What, exactly, is CRT?

[Trausti]

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.

But wouldn’t you expect culture to play a role in selection? If for hundreds of years or millennia a culture rewarded a trait, say for high cognition, with greater reproductive success, would it be surprising that people from this population group had higher frequency for the trait than others? Was Darwin wrong?

 

[DrZoidberg]

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.

How does it seek to remove them? I see nothing practically applicable with it

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

But wouldn’t you expect culture to play a role in selection? If for hundreds of years or millennia a culture rewarded a trait, say for high cognition, with greater reproductive success, would it be surprising that people from this population group had higher frequency for the trait than others? Was Darwin wrong?

Your example is wrong. All human society and tribal structure across all of time has highly and efficiently selected for mental traits. There is no artificial selection pressure that would ever out-do that except perhaps racism itself: To make the selection pressure of humanity's primary adaptive trait any stronger, you would need to artificially increase adversity.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

How does it seek to remove them? I see nothing practically applicable with it

My only response to this is to believe you did not actually read any of the thread. Or any of my other posts. Anywhere. Ever.

End the drug war (systemic criminalization of marginalized communities through targeting preferred substances within those communities).
End for-profit prisons (eliminating the incentive for the drug war and continued slavery).
Banning 'the box' (questions on pre-employment questionnaires which ask about prior involvement with law enforcement beyond the scope of the original punishment, thus enshrining permanence of such racially biased laws as the drug war).
Making higher education a right rather than a "privilege" (as a very large part of structural racism is tied up in education access, and lack thereof).
Making it illegal to reference or even access racially revealing information to make distinctions in finance and housing (so as to prevent and end racially closed communities).

And the list goes on. CRT identifies sources of systemic racism specifically so they can be fought against. I assume SOME people just beat their meat talking about what is or is not structural racism, but as for me and I assume most of the others who accept CRT as a description of reality we do it so we can understand how to change said reality.

 

[Politesse]

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.

This is also manifestly untrue; there are many, many studies of human genetics that employ the very basic element of controlling for socioeconomic status. Do you people really think you can just say something on a topic you know nothing about, and it will become true somehow?

I also don't think you are thinking very clearly here about why it would even be possible to use race a consistent proxy for socioeconomic status, in the absence of systemic racism.

 

[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.

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

I'm starting to see why our conversations don't go anywhere.

 

[untermensche]

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.

But wouldn’t you expect culture to play a role in selection? If for hundreds of years or millennia a culture rewarded a trait, say for high cognition, with greater reproductive success, would it be surprising that people from this population group had higher frequency for the trait than others? Was Darwin wrong?

You don't understand evolution.

Two geniuses could have a child with an average intellect and two people of average intellect could have a genius for a child. Happens everyday.

The human brain has not changed much in the short time humans have been around.

People living 30 thousand years ago had the exact same intellectual potentials as humans living today.

 

[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.

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.

But wouldn’t you expect culture to play a role in selection? If for hundreds of years or millennia a culture rewarded a trait, say for high cognition, with greater reproductive success, would it be surprising that people from this population group had higher frequency for the trait than others? Was Darwin wrong?

That depends on factors such as whether other cultures also reward such a trait. But even if the above did happen, it would not necessarily correlate with race. It depends on factors such as what other cultures of people predominantly on the same race reward. For example, maybe Caucasoids in Spain and Caucasoids in Russia have considerably different cultures, which reward different things, etc. Though in a society where most of the people of some race are from a subracial group with that trait, you might see racial differences whereas in reality the relevant group is subracial.

But no matter, CRT would get it wrong even if it turns out that there are no genetic mental trait differences between racial or even any subracial groups - up to individual humans if you like. It's just that it's doing the wrong thing, methodologically, jumping to conclusions, obfuscating, etc., assuming a priori very improbable things, etc.

 

[Trausti]

But wouldn’t you expect culture to play a role in selection? If for hundreds of years or millennia a culture rewarded a trait, say for high cognition, with greater reproductive success, would it be surprising that people from this population group had higher frequency for the trait than others? Was Darwin wrong?

That depends on factors such as whether other cultures also reward such a trait. But even if the above did happen, it would not necessarily correlate with race. It depends on factors such as what other cultures of people predominantly on the same race reward. For example, maybe Caucasoids in Spain and Caucasoids in Russia have considerably different cultures, which reward different things, etc. Though in a society where most of the people of some race are from a subracial group with that trait, you might see racial differences whereas in reality the relevant group is subracial .

Don’t necessarily disagree. What matters is ancestry, not skin color. The Igbo are “black” but are usually high performers. They were key to trade before European contact, played a large role in the slave trade, and were good civil servants during colonial times. Thus, the other ethnic groups in Nigeria resented them. There was a civil war over it.

 

[DrZoidberg]

How does it seek to remove them? I see nothing practically applicable with it

End the drug war (systemic criminalization of marginalized communities through targeting preferred substances within those communities).

This has nothing to do with race. This is harm reduction. A well supported social engineering program to do with substance abuse management.

The fact that the war on drugs was started for racist reasons has nothing to do with why it failed. And has nothing to do with it's solution, ie harm reduction.

End for-profit prisons (eliminating the incentive for the drug war and continued slavery).

Again... what has this to do with CRT? Yeah, for profit prisons is a fucked up system with fucked up incentives.

I'll remind you... CRT is postmodernist mumbo jumbo. They can't prove shit with it. There's other sociological, more specific, models to explore this question

Banning 'the box' (questions on pre-employment questionnaires which ask about prior involvement with law enforcement beyond the scope of the original punishment, thus enshrining permanence of such racially biased laws as the drug war).
Making higher education a right rather than a "privilege" (as a very large part of structural racism is tied up in education access, and lack thereof).

I don't see how this can be tied to CRT specifically. Of all the ways to model how incentives affect society, surely any other model must be more useful than postmodernist mumbo jumbo?

Making it illegal to reference or even access racially revealing information to make distinctions in finance and housing (so as to prevent and end racially closed communities).

Again... I fail to see how CRT is useful.

And the list goes on. CRT identifies sources of systemic racism specifically so they can be fought against. I assume SOME people just beat their meat talking about what is or is not structural racism, but as for me and I assume most of the others who accept CRT as a description of reality we do it so we can understand how to change said reality.

I have not gotten the impression CRT can identify shit. It just seems to be a method for shifting perspective. Ie postmodernism. It can be used to raise questions which we then can run with and use other models to uncover. But I doubt CRT is going to help anyone describe reality. Any postmodern model of inquiry has to start with a set of assumptions. For a postmodern analysis like CRT to work you need to start by assuming racism and then follow where that will take you. Which raises questions you can then analyze via other ways. If you see the CRT model as the reality, then you'll get a warped view of the world. It's like a survivor in the mountains of Montana seeing commies everywhere.

CRT is a specialized tool for academics. It should stay there. It's easy to see how this model of description, if used uncritically by people at large can confuse rather than elucidate race relations.

We've already had this mess when it comes to current (and postmodern) feminism. Intersectionalism and fourth wave feminism and all that. What a surprise that they see patriarchal oppression everywhere. Using that model you will see patriarchal oppression everywhere. Using CRT you will see racism everywhere.

These postmodern modelling tools are highly specific and specialized and shouldn't be used outside academia by the public. Or it will get stupid fast. Which is the situation we're in.

And just to make this super clear.

Having problems with CRT being thrown around and promoted isn't the same thing as being FOR racism.

You can be skeptical about the use of CRT AND be against racism. You don't need to pick a side.

I understand the kneejerk woke reaction creating a dichotomy where everything in the world is either for or against racism. It's dumb.

And not to point out the obvious, but by continually crying wolf and accusing everything and everyone of a participant of structural racism, you are creating a world where racism is inevitable and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it. It creates passivity and victimhood. Ie, just the kind of world we're heading towards.

CRT is an awful model of reality if you want to:
1) learn what is real
2) feel empowered
3) solve racism

It's a great tool to flesh out other models of reality, and help us get, perhaps, hidden dimensions. But you can't use this as your main model of understanding anything.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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 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.)

Yeah, the trouble there is that adequacy at basketball isn't based on height. It is based on the ability to shoot a basketball or rebound.

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.

So you are for removing identifying markers of any kind, including name on resumes?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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?

The "it's genetics" crowd. Not certain how that didn't come across.

 

[Jarhyn]

This has nothing to do with race. This is harm reduction. A well supported social engineering program to do with substance abuse management.

The fact that the war on drugs was started for racist reasons has nothing to do with why it failed. And has nothing to do with it's solution, ie harm reduction.

"The reason it failed" are manyfold, and one of the groups who saw to it that it died was the group doing it so as to remove it's racially disparate effect within society.

CRT recognizes that the drug war us extremely racist in impact and effect. Hand wave all you want from Europe, but you are simply wrong: many in the US who oppose the drug war oppose it for reasons of racial equality, and this is a major point of contention in legalization bills, making sure communities of color are allowed a seat at the table in the transition to legal use.

The fact you think the drug war and it's end have nothing to do with race proves you have not been paying attention.

End for-profit prisons (eliminating the incentive for the drug war and continued slavery).

Again... what has this to do with CRT? Yeah, for profit prisons is a fucked up system with fucked up incentives.

It has everything to do with CRT. CRT is about "systemic racism". A system within society that perpetuates divisions largely on boundary lines created by slavery is the very definition of systemic racism. It creates a suggestion of how to solve the racial issues and YES, their solutions DO seem to not be directly racial. Because they aren't directly racial. Because CRT is not about direct, or even gnostic racism, and it's solutions are not going to be directly "racial".

I'll remind you... CRT is postmodernist mumbo jumbo.

No, you're not "reminding", you are staying counter-factually repeatedly as if repeating your false claim will make it less false. No, it's still false.

They can't prove shit with it. There's other sociological, more specific, models to explore this question

And then we get to the point where CRT isn't there to "prove shit", it's there to provide a model for how to effectively change shit. It's a road map to the racially fucked up situation in the US and the mechanisms of it's function.

A diagram of an internal combustion engine does not "prove" anything about the motor. Nor does a diagram of the landscape of the racial divide in the US prove anything. The diagram WILL allow you to modify the engine though. Which is the point.

CRT is not there to prove anything. The proofs of the ICE are in fact just proofs of the material properties of the block, and proofs of the principles of leverage, and proof that gasoline explodes. The proof is the running engine. The proof is the fact that TGG described all the components described by CRT. If you don't like it, well, fucking HELP FIX THINGS! I even gave you a list of the things CRT suggests to fix.

Banning 'the box' (questions on pre-employment questionnaires which ask about prior involvement with law enforcement beyond the scope of the original punishment, thus enshrining permanence of such racially biased laws as the drug war).
Making higher education a right rather than a "privilege" (as a very large part of structural racism is tied up in education access, and lack thereof).

I don't see how this can be tied to CRT specifically.

Then again you have not been paying attention. CRT indicates that racial problems are really issues with how our social systems are architected. This is specifically a problem with the architecture to a social system which leads to racially disparate outcomes.

Of all the ways to model how incentives affect society, surely any other model must be more useful than postmodernist mumbo jumbo?

Again, this is you revealing your bad faith. You have no intent to doubt this point of view you have sold yourself on.

Making it illegal to reference or even access racially revealing information to make distinctions in finance and housing (so as to prevent and end racially closed communities).

Again... I fail to see how CRT is useful.

CRT is useful because it is the very basis for me and many others fighting for this list of priorities specifically. It is useful in the same way a road map is. It does not prove anything. It is merely a useful description of the terrain for the purposes of moving from point A to point B. If things get better doing the things CRT suggests, in the way CRT suggests they will, it has been proven in this manner I suppose? The same way a map is proven correct when you find it leading you to where you want to be.

And the list goes on. CRT identifies sources of systemic racism specifically so they can be fought against. I assume SOME people just beat their meat talking about what is or is not structural racism, but as for me and I assume most of the others who accept CRT as a description of reality we do it so we can understand how to change said reality.

I have not gotten the impression CRT can identify shit.

And you won't until you stop with the bad faith and accept the value of bringing doubt against your world view

It just seems to be a method for shifting perspective.

This is an incredibly dishonest and bad-faith framing. Darwin's theory of evolution was a shifting of perspective, too. It changed all kinds of shit about how we operated, mostly for the better.

Ie postmodernism. It can be used to raise questions which we then can run with and use other models to uncover. But I doubt CRT is going to help anyone describe reality. Any postmodern model of inquiry has to start with a set of assumptions.

All maps are are "sets of assumptions", written just so on paper. They still happen to end up being quite useful.

For a postmodern analysis like CRT to work you need to start by assuming racism and then follow where that will take you.

No, CRT looks at two things, the racial construction of the US, and the functions of it's social systems as regards the actual disparate outcomes that exist.

Which raises questions you can then analyze via other ways. If you see the CRT model as the reality, then you'll get a warped view of the world.

The funniest part of this ridiculous statement is that I actually never studied CRT. I saw each individual piece and then asked the question "how would this go differently for me if I was not (white/male/wealthy)".

It's like a survivor in the mountains of Montana seeing commies everywhere.

[Restating assumption]. It's easy to see how this model of description, if used uncritically by people at large can confuse

Well, you are the case in point I guess.

[snip]

We've already had this mess when it comes to current (and postmodern) feminism. Intersectionalism and fourth wave feminism and all that. What a surprise that they see patriarchal oppression everywhere. Using that model you will see patriarchal oppression everywhere. Using CRT you will see racism everywhere.

And using a flashlight in the dark in Texas and you will see cockroaches everywhere. Turns out when you shine a light you see it's reflection against reality, and sometimes that reflection is ugly.

Just because you don't like seeing things under the unflattering light, doesn't mean those things aren't there.

Though even CRT says "racism" in your conflationary use of the term is not in fact everywhere. It says that racially disparate outcomes from social systems are everywhere. That isn't "racism", that's "systemic racism". You conflating it to just "racism" is, however, a good case in point in how CRT is wrong: it doesn't use clear language.

These postmodern modelling tools are highly specific and specialized and shouldn't be used outside academia by the public. Or it will get stupid fast. Which is the situation we're in.

r/selfawarewolves anyone?

And just to make this super clear.

Having problems with CRT being thrown around and promoted isn't the same thing as being FOR racism.

Having problems with the identification of evolution being thrown around and promoted is not the same as being FOR creationism...

But it's still fucking stupid.

You can be skeptical about the use of CRT AND be against racism. You don't need to pick a side.

So, are you skeptical that ending the drug war will end a large corpus or racially disparate treatment in the US (why am I even asking you, you don't even live here!)? Are you skeptical that providing equal access to education will have an impact on racially disparate outcomes? Are you skeptical that banning the box will have a impact on racially disparate outcomes?

I mean I was. So I applied my skepticism and came out disabused of it.

I understand the kneejerk woke reaction creating a dichotomy where everything in the world is either for or against racism racially disparate outcomes. It's dumb.

There are dichotomies that separate all kinds of things and are useful in context. There's nothing dumb about creating a system to identify the dichotomy of "meat/shit", or of "positively or negatively charged" or all kinds of other ways things vary dichotomously on.
Of course a system of dichotomies fails to be useful in answering questions outside the context of those dichotomies. That's not a problem with the dichotomous system, but a problem with whatever idiot tries doing that.

And not to point out the obvious, but by continually crying wolf and accusing everything and everyone of a participant of structural racism, you are creating a world where racism is inevitable and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it. It creates passivity and victimhood. Ie, just the kind of world we're heading towards.

Ah, there's the issue then, I see, the real issue here. You don't want to feel "accused" of being a racist.

As to what that says about you, I cannot say. You are, at any rate, being reductionist. Racism IS inevitable, but we can all make decisions which make it's impact less, especially as regards policy decisions.

Nothing I have suggested, as a direct prompt of understanding CRT, does what you suggest. In fact it ends the basis for claims of victimization!

[Snipped assertion fallacy]

It's a great tool to flesh out other models of reality, and help us get, perhaps, hidden dimensions. [Assertion fallacy]

Mere assertions don't get you to where you want to be. You should stop that.

 

[Jarhyn]

Yeah, the trouble there is that adequacy at basketball isn't based on height. It is based on the ability to shoot a basketball or rebound.

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.

So you are for removing identifying markers of any kind, including name on resumes?

I'm not Lauren, but yes, that's exactly one of the things that has been proposed in the past by him and by me.

 

[Toni]

Yeah, the trouble there is that adequacy at basketball isn't based on height. It is based on the ability to shoot a basketball or rebound.

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.

So you are for removing identifying markers of any kind, including name on resumes?

I'm not Lauren, but yes, that's exactly one of the things that has been proposed in the past by him and by me.

I'm not so certain how much value that would have. For one thing, things such as gender and race are usually apparent at interviews. For another, if one is really dedicated at only including people from X group or excluding people from Y and Z groups, most resumes have other 'tells' than name, etc. These could include where someone went to school, military experience, other job experiences, any membership in various organizations, etc.

 

[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?

The "it's genetics" crowd. Not certain how that didn't come across.

I am asking for names, because your reply in the context of a debate with me gives the impression that you are criticizing me. And since my posts have been repeatedly and grossly misrepresented, it is reasonable to ask for a name. Especially given that there is no "it's genetics" crowd in this thread. A single person is not a crowd. And people who do not know whether in some cases genetics plays a role but do know that in some cases the causes are clearly not genetic, are certainly not in a purported "it's genetics" crowd.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'm not Lauren, but yes, that's exactly one of the things that has been proposed in the past by him and by me.

I'm not so certain how much value that would have. For one thing, things such as gender and race are usually apparent at interviews. For another, if one is really dedicated at only including people from X group or excluding people from Y and Z groups, most resumes have other 'tells' than name, etc. These could include where someone went to school, military experience, other job experiences, any membership in various organizations, etc.

Interviews are an issue in the process, to be sure. Some things (for candidates at symphonic positions) are done to hide this information even in the interview; the player plays behind a screen.

To be sure there are other tells, but at the end of the day, I would rather just be able to take the majority of my in/sub-conscious biases and just foil them entirely.

At the very least, it gets some people in for an interview that certain individuals may pass on, and for many things in finance and home buying, the person who sees the applicant can be entirely separate from the person who makes decisions on what to show. Compartmentalization is a powerful tool in that space.

 

[Toni]

I'm not Lauren, but yes, that's exactly one of the things that has been proposed in the past by him and by me.

I'm not so certain how much value that would have. For one thing, things such as gender and race are usually apparent at interviews. For another, if one is really dedicated at only including people from X group or excluding people from Y and Z groups, most resumes have other 'tells' than name, etc. These could include where someone went to school, military experience, other job experiences, any membership in various organizations, etc.

Interviews are an issue in the process, to be sure. Some things (for candidates at symphonic positions) are done to hide this information even in the interview; the player plays behind a screen.

To be sure there are other tells, but at the end of the day, I would rather just be able to take the majority of my in/sub-conscious biases and just foil them entirely.

At the very least, it gets some people in for an interview that certain individuals may pass on, and for many things in finance and home buying, the person who sees the applicant can be entirely separate from the person who makes decisions on what to show. Compartmentalization is a powerful tool in that space.

I think that works well enough for some kinds of positions, but many workplaces really rely on team work and collegiality—and social skills. None of those are tied to race, gender, sexuality, etc. but they do affect how well someone works within a workplace. It is not often easy to tell, for instance, if someone speaks the expected language well enough to perform well in certain positions—teaching leaps to mind. Or practices his hygiene which, unfortunately can be an issue. Or is good with people—not essential in all jobs but very essential in others. Yes, people can and do have biases—all of us! But it’s better to be forced to look at them than to let some computer do the choosing.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The "it's genetics" crowd. Not certain how that didn't come across.

I am asking for names, because your reply in the context of a debate with me gives the impression that you are criticizing me. And since my posts have been repeatedly and grossly misrepresented, it is reasonable to ask for a name. Especially given that there is no "it's genetics" crowd in this thread. A single person is not a crowd. And people who do not know whether in some cases genetics plays a role but do know that in some cases the causes are clearly not genetic, are certainly not in a purported "it's genetics" crowd.

Yeah.

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.

...

2. It denies not only any genetic influence on racial disparities...

​I'm not saying genetics is the issues I just keep bringing up genetics. Meanwhile you just want to talk about history and intentional systemic racism we know existed in the US for centuries and has lasted well into the 20th Century.

 

[Jarhyn]

Yeah.

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.

...

2. It denies not only any genetic influence on racial disparities...

​I'm not saying genetics is the issues I just keep bringing up genetics. Meanwhile you just want to talk about history and intentional systemic racism we know existed in the US for centuries and has lasted well into the 20th Century.

Well I guess AM just earned being put back on block.