Do you have a source for that? Happiness I can believe, especially because of the correlation between intelligence and neuroticism, but if IQ is a valid proxy for intelligence then I think the consensus is that intelligence strongly correlates with success.
High IQ people are also thought to be prone to ambition, questioning for purpose and stricter yearning at any achievement level which leaves them perennially unsatisfied
It's a shame, a couple years ago BTC was anticorrelated with markets. Then institutional investors started playing and since then crypto largely just tracks the markets. I wonder, where do these investors park their cash when they sell holdings during downturns?
>If there's a disparate impact, what do you imagine causes that if not discrimination?
20+ years of environmental differences, especially culture? The disabilities themselves? Genes? Nothing about human nature suggests that all demographics are equally competent in all fields, regardless of whether you group people by race, gender, political preferences, geography, religion, etc. To believe otherwise is fundamentally unscientific, though it's socially unacceptable to acknowledge this truth.
>Remembering that we all have implicit bias
This doesn't tell you anything about the direction of this bias, but the zeitgeist is such that it is nearly always assumed to go in one direction, and that's deeply problematic. It's an overcorrection that looks an awful lot like institutional discrimination.
>Remembering that we all have implicit bias and it doesn't make you a mustache-twirling villain.
Except pushing back against unilateral accusations of bias if you belong to one, and only one, specific demographic, you effectively are treated like a mustache-twirling villain. No one is openly complaining about "too much diversity" and keeping their job at the moment. That's bias.
There is no scientific literature which confirms that any specific demographic quality determine's an individuals capability at any job or task.
What does exist is, at best, shows mild correlation over large populations, but nothing binary or deterministic at an individual level.
To whit, even if your demographic group, on average, is slightly more or less successful in a specific metric, there is no scientific basis for individualized discrimination.
It's "not socially unacceptable to acknowledge this truth", it's socially unacceptable to pretend discrimination is justified.
>There is no scientific literature which confirms that any specific demographic quality determine's an individuals capability at any job or task
There absolutely is a mountain of research which unambiguously implies that different demographics are better or worse suited for certain industries. A trivial example would be average female vs male performance in physically demanding roles.
Now what is indeed missing is the research which takes the mountain of data and actually dares to draw these conclusions. Because the subject has been taboo for some 30-60 years.
>To whit, even if your demographic group, on average, is slightly more or less successful in a specific metric, there is no scientific basis for individualized discrimination
We are not discussing individual discrimination, I am explaining to you that statistically significant differences in demographic representation are extremely weak evidence for discrimination. Or are you trying to suggest that the NFL, NBA, etc are discriminating against non-blacks?
>It's "not socially unacceptable to acknowledge this truth", it's socially unacceptable to pretend discrimination is justified
See above, and I'm not sure if you're being dishonest by insinuating that I'm trying to justify discrimination or if you genuinely missed my point. Because that's how deeply rooted this completely unscientific blank slate bias is in western society.
Genes and culture influence behavior, choices, and outcomes. Pretending otherwise and forcing corrective discrimination for your pet minority is anti-meritocratic and is damaging our institutions. Evidenced by the insistence by politicized scientists that these differences are minor.
A single standard deviation difference in mean IQ between two demographics would neatly and obviously explain "lack of representation" among high paying white collar jobs; I just can't write a paper about it if I'm a professional researcher or I'll get the James Watson treatment for effectively stating that 2+2=4. This isn't science, our institutions have been thoroughly corrupted by such ideological dogma.
The usual view of meritocracy is this sports-like idea of wanting to see each person's inherent capability shine though.
Instead, we could give everyone the absolute best tech and social support, and only then evaluate performance, not of individuals, but of individuals+tech, the same way we evaluate a pilot's vision with their glasses on.
Broad averages of what? Difference in muscle characteristics and bone structure between males and females? Multiple consistent studies showing wide variance in average IQ among various demographics? The strong correlation between IQ and all manner of life outcomes, including technical achievements?
Or are you asking me to find a study which shows which specific cultural differences make large swaths of people more likely to, say, pursue sports and music versus academic achievement? Or invest in their children?
Again, the evidence is ubiquitous, overwhelming, and unambiguous. Synthesizing it into a paper would get a researcher fired in the current climate, if they could even find funding or a willing publisher; not because it would be factually incorrect, but because the politicized academic culture would find a title like "The Influence of Ghetto Black Cultural Norms on Professional Achievement" unpalatable if the paper didn't bend over backwards to blame "socioeconomic factors". Which is ironic because culture is the socio in socioeconomics, yet I would actually challenge YOU to find a single modern paper which examines negative cultural adaptations in any nonwhite first world group.
Further, my argument has been dishonestly framed (as is typical) as a false dichotomy, I'm not arguing that discrimination doesn't exist, but the opposition is viciously insisting, that all differences among groups are too minor to make a difference in a meritocracy, and anyone who questions otherwise is a bigot.
I did not call you a bigot. I never made any assumptions or aspersions as to your personal beliefs.
I am pointing that, despite your claim that your viewpoint is rooted in science, you have no scientific basis for your belief beyond your own synthesis of facts which you consider "ubiquitous, overwhelming, and unambiguous".
You have a belief unsupported by scientific literature. If you want to claim that the reason it is unsupported is because of a vast cultural conspiracy against the type of research which would prove your point, you're free to do so.
>You have a belief unsupported by scientific literature
I have repeatedly explained to you that the belief is indeed supported by a wealth of indirect scientific literature.
>You have a belief unsupported by scientific literature. If you want to claim that the reason it is unsupported is because of a vast cultural conspiracy against the type of research which would prove your point, you're free to do so.
Calling it a conspiracy theory is a dishonest deflection. It is not a conspiracy, it is a deeply rooted institutional bias. But I can play this game too: can you show me research which rigorously proves that genes and culture have negligible influence on social outcomes? Surely if this is such settled science, it will be easy to justify, right?
Except I bet you won't find any papers examining the genetic and/or cultural influences on professional success in various industries. It's like selective reporting, lying through omission with selective research instead.
But you will easily find a wealth of unfalsifiable and irreproducible grievance studies papers which completely sidestep genes and culture while dredging for their predetermined conclusions regarding the existence of discrimination. And because the socioeconomic factors of genes and culture are a forbidden topic, you end up with the preposterous implication that all discrepancies in representation must be the result of discrimination, as in the post that spawned this thread.
How would you make sure that the supplied version has the same weights as the production version? And wouldn't the weights and architecture be refined over time anyway?
Perjury laws. Once a judge has commanded you to give the same AI, you either give the same AI, or truthfully explain that you can't. Any deviation from that and everyone complicit is risking jail time, not just money.
"this is the June 2020 version, this is the current version, we have no back ups in between" is acceptable if true. Destroying or omitting an existing version is not.
Not that not having backups is something that you can sue the company for as an investor. If you say we have the June 2020 version, but not the july one you asked for you are fine, (it is reasonable to have save daily backups for a month, monthly backups for a year, and then yearly backups). Though even then I might be able to sue you for not having version control of the code.
If a non-hired employee brings a criminal action, this may matter.
For a civil action, the burden of proof is "preponderance of evidence," which is a much lower standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt." "Maybe the weights are different now" is a reasonable doubt, but in a civil case the plaintiff could respond "Can the defendant prove the weights are different? For that matter, can the defendant even explain to this court how this machine works? How can the defendant know this machine doesn't just dress up discrimination with numbers?" And then it's a bad day for the defendant to the tune of a pile of money if they don't understand the machine they use.
> How would you make sure that the supplied version has the same weights as the production version?
You just run the same software (with the same state database, if applicable).
Oh wait, I forgot, nobody knows or cares what software they're running. As long as the website is pretty and we can outsource the sysop burden, well then, who needs representative testing or the ability to audit?
>did not think it was relevant to even ask me, or she knew it and actively avoided my opinion. Both situations are alarming.
You're right to be concerned, but maybe a little enthusiastic about influencing her decisions. I would gently urge her with what facts I could but maybe go easy with the big brothering. Sometimes letting people make their own mistakes beats the risk of chasing them away with overbearing guidance.
Of course I don't know anything about your relationship with your sister so YMMV.
I haven't read the paper yet but it looks like the breakthrough is that it uses the "same weights" for tasks in completely different domains.
Which implies that it can draw from any of the domains it has been trained on for other domains. Speculating here but for example training it on identifying pictures of dogs and then automagically drawing on those updated weights when completing text prompts about dog properties.
If my interpretation is correct then this is a pretty big deal (if it works well enough) and brings us a lot closer to AGI.
I agree and I think part of it is nostalgia for a time when educational channels actually broadcast informative content, not semi-scripted, over edited, over dramatized reality tv. Did anyone else notice the slow boil of channels like History, Discovery, Animal Planet? Just irresponsible to coast on their reputation and start showing nothing but junk TV 24/7 to people who thought they were learning.
I think it started with Pawn Stars and went downhill from there. MBAs saw $$$ and had no qualms about dumbing down their national audience and trashing the reputations of the channels in the process. American TV is unwatchable IMO.
I used to watch Discovery’s “Wild Discovery” animal series every night. Then they spun out Animal Planet, which was cool. Then they started putting filler programming on AP. Now it’s all gone Honey Boo Boo TLC with scripted reality shows that are animal-adjacent. Have to catch reruns of Blue Planet and Planet Earth on BBCAmerica if I want to unwind with a nature doc in the evening
It really is painful to watch. It's been so long since I watched anything that wasn't a streaming service that when I see old fashioned TV with commercials and horrible editing it drives me up a wall.
I remember when my complaint about the History Channel was that it was WWII all the time. It was still massively better than today; at least I learned about the Battle of the Bulge over and over and over.
I didn’t have cable growing up, but by the time I was in college History channel had already given up on history and was just running “Ancient Aliens” and its ilk along with reality TV. As far as I know, there is nowhere to find good documentary content on a regular basis (whether by streaming or legacy media). PBS gets close, but even their Nova and Nature programs have degraded in quality.
This attitude promotes prejudice, merely redirecting it to whatever demographic is convenient to paint as "dominant", it will never solve the problem because it explicitly prescribes different treatment based on ethnicity/gender.
Its an emotionally appealing but logically nonsensical justification for bigotry. And particularly appealing to people who are more interested in power than actual equality.
This common argument is disingenuous. You hide behind the term "inclusive" as though everyone is treated equally but simultaneously believe that
>Excluding skin color and gender is being blind to prejudice, not fighting it.
Which implies that historic and current prejudice must be corrected with more prejudice. Which is inconsistent with inclusiveness and equality. And we've all seen how this works in practice - certain races and one gender in particular are expected to prejudge other participants and cede their vaguely defined, unilaterally assigned and assumed privilege to create concrete prejudiced privilege for others in the "inclusive" group. And given that personal circumstances are irrelevant, this the definition of prejudice. While you may refuse to acknowledge this explicitly, logically your approach to solving racism is more racism. Which leads me to conclude that at least the loudest among the D&I camp are only using claims of equality as a thin disguise for powermongering.
>It would be pretty terrible if a historically "dominant" demographic felt persecuted because of equal options with emoji colors.
And here, ironically, you are proving my point. To correct historic injustice we are obligated to immediately dismiss any grievances from white people, bonus for snark and sarcasm. When minorities complain, all claims are immediately valid, but if whites (and sometimes Asians, when politically expedient) raise legitimate concerns, they're just being fragile. That's prejudice, my friend. And the degree to which it has become casually acceptable in increasingly larger circles is concerning.
By the way, I don't think anyone is concerned over the expanded color pallet itself, its the insistence that injecting divisive racialism into a race agnostic communication tool is the solution to prejudice. Even assuming that minorities are offended by a single yellow option is racist, much in the same way that latino people don't actually care for the similarly misguided "latinx" designation.
Equality feels like persecution to those hold all the privileges.
I'm not sure why having different colored emojis has triggered an essay to redefine inclusivity as persecution for some hypothetical "dominant" demographic, but you are proving my point.
By using weak words to avoiding naming the demographic you feel is actually persecuted here, you're turning a blind eye to centuries of prejudicial conflict and injustice - context that defeats your attempt at semantics.
>To correct historic injustice we are obligated to immediately dismiss any grievances from white people, bonus for snark and sarcasm. When minorities complain, all claims are immediately valid, but if whites (and sometimes Asians, when politically expedient) raise legitimate concerns, they're just being fragile.
You didn't even read my post.
>Equality feels like persecution to those hold all the privileges
This is carte blanche to be racist to anyone defined as privileged by the socially/politically dominant group. You're playing with fire. Only a matter of time before, as in the past, the ire is directed at you and the people you think you're fighting for. How far down the privilege totem pole are you?
It's marxism through and through, except the proles and bourgeoise have been replaced with racial classes. I encourage you to at least read the communist manifesto and see the direct parallels, right down to the language of "oppression".
Don't forget, they also usually have a little discussed special category for lumpenproletariat, where competent true believers go when they outlive their usefulness.
Not saying make it easy. Trust me, it is already extremely hard. But I am replying to GP's argument which is basically saying that you should shut up because you are coming from a country which has worse. 2 different things. And yes, there are people who make the argument that if you become a naturalized citizen, you have no right to criticize the Govt or the country since you came from a much worse place. I am tired of that BS. Google "Amy Wax India" and you will know what I am talking about.
ask yourself: why would the US allow these people to come and work here in the first place?
it’s because they NEED them. from highly skilled tech workers to “unskilled” low wage workers. Immigration and pumping human capital into our economy is the way the US stays/stayed? dominant and a superpower.
Close the pipeline and in 10-20-30 years innovation is gone ,the edge we have us gone. The American dream fuels the growth. Act shitty toward the fuel, scratch your head why things fall apart.
For what it's worth, 400 years is about 14 generations, and would constitute several thousand direct ancestors (~ 16K). Even accounting for pedigree collapse over the generations, for the vast majority of (non-Native Americans) Americans only a tiny sliver of those ancestors would have been on the continent at the time, if any.
And? Personal anecdote has no bearing on the question of whether or not foreigners are ethically or morally entitled to immigration and citizenship, or whether the process should be made easier.
Legally, the US doesn't have an obligation to to do anything other than comply with the treaties it signs. It would be within its rights as a sovereign nation to require that everyone within its borders wear a rainbow wig and hop around on one leg. However, that would be a stupid policy that would make people's lives harder for no reason.
Immigration is what is propping this country's economy up. It is a tremendous gift, not a punishment- unless you are alluding to some wierd racial monoculture thing.
The idea is to not look at a gift horse in the mouth. And stop punishing the most productive people in your economy. You don't want brexit thinking if you want to have an economy.
>Immigration is what is propping this country's economy up.
That's debatable.
>It is a tremendous gift, not a punishment- unless you are alluding to some wierd racial monoculture thing.
Immigration is not free. There are social costs which are being dismissed with shallow accusations of bigotry as an alternative to engagement (as you are implicitly doing with your monoculture reference). All peoples are entitled to preserve their cultures, that a particular nation happens to have a predominantly white population does not erase this entitlement.
Cultures clash. Immigrants vote and potentially originate from countries with incompatible cultures, many of whom have no interest in assimilating, yet their votes influence the laws that natives are obligated to follow. If democracy is meant to represent the will of the people, then it is unfair to dilute representation with immigration from nations with totally different value systems. Case in point is the ubiquitous middle eastern treatment of women; how much influence do you want such beliefs to have over your laws and cultural norms? Not even getting to the statistically proven increase in sexual assaults that native women have to suffer on behalf of immigrants in certain European countries. Consider it the paradox of tolerance.
> votes influence the laws that natives are obligated to follow
Natives? You might want to think again before using that word. Trust me, none of the new immigrants have any violent intentions or intent to steal from earlier immigrants or native Americans.
> Not even getting to the statistically proven increase in sexual assaults that native women have to suffer on behalf of immigrants in certain European countries.
I thought we were discussing US immigration. Columbus was an accomplished rapist too. Or do rapes by white men not count?
> Case in point is the ubiquitous middle eastern treatment of women; how much influence do you want such beliefs to have over your laws and cultural norms?
The post is by an Indian Hindu. Keep in mind that not all brown people are the same. Especially considering the kind of racist violence some white men inflicted on the Jews in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s. Perhaps, it is unsafe to let white people dominate a culture. The risk of holocaust and genocide is ever present. It's great if some non white culture is introduced in the society to keep the keep the genocidal tendencies of "white" culture in check.
> shallow accusations of bigotry as an alternative to engagement
You can do your part by not making the bigotry so easy to spot. A highly productive brown immigrant describing his 2 decade long naturalization process really really ticked you off, innit?
Nothing in the realm of socioeconomics is settled science. It very much is up for debate. Look at where our current economic framework has taken our present economy.
>Keep in mind that not all brown people are the same. Especially considering the kind of racist violence some white men inflicted on the Jews in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s. Perhaps, it is unsafe to let white people dominate a culture. The risk of holocaust and genocide is ever present. It's great if some non white culture is introduced in the society to keep the keep the genocidal tendencies of "white" culture in check
Your post is predictably combative so I don't know if you're being ironic here or if you are acknowledging these increasingly common and overt intentions, but in any case you are generalizing all of Europe and today's culture based on the actions of Germany 80 years ago. This is textbook racism. I'd remind you that some 50MM+ white european allies died opposing the nazis.
>You can do your part by not making the bigotry so easy to spot.
This poor substitute for an argument demonstrates my point.
>I thought we were discussing US immigration. Columbus was an accomplished rapist too. Or do rapes by white men not count?
Again, textbook racism. Generalizing all of modern day Europe based on the actions of a small minority from a selection of countries. In any case this is another deflection and says nothing about the modern day increase in documented rapes and assaults. An academic who tried to report on it was placed under investigation [0], so it seems that institutions really do share your fervor in denying inconvenient truths. Almost like people are using equality as a trojan horse for petty revenge.
So because this land was colonized 500 years ago (as it was before Europeans arrived as well by the way, native Americans were not pacifists), we shouldn't enforce borders?
How much time must pass after a land is conquered before nations are morally justified in enforcing sovereignty over borders? Particularly when the border belongs to a welfare state with finite resources and a host of internal issues that require fixing.
In this context of legal immigration, the point here isn't about sovereignty. It's simply documenting one persons experience - I don't see it as a call for open borders. Also, does the US recognize a country's sovereignty when it conducts its foreign affairs? It constantly meddles in the internal affairs of other countries, not to mention the countless military interventions over the years.
We are talking about a less than 2 decade time horizon for citizenship for immigrants who are propping up your welfare state of birthright citizens with 100K$+ payments in income tax every year.
>Written ‘in sorrow and anger,’ this is a brilliant and urgently necessary book, eloquently making the case against bigotry and for all of us migrants
If you have to hide your arguments behind accusations of bigotry, you don't have a very good argument. Border enforcement is about far more than blind xenophobia. Such accusations are reductive appeals to ethos over logos.
>I view the ACLU’s hard-left turn with alarm. It smacks of intolerance and choosing sides, precisely what a civil-liberties organization designed to defend the Bill of Rights is meant to oppose.
The ACLU has clearly been infiltrated and coopted by the same authoritarian ideologues running amok in almost all of our other institutions. Manufactured by degree mills where children take on tens of thousands in debt for the privilege of progressive indoctrination.
>Progressive causes are near and dear to my heart. I am a feminist and staunch Democrat. As a federal public defender turned law professor, I have spent my career trying to make change in a criminal legal system that is riven with racism and fundamentally unfair to those without status and financial resources
The author is complicit but in typical progressive fashion totally oblivious to her role in the rise of this activist class. She made her bed and now we all get to lay in it, surrounded by irrational diversity propaganda while forced to keep quiet in the face of genuine systemic racism under implicit threat of retaliation.
Overt discrimination against straight white males? Mandated by investors through ESG contingent funding and pushed down the chain by C-suite executives who have attended mandatory "diversity" reeducation seminars (literal racial/gendered propaganda), implemented by (overwhelmingly female) degree mill graduates in HR who viciously suppress any dissent against this particular systemically sanctioned discrimination.
That would fit the bill for systemic racism/sexism and it isn't merely alleged like that of D&I proponents.
Discrimination against straight white males? Presumably everyone would agree straight white males were given huge privileges in the long tail history of America. (That's a pretty easy reading of history.)
So, if your claim is that they are now discriminated against- what was the inflection point where they were treated with no net bias?
Perhaps the reason it feels like discrimination is because those privileges are eroding?
>Presumably everyone would agree straight white males were given huge privileges in the long tail history of America. (That's a pretty easy reading of history.)
No, that's a biased, agendad reading of history which ignores that the vast majority of these unfairly privileged white males were competing with other males who shared the same privilege. It does not justify discrimination against individuals today. It also does not demonstrate how a 90% majority benefited from workplace discrimination against the minority. Those inconvenient details are handwaved away with accusations of bigotry.
>So, if your claim is that they are now discriminated against- what was the inflection point where they were treated with no net bias?
Given the rate with which this cultural shift has progressed, there may not have been an obvious inflection point. But that's irrelevant to my argument.
In typical fashion you are simultaneously rationalizing discriminatory hiring practices (as though historic privilege requires modern correction) and denying that they are being mandated (as though D&I initiatives do not put implicit and explicit pressure against hiring white males). And the dishonesty is infuriating.
Perhaps the reason it feels like discrimination is because those privileges are eroding?
It feels like discrimination because it is discrimination.
Stop being so USA centric anyway. This crap gets exported around the world. Even if you accept the evil "corruption of blood" type propositions, people who live in countries that never had any of the racial history of the USA end up suffering from your racist and sexist nonsense.
But this particular sub-thread is about the ideology the ACLU is pushing, which unfortunately gets propagated by American companies, American employees, and dumb locals who imitate what they see on TV.
