> Are Asians generally lacking in some relevant physical characteristic, such as height, agility, or reflex speed?
Great question! To answer a question like that you might want to seek out some sort of researcher who studies diversity in humans, right? Somebody who looks at different populations and studies out how they differ in various ways? That's HBD.
Because NBA membership criteria hasn't yet been politically weaponized the way other fields are it's possible to ask questions like those that just occurred to you - does this group tend to have characteristics well-suited to the task? Maybe not, in which case trying to cram more of them into the NBA would be a bad idea, right?
The most obvious characteristic here is height. The average American male is 5'9" but the average Asian American male is under 5'7". Since height follows something resembling a bell curve, when the NBA (correctly) selects way out on the right edge for very tall people, any group whose mean is more than 2" less than the norm is likely to underrepresent so we shouldn't be surprised to see Asian underrepresentation in the NBA.
Because we know that people differ in height and weight and agility and reflex speed and muscle mass and more, when we see some level of "underrepresentation" in sports we tend to figure there's probably genetic factors explaining a good fraction of it. Which suggests the possibility of doing research to see what those factor are. What we shouldn't do is automatically label the disparity - or research into it - "racist" and denounce it and institute policies to "address" it.
> you seem less interested in the scientific questions and much more interested in the policy questions
In the context of underrepresentation, the scientific question is "Do relevant differences exist that might help explain this disparity? If so, what are they?" The first question is boring because the answer is always "Yes" - different groups differ. Figuring out the precise nature and amount of differences tends to get researchers denounced as "racist" if they take it at all seriously, so precise estimates can be hard to find and harder to defend in public.
HBD gets demonized because once you accept that different groups are different in ways that can affect their interests and job performance, that has implications beyond sports. It implies that when you see some race "underrepresented" among, say, computer programmers or brain surgeons, this also might have to do with different groups being different. Which destroys the naive case for "addressing disparities". Without doing the work to figure out what the important factors are and how much they matter, we can't reasonably assume that forcing more people of type X into job Y is making those people better off...even if it "reduces disparities". Does that make sense?
HBD is mainly the idea that different groups of people are different. And should be expected to differ; Humans are Bio-Diverse.
Different groups differ along every axis - anything you can measure, you should expect measurable differences. Different skills, different abilities, different interests. HBD is understanding and accepting that as a base fact about the world and taking it into account. Your null hypothesis should never be that all groups are exactly the same unless bigotry or structural racism causes them to be different - rather it should be that different groups differ. If anything, we should be surprised and suspect bias if they don’t differ!
This does apply when the groups are “races” but also applies with groups we’d categorize as the same “race”. German-Americans are different from Italian-Americans are different from Swedish-Americans. If anyone bothered to look we’d also find those kinds of groups differ by income, by wealth and - most of all - by representation level in various professions or college majors.
Men differ from women, Red Sox fans differ from Giants fans, people from group A are different from people in group B and that is okay - viva la difference!
Group differences can be genetic or cultural or both. And yes, IQ is one of the zillion things that differs. But it doesn’t really matter why groups differ so much as that they do and that fact has implications: it means in the absence of bias we still shouldn’t expect absolute equality of outcome to be possible or even a good idea, which makes DEI efforts likely to become an unending black hole sucking up resources without improving the world.
For example, let’s consider the representation level of Asians among professional basketball players: Asians are 6% of Americans but only 0.4% of the NBA. That means a lot of Asian people who COULD be going into basketball are doing something else instead - they must have some other career they enjoy more or are better at than basketball. Suppose we wanted to “fix” this “underrepresentation”. If we poured enough resources into it we probably could! We could bribe or shame teams into lowering their standards so as to accept more mediocre Asian players and subsidize their salaries to take the job. What does that immediately do? It validates and reinforces the stereotype that Asians are bad at basketball while creating racial resentment. Everyone rejected from a team now hates Asians for taking their spot; everyone in a team now expects their Asian players to not be very good. Since the new players are people who wouldn’t otherwise have played basketball at all they’re less likely to succeed at it; they’re likely to find they would have been better off going straight into law or medicine or whatever their other option was. DEI made them choose a worse career where everyone hates them whereas HBD would have allowed them to follow a course better suited to their height and other relevant attributes. In this case, HBD makes the minority in question better off in the long run by leaving them alone.
HBD stuff (which I consider to racist by nature, as by default this stuff does not improve the lives of minorities, but does the very opposite)
This is an opinion of yours for which counterarguments exist.
If HBD happens to be broadly correct then having people act under that assumption likely DOES improve the lives of minorities, at least compared to the mainstream alternative world in which HBD is taboo and we try to pretend every group is perfectly equal to every other group in every possible way so it must be fixed when group differences pop up.
The main HBD response to group differences existing is to ALLOW group differences to exist.
That’s a policy which is inexpensive, noncoercive, doesn’t require extra bigotry to be imposed from outside, doesn’t undermine the success of the few high-achieving minorities in relevant fields, doesn’t set up underqualified minority representatives for failure, doesn’t promote resentment against structurally unfair treatment, doesn’t deepen existing bigotry…the way the DEI/AA approach does.
Pounding square pegs into round holes is rarely good for the pegs.
So it’s okay for you to BELIEVE that HBD doesn’t improve the lives of minorities but you shouldn’t take that belief as axiomatic - it’s something that needs arguing for.
And wouldn’t it be kinda hard to HAVE that argument if you start by banning from discussion everyone who disagrees with you?
I notice you have a table collecting and assessing possible harms from the practice but no similar table collecting and assessing possible benefits. In deciding whether to fight against some practice shouldn't we want to figure out the net effect - benefits minus costs - rather than just costs?
Given how widespread the social phenomenon is, surely there must be some benefits?
( Something something Chesterton's fence...)
Near as I can tell, the people who think it's terrible are in large part motivated by largely-false quasi-Mathusian claims related to "overpopulation". If we set those aside, younger brides tend to have more kids; all else being equal we should assume those kids have lots of extra QALYs (that wouldn't otherwise exist) and also presumably make their parents happy. Are those married as children happier adults on average than those not? How do we balance a claimed higher risk of physical abuse against, say, a lower risk of ending up childless or alone or financially insecure?
If your goal is to make the world a better place, just making the list available seems like the most Effective and Altruistic way of doing that, no? Software developers tend to be way too afraid somebody will "steal their ideas" as the best ideas are HARD to popularize. Nobody but you sees as much value in YOUR ideas as they do in their OWN ideas. In practice, good ideas are cheap; what matters most is following through with implementation (and being lucky and having good timing...)
Keeping your ideas secret might prevent other people from stealing them but also prevents other people from IMPROVING them. Or sometimes even HEARING ABOUT them.
HBD is mainly the idea that different groups of people are different. And should be expected to differ; Humans are Bio-Diverse.
Different groups differ along every axis - anything you can measure, you should expect measurable differences. Different skills, different abilities, different interests. HBD is understanding and accepting that as a base fact about the world and taking it into account. Your null hypothesis should never be that all groups are exactly the same unless bigotry or structural racism causes them to be different - rather it should be that different groups differ. If anything, we should be surprised and suspect bias if they don’t differ!
This does apply when the groups are “races” but also applies with groups we’d categorize as the same “race”. German-Americans are different from Italian-Americans are different from Swedish-Americans. If anyone bothered to look we’d also find those kinds of groups differ by income, by wealth and - most of all - by representation level in various professions or college majors.
Men differ from women, Red Sox fans differ from Giants fans, people from group A are different from people in group B and that is okay - viva la difference!
Group differences can be genetic or cultural or both. And yes, IQ is one of the zillion things that differs. But it doesn’t really matter why groups differ so much as that they do and that fact has implications: it means in the absence of bias we still shouldn’t expect absolute equality of outcome to be possible or even a good idea, which makes DEI efforts likely to become an unending black hole sucking up resources without improving the world.
For example, let’s consider the representation level of Asians among professional basketball players: Asians are 6% of Americans but only 0.4% of the NBA. That means a lot of Asian people who COULD be going into basketball are doing something else instead - they must have some other career they enjoy more or are better at than basketball. Suppose we wanted to “fix” this “underrepresentation”. If we poured enough resources into it we probably could! We could bribe or shame teams into lowering their standards so as to accept more mediocre Asian players and subsidize their salaries to take the job. What does that immediately do? It validates and reinforces the stereotype that Asians are bad at basketball while creating racial resentment. Everyone rejected from a team now hates Asians for taking their spot; everyone in a team now expects their Asian players to not be very good. Since the new players are people who wouldn’t otherwise have played basketball at all they’re less likely to succeed at it; they’re likely to find they would have been better off going straight into law or medicine or whatever their other option was. DEI made them choose a worse career where everyone hates them whereas HBD would have allowed them to follow a course better suited to their height and other relevant attributes. In this case, HBD makes the minority in question better off in the long run by leaving them alone.
This is an opinion of yours for which counterarguments exist.
If HBD happens to be broadly correct then having people act under that assumption likely DOES improve the lives of minorities, at least compared to the mainstream alternative world in which HBD is taboo and we try to pretend every group is perfectly equal to every other group in every possible way so it must be fixed when group differences pop up.
The main HBD response to group differences existing is to ALLOW group differences to exist.
That’s a policy which is inexpensive, noncoercive, doesn’t require extra bigotry to be imposed from outside, doesn’t undermine the success of the few high-achieving minorities in relevant fields, doesn’t set up underqualified minority representatives for failure, doesn’t promote resentment against structurally unfair treatment, doesn’t deepen existing bigotry…the way the DEI/AA approach does.
Pounding square pegs into round holes is rarely good for the pegs.
So it’s okay for you to BELIEVE that HBD doesn’t improve the lives of minorities but you shouldn’t take that belief as axiomatic - it’s something that needs arguing for.
And wouldn’t it be kinda hard to HAVE that argument if you start by banning from discussion everyone who disagrees with you?
I notice you have a table collecting and assessing possible harms from the practice but no similar table collecting and assessing possible benefits. In deciding whether to fight against some practice shouldn't we want to figure out the net effect - benefits minus costs - rather than just costs?
Given how widespread the social phenomenon is, surely there must be some benefits?
( Something something Chesterton's fence...)
Near as I can tell, the people who think it's terrible are in large part motivated by largely-false quasi-Mathusian claims related to "overpopulation". If we set those aside, younger brides tend to have more kids; all else being equal we should assume those kids have lots of extra QALYs (that wouldn't otherwise exist) and also presumably make their parents happy. Are those married as children happier adults on average than those not? How do we balance a claimed higher risk of physical abuse against, say, a lower risk of ending up childless or alone or financially insecure?
If your goal is to make the world a better place, just making the list available seems like the most Effective and Altruistic way of doing that, no? Software developers tend to be way too afraid somebody will "steal their ideas" as the best ideas are HARD to popularize. Nobody but you sees as much value in YOUR ideas as they do in their OWN ideas. In practice, good ideas are cheap; what matters most is following through with implementation (and being lucky and having good timing...)
Keeping your ideas secret might prevent other people from stealing them but also prevents other people from IMPROVING them. Or sometimes even HEARING ABOUT them.