What, exactly, is CRT?

[Politesse]

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.

No one is going to take you seriously until you demonstrate at least a minimal ability to accurately describe the content of the paradigm you are supposedly critiquing...

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Darity's position is that we cannot empirically differentiate the effects of genetics and the effects of the environment on social outcomes. Whether that is correct is a separate question, but it is not intellectually dishonest of him to dismiss Harden's evidence.

 

[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!

No, that is not at all true. CRT as described in this thread is not about pointing out those issues....

Wait for it...

...only.

Yeah, nice try. As you concede, though try to minimize, It is about those issues. You want to ignore them for whatever reason. But they are there, they are historical and not so historical contributors to the problems today.

It's about, among other things:

1. Denying that races are a biological phenomenon.

CRT isn't about biology. Additionally, races, are about as biological a phenomenon as accents. Is there a NY'er accent gene?

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.

But you yourself concede CRT is about what I raised, but then try to muddle it in a bunch of psychobabble.

It was against the law to teach blacks and slaves to read. That wasn't genetics, that was racism.
Blacks needed to establish their own colleges due to in your face racism (not the systemic crap).
Blacks couldn't be in orchestras, almost never in Hollywood films (or almost always excluded to awful stereotypied roles), couldn't play professional sports, etc... This wasn't genetics.

White people in America attempted to keep blacks from any level of success for centuries through bylaws, laws, coding, and even deadly race riots, with some of this stuff dragging into the 1960's and 1970s. Again, that isn't genetics. That is history.

And now we are finally trying to get the last strips of this systemic racism out of our nation. Dragging you (well, you are in Argentina, so not you personally) every damn step of the way, yelling and screaming "But what about genetics!?" .

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

No one is going to take you seriously until you demonstrate at least a minimal ability to accurately describe the content of the paradigm you are supposedly critiquing...

So to be clear here, AM is arguing that:
Race is biologically important (despite numerous studies showing it is not)

Racial disparities are the result of some construction of race that is not "social" (that racial disparities are driven by biological differences, but numerous studies indicate this is not the case).

That CRT seeks to redefine racism.

Or, in other words, AM seems to not understand that some people are taller because they have a specific gene in their bodies which makes them enter puberty later and/or have more active growth plates, not "because they are black". In fact you do not need to "be black" to possess that mutation any more than you need to "be white" to possess lactase persistence, and any individual of any race can have any of these genes, and they are most assuredly decently well distributed after nearly 200 years of bumping uglies between the reservoirs of those traits.

As it is, the racial disparities that AM wants to say are biological are unlikely to happen given the existence of heavy selection pressure created directly counter to the effect he claims is "biological" in origin.

 

[blastula]

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.

The problem here is neither you nor Darity know what you're talking about but Harden does.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

No, just look at this thread. CRT theorists ought to be clear, stop redefining words or else make clear that they are not speaking in common English and define their words, and of course drop their unwarranted assumptions. And they ought to stop denying that race is a biological phenomenon, because it is, as B20 already explained in this thread and others.

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.

You can repeat that, but actually, you said earlier that

You do accept that racial disparities are the result of social constructions of race, then?

by which you implied in context that racial disparities are the result of social constructions of race. And of course, I did not claim that CRT says that race is the only factor in an individual's life. Rather, I pointed out that CRT as described in this thread claims that racial disparities are the result of the social construction of race. Among other problems with CRT.

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.

No, by "culture", I do not mean race by another name. For example, suppose that there is some group of people - from, say, China or Korea - where children usually make massive efforts to pass some exams, because they are told they have that obligation, say it's their duty to their parents, or their ancestors, or whatever, and they believe it. And suppose some other group has predominant religious beliefs that hold that girls ought not to do such-and-such behaviors, and limit their chances of learning significantly. Now, these beliefs are not about people of certain races being superior, or inferior, etc., in other words, they are not beliefs about races at all. They are not part of the social construction of race. Rather, they are part of all sort of other social constructions which are not about race, and which happen to correlate with race due to accidental historical factors, since people of the same race lived in the same place for a long time and developed that culture, different from some other culture developed in some other place by people of a different race. The result you get is racial disparities due to cultural factors not related to the social construction of race.

Of course, in addition to redefining 'racism'- which predictably and observably leads to false unwarranted accusations against innocent people -, I suppose the CRT proponent might choose to redefine 'social', 'construction', and 'race' - or something to that effect - and then claim the above would still be due to the social construction of race, and then by the previous redefinition, due to racism. But that would lead to further false accusations, and further confusion. Predictably, as people are not warned that the CRT proponent is not speaking in common English but is redefining several key words.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

No one is going to take you seriously until you demonstrate at least a minimal ability to accurately describe the content of the paradigm you are supposedly critiquing...

Obviously, I am correctly quoting CRT proponents. I accurately describe what you are saying for example, and show some of its problems. The fact that CRT proponents will not realize that that is happening is a problem, but not one I can fix.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

So to be clear here, AM is arguing that:
Race is biologically important (despite numerous studies showing it is not)

Racial disparities are the result of some construction of race that is not "social" (that racial disparities are driven by biological differences, but numerous studies indicate this is not the case).

So, to be clear here, I'm not arguing any of the sort. Jarhyn just made all of that up about me. If you want to know what I'm arguing, please read my posts.

Or, in other words, AM seems to not understand that some people are taller because they have a specific gene in their bodies which makes them enter puberty later and/or have more active growth plates, not "because they are black".

More like: Jarhyn makes that up about me.

As it is, the racial disparities that AM wants to say are biological are unlikely to happen given the existence of heavy selection pressure created directly counter to the effect he claims is "biological" in origin.

I do not want to say that racial disparities are biological. Jarhyn makes that up. Some are obviously not biological. Some I do not know. I make no claims about that. If it turns out none of the racial disparities is of biological origin, CRT is still wrong for the reasons I've been pointing out. And of course, races are still a biological phenomenon, just with differences that make no impact on racial disparities of the sort being considered.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is all genetics! *turns back the wayback machine to the 1980s*

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/b2zDwgJAqt4?t=125[/YOUTUBE]

"Not Regina!"

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Yeah, nice try. As you concede, though try to minimize, It is about those issues. You want to ignore them for whatever reason. But they are there, they are historical and not so historical contributors to the problems today.

I don't "want to ignore" them. Rather, I focus on the issues in which there is a dispute, and CRT does damage unjustly. It's like I criticize Christianity because of all of the nonsense it says, and a Christian says Christianity is about being honest, kind, etc., not stealing, murdering, etc., and I want to minimize or ignore those issues. I criticize the CRT or Christianity for what they do wrong, not for what they do not.

CRT isn't about biology. Additionally, races, are about as biological a phenomenon as accents. Is there a NY'er accent gene?

First, I'm going by Politesse claims. CRT denies that races are a biological phenomenon as described in this thread by its proponents. If you deny CRT says that, it's a dispute between you and Politesse.


Second, you are mistaken. B20 just showed that in this very thread.

But you yourself concede CRT is about what I raised, but then try to muddle it in a bunch of psychobabble.

No, I do not "concede" anything, as I'm not saying something I said is mistaken. CRT puts all sorts of things under 'social construction of race', but I do not want to muddle anything. I focus on some of CRT's big blunders.

It was against the law to teach blacks and slaves to read. That wasn't genetics, that was racism.

Obviously. No one here argues against that. No point in arguing the point. And no need to endorse CRT to point that out.

Blacks needed to establish their own colleges due to in your face racism (not the systemic crap).

Some black people did. And again, I'm not disputing that. Obviously. And again, you do not need to endorse CRT to make that point.

Blacks couldn't be in orchestras, almost never in Hollywood films (or almost always excluded to awful stereotypied roles), couldn't play professional sports, etc... This wasn't genetics.

Obviously. And one does not need to endorse CRT to point that out.

White people in America attempted to keep blacks from any level of success for centuries through bylaws, laws, coding, and even deadly race riots, with some of this stuff dragging into the 1960's and 1970s. Again, that isn't genetics. That is history.

Some white people did (though none of them did it for centuries, as humans do not live for that long), and obviously, that isn't genetics. It's history. And obviously, there is no need to endorse CRT to learn or point out history.

And now we are finally trying to get the last strips of this systemic racism out of our nation. Dragging you (well, you are in Argentina, so not you personally) every damn step of the way, yelling and screaming "But what about genetics!?"

Someone else must be screaming that. I'm instead arguing against CRT, on the grounds I'm describing.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It is all genetics! *turns back the wayback machine to the 1980s*

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/b2zDwgJAqt4?t=125[/YOUTUBE]

"Not Regina!"

Who are you criticizing?

 

[laughing dog]

Obviously. No one here argues against that. No point in arguing the point. And no need to endorse CRT to point that out....

Obviously. And again, you do not need to endorse CRT to make that point....


Obviously. And one does not need to endorse CRT to point that out....

It's history. And obviously, there is no need to endorse CRT to learn or point out history.

The irony of those repeated statements is outstanding. Thank you for pointing out part of the basis for CRT.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What do you mean by "proves racism"? If there are substantial disparate legal and economic outcomes for different citizens that can be predicted by their race independent of any other factors, that is the very definition of structural racism as per the CRT outlook. Science is not and has never been about "proof", but we do believe in following evidence where it leads, until such time as an idea is improved upon or disproven.

The bolded part is where you get it wrong--what we actually find is that with proper controls the racial effects generally vanish. It's just most of the "research" utterly ignores this possibility. Sticking your head in the sand about other factors doesn't make them go away.

Who is "we"? That contradicts all research on this issue that I am familiar with.

Note how the research carefully avoids considering the possibility that race is a proxy for socioeconomic status.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

If you want to claim there are meaningful differences between groups you need to present evidence of them. It certainly looks like there are no racial IQ differences.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Exactly.

You're distributing sunscreen. You send it to the whites rather than the blacks, no question. The out-group difference is far greater than the in-group difference.

You're picking basketball players. You pick the tallest ones, the fact that you end up with a lot of blacks is expected but you don't look at skin color in making your selections. (There is a tiny out-group difference, useless for selecting players but it will substantially skew the results when you're comparing the very tail end of the curve.)

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

Exactly. Which is why I favor systems which do not let the decision makers even know what group the people they are selecting belong to. This will avoid the effects of both the racists and the "anti"-racists (who are actually also racists) trying to skew the selection.

 

[Trausti]

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

If you want to claim there are meaningful differences between groups you need to present evidence of them. It certainly looks like there are no racial IQ differences.

While most people will agree that finding a genetic explanation for an elevated rate of disease is important, they often draw the line there. Finding genetic influences on a propensity for disease is one thing, they argue, but looking for such influences on behavior and cognition is another.

But whether we like it or not, that line has already been crossed. A recent study led by the economist Daniel Benjamin compiled information on the number of years of education from more than 400,000 people, almost all of whom were of European ancestry. After controlling for differences in socioeconomic background, he and his colleagues identified 74 genetic variations that are over-represented in genes known to be important in neurological development, each of which is incontrovertibly more common in Europeans with more years of education than in Europeans with fewer years of education.

Is performance on an intelligence test or the number of years of school a person attends shaped by the way a person is brought up? Of course. But does it measure something having to do with some aspect of behavior or cognition? Almost certainly. And since all traits influenced by genetics are expected to differ across populations (because the frequencies of genetic variations are rarely exactly the same across populations), the genetic influences on behavior and cognition will differ across populations, too.

How Genetics is Changing our Understanding of Race

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Disagree--blacks came first. Whites are mutant blacks with a malfunctioning melanin system that's actually better for life in temperate climates.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Adopted twin studies are good at sorting out genetic/epigenetic things from learned things.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Exactly. We see Asians succeed for cultural reasons. There's such a cultural drive towards educational success that the Chinese government recently clamped down, putting pretty substantial limits on tutoring.

I don't think they're any smarter, but they sure as hell apply what they have more.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

Exactly.

You're distributing sunscreen. You send it to the whites rather than the blacks, no question. The out-group difference is far greater than the in-group difference.

You're picking basketball players. You pick the tallest ones, the fact that you end up with a lot of blacks is expected but you don't look at skin color in making your selections. (There is a tiny out-group difference, useless for selecting players but it will substantially skew the results when you're comparing the very tail end of the curve.)

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

Exactly. Which is why I favor systems which do not let the decision makers even know what group the people they are selecting belong to. This will avoid the effects of both the racists and the "anti"-racists (who are actually also racists) trying to skew the selection.

The issue here being that we have every reason to believe a benefit to overall systemic quality will happen when the systemic racism is removed and we reach populational parity.

It's the same as we see in sports: when we stop artificial racism, we see that the people we filled the space with were absolutely NOT the best for the job.

I expect to see similar when the economic hobbles come off.

Deny it all you want, but having wealth somewhere in your family tree is an important resource, and one black people in general have FAR less of and for no good reason. That is a hobble.