What, exactly, is CRT?

[Emily Lake]

They are if you're starting from a CRT framework. Part of the whole appeal is the greater objectivity that comes from looking at structural racism as opposed to someone's self-reported personal feelings as the problem to be addressed. Feelings are not the measure of equity, from a CRT perspective, but rather the measurable, observable material circumstances and outcomes that disproportionately affect people of minority race.

1) I am not convinced that there is "greater objectivity" in assuming racism is inherent in every facet of our society.
2) By CRT's own tenets, feelings absolutely ARE a measure of equity and should be considered as evidence. CRT is fairly clear that the anecdotes provided by black people about how they feel should be considered as more important than measurable variables:

Recognition of the relevance of people’s everyday lives to scholarship. This includes embracing the lived experiences of people of color, including those preserved through storytelling, and rejecting deficit-informed research that excludes the epistemologies of people of color.

 

[Emily Lake]

King's a Hack. Rushdie actually knows how to write. More in the vein of Tolstoy, Dickens and Dante.

Honestly, I find most works by Dickens to be boring and his characters lack emotional resonance. Great Expectations was one of the most disappointing books I've ever read. Dante is evocative... but tedious to read. I haven't read Tolstoy.

Then again, I'm predominantly a Sci-Fi fan, so... tastes vary.

 

[Emily Lake]

Interesting that you quote from Professor Darity who disparages research who distrusts research that tries to distinguish between genetic and environmental effects on social outcomes including intelligence and who recently argued for reparations to repair the wealth gap of blacks.

While he disparages knowledge that offends his politics, his observation that it is inconsistent to accept that in-group differences are genetic but out-group differences are not is correct.

Out-group differences are lower than in-group differences.

I know you've read this before. It doesn't seem that you understand why this matters, though.

When out-group differences exceed in-group differences, it becomes logically worthwhile to discriminate between groups: evaluating group membership becomes more powerful than evaluating individual capabilities.

But when out-group differences are smaller, individual assessment is the logical path. This is especially true when, as Lauren is fond of pointing out, much of the out-group differences are comorbid with economic and educational status, and the out-group difference is close to zero when correcting for that.

Realistically, you want to reward and encourage all members of all groups whose performance is above the cutoff value.

But thanks for at least demonstrating why CRT is correct: we still have people in our world who want to enshrine racism systemically. To assume these individuals have no effect is delusion. To assume these individuals do not exist in positions where they hold some leverage is delusion.

Slightly off topic...

Out-group differences between males and females are considerably larger than in-group differences.
Replacing sex as a metric with gender identity results in lower out-group differences and larger in-group differences.
I suggest we scrap gender identity as a categorizing attribute and stick with sex.

 

[Politesse]

They are if you're starting from a CRT framework. Part of the whole appeal is the greater objectivity that comes from looking at structural racism as opposed to someone's self-reported personal feelings as the problem to be addressed. Feelings are not the measure of equity, from a CRT perspective, but rather the measurable, observable material circumstances and outcomes that disproportionately affect people of minority race.

1) I am not convinced that there is "greater objectivity" in assuming racism is inherent in every facet of our society.
2) By CRT's own tenets, feelings absolutely ARE a measure of equity and should be considered as evidence. CRT is fairly clear that the anecdotes provided by black people about how they feel should be considered as more important than measurable variables:

Recognition of the relevance of people’s everyday lives to scholarship. This includes embracing the lived experiences of people of color, including those preserved through storytelling, and rejecting deficit-informed research that excludes the epistemologies of people of color.

The passage you quote doesn't mention "measures of equity".

 

[Jarhyn]

They are if you're starting from a CRT framework. Part of the whole appeal is the greater objectivity that comes from looking at structural racism as opposed to someone's self-reported personal feelings as the problem to be addressed. Feelings are not the measure of equity, from a CRT perspective, but rather the measurable, observable material circumstances and outcomes that disproportionately affect people of minority race.

1) I am not convinced that there is "greater objectivity" in assuming racism is inherent in every facet of our society.
2) By CRT's own tenets, feelings absolutely ARE a measure of equity and should be considered as evidence. CRT is fairly clear that the anecdotes provided by black people about how they feel should be considered as more important than measurable variables:

Recognition of the relevance of people’s everyday lives to scholarship. This includes embracing the lived experiences of people of color, including those preserved through storytelling, and rejecting deficit-informed research that excludes the epistemologies of people of color.

You are conflating "racism," in this use (apparently, Racism: the bias to favor those who bear similar variances and lacks of variance to the first party) with "(systemic) racism" as per CRT ([Systemic] racism: the tacit result of apathy and ignorance that comes from a lack of consideration for the effects of policy on minority groups which causes retention/concentration of disparity).

"Embracing the lived experience of people of color" is not "measuring feelings", but acknowledging realities. You are as off base as Learner is in the Afterlife thread bringing up an unrelated passage about grievance to back up bad and unrelated arguments about the historical provenance of the idea of heaven.

Experiences of things that happened in reality are not "feelings" and it would be dishonest to continue to try and pass it off as such.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Nonsense. We're all one species, which has existed for the same amount of time wherever you are in the world. Any variance between distinct populations has arisen within a very short span of time from an evolutionary perspective, and is mostly comprised of very specific environmental adaptations like adjustments to latitude, altitude, or resistances to local pathogens or food allergies.

I don't think we can say this. There's almost no research on it. Pre ww2 research was pseudoscientific racist nonsense. Since then it hasn't been studied.

A major problem is that quantifying behaviour without influencing the study while measuring is close to impossible. Certainly on major populations.

But there are genetic differences between groups of humans in all manner of interesting ways. I think it would be bizarre if this doesn't also mean behavioural differences as well. It might be tiny and trivial things, but I think it's a stretch to say its nonsense.

People aren't blank slates. We come pre programmed in a variety of wonderful and problematic ways.

 

[Jarhyn]

Nonsense. We're all one species, which has existed for the same amount of time wherever you are in the world. Any variance between distinct populations has arisen within a very short span of time from an evolutionary perspective, and is mostly comprised of very specific environmental adaptations like adjustments to latitude, altitude, or resistances to local pathogens or food allergies.

I don't think we can say this. There's almost no research on it. Pre ww2 research was pseudoscientific racist nonsense. Since then it hasn't been studied.

A major problem is that quantifying behaviour without influencing the study while measuring is close to impossible. Certainly on major populations.

But there are genetic differences between groups of humans in all manner of interesting ways. I think it would be bizarre if this doesn't also mean behavioural differences as well. It might be tiny and trivial things, but I think it's a stretch to say its nonsense.

People aren't blank slates. We come pre programmed in a variety of wonderful and problematic ways.

You are also pointedly ignoring the fact of what I pointed out: the undue pressures placed on minority, the hobbles created by systemic racism, are likely to create strong selection of mental and social traits directly opposed to the oppressive systemic filters. The racist has created a reverse Tinkerbell effect.

 

[Emily Lake]

Nonsense. We're all one species, which has existed for the same amount of time wherever you are in the world. Any variance between distinct populations has arisen within a very short span of time from an evolutionary perspective, and is mostly comprised of very specific environmental adaptations like adjustments to latitude, altitude, or resistances to local pathogens or food allergies.

Sexual selection for non-survival traits can have effects in a pretty short period of time, evolutionarily speaking. A great example of this is the difference in average height between men and women. Generally speaking, the difference in height is larger in norther European countries, and the difference is smaller in central African countries. The overall height difference by geography could arguably be a result of natural selection resulting from the environment. But the difference between sexes is unlikely to be natural selection. Rather, it's reflective of a sexual preference within a culture and society that places status or emphasis on the tallness of men, and places desirability on the shortness of women.

Almost all of our tertiary sex characteristics are the result of sexual selection, not natural selection.

 

[Politesse]

I don't think we can say this. There's almost no research on it. Pre ww2 research was pseudoscientific racist nonsense. Since then it hasn't been studied.

This sentence is wild! Contemporary human variation studies are an entire academic subdicipline, to which hundreds of thousands of studies have been contributed over the last 80 years.

 

[Emily Lake]

1) I am not convinced that there is "greater objectivity" in assuming racism is inherent in every facet of our society.
2) By CRT's own tenets, feelings absolutely ARE a measure of equity and should be considered as evidence. CRT is fairly clear that the anecdotes provided by black people about how they feel should be considered as more important than measurable variables:

The passage you quote doesn't mention "measures of equity".

You're right, it doesn't use exactly those words in exactly that way, therefore we should ignore the context and the meaning so that you can have a semantic win...

 

[Emily Lake]

1) I am not convinced that there is "greater objectivity" in assuming racism is inherent in every facet of our society.
2) By CRT's own tenets, feelings absolutely ARE a measure of equity and should be considered as evidence. CRT is fairly clear that the anecdotes provided by black people about how they feel should be considered as more important than measurable variables:

You are conflating "racism," in this use (apparently, Racism: the bias to favor those who bear similar variances and lacks of variance to the first party) with "(systemic) racism" as per CRT ([Systemic] racism: the tacit result of apathy and ignorance that comes from a lack of consideration for the effects of policy on minority groups which causes retention/concentration of disparity).

"Embracing the lived experience of people of color" is not "measuring feelings", but acknowledging realities. You are as off base as Learner is in the Afterlife thread bringing up an unrelated passage about grievance to back up bad and unrelated arguments about the historical provenance of the idea of heaven.

Experiences of things that happened in reality are not "feelings" and it would be dishonest to continue to try and pass it off as such.

Yet you seem perfectly content to reject the lived experience of women female humans as nothing more than feelings when it suits you to do so.

 

[Politesse]

Nonsense. We're all one species, which has existed for the same amount of time wherever you are in the world. Any variance between distinct populations has arisen within a very short span of time from an evolutionary perspective, and is mostly comprised of very specific environmental adaptations like adjustments to latitude, altitude, or resistances to local pathogens or food allergies.

Sexual selection for non-survival traits can have effects in a pretty short period of time, evolutionarily speaking. A great example of this is the difference in average height between men and women. Generally speaking, the difference in height is larger in norther European countries, and the difference is smaller in central African countries. The overall height difference by geography could arguably be a result of natural selection resulting from the environment. But the difference between sexes is unlikely to be natural selection. Rather, it's reflective of a sexual preference within a culture and society that places status or emphasis on the tallness of men, and places desirability on the shortness of women.

Almost all of our tertiary sex characteristics are the result of sexual selection, not natural selection.

Not just sexual selection (we need to also think about things like pregnancy completion, survival of infancy,,learned responses to abnormalities, access to resources, and other post-coital factors as well) but yes, cultural definitions of the ideal are a driving influence on the presentation of human genetic variation at any given time, one of the many reasons why very broad folk categories like race are deceptive and unhelpful metrics; you would expect variations to occur or not occur within specific communities if their learned cultural expectations are a factor, and indeed that is what we find out there in the real world.

 

[Jarhyn]

1) I am not convinced that there is "greater objectivity" in assuming racism is inherent in every facet of our society.
2) By CRT's own tenets, feelings absolutely ARE a measure of equity and should be considered as evidence. CRT is fairly clear that the anecdotes provided by black people about how they feel should be considered as more important than measurable variables:

You are conflating "racism," in this use (apparently, Racism: the bias to favor those who bear similar variances and lacks of variance to the first party) with "(systemic) racism" as per CRT ([Systemic] racism: the tacit result of apathy and ignorance that comes from a lack of consideration for the effects of policy on minority groups which causes retention/concentration of disparity).

"Embracing the lived experience of people of color" is not "measuring feelings", but acknowledging realities. You are as off base as Learner is in the Afterlife thread bringing up an unrelated passage about grievance to back up bad and unrelated arguments about the historical provenance of the idea of heaven.

Experiences of things that happened in reality are not "feelings" and it would be dishonest to continue to try and pass it off as such.

<A derail>

Either speak to the conflation or not at all. Your attempted derail is not an answer to your attempted conflation.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Nonsense. We're all one species, which has existed for the same amount of time wherever you are in the world. Any variance between distinct populations has arisen within a very short span of time from an evolutionary perspective, and is mostly comprised of very specific environmental adaptations like adjustments to latitude, altitude, or resistances to local pathogens or food allergies.

I don't think we can say this. There's almost no research on it. Pre ww2 research was pseudoscientific racist nonsense. Since then it hasn't been studied.

A major problem is that quantifying behaviour without influencing the study while measuring is close to impossible. Certainly on major populations.

But there are genetic differences between groups of humans in all manner of interesting ways. I think it would be bizarre if this doesn't also mean behavioural differences as well. It might be tiny and trivial things, but I think it's a stretch to say its nonsense.

People aren't blank slates. We come pre programmed in a variety of wonderful and problematic ways.

You are also pointedly ignoring the fact of what I pointed out: the undue pressures placed on minority, the hobbles created by systemic racism, are likely to create strong selection of mental and social traits directly opposed to the oppressive systemic filters. The racist has created a reverse Tinkerbell effect.

Sure. But good luck teasing out what is genetics, epigenetics or learned behaviour. There's just no way we can say anything with any confidence on this.

And even if you could it's also close to impossible to quantify how much it hobbles.

What's the result of racism and what's the result of being working class?

I have spent enough time in the Caribbean to notice that the descendents of Carribbean slaves are physically a hell of a lot more naturally muscular than the average person. I assume that's because of selective breeding and hormone levels. Well... hormones affect behaviour.

Countries who have been at war breed out healthy strong men. How does that affect the gene pool when it comes to behaviour.

 

[Jarhyn]

You are also pointedly ignoring the fact of what I pointed out: the undue pressures placed on minority, the hobbles created by systemic racism, are likely to create strong selection of mental and social traits directly opposed to the oppressive systemic filters. The racist has created a reverse Tinkerbell effect.

Sure. But good luck teasing out what is genetics, epigenetics or learned behaviour. There's just no way we can say anything with any confidence on this.

And even if you could it's also close to impossible to quantify how much it hobbles.

What's the result of racism and what's the result of being working class?

I have spent enough time in the Caribbean to notice that the descendents of Carribbean slaves are physically a hell of a lot more naturally muscular than the average person. I assume that's because of selective breeding and hormone levels. Well... hormones affect behaviour.

Countries who have been at war breed out healthy strong men. How does that affect the gene pool when it comes to behaviour.

It doesn't need to be teased out, is the issue. It is merely the case of the claim that "there is every reason to believe that systemic racism has in fact reversed the assumptions of the racist by some degree, in practice, by increasing the intelligence bar to success within that population."

And yet we have people arguing that increasing the professional representation of the group that has been enduring under those pressures to at least a representational cross section, that is met with derision and "look how badly they do," and a willful ignorance of the hobbles society has placed.

CRT recognizes the hobbles that exist in the system and seeks to remove them so that people may be empowered to be seen as they are, in their own right.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The problem with CRT isn't only with genetics. We do not know how much influence, if any, genes have on racial disparities - and CRT apparently just denies any influence. But two other major problems are:

1. It redefines the term 'racism', but its proponents often jump from one definition to another, blaming innocent people of 'racism' in the English sense of the word.

2. It denies not only any genetic influence on racial disparities, but also any cultural influence that stems from anything other than social constructions of race. Of course, it may well be that people with cultural traits X - not related to the social construction of race - are more predisposed for economic and/or academic success (for example) than people with cultural trait Y, and also that as a result of history (e.g., immigrants from Korea have Korean-like cultural traits, and they tend to pass some of them on to their children), people of race A usually have cultural traits X, whereas people of race B usually have cultural traits Y (in the US, or the country in which CRT were used). The result would be a racial disparity in economic and/or academic outcome resulting from cultural traits other than the social construction of race. CRT just denies that this happens - at least, as described in this thread.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The problem with CRT isn't only with genetics. We do not know how much influence, if any, genes have on racial disparities - and CRT apparently just denies any influence. But two other major problems are:

And that is the problem with CRT. CRT Is about pointing out issues that are under the surface and when unearthed, you start seeing systems that have been working against Blacks in America for decades past the Civil Rights Act.

And when this is shown, some people say "CRT" just ignores genetics.

No, you are ignoring history.

We know it isn't genetics. That is why it was against the law to teach slaves how to read!

 

[Politesse]

1. It redefines the term 'racism', but its proponents often jump from one definition to another, blaming innocent people of 'racism' in the English sense of the word.

The only people going on about CRT persecuting poor innocent white people as individuals are people who don't understand CRT and indeed are trying to destroy it. How is anyone supposed to fix this? How could CRT theorists adjust the theory to change a stereotype they have no control over? A real academic paradigm is capable ot change and evolution in response to new information. A politicized stereotype about an academic paradigm is set in stone for all time, and will only change when and if a changing political landscape alters what rhetoric will be most useful in affecting public perception.

2. It denies not only any genetic influence on racial disparities, but also any cultural influence that stems from anything other than social constructions of race.

For the millionth time, CRT explicitly treats race as only one of many social factors influencing the life of an individual's life, and has since the very beginning of that school. Intersectionality is and always has been a central element of the paradigm, even definitional.

Of course, it may well be that people with cultural traits X - not related to the social construction of race - are more predisposed for economic and/or academic success (for example) than people with cultural trait Y, and also that as a result of history (e.g., immigrants from Korea have Korean-like cultural traits, and they tend to pass some of them on to their children), people of race A usually have cultural traits X, whereas people of race B usually have cultural traits Y (in the US, or the country in which CRT were used). The result would be a racial disparity in economic and/or academic outcome resulting from cultural traits other than the social construction of race. CRT just denies that this happens - at least, as described in this thread.

However, if by "culture" you just mean "race by any other name", I don't see how this is helpful or likely to be helpful in any way. Cutlural boundaries do not, in fact, neatly follow racial stereotypes.

 

[Bomb#20]

Can Progressives Be Convinced That Genetics Matters?

Answer: No.

Darity, the economist, told me that he doesn’t see how Harden can insist that differences within groups are genetic but that differences between them are not

Interesting that you quote from Professor Darity who disparages research who distrusts research that tries to distinguish between genetic and environmental effects on social outcomes including intelligence and who recently argued for reparations to repair the wealth gap of blacks.

While he disparages knowledge that offends his politics, his observation that it is inconsistent to accept that in-group differences are genetic but out-group differences are not is correct.

Three things:

1. You got it right the first time: we're talking about how within-group differences relate to between-group differences. "In-group" and "out-group" are something else entirely.

2. No, it actually isn't inconsistent to accept that within-group differences are genetic but between-group differences are not. That's something that can perfectly well happen when a characteristic is affected by both genes and environment in complicated ways. Here's a simple example. (Out of date, but true back in the 1970s.)

Whether one American could see better than another American was mainly genetic. Whether one Cambodian could see better than another Cambodian was mainly genetic. But on average Americans could see better than Cambodians, and that was environmental. Cambodians had stopped wearing glasses, because the Khmer Rouge killed anyone who did. So Americans got a clear view through our glasses while Cambodians had to make due with their out-of-focus eyeballs.

People take it for granted that if within-group differences are genetic then between-group differences must also be genetic because people by-and-large aren't very good at statistics. Perfectly normal in laymen, but worrisome in an economist.

3. If Darity believes it really is inconsistent to accept that within-group differences are genetic but between-group differences are not, the reasonable thing for him to do would be to look at Harden's arguments and data on within-group differences -- and if they're solid, call into question his premise that between-group differences are not genetic. But it seems that isn't his approach. Instead, he's using his ideological commitment to between-group differences being environmental as a reason to give himself permission to dismiss Harden's evidence about within-group differences without a scientific objection. Darity appears to be a case-study in intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The problem with CRT isn't only with genetics. We do not know how much influence, if any, genes have on racial disparities - and CRT apparently just denies any influence. But two other major problems are:

And that is the problem with CRT. CRT Is about pointing out issues that are under the surface and when unearthed, you start seeing systems that have been working against Blacks in America for decades past the Civil Rights Act.

And when this is shown, some people say "CRT" just ignores genetics.

No, you are ignoring history.

We know it isn't genetics. That is why it was against the law to teach slaves how to read!

No, that is not at all true. CRT as described in this thread is not about pointing out those issues only. It's about, among other things:

1. Denying that races are a biological phenomenon.

2. Making claims that the racial disparities are due to the social construction of race.

3. Redefining 'racism' to mean something like 'due to the social construction of race'.

And then , when some of us point out those blunders, then someone else accuses the person pointing them out of ignoring history, when none of that happened.