riggernetard
have you read 1 thing by any political revolutionary of the past? ones you like. washington. lincoln. malcolm x. rosseau. they're quite violent, and would get censored by your 'lets-do-a-genocide free speech' laws.
https://marginalrevolution.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Vi...
https://theintercept.imgix.net/wp-uploads/sites/1/2018/02/Sc...
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F...
the world is roughly 100000% less violent than it used to be, and the violent crime rate has not increased much in the past 5-10 years. this is a total lie.
No, it isn't. For intelligence, in adulthood, it clearly isn't. For harder to measure skills, current estimates are at around half and half, but the error is mostly in the environment category. So much general-population variance is genetic (and that's only amplified at the highest skill levels - you need great 'cultural and social influence', but also great genes, lol)
> Did they try to marry their own? Naturally - out of snobbery and opportunism if for no other reason.
fun fact, the trait that shows the most assortative mating is intelligence. curious!
> I used to live in an upper middle class area, and a worrying number of the people were very polished thieves.
and I know a worrying number of lower class thieves. '20% of rich people are grifters' doesn't impune rich people as a whole, any more than Tony the crack money launderer impunes poors.
> income inequality is a huge problem in the US; societies with dramatic income inequality are historically corrupt and unstable.
This seems ... less than proof of anything. Past societies were highly unequal due to 'half the population gotta farm' at the very least, so comparing them to modern societies seems like a mistake, and at any rate the 'successful' integrating empires were, well, integrating empires. Modern society hasn't existed for that long, and the US (land of inequality!) is quite a bit more stable than many poorer and more income equal (or ... poorer and less income equal!) countries. Historically, societies in europe were much more successful than ones outside europe, yet you wouldn't take that correlation as a causation, so i won't take yours either.
Anyway, you cant just throw a book at me and expect me to read it for a HN comment without laying out its argument at all lol
Your second paper says that 'racial discrimination exists'. The idea that asians somehow derive most of their success from systemic racism and entrenchment - "Overall, these results paint a picture of a rigid income structure by race and ethnicity over time" - seems absurd. Your second paper doesn't say anything about meritocracy though.
Your third study is also just 'black people are poorer'. That doesn't mean understanding of an opportunity (not 'general skill', but local, specific skill) doesn't lead to success. So i'm left with a book (i don't have time to read it, it's midnight) and two papers that don't relate to your point. Maybe asians are just really smart? Maybe they work really hard as kids while the whites play tennis or soccer, which explains why despite being 13% of the population they're 52% of the coders?
a lot of people would disagree here, see the (correct, based) coup of the aus govt over the judiciary allowing them to at will deport migrants, or the controls on going outside in australia
quite confused at this one, what studies? as an example, surely the fact that page and brin created PageRank for web searches led to google being so successful https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/4/20994361/google-alphabet-...
> best there's no behavior to encourage, person A just got lucky
the behavior of ... understanding and creating a useful service like pagerank? or amazon?
> relying on this dynamic entrenches privilege
this is quite ridiculous, this is only believable if you consider having 3-4/5 quintile parents as 'privileged' as having ten billion net worth. equally so when you look at where their parents came from (quite often, poor farmers who immigrated) or their history (jews who had to leave poland or germany due to the nazis js)
> because it's much harder for women and people of color to become the next Steve Jobs
so? heard of 'lisa su'?