4 ms·

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

• 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.
  • pron 11y ago
    My footnotes got mixed up: the first [3] shoud actually be [4].
  • yummyfajitas 11y ago
    Why do you think I think that? "...all groups...don't normally yield power to others; they don't want others to control them." A group is a collection of individuals. You seem to be asserting those individuals behave in a manner that protects their group power rather than helping individuals. Assign whatever word you want to it. Can you make it explicit? If an individual can gain $1 in personal benefit, but transfer $X from his group to an out group, what value of X must be chosen so that the average person will be indifferent? I.e., how much money do you believe I'm willing to turn down for the cause of white power? I must say I'm surprised you think that. Yes, multiplication and division does sometimes yield surprising results. Arithmetic shows 3 choices: 1) Recruit 22M non-Asians into tech (assuming 3M people in tech, 40% Asians in tech and 4.7% Asians in America), and prevent any more Asians from joining. Do you believe this is feasible? Or do you think I made an arithmetic error? If so, feel free to correct it. 2) Kick Asians out. 3) Accept non-proportionate representation. Do you believe (1) is feasible? It's a simple yes or no question. Assuming it's not feasible, which of (2) and (3) do you favor? Let me guess - more wordplay that ignores the simple arithmetic and uncomfortable question?
    • pron 11y ago
      > You seem to be asserting those individuals behave in a manner that protects their group power rather than helping individuals. No, I don't. First, there is the general notion of collective behavior. I can tell you almost exactly the result of a thousand coin tosses, but I can't tell you the result of one. Second, you see a tradeoff where there isn't any. Thirdly, power is something that is best achieved in a group (e.g. unions). Finally, you assume individuals behave in a rational behavior to maximize their expected utility over a long term, while it's been shown that people don't behave this way even in the short term. Most people would often lose 1$ to gain absolutely nothing other than some internal psychological reward. I must say, though, that responding to this kind of statements is hard. It's like you're saying, "a photon is either a particle or a wave; it can't be both; please make up your mind". Where do I even begin? Your premises about human behavior -- both as individuals and in groups -- are false, and then you argue about the conclusions. Just to give you a little bit of the basics, people make choices, but those choices are in large part influenced (and by that I don't mean 100% determined) by social influences. > Can you make it explicit? If an individual can gain $1 in personal benefit, but transfer $X from his group to an out group, what value of X must be chosen so that the average person will be indifferent? I.e., how much money do you believe I'm willing to turn down for the cause of white power? Sure. You will turn down exactly the amount you think you're expected to gain if the cause of white power wins. I mean, this isn't some theory. Black people in power means that more collective resources are used to advance black concerns. Black concerns (like white concerns) are unique, because, statistically, their experience is different. > Do you believe (1) is feasible? It's a simple yes or no question. Assuming it's not feasible, which of (2) and (3) do you favor? Let me guess - more wordplay that ignores the simple arithmetic and uncomfortable question? I'm not ignoring your math, but you're applying kindergarten math to graduate physics. It's like me saying, well, the speed of light is C, and you're going this way and she's going that way so C + C = 2C! In a social system there are feedback mechanisms. If you're increasing the number of educated blacks, who knows what's going to happen specifically in tech? Maybe the tech sector will grow. Maybe bio-med will grow, and black people will go there. But yes -- to answer your question directly -- if, say, Asians have a disproportionately large portion of power (as a whole; it doesn't matter how its divided among sectors), then a desired result is that they'll have relatively less of it. I really don't see the problem. To me it sounds like you're saying, but if we'll let blacks vote then you're kicking whites out of the decision process. Also, I don't understand your implied horror at "kicking Asians out" while you're seemingly fine with kicking blacks out, because that's what's really happening. If someone must be kicked out, I'd rather all groups would get a share of the kicks.