A major problem with the "It's unseemly to focus on the causes of racial disparities" argument is that the media WILL focus on racial disparities. Endlessly. And we know they have an answer. Racism.
You can't have it both ways. If focusing on racial disparities is unseemly, then the proposed cause should be irrelevant.
And if it's reasonable to point to racism, then it's also reasonable to point to groups differences in relevant traits.
Ultimately people like Yglesias who want to preserve the taboo about race differences end up promoting a double standard. If the cause is racism, we can discuss it. If not, we should be quiet.
I have no idea if Hollywood is racist, though I doubt it. But if somebody proposes that Hollywood is racist, then we should be allowed to explore the topic while considering all potential hypotheses, including differences in IQ and self-control et cetera.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
2. He notes that blacks are massively disproportionately represented in the NBA, but so are men from the former Yugoslavia. However, he also notes he has not looked into the causes because it would be "unseemly" to be preoccupied with such a question.
3. We take the taboo against pursuing questions about race differences for granted, but this assertion should astonish us. A smart, curious man (Matt) is embracing ignorance about a compelling question because it is "unseemly." This is illiberal and anti-intellectual.
1. Hughes should be praised for his consistency and thoughtfulness, but the color blindness that he advocates is impossible and should be rejected by any realist about human nature. It is no more plausible than communism. And perhaps more insidious.
3. The extreme social constructionist view is exceedingly unlikely to be true. Human populations differ from each other in patterned and predictable ways. Hughes recognizes this and argues that race is somewhere between a natural kind and a social construct.
2:) Obviously, Thomas Jefferson had different views from James Madison who had different views from Alexander Hamilton. My analysis is based on The Federalist, a collection of essays written to defend the Constitution of 1787.
3:) The vision of human nature presented in The Federalist is surprisingly pessimistic. For The Federalist, man is a passionate, capricious, rapacious, and often irrational animal. Human nature is unalterable. Transformation is impossible.
Perhaps the simplest question in politics is should white people care about remaining majorities in countries which their ancestors created. The rest, as they say, is details. Demographics are destiny.
Of course, a kind of pluralism is perfectly consistent with this desire. It's not an easy or simplistic pluralism. And it's not something we've discussed candidly. But it's something which should merit more conversation moving forward. That's not easy or expedient. But necessary.
Race realism will eventually be discussed at a high level because it has crucial consequences. The time has not yet arrived for such candid conversations. But it will. And I hope that the uniquely American genius for debate will prevail over those who want to suppress dissent.
1. In 2013, John Horgan contemplated banning research on race and IQ, even though he was otherwise a "hard-core defender of freedom of speech and science" because it had no "redeeming value."
2. This is a common position from otherwise steadfast "champions" of free speech and inquiry. Many advocates of "heterodoxy" either ignore the topic or actively call for self-censorship (or worse).
3. The claim that such research has no "redeeming value" is ludicrous. Understanding the causes of large gaps in IQ is obviously important and only those who have not considered the topic for more than a few minutes could seriously maintain that it's without value.
In practice, colorblindness is used by progressives to belittle white identity while promoting black and Hispanic identity. Thus calling for colorblindness is like calling for cooperation in a prisoner's dilemma in which the opponent will definitely defect. It's a losing move.
Worse, those who promote colorblindness are rarely (never?) honest about the mammoth disparities that would result. How would we explain those? Progressives would feel vindicated: "See...society really is racist. We told you. This is exactly why we need DEI."
I have yet to see anybody seriously grapple with this challenge. Instead, they promote colorblindness and perfunctorily discuss closing "skills gaps" by spending more money on education--and by encouraging school choice. Tried and failed.