I mean, okay, there are those two chapters in _The Bell Curve_ about ethnic differences in IQ, and two chapters on affirmative action—I can see why people are pissed about _that_—but there's so much more to the man's work than that! Even 2020's _Human Diversity: The Biology of Gender, Race, and Class_ (that subtitle!!) was much more muted than what a racialist ideologue would have written: the race section mostly just covers the Science of SNP frequencies while punting with "More research is needed" about what population differences in SNP frequencies _mean_. There are just two pages on the interpretation of ethnic differences in IQ, and their visibility is much reduced by discreetly tucking them away into endnote 4 of the "class" section.
-In contrast, this little book (125 pages, plus notes) is more—focused. (The power of consensus frame control is so strong that I almost wrote "more direct", but that would be wrong, since I actually believe my case that most of Murray's thought isn't about the racial stuff that inevitably sucks all the air out of the room.) In the wake of [the events of summer 2020](/Jun/oceans-rise-empires-fall/) and the rise of identity politics on the left, Murray perceives a threat to the American creed that individuals should be treated equally as individuals, rather than as representatives of an ethnic or religious faction. Murray's response to the threat: this book about the "two truths" of the subtitle ... that American Asians, whites, Latinos, and blacks have different means and distributions of intelligence and of violent crime (!!).
+In contrast, this little book (125 pages, plus notes) is more—focused. (The power of consensus frame control is so strong that I almost wrote "more direct", but that would be wrong, because I actually believe my case that most of Murray's thought isn't about the racial stuff that inevitably sucks all the air out of the room.) In the wake of [the events of summer 2020](/Jun/oceans-rise-empires-fall/) and the rise of identity politics on the left, Murray perceives a threat to the American creed that individuals should be treated equally as individuals, rather than as representatives of an ethnic or religious faction. Murray's response to the threat: this book about the "two truths" of the subtitle ... that American Asians, whites, Latinos, and blacks have different means and distributions of intelligence and of violent crime (!!).
Murray acknowledges the irony: if the _goal_ is colorblind individualism, why write about group differences!? The problem is strategic: if we can't _talk_ about group differences, but group differences actually exist and are actually pretty stable, then well-meaning people who are distressed by group differences in socioeconomic outcomes end up conducting an increasingly paranoid witchhunt for systemic racism, eventually casting aside the American creed. Murray quotes [Daniel Patrick Moynihan](/2020/Nov/nixon-on-forbidden-hypotheses/): "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not to his own facts."
-Unfortunately, I fear Murray's project is _too_ focused—too _unambitious_—for the purposes he asks of it. (To be fair, social science is hard enough that it makes sense to ask unambitious questions if you want to get the right answer—even if that means the right answer can't help much.) The aim of the book is to argue that intelligence and crime differences [_exist_](https://twitter.com/charlesmurray/status/1409839168281272324) as not-trivially-mutable facts of our world, while remaining agnostic about any particular theory of the _causes_ of the differences. The claim is that different groups _actually do_ commit different amounts of violent crime, and _actually do_ have different distributions of cognitive ability, such that, when the groups end up differently represented in prision or higher education, you can't say that this could only be because cops and teachers are racist towards individuals. Even if the differences were solely caused by environmental factors like poverty or the cultural legacy of slavery, the differences would still be real and still show up in statistics produced by procedurally fair and non-racist institutions; the strawman of "And the differences are 100% genetic" is expressly not implied. (Not that "And this looks likely to be somewhere between 40–80% genetic" would be more than 40–80% less unpalatable.)
+Unfortunately, I fear Murray's project in _Facing Reality_ is _too_ focused—too _unambitious_—for the purposes he asks of it. (To be fair, social science is hard enough that it makes sense to ask unambitious questions if you want to get the right answer—even if that means the right answer can't help much.) The book argues that intelligence and crime differences [_exist_](https://twitter.com/charlesmurray/status/1409839168281272324) as not-trivially-mutable facts of our world, while remaining agnostic about any particular theory of the _causes_ of the differences. The claim is that different groups _actually do_ commit different amounts of violent crime, and _actually do_ have different distributions of cognitive ability, such that, when the groups end up differently represented in prision or higher education, you can't say that this could only be because cops and teachers are racist towards individuals.
-The problem is that this causality-blindness is profoundly unsatisfying. The [difference between a causal model and a statistical model](https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/45/6/1895/2999350) is _about_ how the system would respond to interventions; [this isn't something you can dodge](/2021/Feb/you-are-right-and-i-was-wrong-reply-to-tailcalled-on-causality/) if you care about policy and possibilities, rather than just summarizing static facts about a static world. Compiling the statistics and arguing that the statistics aren't just lies is an important service, and educational to those who aren't already familiar with the stats, but no sophisticated advocate of structural-racism theories is going to have their worldview substantially altered by this book. Overall, my impression of the book is favorable but restrained: I keep finding myself agreeing with Murray "as far as it goes", but thinking that it doesn't go quite as far as Murray seems to suggest.
+It's important to notice that, contrary to Murray's self-presentation of being only concerned with facts and not causality, this _is_ implicitly making causal claims: it's just that it's specifically making claims about the "crime → imprisonment" and "intelligence → success" links in the [causal graph](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/hzuSDMx7pd2uxFc5w/causal-diagrams-and-causal-models), while remaining silent about the equations underlying the "genes → intelligence ← environment" and "genes → intelligence ← environment" v-structures. But this is a technicality. (If someone with the requisite power and influence were trying to found a discipline of Actual Social Science in our world, one of the obvious first steps would be to hire [Judea Pearl](http://bayes.cs.ucla.edu/BOOK-2K/) as a technical reviewer for Murray.) Murray's point is just that even if the trait differences were solely caused by environmental factors like poverty or the cultural legacy of slavery, the differences would still be real and still show up in statistics produced by procedurally fair and non-racist institutions; the strawman of "And the differences are 100% genetic" is expressly not implied. (Not that "And this looks likely to be somewhere between 40–80% genetic" would be more than 40–80% less unpalatable.)
+
+The problem is that this causality-blindness—or not-quite-coherently _attempted_ causality-blindness—is profoundly unsatisfying. The [difference between a causal model and a statistical model](https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/45/6/1895/2999350) is _about_ how the system would respond to interventions; [this isn't something you can dodge](/2021/Feb/you-are-right-and-i-was-wrong-reply-to-tailcalled-on-causality/) if you care about policy and possibilities, rather than just summarizing static facts about a static world. Compiling the stats and arguing that the stats aren't just lies is an important service, and educational to those who aren't already familiar with the stats, but no sophisticated advocate of structural-racism theories is going to have their worldview substantially altered by this book: it's very easy to concede that the trait differences Murray documents are real (not simply made up by lying teacher and cops), but that they would vanish in a sufficiently anti-racist Society, and Murray is _explicilty_ (and reasonably, given how difficult it is) declaring that question out-of-scope. Overall, my impression of _Facing Reality_ is favorable but restrained: I keep finding myself agreeing with Murray "as far as it goes", but thinking that it just doesn't go as far as Murray seems to suggest.
After this overview, let me summarize the content of this pretty-short-for-a-book in the form of a pretty-long-for-a-blog-post. After introducing our topic, Chapter 2 covers the stats on American demographics. At present, the country is about 60% white, 18% Latino, 13% black, and 6% Asian, but the, um, black-and-white framing of American racial discourse makes more sense in this historical context that there were a lot fewer Latinos and Asians before a [1965 immigration reform](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965): in 1960, the figures were 87% white, 11% black. Big cities have become much more multiracial, whereas smaller cities and towns remain either monoracially white or biracial (the two races being white/black in the South, or white/Latino in the southwest and southern California).
The next four chapters follow a formula: "Race Differences in Cognitive Ability", "Race Differences in Violent Crime", "First-Order Effects of Race Differences in Cognitive Ability", and "First-Order Effects of Race Differences in Violent Crime." (Those chapter titles felt awful just to type!! Am I really doing this?) Much of the value of these chapters is in the graphs and tables documenting statistics that many readers will be unfamiliar with. The scatterplots of nationally-representative test scores are interesting. The black–white gap _did_ shrink between '70s when it was about 1.3 standard deviations, until about the 1990s, but has been stubbornly stable since then at about 0.85 standard deviations (a.k.a. [Cohen's _d_](/2019/Sep/does-general-intelligence-deflate-standardized-effect-sizes-of-cognitive-sex-differences/)). Murray estimates the current white–Latino difference at 0.62 standard deviations, and the current white–Asian difference at 0.3 standard deviations (favoring Asians).
-Of course, one can't just point to test scores and say "Those are the facts" without addressing what test scores _mean_. A vast space of "objective" procedures can come up with a number, without giving anyone a reason to care about that particular number. (People with more letters in their name take longer to say their name out loud, on average! Cats do better than humans on a test of scratching, on average!) In this matter of cognitive ability scores by race, Murray briefly addresses two popular (but mutually in tension) classes of objection: that the gaps will vanish with better (more equitable) education policy, and that the tests are biased.
-
-The response to the we-can-fix-it objection is basically, "We tried that and it didn't work": a lot of money and effort has been poured into attempts to narrow the racial achievement gap over the past thirty years of its stability, and no known intervention seems to provide lasting gains. The response to the tests-are-biased objection is basically, "We checked for that and it doesn't work": [TODO: continue p. 42 ...]
+Murray briefly addresses two popular (but mutually in tension) classes of objection: that the gaps will vanish with better (more equitable) education policy, and that the tests are biased. The response to the we-can-fix-it objection is basically, "We tried that and it didn't work": a lot of money and effort has been poured into attempts to narrow the racial achievement gap over the past thirty years of its stability, but we just don't know of any interventions that lastingly increase cognitive ability for _anyone_. The response to the tests-are-biased objection is basically, "We checked for that and it doesn't work": psychometricians have all sorts of technical measures to check that their tests are doing what they think, but beyond that, if the tests were biased, you would expect them to underpredict school and workplace performance, and that's not what we see: for example, black people get worse college grades than their SAT and ACT scores would predict, not better.
+Perhaps you could argue both that the tests are racist and that teachers are _even more_ racist?—but you'd want to be specific about what alternative metric of "merit" you think they're being racist _with respect to_. A vast space of "objective" procedures can come up with a number, without giving anyone a reason to care about that particular number; if you care about group rank orderings, you _could_ come up with a measurement that gets the the group rank ordering you want. (Black people have more melanin than white people, on average! People with more letters in their name take longer to say their name out loud, on average! Cats do better than humans on a test of scratching, on average! "Hispanic" comes before "White" in alphabetical order!) The problem is that it looks like the "cognitive ability" thing that psychometricians try to measure is actually pretty robust abstraction that captures variation _in individuals_ that people care about (like the ability to master a profession); if it were just a tool of racial oppression, it's hard to see why it would work so well _within_ groups.
-At times, Murray's inability in his commentary to consider flaws in the _status quo_ seems like a blindness bordering on complicity—even while, simultaneously, I find his arguments and data convincing!
+In the chapter on violent crime, Murray presents a table of black/white and Latino/white ratios of arrests for violent crimes in thirteen cities for which data was available. The median black/white ratio was 9.0 (that is, 9 black people per 1 white person) and the median Latino/white ratio was 2.4.
-Of the criminal justice system, he writes:
+To argue that these ratios are driven by real differences in behavior rather than biased police, Murray attempts to "triangulate" the true crime rate with other data. For example, arrests for murder specifically are going to be less biased by selective enforcement or fraud: even evil and corrupt cops who don't consider themselves above, say, planting evidence of drugs, seem less likely to fake a human corpse. So if racial differences in murder charges match differences in violent-crime arrests more generally, that's probabilistic evidence that arrests are tracking a real difference in criminal behavior.
-> The social scientist's view of who commits crimes is a set of snapshots—the report of a crime, an arrest, the decision to prosecute, the charge on which the suspect is tried, the outcome of the prosecution, and the sentence for a guilty plea or verdict. At each step, the authorities are usually trying to get it right, but "getting it right" means different things. Decisions to prosecute depend on many factors besides the likelihood that the arrested person committed the crime (e.g., whether these is evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt if it goes to trial). The decision about the charges that will be filed is a main bargaining chip in a plea bargain negotiation.
+Interestingly, Murray argues that this is true even if you don't think police are generally getting the right suspect (!!), as long as the suspect who is arrested is of the same race as the actual perpetrator, which will usually be the case given how many murders are crimes of passion where the victim and perpetrator knew each other (in highly segregated communities), or tied to gang activity (where gangs are almost always monoracial). The scenario most prone to racist police getting the wrong guy—non-gang-related murders where the alleged perp is black and didn't know the victim—only accounted for 4% of all homocides. Meanwhile, the group ratios for murder arrests are more stark than for violent crimes more generally: a median black/white ratio of 18.1, and a median Latino/white ratio of 4.7, which is not the pattern we would expect to see if cops were using their discretionary powers to falsely imprison blacks and Latinos on lesser charges. Another source of data for triangulation is in reports of crimes _to_ the police: if crime _victims_ aren't racist in the same way the police themselves might be, then that would show up in the numbers—and it turns out that even black and Latino _victims_ also report more black and Latino perpretrators, even in neighborhoods where they are a minority.
-This is all very "reasonable" by the methods and epistemology of Murray's world, and I'm afraid—not a figure of speech, actually afraid—that there's nothing I could say, no words I could possibly type to explain the cruel capriciousness of that world's "reasonableness" to those who haven't personally been on the other side, who have never been abused by a total institution like the "justice" system. Two three-day stints in the psych ward are [what did it to me](/2017/Jun/memoirs-of-my-recent-madness-part-i-the-unanswerable-words/). Going to school might not be bad enough if you went to a good school.
+As an argument about patterns of behavior in our own world, I find this quite convincing, but again, Murray's agnosticism about the causes of behavior limits its applicability; I expect the sophisticated advocate of structural-racism theories to be entirely unmoved. Even if the police sometimes getting the wrong man can't change the conclusion about which races do how many murders, a world in which the police sometimes get the wrong man of the same race is _exactly_ the kind of factor that would contribute to structural racism—if the System is going to treat you interchangeably anyway, that changes your incentives to commit crime. (Is this kind of self-fulfilling prophecy plausible? I honestly don't know! I haven't done the math!) We don't know what other equilibria might be possible for a civilization with a discipline of Actual Social Science, even if there's no obvious way to jump out of our own equilibrium with the crude "policy" levers available to actualy-existing governments.
-_The authorities are usually trying to get it right._ [by the authority's own corrupt standards!! TODO: ...
-http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/can-crimes-be-discussed-literally/
-https://archive.is/HUkzY
-finish section]
+At times, Murray's inability in his commentary to consider flaws in the _status quo_ seems like a blindness bordering on complicity. Of the criminal justice system, he writes:
-Murray presents a table of black/white and Latino/white ratios of arrests for violent crimes in thirteen cities for which data was available. The median black/white ratio was 9.0 (that is, 9 blacks per 1 white) and the median Latino/white ratio was 2.4.
+> The social scientist's view of who commits crimes is a set of snapshots—the report of a crime, an arrest, the decision to prosecute, the charge on which the suspect is tried, the outcome of the prosecution, and the sentence for a guilty plea or verdict. At each step, the authorities are usually trying to get it right, but "getting it right" means different things. Decisions to prosecute depend on many factors besides the likelihood that the arrested person committed the crime (e.g., whether these is evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt if it goes to trial). The decision about the charges that will be filed is a main bargaining chip in a plea bargain negotiation.
-To argue that these ratios are driven by real differences in behavior rather than biased police, Murray attempts to "triangulate" the true crime rate with other data.
+This is all very "reasonable" by the methods and epistemology of Murray's world, and I'm afraid—not a figure of speech, really afraid—that there's nothing I could say, no words I could possibly type to explain the cruel capriciousness of that world's "reasonableness" to those who haven't personally been on the other side, who have never been abused by a total institution like the "justice" system. Two three-day stints in the psych ward are [what did it to me](/2017/Jun/memoirs-of-my-recent-madness-part-i-the-unanswerable-words/). Going to school might not be bad enough if you went to a good school.
-For example, arrests for murder specifically are going to be less biased by selective enforcement or fraud: even evil and corrupt cops who don't consider themselves above, say, planting evidence of drugs, seem less likely to fake a human corpse. So if racial differences in murder charges match differences in violent-crime arrests more generally, that's probabilistic evidence that arrests are tracking a real difference in criminal behavior.
+_The authorities are usually trying to get it right._ I mean, yes—_by the Authority's own corrupt standards_.
-Interestingly, Murray argues that this is true even if you don't think police are generally getting the right suspect (!!), as long as the suspect who is arrested is of the same race as the actual perpetrator, which will usually be the case given how many murders are crimes of passion where the victim and perpetrator knew each other (in highly segregated communities), or tied to gang activity (where gangs are almost always monoracial). The scenario most prone to racist police getting the wrong guy—non-gang-related murders where the alleged perp is black and didn't know the victim—only accounted for 4% of all homocides. Meanwhile, the group ratios for murder arrests are more stark than for violent crimes more generally: a median black/white ratio of 18.1, and a median Latino/white ratio of 4.7, which is not the pattern we would expect to see if cops were using their discretionary powers to falsely imprison blacks and Latinos on lesser charges.
-[TODO: the police getting the wrong guy of the same race is the kind of thing that would contribute to structural racism—if the System is going to treat you interchangeably anyway, that changes your incentives]
+[by the authority's own corrupt standards!! TODO: ...
+http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/can-crimes-be-discussed-literally/
+https://archive.is/HUkzY public defender
+finish section]
-Another source of data for triangulation is in reports of crimes _to_ the police: crime _victims_ might not be racist in the same way the police themselves are—and it turns out that even black and Latino victims report more black and Latino perpretrators, even in neighborhoods where they are an minority.
[TODO: summarize chapter on first-order effects of IQ]
https://aeolipera.wordpress.com/2014/10/15/observations-on-smarter-african-americans/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354010004_Genetic_Ancestry_and_General_Cognitive_Ability_in_a_Sample_of_American_Youths
+
+"Human capital mediates natural selection in contemporary humans"
+https://ueaeco.github.io/working-papers/papers/ueaeco/UEA-ECO-21-02_Updated.pdf
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / commitdiff