lexcorvus

Scott Alexander covers some of the most salient points here:

http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagger...

See Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate for a book-length treatment.

(all male, all white) scientists

This is both ad hominem and wrong (the fourth scientist featured, Dr. Debra W. Soh, is an East Asian woman).

YC(a) is serious about being politically correct, while YC(b) merely cares about appearing to be politically correct.

Political correctness is common to the two cases for the simple reason that YC(a) would inevitably help wealthy, well-connected female and black/Latino founders to the exclusion of, say, poor, less-privileged Asian founders. It's hard to explain this behavior in humanitarian terms, but it's easy to explain in political terms. Nobody gets in trouble these days for expressing the sentiment that we need more women, blacks, and Latinos in tech, no matter how rich and well-connected they may be.

The only other possibility I can think of is that YC(a) genuinely wants to help especially deserving founders, and such founders are so overrepresented among women and blacks/Latinos that specifically targeting those groups achieves the goal well enough for YC's purposes. In other words, the cost of reaching such founders may be so much lower when targeting specific self-identified groups that it's worth the minor cost of helping the occasional privileged member of one of those groups. Still, it's hard to avoid the observation that this policy is generally aligned with political correctness, which would appear to justify some skepticism.

(My guess is that YC's policy isn't Machiavellian in the least, but it works adaptively because of a political environment in which explicitly helping women and blacks/Latinos is strongly favored both by custom and by law.)

Like most Whigs, Burke was a supporter of the American Revolution, but he was horrified by the excesses of its French sequel. He famously wrote his major work on the subject, Reflections on the Revolution in France, as a letter to French aristocrat Charles-Jean-François Depont, and later expanded it into a short book. In the Reflections, Burke predicted—over three years before the Reign of Terror—that the French Revolution would lead to disaster. Moreover, he specifically cited among the causes its abstract foundations disconnected from the reality of human nature.

La Terreur proved Burke right, of course, and yet the French Revolutionary principles—among them liberté, égalité, and fraternité—are for the most part as fresh as a daisy. Perhaps in the 21st century we could add diversité and inclusivité to the mix, but the basic lesson is clear: the Revolution hasn't ended. Burke's Reflections is thus more than a historical curiosity—it's also an urgent warning for the present.

[1]: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/science/space/yvonne-brill...

[2]: http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/yvonne-brill-and-...

"How dishonest. You're saying all members of Group X do Y and should therefore be ignored."

"I said none of those things. I said Group X tends to do Y, which implies that some members of the group don't do Y."

"Pedantry is a poor defense."

Calling me dishonest or pedantic is pure projection. If you have trouble seeing it, here's a mirror: http://www.amazon.com/SJWs-Always-Lie-Taking-Thought-ebook/d...

The group I mentioned is precisely defined, and 100% opt-in—it's the set of all people who say "I'm only intolerant of intolerance."

all members of the group are irrational and should be ignored

Are you accusing me of thinking that? Because I didn't say that, and I don't think that. Reread my comment: saying "you'll likely be met with vitriol" implies that the converse—that you won't be met with vitriol—is also possible.

This has a rationalization, of course; it's OK because straight white males perpetuate "structural racism," imposing a "heteropatriarchy" on gays, women, and people of color. The practical result involves stripping power from straight white males and giving it to everyone else.

From an adaptive point of view, ripping off chunks of power and giving them to your supporters is a winning political formula. But pleasant nostrums about sticking up for the downtrodden are little more than a thin veneer over a good old-fashioned tribal throwdown.

The solution is to explain that feeling unsafe is unjustified when there is no credible threat. This strategy is not presently a reliable route to political power, which is why it's not being pursued. On the contrary, every concession to the delusion—e.g., the creation of "safe spaces" to protect people from largely imaginary threats—is testament to the present power of complaint. As long as there are special "protected" classes under the law (in the name, of course, of equality), we can expect more of the same.

One doesn't need to advocate accusing and manhandling to think the police should use statistically valid inferences in the name of justice. I myself am a member of a minority group—men—that is responsible for a vastly disproportionate share of crime, especially violent crime. You could mandate that cops ignore this reality and treat men and women with equal suspicion, but the result would be worse policing. For example, if you look at the statistics for New York's supposedly racist "stop-and-frisk" policy, you'll find that the disparity between whites and blacks is smaller than the disparity between men and women—indeed, smaller even than the disparity between white men and black women. Why have you never heard stop-and-frisk described as "sexist"?

This inconsistency is best explained politically: complaining about racial injustice against blacks is an effective route to power; complaining about gender injustice against men is not. It's the same reason you hear constant complaints about how white tech is, but not about how black sports are. Jesse Jackson can effectively shake down Apple and Intel [1], but there is no white equivalent shaking down the NFL. (Can you imagine if "increasing diversity in the NFL" meant "increasing the relative proportion of white players"? It would be a different world—not, incidentally, one I would particularly want to live in.)

Being male means people will infer based on a superficial assessment that I'm more likely to be a criminal than, say, my sister. But that inference is correct. Being a member of such a group is my lot in life, and complaining doesn't change what is.

[1]: See, e.g., http://www.mercurynews.com/census/ci_29048321/q-jesse-jackso...

Or both. They're not mutually exclusive. Do Jamaican sprinters excel because they grow up around other sprinters or because they are blessed with natural ability? Yes. Simply put, or != xor.

[1]: See, for example, The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker. Then, once you get over your knee-jerk "That's racist!!!" reflex, take a look—I mean actually read for comprehension—The Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray. Maybe add a little Cavalli-Sforza (via Steve Sailer) to the mix (http://www.vdare.com/articles/052400-cavalli-sforzas-ink-clo...). You can then graduate to basically anything by Arthur Jensen. As a topper, read "Rational"Wiki's entry on Human Biodiversity (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Human_biodiversity) and cringe at the smug, supercilious tone, endless strawmanning and distortion, and at the realization that you, too, were once taken in by the ridiculous "mainstream" views. (I certainly was.)

    Alan: I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

    Bob:  How do you know there isn't equality of opportunity?

    Alan: Well, just look at how unequal the outcomes are!

    Bob:  Can you give me an example?

    Alan: Group X is underrepresented in Field Y.

    Bob:  Maybe Group X isn't as good at Field Y.

    Alan: What? That's racist and/or sexist!

You're using different definitions. By "sex outside of marriage," the previous commenter means "two unmarried people having sex," i.e., what's sometimes called "premarital sex." This indeed is no longer taboo in much, probably most, of the West.

At the time of writing, there are only two reviews total, one of them obviously post-Odom.

just 12 of the state’s 16 counties

Just? 12/16 = 75%. That's not "just."

Who is editing this stuff?

Implying someone is an asshole is always impolite. Take that as you will.

By the way, despite logic, "truly" doesn't contain the substring "true", so "truely" is a misspelling. Your email address, unfortunately, isn't in your profile (and nor could I find it via opencagedata.com), so I hope (though doubt) you'll forgive a public correction.

    s/it's hosting/its hosting/g