10 ms·

I don't get it. Why is equality of outcome not a desirable goal, especially in science and technology? These authors only try to disprove theories which potenti

I don't get it. Why is equality of outcome not a desirable goal, especially in science and technology? These authors only try to disprove theories which potentially explain the inequality and then conclude that there is no injustice. This is logically flawed in my opinion. In order to justify the inequality they would need to come up with a plausible theory why the inequality is inevitable and then support it with sound facts. Otherwise social pressure from "feminists" is well justified.

tscs37 9y ago
Equality of Chance is more desirable than Equality of Outcome as it values the decisions of a neutral individual more than the later. Of course, for Equality of Chance to be properly implemented you need to do away with as many barriers to it as possible but you should be willing to accept that no matter what you do, there won't be a perfect 50/50. From all evidence we have, there is strong evidence that male and female humans grow up differently independent of their social surroundings, for example, we found that the brains of newborns can be easily distinguished into female and male as little as 1 month after birth, before any social factors have had much chance to get deep into development. From that I find it easier to believe that there will be some statistical biases in one direction or another (like how will have, on average, a bit more height) outside of the purely physical domain. I would rather see some evidence that despite all the physical, hormonal and developmental differences in male and female humans, there is absolutely no statistically significant difference in the brain and/or mind.
- edna314 9y ago
  > Equality of Chance is more desirable than Equality of Outcome as it values the decisions of a neutral individual more than the later. More desirable to whom? To the one with the worse outcome equality of outcome will always be more desirable than equality of chance. Plus, from a probabilistic point of view, wouldn't equal chances mean that for large numbers of trials (people) the outcome would also be equal? > I would rather see some evidence that despite all the physical, hormonal and developmental differences in male and female humans, there is absolutely no statistically significant difference in the brain and/or mind. You cannot even properly define what you mean by "brain and/or mind", which is why it's impossible to convince you that there actually is injustice if your opinion relies on that. But, for the moment suppose there is some convincing theory which explains naturally why less women are in STEM. Then why would we have to adjust our society to it, as it would benefit from less social tensions if there was equal outcome? Your point has to be much stronger to justify the inequality, as in everything would go downhill super fast if we had equal outcome. Otherwise there will always be social tensions and you have to learn to live with the "feminists".
  - tscs37 9y ago
    >Plus, from a probabilistic point of view, wouldn't equal chances mean that for large numbers of trials (people) the outcome would also be equal? Yes. For most people those two options would be the same, which is why the difference between those two options matter. Equality of Chance merely means that everyone gets a shot at becoming, for example, a Math PhD. You still have to put in as much elbow grease as everyone else and work just as hard as everyone else. If female and male humans are equivalent mentally then the end result should be a 50/50 distribution. If there are mental differences then the distribution would be skewed but it would be fine since everyone has gotten the same chance as everyone else. It's the approach with the highest game-theoretic fairness; the chance of winning the game is directly related to the skill you bring to the table. >You cannot even properly define what you mean by "brain and/or mind", With brain I mean just that, I don't know why it lacks definition. I mean the raw organ of thought in the human skull. There are notable differences, as mentioned, found at early stages in the brain that are sufficient for a computer or human to identify the gender or sex of an individual with a higher-than-chance probability. With mind I was refering to the mental capacity and properties of an individual, ie how good they are at math, their social skills, IQ score, pain tolerance, etc (these are just example categories, not necessarily categories in which a significant difference exists). >which is why it's impossible to convince you that there actually is injustice if your opinion relies on that It is certainly possible to convine me of the opposite, I have clearly formulated which evidence would be sufficient. >Then why would we have to adjust our society to it, as it would benefit from less social tensions if there was equal outcome? That question feels slightly loaded since it proposes that an equal outcome leads to less tension. Current movements concerned with an inequality of outcome do only so because it is unfairly inequal. Not a lot of people complain when the outcome of the game is inequal but fair (for example, nobody minds that someone with low strength will be unable to participate in olympic weight lifting, there is an unequal chance of participation and outcome, but it's a fair process) The resolution to the problem of "do we have to adjust society" is another question "is the reason we are suggesting to change due to a fair or unfair process?". [footnote]: Fair and unfair are defined as the ability of a player to apply their skills and get an equal amount of reward to other players with the same skill level (or with neglible difference)
biofox 9y ago
I am completely committed to removing biases and discrimination that stand in the way of competent people, but I find the idea of equality of outcome for its own sake to be deeply troubling. It moves the discussion away from systemic biases, and to an artificial metric that has little relation. A simple example of why equality of outcome might be undesirable is this: people don't like doing jobs they find unfulfilling. Even though I admire the nursing profession, I have absolutely no desire to become a nurse. If nursing were the highest paid profession, it still wouldn't interest me -- because I get my kicks out of playing with ideas and building things. In my case, it has nothing to do with ability, or IQ, or emotional intelligence. Should nursing training and culture be manipulated to be more appealing to people like me? I would only want that if it were beneficial for the nursing profession itself. It doesn't matter that people with my temperamental make-up are under-represented, because there are plenty of other people who are drawn to nursing. Where there are systemic problems that hinder women / minorities who want to excel in tech, focus on those, instead of an artificial number.
- edna314 9y ago
  > idea of equality of outcome for its own sake It's not for its one sake. It's for peace in the society. > Should nursing training and culture be manipulated to be more appealing to people like me? I would only want that if it were beneficial for the nursing profession itself. Have you tried it? I think it's not really reasonable to assume that humans are made to do exactly one thing. It's more of a necessary convention to have a functioning society. > Where there are systemic problems that hinder women / minorities who want to excel in tech, focus on those, instead of an artificial number. The number is not artificial its reality. One systemic problem is nudging which is tried to be fixed implementing quotas. The quotas are not meant to fix the number but the nudging effect.
  - biofox 9y ago
    I worded my comment poorly. You're right... the number in not artificial. And I agree with your point on humans being capable of many things. I want to live in a society where people can make a living doing things they enjoy and are good at. My concern is that quotas for outcomes (rather than things that more directly measure discrimination) might end up achieving the opposite: on one hand encouraging people into positions that are not a good fit for them, through external incentives, while at the same time removing opportunities from others who would prefer them. Shouldn't measures of workplace satisfaction matter a hell of a lot more than the number of women on the board?
mmirate 9y ago
Independently of the arguments of the other person who has graciously responded to you ... please read this story: https://archive.org/stream/HarrisonBergeron/Harrison%20Bergeron_djvu.txt https://archive.org/stream/HarrisonBergeron/Harrison%20Berge...
- edna314 9y ago
  Thanks for graciously pasting this link. I might read it.
moduspol 9y ago
Would equality of outcome in the NBA be a desirable goal? Why do we see so few East Asian, Hispanic, and Jewish NBA players? What policy would you create to correct this "injustice?"
- edna314 9y ago
  > Would equality of outcome in the NBA be a desirable goal? If it wouldn't on average it's reasonable to assume that there is a bias of some sort. You can decide if this bias desirable or not. > Why do we see so few East Asian, Hispanic, and Jewish NBA players? What policy would you create to correct this "injustice?" Because they don't seem to care. If they would care, it is your decision whether you fight with them or implement a quota.
  - jerf 9y ago
    "Because they don't seem to care." I believe we have established in this conversation that people claiming "difference of affinity" are just covering over their biases.
    - edna314 9y ago
      I would disagree. "Difference of affinity" is in my opinion one of the main factors. The real question is where does this difference come from and my best answer to that question would be nudging. And this nudging is exactly addressed by quotas. They are not there to make the numbers look nice.
  - moduspol 9y ago
    > If it wouldn't on average it's reasonable to assume that there is a bias of some sort. You can decide if this bias desirable or not. This doesn't answer my question. Is equality of outcome in the NBA a desirable goal or not? If not, why is it one in science or tech fields? > Because they don't seem to care. I'm sure many do. Many women "don't seem to care" that they took nursing jobs while many men took software engineering jobs. How many Hispanic men have to feel like they'd rather be famous millionaire basketball players before we get the NBA to start with racial quotas? I don't mean to be pedantic. It just seems obvious that American black culture puts a heavier emphasis on basketball, and that results in more world-class basketball players. That in no way implies anything is wrong with basketball or the NBA, and therefore taking measures to bring about "equality of outcome" would be unfair and undesirable. ...and that's why policy attempting to create "equality of outcome" is not inherently desirable in science / tech (or anywhere else).
Veelox 9y ago
>Why is equality of outcome not a desirable goal, especially in science and technology? I am going to try and describe this in a math/programming way. Say we have two functions randM() and randF() the first returns a Male Person, the second returns a Female Person. Person has an Ability and a Preference. We also have a function stemJob(Person p) that takes a Person and returns a Job with an Income, Prestige, and Satisfaction. Equality of outcome would mean that after 10^9 calls of each the this is true average(stemJob(randM()) == average(stemJob(randF()). This could be either because 1a) randM() and randF() produce on average the same person modulo Sex and stemJob() does not consider Sex or 1b) The difference between the average randM() and randF() is corrected for by stemJob() considering Sex. The other option is equality of chance where stemJob(randM()) == stemJob(randF()) where randM() and randF() have the same Ability and Preference. Notice that in equality of chance and in equality of outcome stemJob() may or may not be the same. If randM() and randF() produce on average the same person modulo Sex then stemJob() is the same for both equality of chance and equality of outcome. If that assumption does not hold then stemJob() must be different. Thus, if I support equality of chance and believe avg(randM()) != avg(randF()) I would not support equality of outcome because that would require stemJob to consider Sex in a way that invalids equality of chance. Hope this give you a different way to look at why some people are against equality of outcome in STEM.
- edna314 9y ago
  Thanks for the effort! I think it's a bit clearer now where the differences lie. For example the assumption avg(randM()) != avg(randF()), which should more precisely be avg(randM()) >> avg(randF()) to justify stemJob(randM()) >> stemJob(randF()). There is another assumption here, that is that if you don't touch it, stemJob() is a fair function in the sense that stemJob(randM()) == stemJob(randF()) where randM() and randF() have the same Ability and Preference. I find that unlikely as, for example, there is evidence that people are more likely to hire candidates of the same sex. What is interesting is that it boils down to the question whether or not you believe that avg(randM()) >> avg(randF()), or in words that in general men are much more capable then women in STEM and I asked for a theory supporting that claim in my original comment. If I understood correctly someone who supports equality of chance would agree that stemJob() must be unfair if it turns out that avg(randM()) ~ avg(randF()).
commandlinefan 9y ago
> Why is equality of outcome not a desirable goal I guess it depends on how you go about it. If you needed 100 programmers, and there were exactly 100 programmers available, but 80 were men and 20 were women - but you insisted on equality of outcome, you'd hire 50 of the male programmers, all 20 of the female programmers, and be 30 programmers short, even though there were 30 perfectly capable programmers that would upset your gender ratio.
- edna314 9y ago
  That would be indeed a problem in that special case, but I never argued that these quotas are a great idea in general. I just wanted to point out that the article dismisses gender equality as a bad idea with a equality of chance argument, which isn't explained, but the reader is expected to accept it as universally valid and always superior to equality of outcome. I was just questioning that.

tscs37 9y ago

Equality of Chance is more desirable than Equality of Outcome as it values the decisions of a neutral individual more than the later. Of course, for Equality of Chance to be properly implemented you need to do away with as many barriers to it as possible but you should be willing to accept that no matter what you do, there won't be a perfect 50/50. From all evidence we have, there is strong evidence that male and female humans grow up differently independent of their social surroundings, for example, we found that the brains of newborns can be easily distinguished into female and male as little as 1 month after birth, before any social factors have had much chance to get deep into development. From that I find it easier to believe that there will be some statistical biases in one direction or another (like how will have, on average, a bit more height) outside of the purely physical domain. I would rather see some evidence that despite all the physical, hormonal and developmental differences in male and female humans, there is absolutely no statistically significant difference in the brain and/or mind.

edna314 9y ago
> Equality of Chance is more desirable than Equality of Outcome as it values the decisions of a neutral individual more than the later. More desirable to whom? To the one with the worse outcome equality of outcome will always be more desirable than equality of chance. Plus, from a probabilistic point of view, wouldn't equal chances mean that for large numbers of trials (people) the outcome would also be equal? > I would rather see some evidence that despite all the physical, hormonal and developmental differences in male and female humans, there is absolutely no statistically significant difference in the brain and/or mind. You cannot even properly define what you mean by "brain and/or mind", which is why it's impossible to convince you that there actually is injustice if your opinion relies on that. But, for the moment suppose there is some convincing theory which explains naturally why less women are in STEM. Then why would we have to adjust our society to it, as it would benefit from less social tensions if there was equal outcome? Your point has to be much stronger to justify the inequality, as in everything would go downhill super fast if we had equal outcome. Otherwise there will always be social tensions and you have to learn to live with the "feminists".
- tscs37 9y ago
  >Plus, from a probabilistic point of view, wouldn't equal chances mean that for large numbers of trials (people) the outcome would also be equal? Yes. For most people those two options would be the same, which is why the difference between those two options matter. Equality of Chance merely means that everyone gets a shot at becoming, for example, a Math PhD. You still have to put in as much elbow grease as everyone else and work just as hard as everyone else. If female and male humans are equivalent mentally then the end result should be a 50/50 distribution. If there are mental differences then the distribution would be skewed but it would be fine since everyone has gotten the same chance as everyone else. It's the approach with the highest game-theoretic fairness; the chance of winning the game is directly related to the skill you bring to the table. >You cannot even properly define what you mean by "brain and/or mind", With brain I mean just that, I don't know why it lacks definition. I mean the raw organ of thought in the human skull. There are notable differences, as mentioned, found at early stages in the brain that are sufficient for a computer or human to identify the gender or sex of an individual with a higher-than-chance probability. With mind I was refering to the mental capacity and properties of an individual, ie how good they are at math, their social skills, IQ score, pain tolerance, etc (these are just example categories, not necessarily categories in which a significant difference exists). >which is why it's impossible to convince you that there actually is injustice if your opinion relies on that It is certainly possible to convine me of the opposite, I have clearly formulated which evidence would be sufficient. >Then why would we have to adjust our society to it, as it would benefit from less social tensions if there was equal outcome? That question feels slightly loaded since it proposes that an equal outcome leads to less tension. Current movements concerned with an inequality of outcome do only so because it is unfairly inequal. Not a lot of people complain when the outcome of the game is inequal but fair (for example, nobody minds that someone with low strength will be unable to participate in olympic weight lifting, there is an unequal chance of participation and outcome, but it's a fair process) The resolution to the problem of "do we have to adjust society" is another question "is the reason we are suggesting to change due to a fair or unfair process?". [footnote]: Fair and unfair are defined as the ability of a player to apply their skills and get an equal amount of reward to other players with the same skill level (or with neglible difference)

biofox 9y ago

I am completely committed to removing biases and discrimination that stand in the way of competent people, but I find the idea of equality of outcome for its own sake to be deeply troubling. It moves the discussion away from systemic biases, and to an artificial metric that has little relation. A simple example of why equality of outcome might be undesirable is this: people don't like doing jobs they find unfulfilling. Even though I admire the nursing profession, I have absolutely no desire to become a nurse. If nursing were the highest paid profession, it still wouldn't interest me -- because I get my kicks out of playing with ideas and building things. In my case, it has nothing to do with ability, or IQ, or emotional intelligence. Should nursing training and culture be manipulated to be more appealing to people like me? I would only want that if it were beneficial for the nursing profession itself. It doesn't matter that people with my temperamental make-up are under-represented, because there are plenty of other people who are drawn to nursing. Where there are systemic problems that hinder women / minorities who want to excel in tech, focus on those, instead of an artificial number.

edna314 9y ago
> idea of equality of outcome for its own sake It's not for its one sake. It's for peace in the society. > Should nursing training and culture be manipulated to be more appealing to people like me? I would only want that if it were beneficial for the nursing profession itself. Have you tried it? I think it's not really reasonable to assume that humans are made to do exactly one thing. It's more of a necessary convention to have a functioning society. > Where there are systemic problems that hinder women / minorities who want to excel in tech, focus on those, instead of an artificial number. The number is not artificial its reality. One systemic problem is nudging which is tried to be fixed implementing quotas. The quotas are not meant to fix the number but the nudging effect.
- biofox 9y ago
  I worded my comment poorly. You're right... the number in not artificial. And I agree with your point on humans being capable of many things. I want to live in a society where people can make a living doing things they enjoy and are good at. My concern is that quotas for outcomes (rather than things that more directly measure discrimination) might end up achieving the opposite: on one hand encouraging people into positions that are not a good fit for them, through external incentives, while at the same time removing opportunities from others who would prefer them. Shouldn't measures of workplace satisfaction matter a hell of a lot more than the number of women on the board?

mmirate 9y ago

Independently of the arguments of the other person who has graciously responded to you ... please read this story: https://archive.org/stream/HarrisonBergeron/Harrison%20Bergeron_djvu.txt https://archive.org/stream/HarrisonBergeron/Harrison%20Berge...

edna314 9y ago
Thanks for graciously pasting this link. I might read it.

moduspol 9y ago

Would equality of outcome in the NBA be a desirable goal? Why do we see so few East Asian, Hispanic, and Jewish NBA players? What policy would you create to correct this "injustice?"

edna314 9y ago
> Would equality of outcome in the NBA be a desirable goal? If it wouldn't on average it's reasonable to assume that there is a bias of some sort. You can decide if this bias desirable or not. > Why do we see so few East Asian, Hispanic, and Jewish NBA players? What policy would you create to correct this "injustice?" Because they don't seem to care. If they would care, it is your decision whether you fight with them or implement a quota.
- jerf 9y ago
  "Because they don't seem to care." I believe we have established in this conversation that people claiming "difference of affinity" are just covering over their biases.
  - edna314 9y ago
    I would disagree. "Difference of affinity" is in my opinion one of the main factors. The real question is where does this difference come from and my best answer to that question would be nudging. And this nudging is exactly addressed by quotas. They are not there to make the numbers look nice.
- moduspol 9y ago
  > If it wouldn't on average it's reasonable to assume that there is a bias of some sort. You can decide if this bias desirable or not. This doesn't answer my question. Is equality of outcome in the NBA a desirable goal or not? If not, why is it one in science or tech fields? > Because they don't seem to care. I'm sure many do. Many women "don't seem to care" that they took nursing jobs while many men took software engineering jobs. How many Hispanic men have to feel like they'd rather be famous millionaire basketball players before we get the NBA to start with racial quotas? I don't mean to be pedantic. It just seems obvious that American black culture puts a heavier emphasis on basketball, and that results in more world-class basketball players. That in no way implies anything is wrong with basketball or the NBA, and therefore taking measures to bring about "equality of outcome" would be unfair and undesirable. ...and that's why policy attempting to create "equality of outcome" is not inherently desirable in science / tech (or anywhere else).

Veelox 9y ago

>Why is equality of outcome not a desirable goal, especially in science and technology? I am going to try and describe this in a math/programming way. Say we have two functions randM() and randF() the first returns a Male Person, the second returns a Female Person. Person has an Ability and a Preference. We also have a function stemJob(Person p) that takes a Person and returns a Job with an Income, Prestige, and Satisfaction. Equality of outcome would mean that after 10^9 calls of each the this is true average(stemJob(randM()) == average(stemJob(randF()). This could be either because 1a) randM() and randF() produce on average the same person modulo Sex and stemJob() does not consider Sex or 1b) The difference between the average randM() and randF() is corrected for by stemJob() considering Sex. The other option is equality of chance where stemJob(randM()) == stemJob(randF()) where randM() and randF() have the same Ability and Preference. Notice that in equality of chance and in equality of outcome stemJob() may or may not be the same. If randM() and randF() produce on average the same person modulo Sex then stemJob() is the same for both equality of chance and equality of outcome. If that assumption does not hold then stemJob() must be different. Thus, if I support equality of chance and believe avg(randM()) != avg(randF()) I would not support equality of outcome because that would require stemJob to consider Sex in a way that invalids equality of chance. Hope this give you a different way to look at why some people are against equality of outcome in STEM.

edna314 9y ago
Thanks for the effort! I think it's a bit clearer now where the differences lie. For example the assumption avg(randM()) != avg(randF()), which should more precisely be avg(randM()) >> avg(randF()) to justify stemJob(randM()) >> stemJob(randF()). There is another assumption here, that is that if you don't touch it, stemJob() is a fair function in the sense that stemJob(randM()) == stemJob(randF()) where randM() and randF() have the same Ability and Preference. I find that unlikely as, for example, there is evidence that people are more likely to hire candidates of the same sex. What is interesting is that it boils down to the question whether or not you believe that avg(randM()) >> avg(randF()), or in words that in general men are much more capable then women in STEM and I asked for a theory supporting that claim in my original comment. If I understood correctly someone who supports equality of chance would agree that stemJob() must be unfair if it turns out that avg(randM()) ~ avg(randF()).

commandlinefan 9y ago

> Why is equality of outcome not a desirable goal I guess it depends on how you go about it. If you needed 100 programmers, and there were exactly 100 programmers available, but 80 were men and 20 were women - but you insisted on equality of outcome, you'd hire 50 of the male programmers, all 20 of the female programmers, and be 30 programmers short, even though there were 30 perfectly capable programmers that would upset your gender ratio.

edna314 9y ago
That would be indeed a problem in that special case, but I never argued that these quotas are a great idea in general. I just wanted to point out that the article dismisses gender equality as a bad idea with a equality of chance argument, which isn't explained, but the reader is expected to accept it as universally valid and always superior to equality of outcome. I was just questioning that.