Suppose scientific racism is correct. How will you react? How will society?

[Jokodo]

You obviously didn't or you wouldn't think this so-called challenge of you is in any way pertinent.

You can't answer the challenge because it would defeat your objection against eugenics, and I suggest you rethink your objection.

It doesn't. It's not a challenge. It's a derail to distract from the obvious fact that you don't have a case.

 

[bilby]

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=3717

 

[ApostateAbe]

The better arguments against eugenics are political, not scientific. Scientific objections are based on poor understandings of genetic theory, but the empirical case for eugenics is already well-established from the positive outcomes of breeding of domestic plants and animals. Unless humans are a special species exempt from the patterns of selection, eugenics works. The political objections are most relevant. Anyone who advances the politics of eugenics must fully account for the political abuses that can easily follow, which is why I would support eugenics through private organizations, not the state. Eugenics had best remain fully libertarian, in my opinion. I am inspired by the "Repository of Germinal Choice." There is a documentary about it on YouTube:

 

[bilby]

Eugenics is founded in a fundamental misapprehension of how evolution works.

The Theory of Evolution says that those who reproduce are the fittest. This is not an endorsement of fitness; it is the definition of fitness.

Eugenics is based on the reversal of that causality; Eugenicists think that those who are the fittest should reproduce.

But that leaves them needing a new definition for 'fitness'. Oddly, they invariably choose 'most like me'. Which is pretty pathetic, but not particularly surprising.

Science has fuck all to do with it. Eugenics is just ego turned up to eleven. It is nothing more than a manifestation of narcissism, and only the most insanely self-centred person would claim it as science. It is vanity dressing up as logic, and would be hilarious if it wasn't so dangerous.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Eugenics is founded in a fundamental misapprehension of how evolution works.

The Theory of Evolution says that those who reproduce are the fittest. This is not an endorsement of fitness; it is the definition of fitness.

Eugenics is based on the reversal of that causality; Eugenicists think that those who are the fittest should reproduce.

But that leaves them needing a new definition for 'fitness'. Oddly, they invariably choose 'most like me'. Which is pretty pathetic, but not particularly surprising.

Science has fuck all to do with it. Eugenics is just ego turned up to eleven. It is nothing more than a manifestation of narcissism, and only the most insanely self-centred person would claim it as science. It is vanity dressing up as logic, and would be hilarious if it wasn't so dangerous.

I care not for your wordplay concerning "fitness." Years ago, there was a member of this forum (WinAce) who founded the website "Fundies Say the Darnedest Things." Maybe you remember him. He died while still young from a genetic disease: cystic fibrosis, common among whites. It makes not just for a young death but a terrible bedridden life. It is a disease that could have been prevented, in every case, through genetic tests of prospective parents. If they both have the heterozygous allele, then there is a high chance that they would produce a child with the homozygous recessive condition of cystic fibrosis. Given the choice, no parents would choose to have a child with that condition. The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation knows this, and they offer a testing service. This is eugenics, because we know the difference between good genes and bad genes and we act on it appropriately. Narcissistic? Just another word for self-interested, except with an excessively judgmental connotation, in this case driven by political ideology.

 

[bilby]

Eugenics is founded in a fundamental misapprehension of how evolution works.

The Theory of Evolution says that those who reproduce are the fittest. This is not an endorsement of fitness; it is the definition of fitness.

Eugenics is based on the reversal of that causality; Eugenicists think that those who are the fittest should reproduce.

But that leaves them needing a new definition for 'fitness'. Oddly, they invariably choose 'most like me'. Which is pretty pathetic, but not particularly surprising.

Science has fuck all to do with it. Eugenics is just ego turned up to eleven. It is nothing more than a manifestation of narcissism, and only the most insanely self-centred person would claim it as science. It is vanity dressing up as logic, and would be hilarious if it wasn't so dangerous.

I care not for your wordplay concerning "fitness."

Well there's your problem, right there, then.

Perhaps you should re-examine the reasons why you find the idea of eugenics so attractive. Not caring about your motives allows bad motives to flourish.

Years ago, there was a member of this forum (WinAce) who founded the website "Fundies Say the Darnedest Things." Maybe you remember him. He died while still young from a genetic disease: cystic fibrosis, common among whites. It makes not just for a young death but a terrible bedridden life. It is a disease that could have been prevented, in every case, through genetic tests of prospective parents. If they both have the heterozygous allele, then there is a high chance that they would produce a child with the homozygous recessive condition of cystic fibrosis. Given the choice, no parents would choose to have a child with that condition.

Well, it seems that it was a bloody good thing for WinAce, and for everyone who enjoys reading FSTDT that they did not have that choice.

I am sure that testing is great for parents and prospective parents. But that does not mean it is good for society at large.

The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation knows this, and they offer a testing service. This is eugenics, because we know the difference between good genes and bad genes and we act on it appropriately.

Not at all; You claim to know the difference between people who are better off never having been born, and everyone else. But if you ask people with genetic disorders whether they would rather they had never been born, most do not say 'yes'. So your opinion, (as I pointed out earlier) is based on YOUR assessment of what someone else's preference SHOULD be, without reference to what that preference actually IS.

You imply that you know better than a CF sufferer whether their life is rendered valueless by their medical condition.

Eugenics is a poor solution to the suffering of CF patients. Assisted Suicide would be far superior; The only person who can tell you whether a particular condition makes life unbearable or unwanted is the individual with that condition.

Narcissistic? Just another word for self-interested, except with an excessively judgmental connotation, in this case driven by political ideology.

Nope; it has fuck all to do with self-interest - you don't have a dog in this fight unless you have CF yourself, or are a carer for a CF patient. But that hasn't stopped your inherent narcissism from telling you that as your life is so much better than that of a CF patient, you have the right to recommend that their life should never start. It all comes down to the false and narcissistic belief that you (and others who are sufficiently similar to you) are the standard by which everyone else should be judged.

 

[ApostateAbe]

My parents are pro-life activists, who participated in pro-life protests with signs. When I was a teenager, I decided to be pro-choice, because the Bible, if anything, doesn't support right to life until after birth. My mother was shocked. Her argument was, "So what if I had an abortion? You would have been killed. Do you really support that?" I said, "I wouldn't care one way or the other, because I wouldn't exist." Brilliant people like me are born to other people, and they would do the things I do. I anticipated that you would make such an argument concerning WinAce, because I have seen it before. If you think that having a world with less cystic fibrosis is the same as narcissism, then I think your moral perspective is deplorable on its face, capable of drawing all the needed ridicule.

 

[bilby]

My parents are pro-life activists, who participated in pro-life protests with signs. When I was a teenager, I decided to be pro-choice, because the Bible, if anything, doesn't support right to life until after birth. My mother was shocked. Her argument was, "So what if I had an abortion? You would have been killed. Do you really support that?" I said, "I wouldn't care one way or the other, because I wouldn't exist." Brilliant people like me are born to other people, and they would do the things I do. I anticipated that you would make such an argument concerning WinAce, because I have seen it before. If you think that having a world with less cystic fibrosis is the same as narcissism, then I think your moral perspective is deplorable on its face, capable of drawing all the needed ridicule.

I am pro-choice. I just don't think it is up to ME to make the choice on behalf of everyone else. THAT is the problem with eugenics.

You say "I anticipated that you would make such an argument concerning WinAce, because I have seen it before." I expected that you would say that, because I am certain you have seen it before; and equally certain that you are comfortable with your rationalisation that it is a 'pro-life' rather than an 'anti-eugenics' argument.

You need to think more carefully about this argument. It is a poor argument when used against a woman's right to choose whether to carry her baby to term. It is nevertheless a very good argument when used against someone else's right to choose whether a woman should be allowed to carry her baby to term.

It is not the action that is right or wrong; it is the choice of who gets to decide on what action is appropriate. You fondly imagine that you are the best person to make that call, and that it should not be left up to other, less able, individuals; That is the narcissism I am talking about.

 

[ApostateAbe]

My parents are pro-life activists, who participated in pro-life protests with signs. When I was a teenager, I decided to be pro-choice, because the Bible, if anything, doesn't support right to life until after birth. My mother was shocked. Her argument was, "So what if I had an abortion? You would have been killed. Do you really support that?" I said, "I wouldn't care one way or the other, because I wouldn't exist." Brilliant people like me are born to other people, and they would do the things I do. I anticipated that you would make such an argument concerning WinAce, because I have seen it before. If you think that having a world with less cystic fibrosis is the same as narcissism, then I think your moral perspective is deplorable on its face, capable of drawing all the needed ridicule.

I am pro-choice. I just don't think it is up to ME to make the choice on behalf of everyone else. THAT is the problem with eugenics.

You say "I anticipated that you would make such an argument concerning WinAce, because I have seen it before." I expected that you would say that, because I am certain you have seen it before; and equally certain that you are comfortable with your rationalisation that it is a 'pro-life' rather than an 'anti-eugenics' argument.

You need to think more carefully about this argument. It is a poor argument when used against a woman's right to choose whether to carry her baby to term. It is nevertheless a very good argument when used against someone else's right to choose whether a woman should be allowed to carry her baby to term.

It is not the action that is right or wrong; it is the choice of who gets to decide on what action is appropriate. You fondly imagine that you are the best person to make that call, and that it should not be left up to other, less able, individuals; That is the narcissism I am talking about.

Then perhaps this point has not yet registered: eugenics can be libertarian and practiced fully willingly among private parties. The point on the table is genetic testing by the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. Every party has full control over his or her own decisions. And that is the practice you take to be not so good for society at large, because no such practice was a bloody good thing for WinAce.

 

[Bomb#20]

The Theory of Evolution says that those who reproduce are the fittest. This is not an endorsement of fitness; it is the definition of fitness.

Eugenics is based on the reversal of that causality; Eugenicists think that those who are the fittest should reproduce.

But that leaves them needing a new definition for 'fitness'.

Good grief. Richard Dawkins must be rolling over in his future grave.

"... What neither Wallace nor Darwin could have foreseen was that “survival of the fittest” was destined to generate more serious confusion than “natural selection” ever had. A familiar example is the attempt, rediscovered with almost pathetic eagerness by successive generations of amateur (and even professional) philosophers (“so acute that they misunderstand common folk”?), to demonstrate that the theory of natural selection is a worthless tautology (an amusing variant is that it is unfalsifiable and therefore false!). {181} In fact the illusion of tautology stems entirely from the phrase “survival of the fittest”, and not from the theory itself at all. The argument is a remarkable example of the elevation of words above their station, in which respect it resembles St Anselm's ontological proof of the existence of God. Like God, natural selection is too big a theory to be proved or disproved by word-games. God and natural selection are, after all, the only two workable theories we have of why we exist.

Briefly, the tautology idea is this. Natural selection is defined as the survival of the fittest, and the fittest are defined as those that survive. Therefore the whole of Darwinism is an unfalsifiable tautology and we don't have to worry our heads about it any more. Fortunately, several authoritative replies to this whimsical little conceit are available (Maynard Smith 1969; Stebbins 1977; Alexander 1980), and I need not labour my own. I will, however, chalk up the tautology idea on my list of muddles attributable to the concept of fitness.

It is, as I have said, a purpose of this chapter to show that fitness is a very difficult concept, and that there might be something to be said for doing without it whenever we can. One way I shall do this is to show that the word has been used by biologists in at least five different senses. The first and oldest meaning is the one closest to everyday usage.

When Spencer, Wallace and Darwin originally used the term “fitness”, the charge of tautology would not have occurred to anyone. I shall call this original usage fitness[1]. It did not have a precise technical meaning, and the fittest were not defined as those that survive. ..." - The Extended Phenotype​

I'm no fan of eugenics; but eugenics, like natural selection itself, is too big a theory to be proved or disproved by word-games.

 

[bilby]

The Theory of Evolution says that those who reproduce are the fittest. This is not an endorsement of fitness; it is the definition of fitness.

Eugenics is based on the reversal of that causality; Eugenicists think that those who are the fittest should reproduce.

But that leaves them needing a new definition for 'fitness'.

Good grief. Richard Dawkins must be rolling over in his future grave.

"... What neither Wallace nor Darwin could have foreseen was that “survival of the fittest” was destined to generate more serious confusion than “natural selection” ever had. A familiar example is the attempt, rediscovered with almost pathetic eagerness by successive generations of amateur (and even professional) philosophers (“so acute that they misunderstand common folk”?), to demonstrate that the theory of natural selection is a worthless tautology (an amusing variant is that it is unfalsifiable and therefore false!). {181} In fact the illusion of tautology stems entirely from the phrase “survival of the fittest”, and not from the theory itself at all. The argument is a remarkable example of the elevation of words above their station, in which respect it resembles St Anselm's ontological proof of the existence of God. Like God, natural selection is too big a theory to be proved or disproved by word-games. God and natural selection are, after all, the only two workable theories we have of why we exist.

Briefly, the tautology idea is this. Natural selection is defined as the survival of the fittest, and the fittest are defined as those that survive. Therefore the whole of Darwinism is an unfalsifiable tautology and we don't have to worry our heads about it any more. Fortunately, several authoritative replies to this whimsical little conceit are available (Maynard Smith 1969; Stebbins 1977; Alexander 1980), and I need not labour my own. I will, however, chalk up the tautology idea on my list of muddles attributable to the concept of fitness.

It is, as I have said, a purpose of this chapter to show that fitness is a very difficult concept, and that there might be something to be said for doing without it whenever we can. One way I shall do this is to show that the word has been used by biologists in at least five different senses. The first and oldest meaning is the one closest to everyday usage.

When Spencer, Wallace and Darwin originally used the term “fitness”, the charge of tautology would not have occurred to anyone. I shall call this original usage fitness[1]. It did not have a precise technical meaning, and the fittest were not defined as those that survive. ..." - The Extended Phenotype​

I'm no fan of eugenics; but eugenics, like natural selection itself, is too big a theory to be proved or disproved by word-games.

Given that I am not specifically discussing the Theory of Evolution, and that I provided clear definitions of 'fitness', which I used in a non-tautological way, your objection is foolish - I am under no obligation to use your (or Richard Dawkins's) preferred definition for any word, particularly for a word that I provide two different definitions for explicitly in my post. You are objecting to a common argument that you don't like, and that is understandable - but as it isn't the argument I am making, your objection is tangential to my point.

Abe seems to be attempting to equivocate between what he calls 'private eugenics', and I call 'freedom of choice'; and the broader idea of eugenics, whereby people influence the wider population to act so as to modify the human genome by artificial selection.

If a pregnant woman chooses to use a genetic testing service, and uses the results to guide her personal and private choice as to whether to continue with her pregnancy, then that is a very different thing from eugenics as it is normally understood; such a private decision is by definition not subject to political debate, as nobody other than the individual making the decision has an opinion that counts. While the cumulative effects of many such private choices may be similar to the effect of a eugenics program, the causes are very different, and it is those causes, and the ethics that underly them, that are important.

As soon as the matter comes up for wider debate, than it ceases to be the eugenics that "can be libertarian and practiced fully willingly among private parties" that Abe suggests, and becomes the social movement that sane people recognise as dangerous and based in the narcissistic belief that those calling for eugenics have a special insight into what is 'best' for humanity.

The Theory of Evolution, and the concept of evolutionary fitness, is no basis for eugenics, because eugenics is a moralistic ideology - one that seeks to maximise some perceived 'good' or minimised some perceived 'bad' outcome. Evolution is not a basis for judging what is 'good' or 'bad'; the idea that it is, is exactly as foolish as claiming that an object placed on a high shelf is morally worse than one placed lower down, because gravitational theory says things tend to descend over time.

Where the moral questions raised by deciding not to have a child that is, or is likely to be, subject to a hereditary disease, are left to the prospective parents, no discussion of eugenics is needed. The only time such a discussion becomes anything more than an empty exercise in navel-gazing is when people other than the prospective parents express their opinions, and thereby seek to influence the decisions. And it is those opinions, and the belief that they should carry any influence, that are the fundamental flaw in eugenics - because they cannot avoid being rooted in the idea that the eugenicist knows, better than others, what should or should not be done.

That the equally foolish idea underlying libertarianism - the idea that all choices are purely private - is needed to prop this claim up does nothing to improve the standard of the argument. Eugenics is a stupid idea; and that it requires the stupid idea of libertarianism to support it does not render it less stupid; quite the reverse.

 

[Duke Leto]

Maybe ApostateAbe just wants there to be more people genetically like him so his special interest discussion forum, www.pigrapists.org will have more people than him, Andrew Lee Nash and Nuon Sokhara as posters?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Given the choice, no parents would choose to have a child with that condition. The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation knows this, and they offer a testing service.

So are you suggesting that only the parents make the choice?

This is eugenics, because we know the difference between good genes and bad genes and we act on it appropriately.

Eugenics is about improving the gene pool. Eugenics would sterilize the parents. Eugenics is pretending about knowing how to improve the gene pool.

Parents who wouldn't have a child with CF is not eugenics. People with CF don't exactly reproduce much. So not having a child with CF doesn't "clean" up the reproductive gene pool.

 

[ApostateAbe]

So are you suggesting that only the parents make the choice?

This is eugenics, because we know the difference between good genes and bad genes and we act on it appropriately.

Eugenics is about improving the gene pool. Eugenics would sterilize the parents. Eugenics is pretending about knowing how to improve the gene pool.

Parents who wouldn't have a child with CF is not eugenics. People with CF don't exactly reproduce much. So not having a child with CF doesn't "clean" up the reproductive gene pool.

"People with CF don't exactly reproduce much." -- I think that is a good point. Eugenics is normally focused on the long-term, but cystic fibrosis testing would count as "eugenics" if we are generous and include the short-term bad genes.

 

[Bomb#20]

Given that I am not specifically discussing the Theory of Evolution, and that I provided clear definitions of 'fitness', which I used in a non-tautological way, your objection is foolish - I am under no obligation to use your (or Richard Dawkins's) preferred definition for any word, particularly for a word that I provide two different definitions for explicitly in my post. You are objecting to a common argument that you don't like, and that is understandable - but as it isn't the argument I am making, your objection is tangential to my point.

I have no doubt that it's tangential to your point, as you supplied substantive arguments against eugenics in addition to the nonsense argument I took exception to; but no, I was not objecting to a common argument that I don't like. I was objecting to your argument. And since your argument plays the same word-games on "fittest", Dawkins' comments on the common one apply every bit as much to yours.

Yes, you did specifically discuss the Theory of Evolution, when you wrote "The Theory of Evolution says that those who reproduce are the fittest.". Then you added that this "is the definition of fitness". That would make the former statement mean "The Theory of Evolution defines 'fitness' to be 'those who reproduce'.". But that is not the case. The Theory of Evolution does not say that. The Theory of Evolution is not a dictionary. It is not in the business of defining words.

Furthermore, there's no causality in a word definition. So eugenics could hardly be based on a reversal of it even if eugenics were founded on the idea that those who are the fittest should reproduce, which it isn't. (It's based on the idea that those who are genetically the best should reproduce. In the "Idiocracy" scenario eugenics supporters typically propose to avert, the problem is not that the unfit are reproducing; the problem is that stupidity has become a higher fitness character than intelligence.)

And finally, "those who reproduce" is not the definition of fitness; it's a definition. Dawkins exhibits five different definitions used in biology. So no, even if eugenicists thought that those who are the fittest should reproduce, that would hardly leave them in need of a new definition. They could easily pick one of the other old ones.

The rest of your criticism of eugenics is no concern of mine. Tell it to Abe.

That the equally foolish idea underlying libertarianism - the idea that all choices are purely private - is needed to prop this claim up does nothing to improve the standard of the argument. Eugenics is a stupid idea; and that it requires the stupid idea of libertarianism to support it does not render it less stupid; quite the reverse.

That libertarianism is a stupid idea underlain by a foolish idea I will not dispute; but your hypothesis that the underlying idea is that all choices are purely private is itself quite foolish. Libertarians recognize all sorts of choices as non-private; and their widely varying philosophical justifications for libertarianism are quite consistent on that point. You seem to be making a habit of arguing against lame caricatures of the ideologies you disapprove of.

 

[fromderinside]

I have no doubt that it's tangential to your point, as you supplied substantive arguments against eugenics in addition to the nonsense argument I took exception to; but no, I was not objecting to a common argument that I don't like. I was objecting to your argument. And since your argument plays the same word-games on "fittest", Dawkins' comments on the common one apply every bit as much to yours.

Yes, you did specifically discuss the Theory of Evolution, when you wrote "The Theory of Evolution says that those who reproduce are the fittest.". Then you added that this "is the definition of fitness". That would make the former statement mean "The Theory of Evolution defines 'fitness' to be 'those who reproduce'.". But that is not the case. The Theory of Evolution does not say that. The Theory of Evolution is not a dictionary. It is not in the business of defining words.

Furthermore, there's no causality in a word definition. So eugenics could hardly be based on a reversal of it even if eugenics were founded on the idea that those who are the fittest should reproduce, which it isn't. (It's based on the idea that those who are genetically the best should reproduce. In the "Idiocracy" scenario eugenics supporters typically propose to avert, the problem is not that the unfit are reproducing; the problem is that stupidity has become a higher fitness character than intelligence.)

And finally, "those who reproduce" is not the definition of fitness; it's a definition. Dawkins exhibits five different definitions used in biology. So no, even if eugenicists thought that those who are the fittest should reproduce, that would hardly leave them in need of a new definition. They could easily pick one of the other old ones.

The rest of your criticism of eugenics is no concern of mine. Tell it to Abe.

That the equally foolish idea underlying libertarianism - the idea that all choices are purely private - is needed to prop this claim up does nothing to improve the standard of the argument. Eugenics is a stupid idea; and that it requires the stupid idea of libertarianism to support it does not render it less stupid; quite the reverse.

That libertarianism is a stupid idea underlain by a foolish idea I will not dispute; but your hypothesis that the underlying idea is that all choices are purely private is itself quite foolish. Libertarians recognize all sorts of choices as non-private; and their widely varying philosophical justifications for libertarianism are quite consistent on that point. You seem to be making a habit of arguing against lame caricatures of the ideologies you disapprove of.

You're saying bilby's business is good then.

Does it really matter what one is or does if one doesn't pass genes forward?

 

[Trodon]

Civil rights aren't the problem. The welfare system that traps people and makes it more sensible to be a single parent is the real problem.

The anti-discrimination movement is part of the problem--keep telling blacks that their problems are due to whites and there isn't the incentive to look for the hard answer: the problems are internal.

Because black people are too stupid to see where their problems come from? you feel we have to be told? we can't see our own reality? Is this your contention? That black folk have nothing on which to base assertions of discrimination?

Any discrimination against blacks is on an individual basis, and comparatively insignificant. Discrimination in favor of blacks is systematic and sanctioned by law in the form of affirmative action policies. Despite affirmative action blacks continue to lag behind. This is because of low IQ averages and high crime rates which are largely genetic. High rates of black illegitimacy contribute too. Children raised by both biological parents living together in matrimony tend to do better in life than children raised under other circumstances.

 

[Jokodo]

Because black people are too stupid to see where their problems come from? you feel we have to be told? we can't see our own reality? Is this your contention? That black folk have nothing on which to base assertions of discrimination?

Any discrimination against blacks is on an individual basis, and comparatively insignificant. Discrimination in favor of blacks is systematic and sanctioned by law in the form of affirmative action policies. Despite affirmative action blacks continue to lag behind. This is because of low IQ averages and high crime rates which are largely genetic. High rates of black illegitimacy contribute too. Children raised by both biological parents living together in matrimony tend to do better in life than children raised under other circumstances.

Individial-basis discrimination can have large cumulative effects. If two out of 5 potential employers won't reply respond to your application solely because you're black or assumed to be black*, it means you're going to be unemployed for 60%+ longer on average despite the same qualifications and putting the same effort into finding a job, it means that you are going to have a poorer bargaining position while you are employed, etc. If the clients or contacts in other department don't take you serious because you're black, you'll end up with a lower success rate in negotiations and thus your boss will be "objectively" justified in not promoting you even if you do everything the same as your white peers. Which means that you'll have less impressive prior work experience to show the next time you apply for another job.

Given that black people are on average rated significantly lower than white people by human raters when they show the exact same qualifications, a policy of "if two applicants are equally qualified, take the black one" (which is the form AA most often takes) is perfectly good advice to any company that wants to improve the quality of its workforce - because, in order to be ranked equal in the first place (and don't fool yourself, there's a lot of human, subjective, feely factors in ranking applicants), the black applicant on average has to be significantly better qualified.


* For example here, but this is really common knowledge:

To further investigate discrimination in the labor market, Bertrand and
Mullainathan (2002) manipulated the race of names on high- and low-quality
re´sume´s from men and women to be either Black or White. Approximately
5,000 re´sume´s were sent in response to employment ads for available
sales, clerical, administrative, and management positions. As predicted,
White-named applicants had a 10% chance of being called for an interview,
while Black-named applicants had only a 6.7% chance: a racial disparity of
almost 50%. Just as importantly, the quality of the re´sume´ mattered only if
the applicant had a White name; high-quality re´sume´s received 30% more
callbacks for interviews than did low-quality re´sume´s. As for Black-named
applicants, those with low-quality re´sume´s were almost as likely to be called
for an interview (6.4%) as were Black-named applicants with high-quality
re´sume´s (7.0%). This small difference in callback ratings occurred despite
large differences in experience, honors, and skills on the re´sume´s

 

[Trodon]

Any discrimination against blacks is on an individual basis, and comparatively insignificant. Discrimination in favor of blacks is systematic and sanctioned by law in the form of affirmative action policies. Despite affirmative action blacks continue to lag behind. This is because of low IQ averages and high crime rates which are largely genetic. High rates of black illegitimacy contribute too. Children raised by both biological parents living together in matrimony tend to do better in life than children raised under other circumstances.

Individial-basis discrimination can have large cumulative effects. If two out of 5 potential employers won't reply respond to your application solely because you're black or assumed to be black*, it means you're going to be unemployed for 60%+ longer on average despite the same qualifications and putting the same effort into finding a job, it means that you are going to have a poorer bargaining position while you are employed, etc. If the clients or contacts in other department don't take you serious because you're black, you'll end up with a lower success rate in negotiations and thus your boss will be "objectively" justified in not promoting you even if you do everything the same as your white peers. Which means that you'll have less impressive prior work experience to show the next time you apply for another job.

Given that black people are on average rated significantly lower than white people by human raters when they show the exact same qualifications, a policy of "if two applicants are equally qualified, take the black one" (which is the form AA most often takes) is perfectly good advice to any company that wants to improve the quality of its workforce - because, in order to be ranked equal in the first place (and don't fool yourself, there's a lot of human, subjective, feely factors in ranking applicants), the black applicant on average has to be significantly better qualified.


* For example here, but this is really common knowledge:

To further investigate discrimination in the labor market, Bertrand and
Mullainathan (2002) manipulated the race of names on high- and low-quality
re´sume´s from men and women to be either Black or White. Approximately
5,000 re´sume´s were sent in response to employment ads for available
sales, clerical, administrative, and management positions. As predicted,
White-named applicants had a 10% chance of being called for an interview,
while Black-named applicants had only a 6.7% chance: a racial disparity of
almost 50%. Just as importantly, the quality of the re´sume´ mattered only if
the applicant had a White name; high-quality re´sume´s received 30% more
callbacks for interviews than did low-quality re´sume´s. As for Black-named
applicants, those with low-quality re´sume´s were almost as likely to be called
for an interview (6.4%) as were Black-named applicants with high-quality
re´sume´s (7.0%). This small difference in callback ratings occurred despite
large differences in experience, honors, and skills on the re´sume´s

The hiring process is personal. Bosses want to hire people they will like working with, and people who will be liked by co-workers and customers of the company.

There are bosses who do not like gays, Orientals, and/or Jews. However, homosexuals tend to be more intelligent than heterosexuals. Orientals tend to be more intelligent than non Orientals. Jews tend to be more intelligent than Gentiles. A boss who refuses to hire gays, Orientals, and/or Jews will lose talented people to rivals. A boss who refuses to hire blacks is more likely to avoid performance and discipline problems.

Another factor to consider is that a black person with an impressive resume probably had that resume padded by affirmative action policies that got him into a colleges and into professional positions not justified by his merit.

What matters is that by every objective measurable criterion blacks tend to be less intelligent than whites, and even less intelligent than Orientals. This has changed very little since the civil rights movement opened opportunities for blacks.

 

[Jokodo]

Individial-basis discrimination can have large cumulative effects. If two out of 5 potential employers won't reply respond to your application solely because you're black or assumed to be black*, it means you're going to be unemployed for 60%+ longer on average despite the same qualifications and putting the same effort into finding a job, it means that you are going to have a poorer bargaining position while you are employed, etc. If the clients or contacts in other department don't take you serious because you're black, you'll end up with a lower success rate in negotiations and thus your boss will be "objectively" justified in not promoting you even if you do everything the same as your white peers. Which means that you'll have less impressive prior work experience to show the next time you apply for another job.

Given that black people are on average rated significantly lower than white people by human raters when they show the exact same qualifications, a policy of "if two applicants are equally qualified, take the black one" (which is the form AA most often takes) is perfectly good advice to any company that wants to improve the quality of its workforce - because, in order to be ranked equal in the first place (and don't fool yourself, there's a lot of human, subjective, feely factors in ranking applicants), the black applicant on average has to be significantly better qualified.


* For example here, but this is really common knowledge:

To further investigate discrimination in the labor market, Bertrand and
Mullainathan (2002) manipulated the race of names on high- and low-quality
re´sume´s from men and women to be either Black or White. Approximately
5,000 re´sume´s were sent in response to employment ads for available
sales, clerical, administrative, and management positions. As predicted,
White-named applicants had a 10% chance of being called for an interview,
while Black-named applicants had only a 6.7% chance: a racial disparity of
almost 50%. Just as importantly, the quality of the re´sume´ mattered only if
the applicant had a White name; high-quality re´sume´s received 30% more
callbacks for interviews than did low-quality re´sume´s. As for Black-named
applicants, those with low-quality re´sume´s were almost as likely to be called
for an interview (6.4%) as were Black-named applicants with high-quality
re´sume´s (7.0%). This small difference in callback ratings occurred despite
large differences in experience, honors, and skills on the re´sume´s

The hiring process is personal. Bosses want to hire people they will like working with, and people who will be liked by co-workers and customers of the company.

That may be relevant to whether we should do anything about it, depending on how much priority you assign to freedom and fairness respectively, but it is not relevant to whether or not discrimination in the post-Jim-Crow era significantly affects blacks' chances and explains blacks' continuous lagging behind.

There are bosses who do not like gays, Orientals, and/or Jews. However, homosexuals tend to be more intelligent than heterosexuals. Orientals tend to be more intelligent than non Orientals. Jews tend to be more intelligent than Gentiles. A boss who refuses to hire gays, Orientals, and/or Jews will lose talented people to rivals. A boss who refuses to hire blacks is more likely to avoid performance and discipline problems.

This is not in evidence. We aren't talking about picking a random black and a random white person off the street (which is the only context in which population averages would matter), we're talking about applicants with equal (in the studies: entirely identical) resumes. What is in evidence is that bosses are likely to overlook high-qualified applicants simply because they're black. So, arguably, forcing them to have a second look at the black applicants is actually helping them to improve the quality of their workforce.

Another factor to consider is that a black person with an impressive resume probably had that resume padded by affirmative action policies that got him into a colleges and into professional positions not justified by his merit.

A black person with an impressive resume has achieved what they achieved despite being consistently overlooked and underrated.

What matters is that by every objective measurable criterion blacks tend to be less intelligent than whites, and even less intelligent than Orientals. This has changed very little since the civil rights movement opened opportunities for blacks.

That's not "what matters", that's what we want to explain. You claim it must be genetics because discrimination doesn't exist anymore. The assumption that discrimination doesn't exist anymore is demonstrably wrong, and whether it's individual-level or not doesn't change the fact that it has large effects on blacks' lives. Your explanation is thus based on a false premise.