tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post8320489702201598523..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: Long Arc ThinkingJonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger108125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-30857178883288981952012-06-08T18:17:15.038-05:002012-06-08T18:17:15.038-05:00What would Yglesias's share be? How does his H...What would Yglesias's share be? How does his Hispanic Jewishness and the fact that he got Polar Bear'd affect his score? And does this mean that David Duke is a 6000? If you don't put guys on the other side of the ledger, then the math doesn't work.backyardfoundrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-61964696788851412302012-06-08T17:55:33.112-05:002012-06-08T17:55:33.112-05:00Jeff,
Most liberal sites expunge my comments befo...Jeff,<br /><br />Most liberal sites expunge my comments before I get anywhere near saying what I want to say. This site is an exception. The Prospect is not. It seems that you're saying white-baiting is OK and linking to it without some disapprobation is fine. Fair enough.backyardfoundrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-85209482301788744382012-06-08T08:49:47.687-05:002012-06-08T08:49:47.687-05:00Now, now. When fellas like Dubya and I pronounce ...Now, now. When fellas like Dubya and I pronounce the word 'library', it sounds an awful lot like 'liberry', and thus we have to be conscious not to get tripped up by extra, sneaky little r's.<br /><br />As such, it wouldn't surprise if the Bush press writer errred on the side of the surfeit r.CSHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-27654377214349496162012-06-08T08:05:23.124-05:002012-06-08T08:05:23.124-05:00CSH, it's important to cross-check the algorit...CSH, it's important to cross-check the algorithm against a fractalized sub-Rabelaisian error coefficient. Otherwise you're liable to be off by as much as one or two hundredths of a point, i.e. you're all over the landscape. But I'm sure you know all this already.<br /><br />And yeah, "intellectural," excellent word. :) In the thousand-year history of the English language, I'm surprised it hasn't been invented until now. Although according to this item, you may have to share credit for it with the George W. Bush library:<br /><br />http://frontburner.dmagazine.com/2010/11/16/bush-library-gives-dallas-intellectural-dimension/Professor Jeff Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00282906964800653240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-68423650086908945532012-06-08T06:53:11.281-05:002012-06-08T06:53:11.281-05:00(btw - just noticed the typo in the post above, an...(btw - just noticed the typo in the post above, and I was all ready to disavow it, but it may be an accidentally useful new word:<br /><br />Intellectural - when reasonably informed folks debate complex matters about which they feel passion, they inevitably lecture each other)CSHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-38898457325152872532012-06-08T06:46:00.188-05:002012-06-08T06:46:00.188-05:00Anyway, based on that, your percentage is 22.734%
...<i>Anyway, based on that, your percentage is 22.734%</i><br /><br />I suspect the 'Irish Adjustment Factor' on your calculation tab is too high, it looks like in my workbook the factor is roughly half yours, and so the answer is...is....<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42_%28number%29#The_Hitchhiker.27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy" rel="nofollow">42</a>.<br /><br />I always sort of figured that would happen. With the intellectural firepower in this community, the lingering triple-digit thread was bound to come up with the answer to everything, no?CSHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-52740303311254646012012-06-08T06:34:51.622-05:002012-06-08T06:34:51.622-05:00Just a guess, but I think he might mean this:
&qu...Just a guess, but I think he might mean this:<br /><br />"Most people don’t know much about the ACA, and I’m sure that—like welfare—many voters assume that the program will primarily benefit minorities and immigrants. In a world where zero-sum thinking dominates, it’s no surprise that those closest to the margins fear loss."<br /><br />Those are his next two sentences after the one you quote.<br /><br />Regardless, again, I am failing to see a problem here. Suppose the guy's completely wrong. Suppose he personally has it in for downscale whites like you and me. Well, wow. He's a commentator for <i>The American Prospect,</i> a low-circulation left-liberal magazine. The great thing about this country is, there are lots of people out there with a very wide range of different views. If you don't like his, there are plenty of others to keep you busy. (Also, the blog he wrote that on has a comment thread of its own. Have you thought about taking it up directly with him and his readers?)Professor Jeff Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00282906964800653240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-22384362728752190352012-06-08T05:27:13.495-05:002012-06-08T05:27:13.495-05:00Jeff,
What do you think Bouie meant by this?
&qu...Jeff,<br /><br />What do you think Bouie meant by this?<br /><br />"I think you can attribute downscale white skepticism of the Affordable Care Act to the a broader disdain for programs that are perceived as helping minorities."backyardfoundrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-64361755739034669172012-06-08T03:50:20.196-05:002012-06-08T03:50:20.196-05:00Early 20th century? Freakin' latecomers, spoil...Early 20th century? Freakin' latecomers, spoiling it all for the rest of us.<br /><br />Anyway, based on that, your percentage is 22.734%.Professor Jeff Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00282906964800653240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-3606825163144348082012-06-08T03:48:48.965-05:002012-06-08T03:48:48.965-05:00OR
This invasive policy is good so it's OK tha...<i>OR<br />This invasive policy is good so it's OK that it's invasive?</i><br /><br />That one.<br /><br /><i>What is the proper response to an AA who claims that downscale whites prefer some policies because they like for AAs to suffer?</i><br /><br />I'd say, call me when that becomes an actual problem.Professor Jeff Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00282906964800653240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-17191254758208120302012-06-08T03:15:10.931-05:002012-06-08T03:15:10.931-05:00Cool, most of my family came here in the early twe...Cool, most of my family came here in the early twentieth century as impoverished, benighted Irish. No slave owners (of course there weren't many in the South, either.) What's my percentage of collective racial guilt?backyardfoundrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-56166485790251716232012-06-08T03:06:38.291-05:002012-06-08T03:06:38.291-05:00Jeff,
I don't understand. You don't consi...Jeff,<br /><br />I don't understand. You don't consider federal affirmative action and disparate impact legislation to be invasive policy?<br /> OR<br />You don't think invasive govt policies are bad; freedom from coercion isn't a good on its own?<br />OR<br />This invasive policy is good so it's OK that it's invasive?<br /><br />What is the proper response to an AA who claims that downscale whites prefer some policies because they like for AAs to suffer? Should we just say that What's The Matter With Kansas? was right?backyardfoundrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-48670972858961613442012-06-08T02:14:04.476-05:002012-06-08T02:14:04.476-05:00Couves, we seem to be dealing with some black-and-...Couves, we seem to be dealing with some black-and-white thinking here. You do know that there can be <i>degrees</i> of responsibility, right? Like, being "responsible" doesn't mean 100%, it might mean 70% or 50% or 20%. Have you ever been on a jury? In civil cases, juries are often asked to make exactly that kind of judgment. This is important because fractional liabilities also create create obligations, even if they're not unqualified or total.Professor Jeff Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00282906964800653240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-39961427843810798322012-06-08T01:56:39.130-05:002012-06-08T01:56:39.130-05:00Jeff - None of the policies you allude to would ma...Jeff - None of the policies you allude to would make us responsible for the condition of an entire race. I do agree they should be changed however.Couveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00926561539205771774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-33090255743539276852012-06-08T00:48:12.889-05:002012-06-08T00:48:12.889-05:00@Couves: Yes, but that is not the only variable. W...@Couves: Yes, but that is not the only variable. We're talking about the situation of people in 2012. The US in various ways <i>took advantage of</i> the caste system and its consequences. That doesn't make it responsible for the system's <i>origins,</i> but it does make it complicit in the consequences we're facing today.<br /><br />@backyard: Thanks, I will try to state my position. I agree with much of your critique (although maybe less so the part about "invasive government policy"), and in fact I will go further and add this: Affirmative-action policies have a proven record of causing a backlash that cancels out some of their usefulness. Now, you don't always want to condition your policy on whether it will cause a backlash -- there was no good reason, for instance, to delay school integration in the '50s because some yahoos turned out in force to spit on black students -- but in this case, those lashing back have a decent moral argument (i.e. they shouldn't be held responsible as individuals for historic wrongs that they didn't personally commit). <br /><br />So I would prefer policies targeted at helping those who actually need help, <i>regardless of race.</i> This is obviously harder to do in some ways, although there have been interesting experiments, like Texas deciding by law 20 years ago that its state universities would admit the top 10% of every high-school class in the state. That meant that poor white communities got the same break as poor black or Hispanic communities. This also has downsides, but it's a less backlash-prone policy, it seems to me.<br /><br />Beyond that, this is not a policy area I've studied carefully. You have criticized liberals for taking positions they're not fully informed about, so I want to be careful not to do that. Basically, I think the historical injuries are real and cannot be ignored, but I also agree that race-based policies to address them are highly problematic, and that finding the right solutions needs careful discussion and study.Professor Jeff Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00282906964800653240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-64957524725229674892012-06-08T00:35:55.050-05:002012-06-08T00:35:55.050-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Professor Jeff Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00282906964800653240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-40484604100467087532012-06-08T00:35:53.997-05:002012-06-08T00:35:53.997-05:00Jeff,
I want to understand the strongest argumen...Jeff, <br /><br />I want to understand the strongest arguments of even people I'm sure are wrong because being sure is usually idiotic. If you think this is weird, you're not alone among liberals. Maybe 1% of smart partisan liberals I've come across could name a single smart non-liberal whose work they follow. I don't have to agree with an argument to give a fair telling of it. <br /><br />I can't figure out your stance on affirmative action. Can you say it in a few sentences? Here's my version: end it (especially as regards disparate impact lawsuits at work) because it makes it hard to fire poor workers, raises the costs of hiring as businesses grow, leads to hiring doltish tokens, is mostly a transfer to women instead of racial minorities, and mostly harms downscale whites and Asians. Plus it's invasive govt policy, which is bad because low-coercion is better. Use some other mechanism to address history because this isn't effective and guarantees that the weakest person in most organizations will be AA because orgs compete for them to avoid lawsuits (except for CAP, which doesn't do affirmative action) letting in AAs with worse credentials than the rest on purpose.backyardfoundrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-28957812318909894672012-06-07T23:52:54.324-05:002012-06-07T23:52:54.324-05:00Jeff - Yes, there has been a great deal of US infl...Jeff - Yes, there has been a great deal of US influence in Latin America (much of it malign). But their "caste society" was well established hundreds of years before the time period you speak of, or even the birth of our own nation.Couveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00926561539205771774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-58272767285534266282012-06-07T22:33:45.944-05:002012-06-07T22:33:45.944-05:00Couves, that is really amazing. So, then, nothing ...Couves, that is really amazing. So, then, nothing that materially bears on the current situation of Central Americans or Central American immigrants has happened in the past 160+ years? Not massive ownership of large parts of Mexico (one-quarter of its territory at the time of the Mexican Revolution) by Americans? Not the policies of US-based plantation owners like the United Fruit Company, or the activities of American agribusinesses and multinationals like Monsanto? Not dozens of armed interventions (I'm talking US warship, US Army, US Marines) in Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Haiti, El Salvador and others, often in order to influence political outcomes in those countries? Not the activities, known or unknown, of the CIA throughout the region? Of the American Mafia or drug gangs? Of major-league baseball scouts? Nothing at all?<br /><br />Assuming you agree that at least some of those things count as "exerting influence," it sounds like you're saying that when we talk about "Hispanics" or "Mexicans" or "illegals" in current political conversation, we're referring to a population basically unchanged since the early 19th century. OK. I guess that explains why they're always wearing the stiff collars and the big, frilly hoop skirts?<br /><br />backyard, how do I link you back to your own comment? You wrote, "Brains are physical and affected by environment (just as are legs.) People whose ancestors came from different isolated regions should have different brains." Was that some sort of devil's advocacy? If so, it looks like you fooled CSH as well as me.Professor Jeff Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00282906964800653240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-61831398751207510722012-06-07T21:06:54.422-05:002012-06-07T21:06:54.422-05:00CSH - I didn't say anything about genetics, mu...CSH - I didn't say anything about genetics, much less eugenics.Couveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00926561539205771774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-56361918871022557112012-06-07T20:43:59.928-05:002012-06-07T20:43:59.928-05:00CSH,
I'm not arguing for genetic selection be...CSH,<br /><br />I'm not arguing for genetic selection being the cause. I follow lots of smart people who argue some version of 10,000 hours and I find much of it plausible but too many people are confident for little reason. But I don't care about conservative own-goals; I only look like one because I'm commenting here. Conservatism (outside of the smart framework of "don't mess too much with successfully evolved social systems") tends to look as idiotic as liberalism to me. Why do Conservatives care so much about marijuana, gay marriage, maintaining Medicare, and Ronald Reagan?backyardfoundrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-84351151604767128512012-06-07T20:02:35.166-05:002012-06-07T20:02:35.166-05:00Backyard, Couves, et al (if there are any): soapbo...Backyard, Couves, et al (if there are any): soapbox time - the eugenics stuff is a huge self-inflicted wound for embattled conservatism in the 21st century.<br /><br />Backyard, I think you might like Guns, Germs and Steel, but forget about that: read <a href="http://www.geoffcolvin.com/books/" rel="nofollow">Talent is Overrated</a>, by Forbes writer Geoff Colvin, instead. I've only shilled it about a dozen times here, its probably my favorite book, and it is very relevant to this conversation.<br /><br />What Colvin will convince you is that it doesn't matter how much native intelligence you have, or if you have the right genes, what creates greatness is the performance of 10,000 hours of the right kind of disciplined work. After you read Talent is Overrated, you will no longer be impressed by the familiar 60 Minutes segment about the idiot savant who is a concert-quality violinist. Instead you will wait for the inevitable quote from the parent saying "All Johnny wants to do is practice all day long, and its such a godsend..." - and you'll be like, <i>of course</i>.<br /><br />So, have differences arisen in brains of walled-off cultures over the last several dozen generations? Sure. Small ones, maybe even statistically significant ones, but surely not meaningful in the scheme of things. Indeed, to the extent Colvin's argument applies to the idiot savant, no matter which is the culture whose DNA makes you suspicious, surely they are well on the right side of the idiot savant, and thus fully capable of excellence per the Colvin formulation.<br /><br />So when you argue that "such-and-such race is inferior cause they spent several generations on the wrong side of the desert", you open yourself to the criticism that the differences, if they even exist, are immaterial...for example, the eugenics crowd may have crowed at research showing that the University of Michigan's famously progressive law school aff. action policies produced black students who significantly underperformed their white peers - in class. In perfect Colvin style, those same black students, aware of the opportunity that came from getting a high-powered law job with a fancy U of M degree, worked just as hard as, and did just as well professionally as, their white peers. There may be differences between the cultures, but whatever they are, they are vastly overwhelmed by the Colvin effects - so I think any practical merits for eugenics arguments are grossly overestimated.<br /><br />In fact, before I get off my soapbox, as lovers of liberty we should not be worried about the impact of eugenic-type effects; we should be worried about the fact that they have really little impact at all. Combine the Talent is Overrated finding with Woody Allen's "90% of Life is Showing Up" and you will come to a recipe for perncious defacto apartheid - pernicious cause no one admits to it as its happening. Tying it all together, the problem with Eddie Murphy's character in Trading Places was not that he was of inferior genes or something; its that he didn't try very hard. If he had, per Colvin, he would have done well - which makes eugenics arguments a siren song for already-struggling conservatives.<br /><br />The fact that all of us will do pretty well if motivated and provided the right opportunity makes the triaging of opportunity a really touchy subject in society. Don't try to fight it with the eugenics stuff; the opportunity-triagers will love to prove you wrong (and they certainly will).CSHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-20348814352717165792012-06-07T19:22:40.141-05:002012-06-07T19:22:40.141-05:00Jeff,
What should comprise the goals and methods...Jeff, <br /><br />What should comprise the goals and methods of affirmative action today and going forward?<br /><br />Do you have a link for this idea that African slaves were bred for low intelligence? I've never heard of this.backyardfoundrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-77734747934901383622012-06-07T18:35:47.334-05:002012-06-07T18:35:47.334-05:00Jeff - Yes, Hispanic society was well-established ...Jeff - Yes, Hispanic society was well-established by the time we exerted any influence there. I don't think that's an exaggeration at all.Couveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00926561539205771774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-15616948720060814682012-06-07T18:33:39.692-05:002012-06-07T18:33:39.692-05:00This [#1] is the least reasonable treatment I'...<i>This [#1] is the least reasonable treatment I've seen of an idea in a while.</i><br /><br />I agree. And yet it was common currency for a long time.<br /><br />So, you grant that "racial" differences are environmental and the result of divergences over time among geographically separated populations. Again, I agree. But then, in assessing those differences, wouldn't we need to take account of the different pressures that the various communities were subjected to -- that some were subject to enslavement, exploitation, subjugation, tyranny, etc., while others weren't? And since people don't typically request those conditions for themselves, these would be historical injustices. Which means that historical injustice is among the reasons for the differing situations of different communities today, yes?<br /><br />And IF it were the case that inherited features of the brain were somehow responsible for differing outcomes -- and I think that's the last place we should look, given all the much more obvious social and cultural determinants, but grant it for argument's sake -- wouldn't that itself be one of the historical injuries to the group with the inferior brains? Because again, brain damage or underdevelopment is obviously not a condition that a group would request for itself. Wouldn't having lowered the brain capacity of an entire group be, in fact, one of the worst historical injustices of all?<br /><br />And isn't the right response to injustice to try to correct it by delivering justice?Professor Jeff Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00282906964800653240noreply@blogger.com