It's like they read totally different papers. Or Guo is just gonna talk about whatever he wants to talk about regardless of what's on his desk, I guess. Which might be what's happening here.
This article has a glaring logic flaw. After COLA, Asians and Whites show roughly the same median household income. But among minorities, Asians still have higher median household incomes than their Black and Hispanic counterparts. The author barely makes an attempt explain why this is the case. Doesn't the data just reinforce the perception that Asians are the model minority?
So what the article should have said, is after COLA, Asians still have an "advantage" over Blacks and Hispanics. But the illusion is that they don't do better than Whites, they perform the same. Which is not the illusion most people had in mind.
The problem is that those racial categories aren't very well aligned with anything. In 1816, this article would talk about how the Irish were a bunch of turds.
If you look at "asians" you're looking at mostly confuscian based cultures and various Indian ethnicities, mostly admitted for residency for work purposes.
"Hispanic" in particular is any of a dozen different distinct cultures. Statistically, hispanics are an overlay grafted on top of whatever other category you're bickered in -- sort of like how Jewish culture transcends nationality. A consultant from Spain and a mestizo immigrant from Guatemala picking tomatoes are the same, but have little to do with each other at all.
I would assert that if you dig deeper into data you'd find that Asian ethnic groups are pulling ahead as a cohort in many ways in the same manner that the white ethnic societies did for white immigrant groups 100 years ago. The old boys club is shifting.
This, exactly this. "Asian american" immigrant family's disproportionately come here on work visas. This is a socioeconomic effect and afaik has very little to do with race.
People don't have negative stereotypes towards Asians like they do for blacks and hispanics. People assume they are intelligent. When an Asian man walks down the street, white peoples don't cross to the other side like when they encounter a black man. If you see an Asian in a BMW people assume they are a doctor or engineer, if you see a black person in a BMW, people assume they are a drug dealer, the car is stolen, or they play professional sports.
> People don't have negative stereotypes towards Asians like they do for blacks and hispanics
They absolutely, absolutely do have negative stereotypes towards Asians. There are a different set of negative stereotypes (and in fact, different stereotypes for East Asians, South Asians, and West Asians), but there very much are negative stereotypes towards those groups.
The effect of these stereotypes is sometimes mitigated by the fact that Asians, unlike African-Americans, largely came to the US (a) of their own free will, and (b) on work visas which explicitly bias selection in favor of previous wealth and education status. But on the other hand, in other cases, the effect of these stereotypes is enhanced by this difference as well - it depends on the situation in which they manifest.
>>The contrast between whites and Asians is particularly stark. Nearly 1 in 5 white Americans reside in rural counties, where a dollar goes a lot further. But 97 percent of Asian Americans live in or near a major city, where the cost of living is higher.
By definition of living in a lower income area and subsequently making less money, you are unable to live in a nicer, high cost of living area. Personal preference aside, this means you're living in a more desirable area (for many, by definition) and these areas tend to have more job opportunities.
>> Asian Americans, largely for historical reasons, cluster near expensive coastal cities. More than 25 percent of Asian Americans live in one of the four metro areas with the highest costs of living — Honolulu, San Jose, New York and San Francisco. Overall, about 73 percent live in metro areas with above-average costs, 24 percent live in metro areas with below-average costs, and 3 percent live in rural areas.
This is basically irrelevant. One could also say, Black Americans, largely for historical reasons, cluster near more Southern large cities and towns (Dallas, Georgia, New Orleans, etc.)
>> When we factor in these geographic patterns, the racial income gaps start to look a little different
Yeah, Asian Americans still are making much more than Black and Hispanics. If this is supposed to negate the assertion many make that "For that reason, Asian Americans have often been invoked as a way to excuse the income gaps between whites and blacks or whites and Hispanics..." this isn't doing a great job.
>> If you compare whites and Asian Americans with the same amount of schooling, Asian Americans actually make less money.
They should also compare Asian Americans with Black and Hispanic Americans too, for good measure.
---
This conclusion may be faulty, but I'm basically getting the following: for "elite Asians" (keep in mind, most Asians are not "elite"), they enjoy inklings of White privilege, if there's such a thing. However, they do not receive as much of said privilege as actual White people.
What he's trying to imply is that the place people live is affected by more than simple economics. There are differing historical and cultural reasons why blacks and Asians might live in different cities, regardless of their economic power.
So controlling for their environment, Asians stand out less than they do just by looking at raw numbers. Compared to where they live, they stop outperforming whites, they just tend not to live in poor areas where whites also populate.
> So controlling for their environment, Asians stand out less than they do just by looking at raw numbers. Compared to where they live, they stop outperforming whites, they just tend not to live in poor areas where whites also populate.
That's begging the question of why they tend to live where they do: whether someone lives in a high-income/high-cost/economically-productive area is in large part driven by whether they can git into that economy.
By your logic, I could take Americans in high-income areas and those in low-income areas and prove that the former don't stand out in terms of income (which is obviously silly).
>So while Asian American households seem richer on paper, many of them don’t really feel richer because they live in places where the rent is high and the groceries are more expensive.
Ok, but other things like online purchases and college tuition aren't affected by cost of living. If you live in a high cost of living area sending a kid to an Ivy is relatively cheaper for you than someone in a lower cost of living area.
Cost of living is high partially because there is higher demand for that place. Cincinnati isn't San Francisco.
>If you live in a high cost of living area sending a kid to an Ivy is relatively cheaper for you than someone in a lower cost of living area.
I don't disagree with your point but this is a very strange example. Most people don't send their kids to Ivies (most don't even think about applying), and even fewer pay full price.
I live near London so I'm a bit of an outlier, but housing is by far my largest expenditure, double that of food and approximately 7 times that of vehicles/transport.
Also (AIUI) in the US most of the cost of education is in huge loans taken out by the child.
I guess it goes without saying that the headline is clickbait. The difference isn't "an illusion". Rather, the article describes an insightful way of looking at incomes based on cost-of-living for different geographies.
The yawning difference between Asians and whites mostly disappears after accounting for geography. But it's still quite large versus other segments (blacks, hispanics).
Based on the headline, I was expecting to see income convergence among the four groups. Not the case at all.
>For the wealthy, a high cost of living is a choice to live where they want.
To an extent. I think some of them might not mind living in less expensive rural areas if they didn't need to be in proximity to their workplace or common areas of business.
We aren't exclusively talking ultra-wealthy billionaires here, I imagine the article is mostly concerned with the more common wealthy upper-middle class workers like programmers, doctors, etc.
Because then you can show that controlling for location, Asians don't make more than whites. Asians who live in high cost of living places or low cost of living places make the same as whites living in the same locations despite having more education. This analysis is a rebuttal to the argument that Asian median income as a whole being higher than white median income implies that America is a post-racial society where working hard will result in equal reward regardless of race.
COL is not at all a sunk cost like this article has you believe; places with higher COL are generally better places to live. it's actually is a good indicator for the hard to quantify value in living one place over another. In other words, you can't just blindly factor it out and call it a day.
There is real value in living in San Francisco vs bumblefuck. It's the whole reason people want to live there in the first place despite it's higher COL!
In turn for your extra COL, you generally get access to nearby airports for travel, access to good jobs, a variety of career choices, a wide assortment of options for food and social nightlife, etc. These things have real value. You pay for this value.
Has no one done a study on the amount of time each race spends studying? It seems to be a very easy data to collect and could help us draw an actual conclusion.
It has to be noted that Asian people still drastically out-earn black people and are roughly "equal" with white people by city. Really the data shows that discrimination is more anti-black than it is pro-white (I think it would be helpful if Hispanics could be stratified by generation).
It's also revealing of the author's personal biases that he considers living in expensive coastal cities to be a disadvantage. In nearly every other context it's considered an advantage, despite the cost of living; imported goods and travel are cheaper, and infrastructure is nicer. The education system also tends to be better in rich cities, although it is worse in California due to Proposition 13. Having tenure in growing cities (and therefore owning property) is also a significant advantage in terms of wealth. Someone who bought a $200,000 house in Indianapolis in 1980 is doing a lot worse than someone who bought a $200,000 house in LA in 1980.
Of course the really old money everywhere is dominated by white people, but most white people don't have access to that.
> Really the data shows that discrimination is more anti-black than it is pro-white
Or it shows that there is something about the statistically average black person that makes them less successful than the statistically average asian person. I don't claim to know what the difference is, but this is a fairly obvious inference to make. I'd actually say this is, a priori, a lot more likely than "everyone coincidentally discriminates against these particular racial groups but not any of these other ones".
My suspicion (not based on any hard evidence) is that much of this difference is accounted for by the vast and obvious cultural differences between the average asian person in the US and the average black person in the US. Most Asian (South or East) immigrant cultures in the US aggressively push for educational and professional success. Black culture in the US doesn't.
Black culture is Southern white culture. I don't mean to diminish the many unique aspects of black culture (some historic, some modern), but any New Englander who sat at the dinner table of a working-class black family in a major Northern city, and then at a dinner table of a working-class white family in the rural Deep South, would have an eerily similar cultural experience. Presuming, of course, either family still regularly sat down for dinner together, or even lived as a family unit.
It's only to be expected then that not only do Asians lead blacks in educational attainment, they lead whites, too. And while I don't have the data, I wouldn't be surprised if this difference was greater relative to rural whites, and greater still relative to rural Southern whites.
If you don't understand that--as long as you remain convinced that Black culture is substantially distinct and uniquely (if at all) inferior--then it's easy to dismiss racism. But once you begin to see that, not only does the reality and the pervasiveness of systemic racism in this country become clear (especially the institutional racism of the Deep South), but the notion of a singular white culture disintegrates, and the concept of Americana fragments. All of a sudden the world is way more complex; even the relevant questions, let alone answers, become difficult to identify. That's no fun so I'm not surprised people remain willfully blind to it.
>Black culture is Southern white culture. I don't mean to diminish the many unique aspects of black culture
As a white kid that grew up eating fried chicken, cornbread, and watermelon, I agree with general thrust of this comment. I didn't even know this was "soul food" until I went college.
Economically and culturally, there's very little different between whites and blacks in the south, until of course race comes up. Cultural anti-black racism is a very real thing, both in the south and throughout the nation. The simple reason, is because no one wants to be the bottom of the sociological ladder, and well, at least I look superfically like the society's elite.
> I'd actually say this is, a priori, a lot more likely than "everyone coincidentally discriminates against these particular racial groups but not any of these other ones".
How would you change that prior if you were informed one of those groups had been enslaved on the basis of race for a couple of centuries, ruthlessly oppressed for another century, then blamed for most of the problems in the country for the lion's share of the next one, becoming the primary subject of every leadership discussion?
> Most Asian (South or East) immigrant cultures in the US aggressively push for educational and professional success. Black culture in the US doesn't.
Educational attainment is more difficult to translate into professional success for blacks in the US; black college graduates have twice the unemployment rate as white college graduates[1]. With the rising costs of education and the yawning gap between white wealth and black wealth, the value proposition is only becoming worse. In my experience black people think that their best chance of success lies in sales and/or entrepreneurship. The only other choice is being the best of the best.
It doesn't seem like that study normalizes for quality of college degree. I don't think it's a stretch to say that the average "ranking" (used as a proxy for quality) of the alma matter of black people is worse than that of other races.
> How would you change that prior if you were informed one of those groups had been enslaved on the basis of race for a couple of centuries, ruthlessly oppressed for another century, then blamed for most of the problems in the country for the lion's share of the next one, becoming the primary subject of every leadership discussion?
If you update that prior with what history actually shows, this is less the case than you'd imagine. From the paper underlying this post's article:
> Foreign-born Asians were barred from naturalization by the Naturalization Act of 1790. This Act excluded Asians from citizenship and voting except by birth, and created the important new legal category of “aliens ineligible for citizenship”…Asians experienced mob violence including lynchings and over 200 “roundups” from 1849-1906 (Pfaelzer, 2008), and hostility from anti-Asian clubs much like the Ku Klux Klan (e.g., the Asiatic Exclusion League, Chinese Exclusion League, Workingmen’s Party of CA), to an extent that does not appear to have any counterpart for blacks in CA history. Both Asians and blacks in CA could not testify against a white witness in court from 1853-73 (People v. Hall, 1853, see McClain, 1984), limiting Asians’ legal defense against white aggression. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the “Gentlemen’s Agreement” in 1907 barred further immigration of all “laborers” from China and Japan.
> …Asians have also faced intense economic discrimination. Many cities and states levied discriminatory taxes and fees on Asians (1852 Foreign Miner’s Tax, 1852 Commutation Tax, 1860 Fishing License, 1862 Police Tax, 1870 “queue” ordinance, 1870 sidewalk ordinance, and many others). Many professional schools and associations in CA excluded Asians (e.g., State Bar of CA), as did most labor unions (e.g., Knights of Labor, American Federation of Labor), and many employers declined to hire Asians well into the 20th century (e.g., Mears, 1928, p. 194-204). From 1913-23, virtually all western states passed increasingly strict Alien Land Acts that prohibited foreign-born Asians from owning land or leasing land for extended periods. Asians also faced laws against marriage to whites (1905 amendment to Section 60 of the CA Civil Code) and U.S. citizens (Expatriation Act 1907, Cable Act 1922). From 1942-46, the US forcibly relocated over 100,000 mainland Japanese Americans (unlike other Axis nationalities, e.g. German or Italian Americans) to military detention camps, in practice destroying a large share of Japanese American wealth. In contrast, blacks in CA were eligible for citizenship and suffrage, were officially (though often not de facto) included in CA professional associations and labor unions that excluded Asians, were not covered by the Alien Land Acts, and were not confined or expropriated during WWII.
That isn't to say that Asian-Americans had it "worse" wrt discrimination (though as the quote above shows, they did in some significant ways); the histories of the two groups in the US is far from apples to apples. But the assumption that discrimination was historically categorically different is not really that well-supported.
>>Or it shows that there is something about the statistically average black person that makes them less successful than the statistically average asian person.
Being enslaved for hundreds of years and after the emancipation being denied full rights I think has something to do with that. They were purposely held back as much as possible by white people. Not sure why you cannot see this.
I agree about the logic flaws in this article. As someone who works with one of the largest public college systems in the USA, yes, URM and Non_URM students do tend to give off the impression that asian americans fair better, and yes it is an illusion- however, focusing on ethnicity is a mistake when focusing on students who's parents also went to college- and pre-existing socio-economic status. Asia is much father away then mexico or what have you- it costs more to come here from asian countries then it does from hispanic contries on travel distance alone.
I don't like this article, I also don't like the URM/NON-URM status that school systems make based on ethnicity alone. There are many fields in which non_urm (meaning not white or asian) preform better- and they call these negative gaps. A gap is an ABS there is no -Gap. Pardon my spelling mistakes.
The illusion of it all is that you can measure based on "ethnicity" instead of something that matters more... such as being a first generation college student- being a first generation immigrant to the states- if you are eligible for PELL status or not. It's silly that we, the USA, still use ethnicity over socio-economic background as a measure to compare student success. When in all reality- ethnicity does not matter- it's about the culture and family you are raised in. No ethnicity is innately better then any other one. Culturally some might be more focused on education- and as a country, the United States is losing that culture because instead of focusing on future generations we focus on ethnicity and dumb shit.
This is a utter shit article- I work with these root statistics on a daily basis- yes they are bent based on what he is trying to rrove. It's the flaw having a theory then making the data prove it instead of looking at the data and coming up with a theory.
I'm always amazed at how obsessed certain people are with "race" (aka ethnicity) in this country. I'm very well aware of the tough racial history and I'm not saying that kind of ethnical stats shouldn't be made, but frankly, shouldn't we be talking about social classes instead?
This last presidential election was a great display of what I am talking about from both side. While one side was demonizing non-WASP, the other side banked its whole strategy on the fact that african-americans would surely vote for them (which is, when you think about it, basically saying that most people's vote cannot be predicted as they may flip/flop and are usually 50/50 +/- 5%, except for african-americans of course ...). And of course the next day, they were blamed responsible for the defeat.
This is such incredibly poor agenda-driven "journalism", with cherry-picked data used to (poorly) attack a sort of straw man argument: Asian Americans seem to offer proof that minorities can prosper — and even leapfrog whites — if they work hard and jump through the right hoops. For that reason, Asian Americans have often been invoked as a way to excuse the income gaps between whites and blacks or whites and Hispanics.
So even assuming the (unconvincing) argument that where asians live can account for the fact they are more successful than whites, how does their nonetheless COL-adjusted near parity (still ahead!) vs. whites undermine the idea that minorities can succeed in the USA?
It's easy and cheap to virtue-signal your care for this difficult problem, but the elephants in the room here are IQ and culture, and mainstream liberalism is frankly bordering on fraudulence with its refusal to confront these topics. If you actually care about fixing the worsening income and wealth gap between races - and I would suggest everyone should, as it is clearly toxic to our social fabric - it's long past time to have honest conversations about all of the potential underlying causes and possible solutions.
Sadly, the only way to even discuss culture's role without being labelled a bigot is to discuss the cultural differences within white Americans. When you're talking about how cultural traits prevalent in Appalachian communities like the one I grew up in exacerbate inequality, suddenly you have an audience. See the author J.D. Vance who wrote 'Hillbilly Elegy', and has subsequently become a darling of the political left.
It's funny, because my time spent in poor white communities and poor black communities allowed me to see how radically similar the two communities cultural traits often are. And also very similar is the fact that these communities have mixed within them families who go against the grain and succeed by not succumbing to the cultural norms around them.
Thing is, if we're honest, it's a lot easier to become popular as a minister or a politician when you tell a disenfranchised group of people that they are victims of someone else than to tell them they need to fix their own culture. Poor white families whose fathers abandon them have the same issues as black families whose fathers are absent, but the media would rather focus on the edge cases where racist cops shoot black men without cause.
Nobody ever asked black Americans to vote for a spokesman. Instead the media has decided that Al Sharpton and his ilk should be the ones consulted as to what black folks care about. He's in New York like they are, so it's easy for them and lucrative for him. In the meantime, kids hold signs saying "Black Lives Matter", but nobody wants to hold a sign that says "Black Dads Matter" even though a movement like that would do more to help black America than any government program. 70% of children being born out of wedlock has a huge effect, whether anyone is willing to admit it or not. And blaming incarceration solves nothing. The majority of absent fathers in the black community are not incarcerated.
> Thing is, if we're honest, it's a lot easier to become popular as a minister or a politician when you tell a disenfranchised group of people that they are victims of someone else than to tell them they need to fix their own culture.
It's not just that it's easier to become popular this way: political figures that are _already popular_ but even pay lip service to cultural effects are sharply criticized by intellectuals. Just look at the spate of articles recently (and throughout his presidency) faulting Barack Obama for the handful of times that he's mentioned the potential for culture to have an effect. He's also been unusually candid for a national politician in talking about the direct effects of racism, so the usual complaint that talking about culture is only a tactic for ignoring actual racism falls flat.
So what you are saying begs the question, why are there so many absent fathers in the black community?
33% of black men go to prison. That creates a situation where there are far more unattached black females vs males.
What is the optimal mating strategy in an environment where the females vastly outnumber the males?
There is lots of evidence that black men are unfairly targeted by the police. So is the epidemic of absent fathers in the african american community an expected outcome of our current policies? Is this even a cultural issue or an issue that is created through government policy?
Why do you blame culture, but ignore historical practices like redlining, or the obvious correlation with poverty, or the fact that American black people have had scarcely 50 years of equality under the law? That drugs in black communities are treated as crime, but drugs in white communities are seen as a public health crisis?
There are hundreds of issues of infinitely more substance than whether black children are conceived in wedlock.
What makes you a bigot isn't that you see that as something worth addressing. You're a bigot because, of all the problems facing black communities, you choose that one to judge them by.
"There are hundreds of issues of infinitely more substance than whether black children are conceived in wedlock."
This is where it's obvious that you are yet another non-black person who has never lived in a predominantly black community or extensively socialized with large groups of black folks in real contexts. I've attended black churches countless times, been a best man and/or a groomsman in two weddings with two very good friends who happen to be black, and my own wedding party was my brother, and white coworker, and two black men who are my oldest friends. I don't point out the lack of fathers in the black community because I'm a bigot. I point it out because I care and don't believe America can succeed without the betterment of black America.
Fatherless children are vastly more likely to end up in jail, dead, or at best drop-outs. You talk about drugs and poverty, and act as if being raised without a father doesn't directly impact that? Are you fucking serious? I'm not "judging" the black community for lack of fathers. I'm characterizing a real problem that is obviously a root cause of many others. People like you who reflexively jump to cries of "bigot" don't help. You hurt by enabling the demagogues to continue to act as if the real challenges imposed on blacks by systemic racism are equal to the challenges imposed by a broken culture that was created by white racism but has now, post Civil Rights Act, morphed into a self-perpetuating feedback loop.
Now if you excuse me I'm going to go home to my mixed-race children and continue to hate them since I'm such a bigot according to some dipshit on the internet. I'll have to kick my wife out too. Can't believe I didn't see she wasn't an Aryan before.
Do either of your black friends know you invoke their race in internet arguments?
I've lived in predominantly black neighborhoods and I've stepped over blood trails and crime scene tape to go to work, buddy, if that means credibility to you. I've taken cover during driveby shootings. Safe to say I don't idealize poor, black communities.
My question to you is: what are you going to do about absentee fathers?
If longwinded moralization about family values fixed anything, black communities would all be Beverly Hills by now, but it doesn't, so we have to look at practical and evidence-based approaches, like increasing access to family planning and drug rehab. These are measurable and reliable solutions, whereas the Bill Cosby approach has not yet demonstrated an effect.
These discussions about distressed communities are centered around recognition for identifying one singular problem, rather than holistic approaches to fixing problems in that sphere, so I don't come to HN with high hopes.
I mean... jeez, again with the name-calling. Have you looked up the definition of "bigot"? It's defined as a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
In the comments I've seen you post so far, the intolerant one is... you.
Basically, when you control for education level, Asians come out just behind whites while black and Hispanic minorities still get shafted. And that this didn't used to be the case, that Asians used to have a similar gap, which indicates that Americans have simply gotten less racist towards them. Presumably on such a large scale there shouldn't be a significant discrepancy of income for the same level of education.
> Basically, when you control for education level, Asians come out just behind whites while black and Hispanic minorities still get shafted.
The Post conveniently leaves out important parts of the paper's findings because it contradicts the conclusion they wanted to draw:
The process of institutional economic discrimination against Asians in America was equal to and in many cases stronger than that against black Americans. Hillger's paper argues that, once institutional discrimination was lifted, high-gradient societal discrimination was no match for market forces (suppressed wages for the same productivity from an Asian employee is an opportunity for easy arbitrage by a competent capitalist). These market forces did not have a similar convergence-to-white-income effect on the black labor pool, and Hillger's paper uses measures of productivity not dependent on education to at largely explain the variation.
I'm of the opinion that statistical discrimination is pretty messed up too, so this doesn't mean everything is right with the world and no further problems with racism exist. I also get that many people think that statistical racial discrimination is warranted, which leads to the kind of mental backflips necessary to write an article like this. But that doesn't change the fact that pretending that productivity differences are irrelevant is simply bad reporting by the Post: At best, it's shockingly shoddy and at worst it's simply dishonest.
>And that this didn't used to be the case, that Asians used to have a similar gap, which indicates that Americans have simply gotten less racist towards them.
Source? You have no proof that any of these differences are due to racism rather than the underlying culture of each group.
I suspect you'll get a series of high fives and fist bumps just for criticising "mainstream liberalism," no matter how valid the criticism, because that's in vogue right now.
You're living under a rock if you believe nobody is studying or confronting IQ and culture and how it relates to race. It's just it's not really intellectually profound to repeat and rehash the same old "scientific racism" that's been going on for the last century and a half, that's why you hear less of it.
Have you ever considered that there's a good reason for that fad?
I just graduated from an elite American college, and almost everyone there was extremely condescending about the idea that race and IQ were at all correlated. They felt similarly about racial culture and success. In these powerful people's eyes, the underperformance of non-White and non-Asian races is ~100% the fault of White people and their machinations.
It's telling you created a throwaway to post this.
Of course there's a good reason for that fad - scientific racism is a pseudoscience that was created in order to "prove" the inferiority of races and to justify colonialism, slavery, racism, social Darwinism, and racial eugenics.
The correlation between race and IQ is openly "admitted" right there in the into paragraph of the Wikipedia page! If academia is "hiding" it they sure are doing a bad job. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence
>It's telling you created a throwaway to post this.
I rarely comment on HN and usually just register a new account when I do. I can understand why people would register a throwaway though, considering the blind hostility people like you have in these types of discussions.
>The collation between race and IQ is openly "admitted" right there in the into paragraph of the Wikipedia page!
Wha? The lead calls it a "contentious debate" and the body cites quality sources that suggest a causal connection.
Is there any standardized test where blacks do as well as whites or asians? Did white culture somehow bias the test so that asians score higher than themselves?
The entire argument (both parent and the article) is misguided at best -- a large fraction of Asians coming to the US are here for higher education (College, Masters, or Ph.D.). Therefore, many Asian immigrants are the cream of the crop, which skews the income distribution of Asian Americans significantly upwards. The comparison is simply not meaningful.
It's the subtle racism of low expectations. They see communities self-destructing, but rather than expecting them to improve as responsible individuals, they expect them to fail like helpless invalids until the more capable communities save them.
> "how does their nonetheless COL-adjusted near parity (still ahead!) vs. whites undermine the idea that minorities can succeed in the USA?"
The article never claimed to undermine the idea that minorities can succeed in the USA. It claims to undermine the idea that Asian Americans (and minorities in general) can be more successful than whites in similar circumstances. And it has done a pretty good job at that. As the article shows, after adjusting for COL, Asians make as much as Whites, and in fact, make less than whites who are similarly qualified. I've yet to see anyone dispute the math presented.
>This is such incredibly poor agenda-driven "journalism", with cherry-picked data used to (poorly) attack a sort of straw man argument
You just described the Washington Post.
I mean, they said in their "news" section that the Ron Paul Institute was Russian Propaganda, which was just a part of their McCarthyite agenda against political dissenters[1]
I'd avoid anything by the WaPo, it's corporate media fake news.
>mainstream liberalism is frankly bordering on fraudulence with its refusal to confront these topics.
I would say it is fraudulent. The taboo on addressing racial differences, especially intelligence, in academia and the media is only taboo if it concludes whites are superior to minorities.
For example, "white people can't dance," is a culturally acceptable racist remark. "Asians are better at math" is also culturally acceptable. Any comment that breaks that rule is unacceptable. It's the same in academia and in the courts. If you publish research or a supreme court opinion that minorities are of lower intelligence, like the book, The Bell Curve, or in Justice Scalia's case, you will receive ridicule (and whether just coincidentally or as part of conspiracy theory territory - will be certain of dying a premature death)[2]. Publishing that minorities are above-average intelligence is perfectly acceptable, though [3]. Teaching through a college course that being white is a problem is also acceptable - that's because it fits the rule [4].
Queue everyone calling me alt-right or racist or something awful just for pointing out the fact that everyone knows. It's like 1984. I really hate racism. My best friend I grew up with on my street as a child is black, and I can tell you, kids grow up color blind and are not racist. It's this toxic political correctness and government that perpetuates problems of the past. I have no idea what the further agenda is in perpetuating inequality and inciting further anger and inequality. Everyone should be treated equal, especially in eyes of government. Where we are headed is we are already getting close to Harrison-Bergeron'ing people because of their skin color and past injustice.
All racism should not be tolerated.
If the problem with government is even worse than I thought then I will end up on some kind of "political dissidents" list just for spelling out these problems.
Ahh "fake news" meaning "It's not something that corresponds to my preexsting political viewpoint", as opposed to the actual definition of "complete and utter fabrication."
I'm not sure if you realize it - but your comment is the problem, not the original poster. Sometimes facts don't fit a political narrative. Comments like yours are what have polarized the nation. Your knee-jerk reaction to anything that disagrees with your position is to name-call and shame. Not very good form.
I kind of disagree in this case. As a general rule I think ideas should be debated objectively and with facts, but when someone so clearly promotes the idea that there are human races that are genetically distinct and map onto traits like intelligence and success I just think of the legacy that this line of thinking has given us: death, torture, and poverty throughout human history on a scale that's impossible to comprehend. Slavery and the holocaust were both predicated on the simple idea that one kind of human was superior so I don't feel comfortable sitting around sipping tea and debating that.
Slavery and the holocaust were both predicated on the simple idea that one kind of human was superior so I don't feel comfortable sitting around sipping tea and debating that.
On the Holocaust I'd argue the opposite point -- it was the denial of Jews genetically having a higher IQ that helped lead to the Holocaust. Jews had a level of wealth and achievement disproportionate to their population. So if you don't believe they are smarter and don't believe they have earned it, then the explanation you are left with is that they are tricky and their gains were ill-begotten. And if you read Amy Chua's book World on Fire you'll see this pattern over and over again. A certain ethnic group (Jews, Chinese, etc) does better everywhere they go. But then get demonized by the local population for their overachievement, and pogroms result.
Slavery and genocide have been around forever, since we were chimpanzees really. The Romans were enslaving Greeks and everyone else (who they respected for their intelligence). Slavery was not invented because of belief in racial differences. Slavery was invented because people like taking the sh*t of other people.
The NY Times publishes hundreds of articles a year on racial disparities. If you're going to make it a big issue, then you need to fully explore the reasons for the disparities based on the facts. Otherwise you will get the wrong answers, and the wrong solutions.
I believe that Chua was talking about the Ashkenazi Jews. I was convinced of the "scientific racism" explanation for their achievement based on the evidence presented in the book the 10,000 The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution Paperback by Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending. Nicholas Wade, a long time writer for the New York Times also made the same arguments in his book A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History although I haven't read it.
And you can find any number of analyses that all conclude, "yup, the link is completely spurious".
The subject isn't debatable in polite company because it has been refuted so comprehensively that the only reason to still stick to it is an unwavering dedication to white nationalist ideology.
The fallacy propagated by racists is: genetics = race, therefore "genetic differences account for intelligence" implies "racial differences account for intelligence."
Which is obviously not true, but you shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. It's actually an open secret among psychologists that genetics is moderately linked to intelligence and other things like workplace success, though no one that I know will admit even to entertaining the idea, because that would mean career suicide and death threats. But it's not a white supremacist thing. In fact, it can even be seen as the opposite. Race doesn't matter at all as long as you possess those genes for intelligence.
Please stop saying this in various comments here. It isn't true. Someone linked you to the relevant Wikipedia article, which references a lot of good sources you should become familiar with.
The problem is so-called "race realists" boiling complex sociological issues down by way of lazy and fallacious thinking, and then not-so-subtly implying that there is a racial basis for intelligence and human worth.
The snarky "checkmated by FACTS, you emotional liberal!" narrative doesn't work when STUDY after STUDY fails to find any meaningful correlation.
On the basis of race and IQ I admit I am mostly ignorant of the arguments. A quick Wiki search reveals there are plenty of studies that have shown a correlation (whether the methodology was sound is under attack it seems). So while there may or may not be a correlation, it's certainly being debated.
That said, I don't think anyone is arguing we should resort to genocide, segregation, eugenics or any of those previous "solutions". I believe people are arguing that unless we can talk candidly about factors for the growing divide, we will never fix anything.
The Black community has been waiting to talk candidly about slavery, Jim Crow, redlining, unfair incarceration, and more, for 200 years.
When will you be ready to talk about something beyond "let's keep looking for reasons to blame Black people for their suffering"?
It's "debated" by white supremacists and everyone else. It's a completely bankrupt both scientifically and morally, had has been repeatedly discredited. You might as well be talking about the debate about the shape of the earth. The whole house of cards falls down with when you realize that race is a social construct, when no unifying scientific base at all.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_of_White_People where "white" has been expanded and contracted to mean whatever was politically convenient at the time. This is obvious to anyone with even a cursory observation of contemporary American culture. Barack Obama is "black" even though he's equally "white." Keanu Reeves is "white" even though he has an "asian" parent. Argentinians are "hispanic" despite being light skinned and descendent from Italians and Germans, why? Well they speak Spanish. Even the fragility of whiteness illustrate this fact.
This whole "race realism" is the same discredited scientific racism that has persisted for hundreds of years, and is this is the second (and far more virulent) time this has come up in my adult life. The only twist on this very old idea is that now the "smart asian kid" stereotype throws a wrench in the works, when before you you dismiss asians as a bunch of treacherous lazy opium addicts. Now you have to put them in on a near peer to whites, but but discount them as "smart, but not imaginative. Good followers, not leaders." The whole thing obviously is there to simply reinforce existing stereotypes, and reduce humanity to entries in the D&D Monster Manual.
Even in this forum, and this very thread we've got a guy pointing out this out completely with citations, and he's modded down to oblivion because of the actual racists in this forum (themgt, JPKab, wutbrodo, wallace_f, and no doubt others, including those hiding behind throwaway accounts) find it uncomfortable.
I don't think anyone has an objection to honestly studying heritable traits, including those for intelligence, but rather we object to how quickly people cherry-pick individual studies to support ideologies, without paying any heed to the general scientific consensus or other studies.
"This one study from 1976..." isn't a convincing case for establishing that link.
If there were a good meta-analysis that tied together several studies and made a reasonable, statistically-grounded case that race is tied to IQ, while simultaneously explaining the contradicting studies, the anime-avatar Race Realist crowd would be absolutely tripping over themselves to post it.
> when STUDY after STUDY fails to find any meaningful correlation.
This seems like a far more productive avenue of criticism than "you're a nazi CHECKMATE". This is barely one degree of separation from political conversations like: "Government action? Nice try, STALIN"
> The snarky "checkmated by FACTS, you emotional liberal!" narrative doesn't work when STUDY after STUDY fails to find any meaningful correlation
I think you're the one constructing a narrative. From what I'm aware of, there IS a correlation between race and IQ, and it is strong. And it is borne out by study after study. Stronger than the effects of environment and education. Even in the famous Minnesota transracial twin study where adopted black children are raised by wealthy white parents, " the IQs of adopted black children reared by white families did not differ significantly from that of black children raised by their biological parents."
Oh, you're a fucking Nazi. Take your phrenology back to Stormfront, buddy.
I am actually not, whatsoever a Nazi nor do I have any affiliation with or respect for Stormfront or other white nationalists, race essentialists and related genocidal nutters. I am frankly quite far left-wing.
I see from your other comments you appear to have done very little reading of the plain facts or evolving research regarding modern genetics, anthropology, intelligence, etc and your willingness to carelessly throw around the most vile names in bad faith means I have zero desire to discuss these topics further with you.
I am simply posting to say no, I will not be slandered as a Nazi by some uninformed jerk on the internet for an honest attempt at opening some debate on very complex and sensitive topics which almost everyone attempts to avoid because of how ugly the debate inevitably becomes, both because of people like you and the Stormfronters on the other side.
Yes, lets talk about IQ and culture, and how centuries of slavery, oppression, and theft create adverse health conditions that lower IQ. It's much easier to develop a "culture" of education when the government doesn't deploy armed soldiers to lock you out of school, or throw your parents in jail on slim pretenses.
When do we start having an honest conversation about reparations for slavery? Why do rich whites pass on ancestral wealth to their children, but not ancestral debts?
> It is their culture to sing and care only about Italian hyper-cars and jewels
Even in this sickening thread, with blatant violations of HN's guidelines on all sides, your comment stands out as a racial slur. That's beyond unacceptable—it's a bannable offense. I hesitate, though, because your other comments make it clear that you're approaching this from a significantly different national perspective (and, as I see below, a different familial one too). Part of tolerance is being able to recognize those differences and navigate them. So I'm going to warn you instead of ban you, even though I have to override both my instincts and a feeling of nausea at reading your comment to do so.
In turn, please extend tolerance to the rest of the community, and understand that what you posted violated the norms so badly that you won't remain welcome here if you do it again.
It's not just studying. I think the author of the original comment meant there might be genetic and/or cultural factors that affect the inteliigence level. And intelligence level usually correlates with income level, although a lot of the related studies might be just measuring "mean temperature in the hospital" which does not provide much of a valuable insight.
It's unlikely that simply formatting your comment as "we can't say X about group Y because it's politically dangerous" is enough to prevent this comment from being flagged as intrinsically bigoted/racist, so you might want to self-moderate.
I thought about that before pressing submit and then I remembered that my mother's skin is "brown", the same as my brother's (I was the "lucky" one between me and my brother who inherited the "white" skin from my dad), that they both (my mother and my brother) have been called "gipsies" because of that, and that I've been thinking for quite some time what differentiates people and people's cultures and their perspective in life. It's not the color of their skin, it's the cultural choices they make (the "read a book part" and not begging in the street for some easy gains), if people want to call me bigoted/racist so be it.
For the study, Upward Mobility and Discrimination: The Case of Asian Americans, compare his reporting: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/29/the-r...
To Marginal Revolution's reporting: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/11/upw...
It's like they read totally different papers. Or Guo is just gonna talk about whatever he wants to talk about regardless of what's on his desk, I guess. Which might be what's happening here.
If you're really interested compare both of them to the study: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8J_qdFYwNJ6TXdRVkM5S3lMNUU...