively they are better, why is it discrimination…
parent specifically addressed this question: > variance within demographics is much larger than variance of the mean between demographics. So if you hire people based on them being part of a “good” demographic, you will end up with worse hires than if you actually selected for individual aptitude. did you not read the comment fully? that last part seems to pretty clearly address what you're asking here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't mean to start a flame war here, but when you say: People don’t complain when you say: “A lot of the fastest marathon runners are from Kenia”. People will complain if you use that fact to justify an imbalance in your workforce: “Well, it’s obvious that we hire only people from Kenia since marathons show they are much faster!” This is precisely the point. If objectively they are better, why is it discrimination…
It's not even all Kenians. It's Kalenjin minority in Kenia. If you need to hire people with best endurance why not ask them to run a marathon as a test instead hiring only people from ethic group that on average is better than others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not even all Kenians. It's Kalenjin minority in Kenia. If you need to hire people with best endurance why not ask them to run a marathon as a test instead hiring only people from ethic group that on average is better than others.
The point is, when you have everyone take that test, you end up hiring only Kenyans. And then everyone cries about discrimination
Discrimination is suspected if the test has little to do with actual job requirements.