Steven Jeuris

@Ooker I think it's relevant to bring this up, but in SE parlance, it's too broad without specifying which diversity you are after. :) One relevant one I can think of is in terms of scope. We set out to include a given set of topics on this site, it would be informative to see percentages of how well each are represented/how active they are, and the quality of contributions to each topic/subtopic.

Spot on @ChrisRogers! In fact, @ChrisRogers does a fair bit of moderation on the site and has a background in psychology.

And the 6th candidate (Chris) their nomination was withdrawn.

I think the main reason the 5th candidate (who still got quite a bit of votes) didn't make the cut was because they have little to no experience with this community.

I don't have a background in neuroscience. :) But neither in psychology.

What type of diversity do you mean, @Ooker?

The current number of unanswered questions we are accumulating is starting to look a bit worrying, though: psychology.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2577/21

We try to focus our activity on Q&A. ;p

Nope. :)

But, I won't roll back on your decision.

Assuming good intent, I wanted to give the author a chance to correct it.

Regardless of what you choose, thank you for this conversation!

But, you will only receive meaningful feedback if you communicate concisely and clearly what your thesis is, and stay relevant to the question at hand.

In case you receive down votes, but no explanation why, that would also signal a problem. I am hopeful, however, once you add sources, that might lead to a meaningful discussion on the interpretation of these sources in relation to your answer.

As stated twice before, I suggest you do a complete rewrite. The majority of your current version does nothing but detract from your main thesis. A rewrite has a chance of (1) not being deleted, (2) receive explanations of why people do not believe the sources you list are true, rather than merely down voting it.

Best of luck!

For example: citing a question (psychology.stackexchange.com/q/25440/21) that is unanswered, and actually has a link to a helpful related question, you cannot infer the answer to that question one way or the other.

But, be warned, that so far the sources you have listed do not seem convincing to me. So, I still expect your answer to be down voted. But, it won't be removed (not on my watch, at least). To prevent down votes, it would help to not overinterpret/extrapolate from evidence you might cite.

I remove irrelevant content, unsourced content, etc.

I never remove controversial content.

I'm trying to help you focus on those parts of your answer which could constitute an answer, controversial or not.

Does that answer the question? Instead, to me it seems the very first sentence presumes an answer to the question. ("the conclusion that white is probably an inherently superior quality"). Weren't you just now trying to find sources to prove that?

You seem to be fairly familiar with Stack Exchange. You might have heard before answers should stand on their own?

And on top of that you omitted the one thing which could have made this an acceptable answer.

I have been helping you pinpoint what is essential so far. Cutting stuff is hard, but as you just yourself stated before "the answer was too long and complicated and I was bored at the time" ... what do you expect from readers then?

Okay, that is a pity, because I think we just concluded these sources would support the main thesis of your answer. And without sources, as I stated before, we typically don't accept answers.

And, would you agree that bold claims require strong evidence?

How come these sources (controversial or not) were not mentioned in your answer?

From this exchange so far I conclude that if you could successfully argue that "the beneficial bright qualities express themselves ... in ... human biology", that would constitute an answer. Now, what are your primary sources confirming that?

Sure! :)

Great. For the time being, I will ignore the 'supernature' addition you added there, as I think that refers to your final point "Religious accounts of God and blissful supernatural phenomena in terms of bright/white qualities." which I already clarified does not constitute an answer on this site.

For me, that is already moving on to your second point 'preference of white skin' (because it corresponds to a benefit) and vice versa. Now, do you agree that is a bold statement?

But let's take it step by step. I think you are already referring to your next point, correct? "People's natural preference of white skin and negativity against dark skinned people." Or, is this still in relation to "The sources are observation of benefic qualities in light/bright colors in nature. "?

That might be. But we are a scientific stack. I wouldn't mind having tangential short reference to religion and metaphysics, but the core of an answer (on this site) should be scientific.

What makes you say it is not purely a scientific question?

Okay. That was also my observation. I appreciated the additional examples, but those would be more suitable to post as a comment. After all, the OP was looking for scientific evidence to back up what they only assumed.

"The sources are observation of benefic qualities in light/bright colors in nature." Do you feel you elaborated more on this observation than the OP, or added sources to add additional evidence for this, where the OP merely hypothesized?

Let's take these one by one.

I agree that is an answer to the question. Now, what are your sources for concluding that, and, do these add anything on top of the original question?

So, I repeat. Could you write me the thesis of your answer in 1-2 sentences?

And does you thinking that "innate symbolism is responsible for stereotypes against dark-skinned people" answer the question: Is the symbolic meaning of dark/black and light/white innate in humans?

How is the 'ethical response' to hypothetical (and entirely unproven) differences between race relevant to that question?

For example, can you sum up the main thesis of your answer in max 2 sentences here? And, keep in mind that the answer is supposed to answer the question! "Is the symbolic meaning of dark/black and light/white innate in humans?"

Either way. Another moderator has since removed your answer. I suggest you have a proper look at all the feedback you have gotten so far. And rather than adding stuff to your answer, figure out what is essential, and figure out what is inflammatory and can be removed regardless for your main thesis.

Or, introduce your own definitions.

That is why you add citations. To cite the meaning of the word, and context, of your citation.

If you going to follow scientific reasoning, adopt scientific terminology. It seems like you are pulling in arguments from natural selection.

I respect some of the stances you take. In a hypothetical world where you are right, that would be the correct way to deal with it. But your entire premise is faulty, or is at least, to the best of my knowledge, and you pull in no sources to prove that there is any reason to believe it is true.

I do hope you understand why you are seen as racist, given statements such as "my more particular contention that moderately white people (e.g. Arabs) are superior of all".