Hi! Like Tessa, I appreciate you sharing your concerns about the EA movement. I downvoted because some of your criticisms seem off the mark to me. Specifically, in the two years Iâve been highly involved in EA, I havenât heard a single person say that non-white people are âbiologically incapable of governing themselves.â The scientific consensus is that âclaims of inherent differences in intelligence between races have been broadly rejected by scientists on both theoretical and empirical groundsâ (Wikipedia), so it seems like a bizarre thing for an EA to say. Do you mind telling us where youâve heard someone in the EA community say this?
Sure. To take one concrete example, I know this is an explicit belief of Scott Alexanderâs (author of SlateStarCodex/âAstralCodexTen and major LessWrong contributorâthese are the two largest specific sources of EA growth beyond generics like âblogâ or 80k hours itself, per this breakdown, and were my own entry point into awareness of EA). This came out through a series of leaked emails which cite people like Steve Sailer (second link under â1. HBD is probably partially correctâ) in a general defense of neoreactionaries. Yes, these emails are old, but (a) heâs made no effort to claim theyâre incorrect and (b) heâs very recently defended people like Steve Hsu, who explicitly endorse HBD on the grounds that that is a valid theory that deserves space for advocacy. I also know Scott and his immediate associates personally, and their defenses of his views to me personally made no effort to pretend his views were otherwise.
When this fact came out, I was quite horrified and said as much. I assumed this would be a major shock. Instead, I was unable to find a single member of the Berkeley rationalist community who had a problem with it. I asked quite a few, and all of them (without exception) endorsed a position that I can roughly sum up as âwell sure, the fact is that black people are/âprobably are genetically stupid, but weâre not mean and just stating a fact so itâs fineâ. This included at least one person involved heavily with planning EA Global events here in the Bay Area, and included every single person I know personally who has even the loosest affiliation with EA. To my knowledge, not one of these people has a problem with explicit endorsement of the belief that black people are genetically stupider than white people.
To be clear, I donât think that makes them insincere. I believe they believe what theyâre saying, and I believe that they are sincerely motivated to make the world better. Thatâs why I was part of that community in the first placeâthe people involved are indeed very kind and pleasant in the day to day, to the point that this ugliness could hide for a long time. So I donât think stuff like âit seems like a bizarre thing for an EA to sayâ applies: I think they basically think that being effective requires facts and that âscientific racismâ is a fact or at least probable fact. Thereâs nothing inconsistent about that set of beliefs, abhorrent though it is to me.
For the question âHow would you describe your opinion of the [sic] the idea of âhuman biodiversityâ, eg the belief that races differ genetically in socially relevant ways?â
20.8% answered 4 and 8.7% answered 5.
Where 1 is Very unfavorable and 5 is Very favorable
Taking that at face value, 30% of Scottâs readers think favorably of âHBDâ.
(I guess you could look at it as â80% of SSC readers fail to condemn scientific racismâ. But that doesnât strike me as charitable.)
From the same survey, 13.6% identified as EAs, and 33.4% answered sorta EA.
I should mention that the survey has some nonsensical answers (IQs of 186, verbal SATs of 30). And it appears that many answers lean liberal (Identifying as liberals, thinking favorably of feminism, and more open borders, while thinking unfavorably of Trump.)
â⊠If HBD is true, then all the existing correlational and longitudinal evidence immediately implies that group differences are the major reason why per capita income in the USA are 3-190x per capita income in Africa, that group differences are a major driver of history and the future, that intelligence has enormous spillovers totally ignored in all current analyses. This has huge implications for historical research, immigration policy (regression to the mean), dysgenics discussions (minor to irrelevant from just the individual differences perspective but long-term existential threat from HBD), development aid, welfare programs, education, and pretty much every single topic in the culture wars touching on âsexismâ or âracismâ where the supposedly iron-clad evidence is confounded or based on rational priors.â
Iâm trying to imagine what global development charities EAs who believe HBD donate to, and Iâm having a hard time. Assuming this implies that some EAs (1-5%?) believe in this, I would reckon theyâre more focused on X-risks or animal welfare. (I donât think this is true anymore, see comment below) It would be helpful to see how the people who identify as EAs answered this question.
Finally, from Scottâs email (which I think sharing is a horrible violation of privacy), the last sentence is emblematic of the attitude of lots of people in the community (including myself). My Goodreads contains lots of books I expect to disagree with or be offended by (Gyn/âEcology, The Bell Curve), but I still think itâs important to look into them.
Valuing new insights sometimes means looking into things no one else would, and that has been very useful for the community (fish/âinsect welfare, longtermism). But unfortunately, one risk is that at least some people will come out believing (outrageously) wrong things. I think that is worth it.
On a personal note, Iâm black, and a community organizer, and I havenât encountered anything but respect and love from the EA community.
Iâm trying to imagine what global development charities EAs who believe HBD donate to, and Iâm having a hard time.
I donât totally follow why âthe belief that races differ genetically in socially relevant waysâ would leave one to not donate to for example the Against Malaria Foundation, or Give Directly. Assuming that there for example is on average a (slightly?) lower average IQ, it seems to me that less Malaria or more money still will do most one would hope for and what the RCTs say they do, even if you might expect (slightly ?) lower economic growth potential and in the longer term (slightly?) less potential for the regions to become highly-specialized skilled labor places?
I think youâre right. I guess I took Gwenâs comment at face value and tried to figure out how development aid will look different due to the âhuge implicationsâ, which was hard.
Hi! Like Tessa, I appreciate you sharing your concerns about the EA movement. I downvoted because some of your criticisms seem off the mark to me. Specifically, in the two years Iâve been highly involved in EA, I havenât heard a single person say that non-white people are âbiologically incapable of governing themselves.â The scientific consensus is that âclaims of inherent differences in intelligence between races have been broadly rejected by scientists on both theoretical and empirical groundsâ (Wikipedia), so it seems like a bizarre thing for an EA to say. Do you mind telling us where youâve heard someone in the EA community say this?
Sure. To take one concrete example, I know this is an explicit belief of Scott Alexanderâs (author of SlateStarCodex/âAstralCodexTen and major LessWrong contributorâthese are the two largest specific sources of EA growth beyond generics like âblogâ or 80k hours itself, per this breakdown, and were my own entry point into awareness of EA). This came out through a series of leaked emails which cite people like Steve Sailer (second link under â1. HBD is probably partially correctâ) in a general defense of neoreactionaries. Yes, these emails are old, but (a) heâs made no effort to claim theyâre incorrect and (b) heâs very recently defended people like Steve Hsu, who explicitly endorse HBD on the grounds that that is a valid theory that deserves space for advocacy. I also know Scott and his immediate associates personally, and their defenses of his views to me personally made no effort to pretend his views were otherwise.
When this fact came out, I was quite horrified and said as much. I assumed this would be a major shock. Instead, I was unable to find a single member of the Berkeley rationalist community who had a problem with it. I asked quite a few, and all of them (without exception) endorsed a position that I can roughly sum up as âwell sure, the fact is that black people are/âprobably are genetically stupid, but weâre not mean and just stating a fact so itâs fineâ. This included at least one person involved heavily with planning EA Global events here in the Bay Area, and included every single person I know personally who has even the loosest affiliation with EA. To my knowledge, not one of these people has a problem with explicit endorsement of the belief that black people are genetically stupider than white people.
To be clear, I donât think that makes them insincere. I believe they believe what theyâre saying, and I believe that they are sincerely motivated to make the world better. Thatâs why I was part of that community in the first placeâthe people involved are indeed very kind and pleasant in the day to day, to the point that this ugliness could hide for a long time. So I donât think stuff like âit seems like a bizarre thing for an EA to sayâ applies: I think they basically think that being effective requires facts and that âscientific racismâ is a fact or at least probable fact. Thereâs nothing inconsistent about that set of beliefs, abhorrent though it is to me.
Hey, I thought this discussion could use some data. I also added some personal impressions.
These are the results of the 2020 SSC survey.
For the question âHow would you describe your opinion of the [sic] the idea of âhuman biodiversityâ, eg the belief that races differ genetically in socially relevant ways?â
20.8% answered 4 and 8.7% answered 5.
Where 1 is Very unfavorable and 5 is Very favorable
The answers look similar for 2019
Taking that at face value, 30% of Scottâs readers think favorably of âHBDâ.
(I guess you could look at it as â80% of SSC readers fail to condemn scientific racismâ. But that doesnât strike me as charitable.)
From the same survey, 13.6% identified as EAs, and 33.4% answered sorta EA.
I should mention that the survey has some nonsensical answers (IQs of 186, verbal SATs of 30). And it appears that many answers lean liberal (Identifying as liberals, thinking favorably of feminism, and more open borders, while thinking unfavorably of Trump.)
A while ago, Gwern wrote
Iâm trying to imagine what global development charities EAs who believe HBD donate to, and Iâm having a hard time.
Assuming this implies that some EAs (1-5%?) believe in this, I would reckon theyâre more focused on X-risks or animal welfare. (I donât think this is true anymore, see comment below) It would be helpful to see how the people who identify as EAs answered this question.
Finally, from Scottâs email (which I think sharing is a horrible violation of privacy), the last sentence is emblematic of the attitude of lots of people in the community (including myself). My Goodreads contains lots of books I expect to disagree with or be offended by (Gyn/âEcology, The Bell Curve), but I still think itâs important to look into them.
Valuing new insights sometimes means looking into things no one else would, and that has been very useful for the community (fish/âinsect welfare, longtermism). But unfortunately, one risk is that at least some people will come out believing (outrageously) wrong things. I think that is worth it.
On a personal note, Iâm black, and a community organizer, and I havenât encountered anything but respect and love from the EA community.
Great comment!
I donât totally follow why âthe belief that races differ genetically in socially relevant waysâ would leave one to not donate to for example the Against Malaria Foundation, or Give Directly. Assuming that there for example is on average a (slightly?) lower average IQ, it seems to me that less Malaria or more money still will do most one would hope for and what the RCTs say they do, even if you might expect (slightly ?) lower economic growth potential and in the longer term (slightly?) less potential for the regions to become highly-specialized skilled labor places?
I think youâre right. I guess I took Gwenâs comment at face value and tried to figure out how development aid will look different due to the âhuge implicationsâ, which was hard.