4 ms·

"A subtle form of discrimination exists towards those who are less educated and it divides society in a number of ways." Wrong - it's not always so subtle! For

"A subtle form of discrimination exists towards those who are less educated and it divides society in a number of ways." Wrong - it's not always so subtle! For instance, there's widespread, blatant discrimination against people lacking medical degrees for performing complex surgical procedures. We should really work to correct this systemic bias for a more equal and inclusive society. /sarcasm

chongli 9y ago
You're equivocating on the word discrimination. When activists or people in the media talk about discrimination as a societal problem, they're referring to discrimination based on irrelevant characteristics. Not letting someone without a medical degree practice medicine is discrimination based on relevant characteristics. Not letting a licensed surgeon practice because he uses non-standard English in a way that marks him as having an underprivileged background is discrimination based on irrelevant characteristics. Nobody is arguing that we should allow blind people to drive cars. However, you'll face heavy resistance if you try to suggest that only people with a university degree should be allowed to drive cars.
- thaumasiotes 9y ago
  > You're equivocating on the word discrimination. When activists or people in the media talk about discrimination as a societal problem, they're referring to discrimination based on irrelevant characteristics You're not doing better. They're referring to discrimination that they don't like. In general, they make no effort to establish that such discrimination is based on irrelevant characteristics, only to claim that it is.
- gizmo686 9y ago
  The problem is that there is no distinction of kind between these two types of discrimination. The only difference is of accuracy. For instance, say I am consciously biased against hiring black people because I believe them to be generally less qualified. This is the same type of discrimination as not hiring a credentialed doctor because I believe them to be less qualified; not only difference that one of these beliefs is factually inaccurate. When you say that activists are only talking about the "bad" discrimination, you implicitly sweep under the rug questions about the factual basis for discrimination; and end up treating questions of fact as if they were questions of morals. Unfortunately, determining relevant characteristics is incredibly hard (especially if people know what measures you use). Instead we use our intuition and gut feeling. It is important to be aware of inaccurate intuitions we have to improve our assesments. However, there is no easy way to tell a-priori what discrimination is based on an accurate signal, and what discrimination is not.
- bearmobius 9y ago
  > You're equivocating on the word discrimination. When activists or people in the media talk about discrimination as a societal problem, they're referring to discrimination based on irrelevant characteristics. Kind of. I was highlighting the fact that the word "discrimination" is inherently ambivalent (you could also say equivocal I suppose) - it simply means to distinguish between. It’s no different to the words "categorisation" and "selection" in this sense. As you recognised, there are forms of discrimination that are absolutely necessary and even desirable - such as discriminating against someone without a medical degree to practise medicine. The point I was making is that it's not always so easy to distinguish between positive and negative forms of discrimination. Is it wrong to be biased against less-educated people? Well, it depends on the situation. Are you hiring for an important position that requires higher education? In this case, it would be unethical of you not to be biased against less-educated candidates. The problem I have with this kind of article is it paints a one-sided picture where discrimination-as-such is bad. You can make a compelling case for this. When you discriminate against people without a law degree for performing legal work, you deprive those people of a well-paying, high-status position in society. You could say that's not fair, and there’s truth in that. But what's the alternative? If your view is that all forms of discrimination are wrong, the logical answer is to do away with all forms of discrimination, even the positive ones. You can see this in the article by its promotion of non-quantitative assessments in education: > So, what could help overcome the education divide? One view is that different ways of scoring tests could help even the playing field. In several studies, Butera’s team showed that giving children graded tests or exam scores actually reduces motivation and performance in reasoning and decision making. If there are no graded scores it also reduces social comparison, which we know can often negatively affect performance, as Sheehy-Skeffington’s work revealed. If detailed feedback on how to improve is given instead of simple graded scores, it helps “focus on assessment as a tool for education” rather than assessment for selection, Butera argues. Of course removing graded scores “evens the playing field" and reduce social comparison. It also makes selection based on competence impossible - it’s “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”. And don’t think for a minute that proponents of this think it should be strictly limited to primary education and not also apply to secondary or tertiary education, where grades and certifications supposedly have some value as selection criteria for employers. > Nobody is arguing that we should allow blind people to drive cars. Don’t be so sure. Arguing that we shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate by level of education is no different to this in principle - it’s only a matter of degree.
alexasmyths 9y ago
Setting qualifications and standards is a reasonable form of discrimination. Assuming that someone is stupid because they didn't go to Ivy League is a dumb form of discrimination.

chongli 9y ago

You're equivocating on the word discrimination. When activists or people in the media talk about discrimination as a societal problem, they're referring to discrimination based on irrelevant characteristics. Not letting someone without a medical degree practice medicine is discrimination based on relevant characteristics. Not letting a licensed surgeon practice because he uses non-standard English in a way that marks him as having an underprivileged background is discrimination based on irrelevant characteristics. Nobody is arguing that we should allow blind people to drive cars. However, you'll face heavy resistance if you try to suggest that only people with a university degree should be allowed to drive cars.

thaumasiotes 9y ago
> You're equivocating on the word discrimination. When activists or people in the media talk about discrimination as a societal problem, they're referring to discrimination based on irrelevant characteristics You're not doing better. They're referring to discrimination that they don't like. In general, they make no effort to establish that such discrimination is based on irrelevant characteristics, only to claim that it is.
gizmo686 9y ago
The problem is that there is no distinction of kind between these two types of discrimination. The only difference is of accuracy. For instance, say I am consciously biased against hiring black people because I believe them to be generally less qualified. This is the same type of discrimination as not hiring a credentialed doctor because I believe them to be less qualified; not only difference that one of these beliefs is factually inaccurate. When you say that activists are only talking about the "bad" discrimination, you implicitly sweep under the rug questions about the factual basis for discrimination; and end up treating questions of fact as if they were questions of morals. Unfortunately, determining relevant characteristics is incredibly hard (especially if people know what measures you use). Instead we use our intuition and gut feeling. It is important to be aware of inaccurate intuitions we have to improve our assesments. However, there is no easy way to tell a-priori what discrimination is based on an accurate signal, and what discrimination is not.
bearmobius 9y ago
> You're equivocating on the word discrimination. When activists or people in the media talk about discrimination as a societal problem, they're referring to discrimination based on irrelevant characteristics. Kind of. I was highlighting the fact that the word "discrimination" is inherently ambivalent (you could also say equivocal I suppose) - it simply means to distinguish between. It’s no different to the words "categorisation" and "selection" in this sense. As you recognised, there are forms of discrimination that are absolutely necessary and even desirable - such as discriminating against someone without a medical degree to practise medicine. The point I was making is that it's not always so easy to distinguish between positive and negative forms of discrimination. Is it wrong to be biased against less-educated people? Well, it depends on the situation. Are you hiring for an important position that requires higher education? In this case, it would be unethical of you not to be biased against less-educated candidates. The problem I have with this kind of article is it paints a one-sided picture where discrimination-as-such is bad. You can make a compelling case for this. When you discriminate against people without a law degree for performing legal work, you deprive those people of a well-paying, high-status position in society. You could say that's not fair, and there’s truth in that. But what's the alternative? If your view is that all forms of discrimination are wrong, the logical answer is to do away with all forms of discrimination, even the positive ones. You can see this in the article by its promotion of non-quantitative assessments in education: > So, what could help overcome the education divide? One view is that different ways of scoring tests could help even the playing field. In several studies, Butera’s team showed that giving children graded tests or exam scores actually reduces motivation and performance in reasoning and decision making. If there are no graded scores it also reduces social comparison, which we know can often negatively affect performance, as Sheehy-Skeffington’s work revealed. If detailed feedback on how to improve is given instead of simple graded scores, it helps “focus on assessment as a tool for education” rather than assessment for selection, Butera argues. Of course removing graded scores “evens the playing field" and reduce social comparison. It also makes selection based on competence impossible - it’s “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”. And don’t think for a minute that proponents of this think it should be strictly limited to primary education and not also apply to secondary or tertiary education, where grades and certifications supposedly have some value as selection criteria for employers. > Nobody is arguing that we should allow blind people to drive cars. Don’t be so sure. Arguing that we shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate by level of education is no different to this in principle - it’s only a matter of degree.

alexasmyths 9y ago

Setting qualifications and standards is a reasonable form of discrimination. Assuming that someone is stupid because they didn't go to Ivy League is a dumb form of discrimination.