4 ms·

I can see how it could feel that way, but look at this this way: Problem: your ratio of X's to Y's is too low due to long-term, subtle discrimination. You have

I can see how it could feel that way, but look at this this way: Problem: your ratio of X's to Y's is too low due to long-term, subtle discrimination. You have finite resources to solve the problem. Potential solution #1: put money into training more X's and Y's indiscriminately. Upside: no exclusion, seems "fair". Downside: while it may improve your X:Y ratio, it does so very slowly and with a lot of that training money "wasted" on something that wasn't really your goal. It also doesn't really work if it's basically the same as your old training programs, because whatever subtle discrimination occurred there will just occur here too. Also, as soon as you stop, the existing discriminatory training systems will put the ratio right back where it was. Potential solution #2: put money into just training X's. Upside: very targeted, and effects are much faster. Can balance whatever subtle discrimination lead to the problem in the first place, like by placing training centres near where the X's live or exploiting other things they may have in common. May solve the problem more permanently by increasing the number of X's with the better knowledge of how to train future X's. Downside: can feel "unfair" to Y's. The fact is, if you want to increase your X:Y ratio, you'll get here faster and cheaper via X+1:Y rather than X+1:Y+1.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
Why is your goal to increase the X:Y ratio? Isn't the goal merely to avoid excluding people, and allow them entry if they want (and are capable) of it? Also, if X is an overrepresented minority (e.g. Chinese, Indians), the only way to fix the ratio is by reducing their numbers or recruiting unrealistic numbers of every other group. Do you favor this?
- generic_user 11y ago
  That is an excellent point.
- pron 11y ago
  The goal is not to directly increase the X:Y ratio -- that's just a proxy, or "shorthand" for something more fundamental: equal access to power. Now that goal operates under the assumption that while individuals vary, all groups (a group is what society categorizes as a group) don't normally yield power to others; they don't want others to control them. The reason talking in ratios (as shorthand) is better than your goal of "void excluding people, and allow them entry if they want (and are capable) of it", is that we know that what people want and are capable of are much of the time what power directs them to want or be capable of (obviously, not entirely, but it's a strong component). So that means that if those in society manage to make some people not want power, then everything is fine -- while others, like me, think it is not. I spent some time writing about poor youth, and one of the things that surprised me is that they all wanted money. That wasn't the surprising thing -- what surprised me was that when I asked them how much money they wanted they said something like $60K a year, which seemed like an enormous amount to them. That's what the most successful people they know make. So they wanted to open a small convenience store and make that amount of money (or make that money in crime). When I told them that people who go to college and become, say, engineers make a lot more, they just couldn't believe me. > Do you favor this? I favor all groups having equal(ish) representation in the seats of power. That means no group is underrepresented, and that no group is overrepresented. Whether to achieve that by what you Americans call affirmative action (which is what you seem to be alluding to) or by fixing the fundamental causes for the inequality -- or both -- is a completely different matter. Also, I have no problem with different groups achieving power in different means. If, say, Asians were overrepresented in tech but underrepresented in banking -- that would be fine. What isn't fine is when the same group is underrepresented in most seats of power overall.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    Now that goal operates under the assumption that while individuals vary, all groups (a group is what society categorizes as a group) don't normally yield power to others; they don't want others to control them. Are you really postulating that because society categorizes something as a group, therefore members of this group suddenly act in a completely altruistic manner towards their groupmates? That's a pretty remarkable claim. Interestingly, the only people I've seen making this claim besides you are the (normatively) racist side of the human biodiversity movement. You might find Jayman's debunking of these folks enlightening - he's focused on ethnic groups specifically, but social groups have even less motivation for altruism. https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2015/08/02/ethnic-genetic-interests-do-not-exist-neither-does-group-selection/ https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2015/08/02/ethnic-genetic-inte... To put this concretely, my real world choices are a) hire a Guju to help a Punjabi get rich while going home and banging a hot nigerian woman or b) less money, less enjoyable work, less capable coworkers and less attractive women, but I'll suffer with that out of group altruism. I guess you believe b) is the logical choice that virtually everyone makes. Also, let me list the numbers and make my question clear. Asians are currently about 40% of tech and 4.7% of America. For black Americans to be represented in tech in equal proportions, and for us to NOT kick Asians out, then we'd need to recruit a number of black people equal to 104% of the entire tech industry. I.e., we'd need about 3 million black people to enter tech. To bring Asians back down to 4.7% in tech, overall you'd need to increase the size of the industry by 750%, bringing it up to 25.5M people (from approx 3M). That seems a little implausible. Your real world choices are a) accept unequal representation or b) kick Asians out. Which do you favor?
    - pron 11y ago
      > Are you really postulating that because society categorizes something as a group, therefore members of this group suddenly act in a completely altruistic manner towards their groupmates? Huh? No. Why do you think I think that? Social groups often have shared experiences (often because society views them as a group), and people with shared experience often have shared needs, and to get those needs you need power. If you don't have the power, other groups have power over you, and they may not share your needs, and have their own, and as a result act less in your interest. There is an interesting concept called ingroup/outgroup[1] that is subject to a lot of current research in social psychology, which has found that kids at a very young age display ingroup allegiance and outgroup rejection even for made up groups (e.g. experimenters tell a kid, "you're in the blue group", and then ask them play the dictator game[2], namely decide how much and what kind of rewards to give to another kid they've never met, who they only know belongs to their made-up group or not. The group association makes a lot of difference (incidentally in boys more than girls, but that depends on age). Ingroup/outgroup is a well-known, well-studied concept, but it's not altruism, let alone "complete altruism". It's not entirely relevant to my view anyway, but since you brought up altruism I thought I'd explain the "proper term" for the "feeling" one has towards one's own social group vs. others. Again, even ingroup/outgroup is not directly related to the objective unequal distribution of power. > That's a pretty remarkable claim. Interestingly, the only people I've seen making this claim besides you are the (normatively) racist side of the human biodiversity movement. You might find Jayman's debunking of these folks enlightening - he's focused on ethnic groups specifically, but social groups have even less motivation for altruism. Remarkable indeed! Why in god's name would you think I make that claim?[3] > Your real world choices are a) accept unequal representation or b) kick Asians out. Which do you favor? I must say I'm surprised you think that. First -- this isn't a zero-sum game. Groups that are underrepresented in power are often underrepresented because their ability to achieve a good social standing (and a good chance at power) through education, connections, familiarity with the business world or politics etc.. is very much reduced. That's precisely where society's economic potential lies. If they get better education, better connections and so on, the economy would grow very, very significantly (they will make more money to buy things and be more productive). Second, if you think it is a zero-sum game, you must accept the possibility (which is the reality) that the current state of things is after blacks have been kicked out. You've already kicked out a group out of the economic process[4], and all we want is to let them back in. So, yeah, if it's a zero-sum game (it isn't), the end result will be more-or-less equal representation in power (not tech alone -- I said that we have no problem in one community being overrepresented in one seat of power and underrepresented in another). Of course, it's not a zero-sum game, because those who have no access to power are almost always in a state of "untapped potential" that benefits everyone. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroups_and_outgroups https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroups_and_outgroups [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictator_game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictator_game [3]: In this particular case, the entirety of their contribution to the economic process for hundreds of years has been stolen from them, and then, with whatever money they could earn (without any inheritance or connections) you disallowed them from fully participating in the economy by preventing them from buying land, voting (and thus getting their interests heard and help from the government -- like other groups) and starting businesses with the same opportunities of white businesses. All this has sort-of ended as recently as 45 years ago. [3]: BTW, out of curiosity I read the link, and I think it's not a lot less ridiculous as the claims it wishes to debunk. The famous Price equation, which models altruism as kin selection was never meant to be a full explanation of altruism in people (although it bothered George Price enough to kill himself) but in slime-mold and ants. Altruism in people is probably a result of a completely different process, because it operates at a much higher level of abstraction. That guy's analysis makes as much sense as tracing human ability to solve differential equations back to kin selection. Both (altruism and ODEs) are probably side effects of something else.
temujin 11y ago
In practice, the question is if getting to X+n:Y is more than ten times as expensive as getting to X+(n/2):Y+(n/2), does it still make sense to prioritize the former? This is not an argument against the "Hidden Genius Project" discussed in the linked article; it's clear that Mr. Young's comparative advantage does in fact lie with helping other black men, so you'd still want him working on that even if the broader goal is getting to X+(n/2):Y+(n/2).
generic_user 11y ago
And who gets to make the decision on how many of each "Race" gets well paying jobs special programs and a seat at the table? Is it you? Is it you that gets to tell a poverty stricken Asian or European child that they do not get to be successful in life because the percentage of there "Race" is to successful and they are no on your favored "Race" list? That is horribly Racist. And totally oblivious to that fact.

yummyfajitas 11y ago

Why is your goal to increase the X:Y ratio? Isn't the goal merely to avoid excluding people, and allow them entry if they want (and are capable) of it? Also, if X is an overrepresented minority (e.g. Chinese, Indians), the only way to fix the ratio is by reducing their numbers or recruiting unrealistic numbers of every other group. Do you favor this?

generic_user 11y ago
That is an excellent point.
pron 11y ago
The goal is not to directly increase the X:Y ratio -- that's just a proxy, or "shorthand" for something more fundamental: equal access to power. Now that goal operates under the assumption that while individuals vary, all groups (a group is what society categorizes as a group) don't normally yield power to others; they don't want others to control them. The reason talking in ratios (as shorthand) is better than your goal of "void excluding people, and allow them entry if they want (and are capable) of it", is that we know that what people want and are capable of are much of the time what power directs them to want or be capable of (obviously, not entirely, but it's a strong component). So that means that if those in society manage to make some people not want power, then everything is fine -- while others, like me, think it is not. I spent some time writing about poor youth, and one of the things that surprised me is that they all wanted money. That wasn't the surprising thing -- what surprised me was that when I asked them how much money they wanted they said something like $60K a year, which seemed like an enormous amount to them. That's what the most successful people they know make. So they wanted to open a small convenience store and make that amount of money (or make that money in crime). When I told them that people who go to college and become, say, engineers make a lot more, they just couldn't believe me. > Do you favor this? I favor all groups having equal(ish) representation in the seats of power. That means no group is underrepresented, and that no group is overrepresented. Whether to achieve that by what you Americans call affirmative action (which is what you seem to be alluding to) or by fixing the fundamental causes for the inequality -- or both -- is a completely different matter. Also, I have no problem with different groups achieving power in different means. If, say, Asians were overrepresented in tech but underrepresented in banking -- that would be fine. What isn't fine is when the same group is underrepresented in most seats of power overall.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  Now that goal operates under the assumption that while individuals vary, all groups (a group is what society categorizes as a group) don't normally yield power to others; they don't want others to control them. Are you really postulating that because society categorizes something as a group, therefore members of this group suddenly act in a completely altruistic manner towards their groupmates? That's a pretty remarkable claim. Interestingly, the only people I've seen making this claim besides you are the (normatively) racist side of the human biodiversity movement. You might find Jayman's debunking of these folks enlightening - he's focused on ethnic groups specifically, but social groups have even less motivation for altruism. https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2015/08/02/ethnic-genetic-interests-do-not-exist-neither-does-group-selection/ https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2015/08/02/ethnic-genetic-inte... To put this concretely, my real world choices are a) hire a Guju to help a Punjabi get rich while going home and banging a hot nigerian woman or b) less money, less enjoyable work, less capable coworkers and less attractive women, but I'll suffer with that out of group altruism. I guess you believe b) is the logical choice that virtually everyone makes. Also, let me list the numbers and make my question clear. Asians are currently about 40% of tech and 4.7% of America. For black Americans to be represented in tech in equal proportions, and for us to NOT kick Asians out, then we'd need to recruit a number of black people equal to 104% of the entire tech industry. I.e., we'd need about 3 million black people to enter tech. To bring Asians back down to 4.7% in tech, overall you'd need to increase the size of the industry by 750%, bringing it up to 25.5M people (from approx 3M). That seems a little implausible. Your real world choices are a) accept unequal representation or b) kick Asians out. Which do you favor?
  - pron 11y ago
    > Are you really postulating that because society categorizes something as a group, therefore members of this group suddenly act in a completely altruistic manner towards their groupmates? Huh? No. Why do you think I think that? Social groups often have shared experiences (often because society views them as a group), and people with shared experience often have shared needs, and to get those needs you need power. If you don't have the power, other groups have power over you, and they may not share your needs, and have their own, and as a result act less in your interest. There is an interesting concept called ingroup/outgroup[1] that is subject to a lot of current research in social psychology, which has found that kids at a very young age display ingroup allegiance and outgroup rejection even for made up groups (e.g. experimenters tell a kid, "you're in the blue group", and then ask them play the dictator game[2], namely decide how much and what kind of rewards to give to another kid they've never met, who they only know belongs to their made-up group or not. The group association makes a lot of difference (incidentally in boys more than girls, but that depends on age). Ingroup/outgroup is a well-known, well-studied concept, but it's not altruism, let alone "complete altruism". It's not entirely relevant to my view anyway, but since you brought up altruism I thought I'd explain the "proper term" for the "feeling" one has towards one's own social group vs. others. Again, even ingroup/outgroup is not directly related to the objective unequal distribution of power. > That's a pretty remarkable claim. Interestingly, the only people I've seen making this claim besides you are the (normatively) racist side of the human biodiversity movement. You might find Jayman's debunking of these folks enlightening - he's focused on ethnic groups specifically, but social groups have even less motivation for altruism. Remarkable indeed! Why in god's name would you think I make that claim?[3] > Your real world choices are a) accept unequal representation or b) kick Asians out. Which do you favor? I must say I'm surprised you think that. First -- this isn't a zero-sum game. Groups that are underrepresented in power are often underrepresented because their ability to achieve a good social standing (and a good chance at power) through education, connections, familiarity with the business world or politics etc.. is very much reduced. That's precisely where society's economic potential lies. If they get better education, better connections and so on, the economy would grow very, very significantly (they will make more money to buy things and be more productive). Second, if you think it is a zero-sum game, you must accept the possibility (which is the reality) that the current state of things is after blacks have been kicked out. You've already kicked out a group out of the economic process[4], and all we want is to let them back in. So, yeah, if it's a zero-sum game (it isn't), the end result will be more-or-less equal representation in power (not tech alone -- I said that we have no problem in one community being overrepresented in one seat of power and underrepresented in another). Of course, it's not a zero-sum game, because those who have no access to power are almost always in a state of "untapped potential" that benefits everyone. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroups_and_outgroups https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroups_and_outgroups [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictator_game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictator_game [3]: In this particular case, the entirety of their contribution to the economic process for hundreds of years has been stolen from them, and then, with whatever money they could earn (without any inheritance or connections) you disallowed them from fully participating in the economy by preventing them from buying land, voting (and thus getting their interests heard and help from the government -- like other groups) and starting businesses with the same opportunities of white businesses. All this has sort-of ended as recently as 45 years ago. [3]: BTW, out of curiosity I read the link, and I think it's not a lot less ridiculous as the claims it wishes to debunk. The famous Price equation, which models altruism as kin selection was never meant to be a full explanation of altruism in people (although it bothered George Price enough to kill himself) but in slime-mold and ants. Altruism in people is probably a result of a completely different process, because it operates at a much higher level of abstraction. That guy's analysis makes as much sense as tracing human ability to solve differential equations back to kin selection. Both (altruism and ODEs) are probably side effects of something else.

temujin 11y ago

In practice, the question is if getting to X+n:Y is more than ten times as expensive as getting to X+(n/2):Y+(n/2), does it still make sense to prioritize the former? This is not an argument against the "Hidden Genius Project" discussed in the linked article; it's clear that Mr. Young's comparative advantage does in fact lie with helping other black men, so you'd still want him working on that even if the broader goal is getting to X+(n/2):Y+(n/2).

generic_user 11y ago

And who gets to make the decision on how many of each "Race" gets well paying jobs special programs and a seat at the table? Is it you? Is it you that gets to tell a poverty stricken Asian or European child that they do not get to be successful in life because the percentage of there "Race" is to successful and they are no on your favored "Race" list? That is horribly Racist. And totally oblivious to that fact.