5 ms·

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 indi

• 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.
  • yummyfajitas 11y ago
    Second, you see a tradeoff where there isn't any. Of course there is a tradeoff. If you ever have the opportunity to make more money/enjoy your job more/invest well but in a way that benefits the outgroup over the ingroup, you are suddenly faced with this tradeoff. E.g. I want to hire someone but the best guy isn't white. The only way there isn't a tradeoff is if the best investment always has a white CEO, the best candidate is always the white male, etc. Is this really your belief? 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? Very easy: https://xkcd.com/895/ https://xkcd.com/895/ Feel free to provide equations, or even just clear and unambiguous statements. ...power is something that is best achieved in a group (e.g. unions)...You will turn down exactly the amount you think you're expected to gain if the cause of white power wins. You are ignoring the collective action problem here. I can hire the best guy for the job and make money now. Then, in the future, if if white power ever wins, I can reap the rewards of that also. For much the same reason, I don't vote, and I'd skip paying taxes if it wasn't for the threats of violence. I'm not ignoring your math, but you're applying kindergarten math to graduate physics. Since you seem to think the laws of arithmetic don't apply to counting humans, go ahead and do the grad physics - I promise I can follow along. To me it sounds like you're saying...you're seemingly fine with kicking blacks out... That's because you ignored what I said in search of an easy straw man. I repeat my prediction: "more wordplay that ignores the simple arithmetic and uncomfortable question." I add a new prediction: "no equations or unambiguous statements shall be forthcoming."
    • pron 11y ago
      > Is this really your belief? No. > Very easy: https://xkcd.com/895/ https://xkcd.com/895/ So if a system is too complex for us to discover its equations (so far) that means that we don't know anything about it? Let me tell you that in grad school I studied applied math, and we had those very, very simple non-linear ODEs, yet the best we could do with them was simulate them numerically and make general statements about their behavior from observation. Every person is probably governed many non-linear equations, much more complicated than the simple ones people usually study, and they all interact in a complex system. So, for now, I guess we have to settle to many years of observational research. That doesn't mean we haven't learned anything. > Feel free to provide equations, or even just clear and unambiguous statements. My statements are very clear (I think; I'm not a native English speaker). I still don't understand how you manage to misinterpret them or think they're vague. My guess is that you're not trying to understand what it is that I'm saying. > You are ignoring the collective action problem here. No, I'm not. You are ignoring both the state and the dynamics of the system. Groups that have little power have little means of increasing it (basically, it takes money to make money) other than through collective action. Some forms of power can't be obtained alone. If you want to be elected to office, you have to have a base and form alliances. The only reason I used your terminology of money (You will turn down exactly the amount you think you're expected to gain) is because you keep reducing a complex system to simple scenarios, and when I say that the system is complex you say I'm evading your question (which is about an irrelevant model), so this time I tried to answer using your model, and now you've expanded it -- ambiguously, because you didn't explain how white power can win without your cooperation if every player behaves like you do. Your model invariably leads to local-minimum Nash equilibria, yet history has shown over and over how Nash equilibria are overcome; ergo -- your model is very, very wrong. But I'll tell you what. If you're willing to explain what your entire model for society is, I'll gladly point out the mistakes. > For much the same reason, I don't vote You don't vote or participate in demonstrations or other collective actions because you feel that your position is not in any imminent danger. Alternatively, you might feel that you won't make a difference anyway. Yet another possibility is that your empathy is low, so you gain little emotional reward by helping people in need. Or, your empathy is high, but not applied to faceless strangers. We are all different. > Since you seem to think the laws of arithmetic don't apply to counting humans It's not the laws of arithmetic, it's their applicability to reality. C+C=2C, but that doesn't mean that that's the speed you'd observe. > I promise I can follow along. Perhaps, if you were really interested in understanding how society works, but even though I'm sure I'd enjoy it -- and so will you -- it would take too much time. My professional training is in history (and math) but I am not expert enough to reduce the important parts to something manageable in HN comments. > I repeat my prediction: "more wordplay that ignores the simple arithmetic and uncomfortable question." I add a new prediction: "no equations or unambiguous statements shall be forthcoming. At first I thought I'd write simply "kick those Asians out", but then I thought I'd better make a prediction of my own: you'll go on insisting on not learning how social systems work and how people behave, but keep on believing that smart people who spend their lives studying such systems get it wrong. The capability of people to convince themselves that what they don't know is not worth knowing -- or that people who know it are wrong -- is not only very powerful, but a well-known psychological coping mechanism. Otherwise, we'd all be in constant dread of what we don't know.