As much as I am loathe to make another political comment, I think it needs to be said because I am opposed to ideological extremism masquerading as intellectualism. I don’t know if Yavin personally wants this, but many translate his ideas into a “white, Christian, male excellence” utopia. So let’s examine some uncomfortable truths.
If you examine any group of people along race, gender, or religion, you’ll find a Gaussian distribution of capability along any given axis. The practical consequence of this is that many mediocre people who have the “home field advantage” of being the majority culture in a country, end up in places which seem to require above average contributions from minorities in that same country. This phenomenon occurs in all countries, regardless of majority race or religion, and it doesn’t necessarily reflect systemic racism or oppression. People are biased towards other people who they see as themselves, but that cognitive bias is not inherently racist or sexist.
But let’s take Yavin, for example. He is a computer science PhD drop out whose philosophy is being written about in national media. Is there any non-white person in America who has a similar advantage, or the advantage to be taken seriously by anyone who matters? I don’t want an influx of mediocrity for the sake of inclusivity, but I don’t believe that only “white, Christian, males” have interesting ideas.
History has shown that great intellectual and scientific works came from all different cultures and societies. So many mediocre people who have the “home field advantage” by being part of the majority culture of their country get far by pretending that they are “one of the best”, while they individually may not even be fit to be a middle manager, or wait staff at a high-end restaurant.
America, in particular, has seen so much success particularly because it promises the idea of a “melting pot”, where if you are American, it doesn’t matter your race, gender, or religion. Your skills and thought contributed to a greater national identity and culture. In fact, I would say that’s probably why Yavin’s family came to America. So I find it ironic that he stands against such ideals for individual merit and liberties when he benefited from them himself.
Let’s end on a practical note about why thinking along the lines of race, gender and religion is dangerous. Post-9/11 America saw an increase in Islamophobia, but there is a sizable portion of American Muslims who hold security clearances. However, the most well-known examples of betraying American secrets have thus far been white, (sometimes) Christian, males.
As a final note, if we’re so intent on forming a technocratic meritocracy, then I am not going to take anything a PhD dropout has to say seriously.
6 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 21.0 ms ] threadIf you examine any group of people along race, gender, or religion, you’ll find a Gaussian distribution of capability along any given axis. The practical consequence of this is that many mediocre people who have the “home field advantage” of being the majority culture in a country, end up in places which seem to require above average contributions from minorities in that same country. This phenomenon occurs in all countries, regardless of majority race or religion, and it doesn’t necessarily reflect systemic racism or oppression. People are biased towards other people who they see as themselves, but that cognitive bias is not inherently racist or sexist.
But let’s take Yavin, for example. He is a computer science PhD drop out whose philosophy is being written about in national media. Is there any non-white person in America who has a similar advantage, or the advantage to be taken seriously by anyone who matters? I don’t want an influx of mediocrity for the sake of inclusivity, but I don’t believe that only “white, Christian, males” have interesting ideas.
History has shown that great intellectual and scientific works came from all different cultures and societies. So many mediocre people who have the “home field advantage” by being part of the majority culture of their country get far by pretending that they are “one of the best”, while they individually may not even be fit to be a middle manager, or wait staff at a high-end restaurant.
America, in particular, has seen so much success particularly because it promises the idea of a “melting pot”, where if you are American, it doesn’t matter your race, gender, or religion. Your skills and thought contributed to a greater national identity and culture. In fact, I would say that’s probably why Yavin’s family came to America. So I find it ironic that he stands against such ideals for individual merit and liberties when he benefited from them himself.
Let’s end on a practical note about why thinking along the lines of race, gender and religion is dangerous. Post-9/11 America saw an increase in Islamophobia, but there is a sizable portion of American Muslims who hold security clearances. However, the most well-known examples of betraying American secrets have thus far been white, (sometimes) Christian, males.
As a final note, if we’re so intent on forming a technocratic meritocracy, then I am not going to take anything a PhD dropout has to say seriously.