And separately, even if that were all in the comment, don't prescribe dating preferences to other people. People are allowed to be (not) attracted to anyone they damn well please.
This is confusing. Prescription != proscription. I prescribe that people not be fat and sedentary. I don't thereby think that people are "not allowed" to be fat and sedentary.
Saying that "I'm not racist" means "I did nothing wrong" is actually making up a definition. That is not a criterion used in talking about racism pretty much anywhere in academia. "Sexual racism" is an apt term as all the behaviors I can think to attach to that label squarely fall within the ordinary language definitions I see here, here, here, etc. It is implausible that "racism" is only a valid label to apply to things like employment choices, but not to sexual choices.
Now it may be the case that racial sexual preferences are a non-central instance of generic racism, hence the fallacy. My point in bringing up Is Sexual Racism Really Racism? Distinguishing Attitudes Toward Sexual Racism and Generic Racism Among Gay and Bisexual Men is to pose the argument and evidence that these things are actually much more centrally clustered to generic racism than you might have thought.
I don't think we should be held hostage by the conversational standards of social media. In the common discourse "eugenics" is synonymous with evil. I am still going to use the term "eugenics", and not going to shuffle around to try to find adjacent pointers. I do taboo "racism" -- I have an addendum talking about what my mental model for that label is. You don't like that you have to scroll down to read it? I don't think that's a big issue, sorry.
I agree that one should be concerned about bad incentives in the cosmetic surgery outcomes research. Most of the "researchers" are surgeons. Outcomes research in medicine in general suffers from this problem. I am still comfortable with saying that cosmetic surgery outcomes research does provide net evidence for surgery results being good, even after correcting for conflict of interest concerns.
I'll write a follow-up post focusing on this question (on my blog, not LW).
You are overconfident about this.
I posted some literature on limb lengthening outcomes in this comment.
There is also more natural variation in limb proportions than you are allowing for. Just ask your bouldering friends for anecdata about ape index variation. I have taught many of my friends how to squat and deadlift. There is enormous natural variation in shin/femur ratios. It does not at all seem ridiculous to me that many men could add two inches to their femurs without going outside natural variation.
When I buy gis for jiu-jitsu, I have to buy separate sizes for tops and bottoms and hem the bottoms down. This is because compared to Caucasians my height, my hips start three inches lower. People do not realize that I'm disproportionate in this way by looking at me, and it took me decades to realize this about myself.
I said this to some friends recently:
...people on social media can tell [that shin-lengthening surgery looks weird] because these guys usually go viral after posting before/after photos, and so yeah you can convince yourself that the proportions look weird in that context, but if you saw these guys post surgery on the street you wouldn't be like "hey everybody get that long-shinned freak!"
One other interesting sort of anecdata I've heard is the trouble with Asian American males trying to date Native Asian females (like a tech or finance professional working overseas in Singapore, China, SK, etc.). There isn't an attractiveness gap, but there is a cultural gap where Asian women are more forthright about asking things like "do you have a car?", "do you have a house? why not?", etc. There's like an odd maneuver we do in Western dating were women are not allowed to explicitly ask about financial matters, but the men are expected to make it legible.
I'm interested in this idea you're raising about neuroticism and race. I find Gold et al. (2008):
Yeah it looks like you're correct, Asians are more neurotic due to a deficit in even-temperedness, though the other subcomponents of neuroticism are favorable to Asians. But there do seem to be large effects favorable w.r.t. attractiveness for Asians for agreeableness and conscientiousness.
Interestingly it seems like Blacks have better 5 factor than Asians in pretty much every respect:
Hm, I don't know. This seems pretty subject to what Aella was talking about:
Plastic surgery is more common than you think (people don't tell you) and has better results than you think (the only surgery you notice is bad surgery; all the great surgery is invisible). It's also a great mental health boost, if I supported public funding I might for that
Maybe there are some non-subjective local factors going into this as well? I live in Los Angeles, I see a lot of pretty good plastic surgery.
It's possible that the plastic surgery literature is compromised and is just a part of the sales department of the plastic surgery industry, but I don't think so? The literature is quite large and diverse, and it doesn't seem to me that they are making big enough methodological mistakes to line up with your data defiance.
Some defense of the Michael Thai methodology, their Study 3 does look at non hard and fast rules (e.g. "Asians preferred"), and they still find penalties against perceived racism and dateability for those profiles even within the "preferences != racist" cohort.
To the essence of what you're saying, I hear you and am sympathetic to the point you're putting forth. I guess stepping back a bit, it just feels memetically unstable to live in a world where all implicit racial preferences are basically fine and unquestionable but it is a grave offense to actually articulate that preference to another person. Like let's say Person A judged 100% of race [x] to be unattractive, but wasn't even conscious about this and is careful not to humiliate people by expressing this preference in real life (but does act on it). Let's say Person B makes similar judgments, but is aware about this and will tell people frankly that he has this preference. I think what's weird (I don't want to say 'offensive') about both of these situations is the 100% unattractiveness judgment, not that Person B has the self-access and confidence to articulate their tastes. Removing my own moral judgments from the scenario, functionally I think what's going on is that we are socially punishing Person Bs (a minority) in order to exonerate Person As (the majority). To be clear, I'm not in favor of witch-hunting the Person As of the world, nor even concocting elaborate social schemes to prevent them from acting on their attractiveness judgments. Rather I think it's fair game to point out "it is weird that you have such a strong implicit judgment, and it seems like there is some confusing socially-subjective mechanism that is putting those judgments into you".
Right yes thanks for this insightful comment Jenn. This rings very true when I reflect on my own experiences as well. I think part of my middle-school and high-school attraction to middle-class white women involved factors very similar to the ones you've mentioned: a lightness of mannerism, more social confidence and situatedness, their family dinner tables were lively and fun, more likely to read books for fun, their parents actually had friends, etc...
It makes sense that these deep middle class manners take a generation or more to settle in. Similar to this "Room of One's Own" analysis you're giving on women writers, I think about Proust's analysis of Jews in France. Swann, the Verdurins, the narrator himself, they are all the grandchildren of Jewish stockbrokers or traders, and it takes them more than a lifetime to bury this fact and successfully join the social circles of, absorb the mores of, and ultimately supplant the older aristocratic French families like the Guermantes. Cultivating the appropriate lack of baggage and grievance takes generational time.
Thanks for the great questions.
Technological changes make this difficult to track. A lot of the research on explicit racial preferences in online dating looks at the last generation of online dating platforms (Match, Yahoo Personals, etc.) because when you specify racial preferences it is visible on your profile. The current generation of platforms do not do this generally, and instead race preferences are specified on the matching side. I'm assuming then that stated preferences have dropped very low, in part because they are functionally unnecessary. Grindr had but recently removed algorithmic race filtering, causing men to put racial preference in their profiles again, but it seems like there is community consensus that this is bad manners. Another anecdote, there is a man in Nathan Fielder's The Rehearsal Season 2 that claimed to have been kicked off of every dating platform due to writing "no t-girls" in his profiles. This man seemed an unreliable narrator, and in general seemed socially clueless, but it does seem plausible that you could be on the receiving end of a moderator action for explicitly stating preferences.
So more recent experiments on race preference are typically surveys done in-person or on Qualtrics. Gendered Black Exclusion (2014) could be taken as representative of this type of research, which finds:
Which are comparable exclusion rates to what Robnett & Feliciano found with the 2005 Yahoo Personals data. Meanwhile, explicit races preferences have probably dropped quite low. This 2022 article is also useful data.
This doesn't quite get to the core of your question, which is about how people's actual behavior around having racial preferences can diverge from their ability to articulate to others (and themselves!) that they have such a preference. Maybe to get some estimates we can take Robnett & Feliciano's data as representative of the latter, and compare that to the analysis of reply rates by race in the OkTrends data as representative of the former.
So the reply rate data shows the same directional trends as the Robnett & Feliciano data, but there are clearly a lot of interpretative subtleties here that I leave to you.
Comparing the reply rate data to the match % data, this suggests to me the possibility that people say and think they have strong race preferences even when they do not (maybe these preferences soften when you put yourself in an actual position to not follow them). The difficulty is that this data is conditional on the reply rates, which in turn are conditional on sending rates, which in turn are conditional on stated racial preferences (you probably won't send messages to people who say they are excluding your race), so it could be that the match % data merely shows that people actually have super accurate explicit race preferences.
2. The above OkTrends data gives more sub-Asian granularity (here's another blogpost). Outside of this I don't recall seeing many studies with high granularity. This one looking at Chinese, Japanese, and Korean international students might prove of interest.
Maybe this is inappropriate, but is there a path to convincing you to stay? I disagree with some of the details of what you're saying, but much seems directionally correct and important. It would be a shame if those with your values were to vacate the commons.
As David Duvenaud said, a surprisingly high number of researchers and engineers at leading capabilities labs believe in transformative AI, but have underdeveloped or overtly incoherent models of the future. I suppose one model of how said people could be this way is that they only value money and power, or are only interested in securing their slice of the lightcone. I personally think most are persuadable (though probably not persuadable in time). Maybe what is needed in the community is more courage, as per Nate Soares?
Maybe this is because I avoid the Bay Area, but the median rationalist and effective altruist I know (and particularly those who are my friends) demonstrably care about more things than maximizing wealth and living forever. In fact, I honestly have a hard time persuading those around me that they should care about living forever.