Money/resources, quality of education, and the individuals you are exposed to during your developmental years are the real advantages in a market system. Even on a personal/anecdotal note, I have studied across three different continents (Africa, North America, and Europe) and those categories continuously stick out to me.
No inherent traits cumulatively equals a single one of those categories. Clearly, different traits offer significant advantages in specific fields: stronger athletic ability in sports, affinity for memorization based learning for textbook based examination etc. but on such individual circumstances, I don't see how statistics can be useful for interpretation.
Last edited by Rage.Of.Olympus on Jan 2nd, 2018 at 07:44 AM
I mean even if your strawman were accurate, that would have to do with social pressure, while yours has to do with a lack of rational arguments. But I've noticed that you think empirical data is less reflective of reality than your virtue signaling. A talk on how offensive something is means much more to you than graphs, data, math or logic.
It's not so much about answering the question with a "yes" or "no" as it is recognizing that on some level, statistical distributions are a question of empiricism and not offensiveness. We may have to pretend it's the latter for the sake of everyday life, of course, but that's not the same as actually thinking it's the arbiter of reality.
[SPOILER - highlight to read]: As illustrated, you immediately recognized the absurdity of assuming one position when you read the completely accurately phrased OP and realized that assuming a 100% equal distribution on no data but faith was dumb.
There is a very controversial book on this subject called The Bell Curve, by Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein.
I think there are likely differences between races, but it's sort of irrelevant information in day to day interactions. You should still treat individuals as individuals. If an Asian man walks in for an interview his Asianness (and any statistical information relating to Asians) shouldn't be a factor in the interview.
Last edited by Patient_Leech on Jan 2nd, 2018 at 01:19 PM
It's certainly the case that you usually shouldn't judge individuals by their group characteristics, though as a society we've learned to condemn discussion of group differences precisely because we think anyone talking about them is also judging individuals. It's a weird contradiction.
I never implied that, Beni. Do you actually have something substantive to say or shall we send you back to the shallow end of the pool?
Let's face it: whether I adopted "yes" or "no", you would get annihilated in a debate. I mean partially that's due to our differences in ability, but also because you have the least knowledge of the topic despite being the most certain person in this thread.
Because part of the reason I've distanced myself from the left is that people ask questions like you just did when confronted with any question outside their boundaries of social harmony. One of the pillars of Liberalism used to be open discourse + scientific/ratioinal thinking, and nobody seems to care about that anymore.
Take you and Beni, for example. You both have a really consistent habit of appealing to mockery + virtue signaling whenever anyone mentions anything in topics you label "off limits". And yes, you do have to do this most of the time in real life, but it seems like you both take this as an arbiter of truth and not a social signal.
Last edited by The Ellimist on Jan 2nd, 2018 at 01:30 PM
I think Dmb already answered the question. Obviously due to various factors as well as simple statistical variance making it impossible no demographic can be exactly equal. But its pointless to apply it on an individual level and any individual can be any thing making it a largely irrelevant question. The only benefit to this kind of question is "race realism" bigotry attempting to mask itself in intellectualism or some kind of petty "gotcha" attempt at liberals.
Which is so painfully transparent that there really isn't a need to seriously engage on it. Asking a question in bad faith gets you a bad faith answer in return.
Last edited by Nephthys on Jan 2nd, 2018 at 01:36 PM
Well it's easy to use that gotcha when people on the left accuse anyone who thinks there are differences of racial bigotry even when you just pointed out that you can think there are differences without actually being a bigot - I mean look, beni just implicitly accused dadudemon of that because he mildly said something of that sort, and me too despite getting into flame wars over my opposition to Trump's immigration policy. [SPOILER - highlight to read]: So to many people, it's not obvious and you would get called a bigot just for saying it is.
Granted, there is a point to knowing this information: it can be used to dispute false positives on discrimination (e.g. sometimes we think an unequal outcome is always do to discrimination).