5 ms·

Curiosity and What Equality Really Means

56 points by dsr12 8y ago

Jun8 8y ago
Very good address, pretty much echoing the points from DFW's excellent speech (https://www.fs.blog/2012/04/david-foster-wallace-this-is-water/ https://www.fs.blog/2012/04/david-foster-wallace-this-is-wat...): "That is real freedom. That is being educated, and understanding how to think. The alternative is unconsciousness, the default setting, the rat race, the constant gnawing sense of having had, and lost, some infinite thing." Granted, I live my 99% of my life in this despicable state that Wallace described so well, but for brief moments, when I can muster up the will choose what to think, it feels great. Actually, let me tell you exactly what it feels like: it's like that moment in Matrix Revolutions where Trinity pushes their ship above the clouds, and for one very brief moment, before returning to the ugliness, fight, and of course, her death, she gets to experience a gorgeous sun-lit scene. And, for giving me that understanding in such simple terms, I will always be grateful to DFW!
nickysielicki 8y ago
I'm hesitant to make this comment because this was a great article and this is somewhat tangential, but I hate to see history whitewashed and simplified so I'm going to make it anyway. From the article: > [The idea that all lives are of equal worth] is a radical idea, one ultimately inscribed in our nation’s founding documents: we are all created equal and should be respected as such. I do not think it a mere coincidence that among the fifty-six founding fathers who signed the declaration of our independence was a physician, Dr. Benjamin Rush. He was a committed revolutionary and abolitionist precisely because of his belief in the principle. Erm, no. It was not really some idealistic principle that motivated his views. From wikipedia: > Benjamin Rush (1745–1813), a Founding Father of the United States and a physician, proposed that being black was a hereditary skin disease, which he called "negroidism", and that it could be cured. Rush believed non-whites were really white underneath but they were stricken with a non-contagious form of leprosy which darkened their skin color. Rush drew the conclusion that "whites should not tyrannize over [blacks], for their disease should entitle them to a double portion of humanity. However, by the same token, whites should not intermarry with them, for this would tend to infect posterity with the 'disorder'... attempts must be made to cure the disease".
- dpwm 8y ago
  Setting aside the centuries of oppression, the experimentation and the complete dehumanization of people based on their ethnicity that still goes on to this day, I find Rush's hypothesis and the thinking that led to it interesting. If we take a step back from the disease idea, the leprosy and the idea that it could be cured (and I shudder at the implications of that) then the model had the following properties: - The darkening of the skin is non contagious - That it is hereditary - That aside from this darkening, non-white people are (fundamentally) the same as whites. It seems so close and yet so far away. I understand it was in the 19th Century that Melanocytes were discovered, but I can't ascertain when or who discovered them. The thing that I find interesting is that surely things like Melanocytic Nevi (moles) were just as prevalent then as today and could have led to a significantly better model with some thought. Does anybody have any ideas where more information can be found on the history of the scientific ideas surrounding Melanin and pigmentation? A cursory search doesn't bring much up.
  - gizmo686 8y ago
    >It seems so close and yet so far away. In what sense is it even wrong? Dark skin is a non-contagious, hereditary trait. The only thing that distinguishes it from a genetic disease is the lack of negative symptoms, which Rush acknowledged. I would say that the population size of "infected" individuals would also be an arguement for considering it a natural variate instead of a disease. However, we seem to have no problem calling lactose intolerance a disease, even though it applies to 65% of the populations (and, historically speaking, lactose tolorence is the mutation).
    - dpwm 8y ago
      > In what sense is it even wrong? In that it is not hereditary leprosy that causes the differences between whites and non-whites but natural genetic variations. There is no "white" skin underneath. There is no cure, nor should there be any medical reason to seek a "cure." Disease is a very stigmatizing word that implies defectiveness. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism#Benjamin_Rush https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism#Benjamin_Rus...
IanDrake 8y ago
I'm really not sure what the point of this article is. Is it saying people are equal? Because they're not. "All men are create equal" doesn't mean all people are equal. In fact, we know all people aren't created equal either. Rather, it's the law that must see all people as equal for the purpose of justice. For the purposes of a doctor, I get what he's saying too, but I would argue that the quality of the patient does matter and that discrimination is good. Consider, an ambulance roles up to a car accident. The drunk driver that caused the accident killed a mother. The drunk and the woman's 12 y/o child both need emergency care. There is another ambulance 20 minutes out. Who should that first ambulance take to the hospital? If you say the drunk, I don't want to live in your world. One more thing. The article states "All people deserve respect". I grew up being told respect is earned, so I can't agree with his sentiment. Perhaps all people deserve a chance to earn respect. That's different.
- AmericanChopper 8y ago
  >Perhaps all people deserve a chance to earn respect. That's different. You’re talking about equality of opportunity. On HN, the word “equality” is pretty much always just an abbreviation for “equality of outcome”.
  - supreme_sublime 8y ago
    I'd encourage you to amend "equality of opportunity" to "equality of opportunity under the law". I've seen too many people try to argue that if we want equality of opportunity we still have to actively level opportunity.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
d883kd8 8y ago
> and that a massive and troubling proportion of all of them are mentally ill or black. Reword
amoorthy 8y ago
Beautiful article. I've loved reading the author's writing for over a decade now and this one lives up to his previous writings. This sentence, in particular, caught my eye: >Hospitals are one of the very few places left where you encounter the whole span of society. As a startup founder building consumer tech products in the valley I find that I easily forget how different most people are from me. Hence I sometimes incorrectly assess relevant market size. It's one reason I like doing to the DMV because, like a hospital, it treats everyone the same and there you can see a near-perfect representation of society that you don't encounter elsewhere. I hope it gives me the awareness and humility to design better products for society.
- abvdasker 8y ago
  Before I even finished reading your comment I had the same thought about the DMV! The only other place where I've had a similar feeling of being part of a true cross section of America was when I was called in for jury duty last year. I often hear people criticize courts, hospitals and the DMV all for being inefficient and unpleasant institutions, but frankly I love them for the way they tend to equalize people. Just being around people from so many different walks of life can be a refreshing change from the socioeconomic bubble I tend to occupy in my daily life. This article served as a reminder to make an effort to seek out that kind of diversity.
- dominotw 8y ago
  > DMV because, like a hospital, it treats everyone the same From my experience, they are much ruder in if you live in a poor area than a rich suburb. They are way more crowded in poor areas. Same with hospitals, post office ect. > you can see a near-perfect representation of society You see people who live near you, aka ppl like you.
  - amoorthy 8y ago
    Good caveats, thank you. Sigh, takes careful thought to really get out of the bubble we inhabit.
Terr_ 8y ago
IMO "everyone is equal" is fundamentally about humility. It's really about recognizing the depth of our own ignorance and bias, and devising systems and habits to minimize its impact. That doesn't just apply to comparing individuals, but also more abstract stuff. For example, we seldom know all the tradeoffs present in a given set of genes, and genetic diversity is itself a good thing for the species.
- AstralStorm 8y ago
  But is humility actually good? Or is it just virtue signalling? I think some people construed it as good in opposition to pride, especially excessive, and to arrogance. Probably neither is actually good especially in excess. Ultimately what matters more is what one does, the actions, not the approach. There is equality, equal treatment and equal opportunity. None exist in reality since were all different (including genetically) with different backgrounds, and exceptional people can sometimes force the environment to bend to their will. Equal treatment is the most seductive of those, but in current implementations it just results in wasting potential - and is unnatural way of thinking. People have preferences. Resourceful people have resources to ensure better treatment. It happens all the time. Rich purple can get high level private treatment in terms of medicine. Or education. Or perhaps just housing. That everyone theoretically can have it does not mean everybody does. And the places open to everyone suffer from the tragedy of the commons and lack of funding.
woodandsteel 8y ago
This is a great article. However, I would like to add that there is a small proportion of the population who are sociopaths and are simply bad.
- jwatte 8y ago
  Yes. It's long been my belief that the actual sociopaths cannot be cured, and they need closed psychiatric care for life. For everyone else, places like prison just cost money and ruin lives that can totally be turned around much cheaper. But I digress...
- ttonkytonk 8y ago
  I disagree. This kind of thinking keeps opens the door for precisely the type of thinking the article is trying to counter.
  - woodandsteel 8y ago
    No, I said a small* proportion of the population. Which means that if someone is behaving badly, you should assume that is likely for some other reason than sociopathy, and get curious about finding out what it is, which fits the author's message.

56 points by dsr12 8y ago

Jun8 8y ago

Very good address, pretty much echoing the points from DFW's excellent speech (https://www.fs.blog/2012/04/david-foster-wallace-this-is-water/ https://www.fs.blog/2012/04/david-foster-wallace-this-is-wat...): "That is real freedom. That is being educated, and understanding how to think. The alternative is unconsciousness, the default setting, the rat race, the constant gnawing sense of having had, and lost, some infinite thing." Granted, I live my 99% of my life in this despicable state that Wallace described so well, but for brief moments, when I can muster up the will choose what to think, it feels great. Actually, let me tell you exactly what it feels like: it's like that moment in Matrix Revolutions where Trinity pushes their ship above the clouds, and for one very brief moment, before returning to the ugliness, fight, and of course, her death, she gets to experience a gorgeous sun-lit scene. And, for giving me that understanding in such simple terms, I will always be grateful to DFW!

nickysielicki 8y ago

I'm hesitant to make this comment because this was a great article and this is somewhat tangential, but I hate to see history whitewashed and simplified so I'm going to make it anyway. From the article: > [The idea that all lives are of equal worth] is a radical idea, one ultimately inscribed in our nation’s founding documents: we are all created equal and should be respected as such. I do not think it a mere coincidence that among the fifty-six founding fathers who signed the declaration of our independence was a physician, Dr. Benjamin Rush. He was a committed revolutionary and abolitionist precisely because of his belief in the principle. Erm, no. It was not really some idealistic principle that motivated his views. From wikipedia: > Benjamin Rush (1745–1813), a Founding Father of the United States and a physician, proposed that being black was a hereditary skin disease, which he called "negroidism", and that it could be cured. Rush believed non-whites were really white underneath but they were stricken with a non-contagious form of leprosy which darkened their skin color. Rush drew the conclusion that "whites should not tyrannize over [blacks], for their disease should entitle them to a double portion of humanity. However, by the same token, whites should not intermarry with them, for this would tend to infect posterity with the 'disorder'... attempts must be made to cure the disease".

dpwm 8y ago
Setting aside the centuries of oppression, the experimentation and the complete dehumanization of people based on their ethnicity that still goes on to this day, I find Rush's hypothesis and the thinking that led to it interesting. If we take a step back from the disease idea, the leprosy and the idea that it could be cured (and I shudder at the implications of that) then the model had the following properties: - The darkening of the skin is non contagious - That it is hereditary - That aside from this darkening, non-white people are (fundamentally) the same as whites. It seems so close and yet so far away. I understand it was in the 19th Century that Melanocytes were discovered, but I can't ascertain when or who discovered them. The thing that I find interesting is that surely things like Melanocytic Nevi (moles) were just as prevalent then as today and could have led to a significantly better model with some thought. Does anybody have any ideas where more information can be found on the history of the scientific ideas surrounding Melanin and pigmentation? A cursory search doesn't bring much up.
- gizmo686 8y ago
  >It seems so close and yet so far away. In what sense is it even wrong? Dark skin is a non-contagious, hereditary trait. The only thing that distinguishes it from a genetic disease is the lack of negative symptoms, which Rush acknowledged. I would say that the population size of "infected" individuals would also be an arguement for considering it a natural variate instead of a disease. However, we seem to have no problem calling lactose intolerance a disease, even though it applies to 65% of the populations (and, historically speaking, lactose tolorence is the mutation).
  - dpwm 8y ago
    > In what sense is it even wrong? In that it is not hereditary leprosy that causes the differences between whites and non-whites but natural genetic variations. There is no "white" skin underneath. There is no cure, nor should there be any medical reason to seek a "cure." Disease is a very stigmatizing word that implies defectiveness. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism#Benjamin_Rush https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism#Benjamin_Rus...

IanDrake 8y ago

I'm really not sure what the point of this article is. Is it saying people are equal? Because they're not. "All men are create equal" doesn't mean all people are equal. In fact, we know all people aren't created equal either. Rather, it's the law that must see all people as equal for the purpose of justice. For the purposes of a doctor, I get what he's saying too, but I would argue that the quality of the patient does matter and that discrimination is good. Consider, an ambulance roles up to a car accident. The drunk driver that caused the accident killed a mother. The drunk and the woman's 12 y/o child both need emergency care. There is another ambulance 20 minutes out. Who should that first ambulance take to the hospital? If you say the drunk, I don't want to live in your world. One more thing. The article states "All people deserve respect". I grew up being told respect is earned, so I can't agree with his sentiment. Perhaps all people deserve a chance to earn respect. That's different.

AmericanChopper 8y ago
>Perhaps all people deserve a chance to earn respect. That's different. You’re talking about equality of opportunity. On HN, the word “equality” is pretty much always just an abbreviation for “equality of outcome”.
- supreme_sublime 8y ago
  I'd encourage you to amend "equality of opportunity" to "equality of opportunity under the law". I've seen too many people try to argue that if we want equality of opportunity we still have to actively level opportunity.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

d883kd8 8y ago

> and that a massive and troubling proportion of all of them are mentally ill or black. Reword

amoorthy 8y ago

Beautiful article. I've loved reading the author's writing for over a decade now and this one lives up to his previous writings. This sentence, in particular, caught my eye: >Hospitals are one of the very few places left where you encounter the whole span of society. As a startup founder building consumer tech products in the valley I find that I easily forget how different most people are from me. Hence I sometimes incorrectly assess relevant market size. It's one reason I like doing to the DMV because, like a hospital, it treats everyone the same and there you can see a near-perfect representation of society that you don't encounter elsewhere. I hope it gives me the awareness and humility to design better products for society.

abvdasker 8y ago
Before I even finished reading your comment I had the same thought about the DMV! The only other place where I've had a similar feeling of being part of a true cross section of America was when I was called in for jury duty last year. I often hear people criticize courts, hospitals and the DMV all for being inefficient and unpleasant institutions, but frankly I love them for the way they tend to equalize people. Just being around people from so many different walks of life can be a refreshing change from the socioeconomic bubble I tend to occupy in my daily life. This article served as a reminder to make an effort to seek out that kind of diversity.
dominotw 8y ago
> DMV because, like a hospital, it treats everyone the same From my experience, they are much ruder in if you live in a poor area than a rich suburb. They are way more crowded in poor areas. Same with hospitals, post office ect. > you can see a near-perfect representation of society You see people who live near you, aka ppl like you.
- amoorthy 8y ago
  Good caveats, thank you. Sigh, takes careful thought to really get out of the bubble we inhabit.

Terr_ 8y ago

IMO "everyone is equal" is fundamentally about humility. It's really about recognizing the depth of our own ignorance and bias, and devising systems and habits to minimize its impact. That doesn't just apply to comparing individuals, but also more abstract stuff. For example, we seldom know all the tradeoffs present in a given set of genes, and genetic diversity is itself a good thing for the species.

AstralStorm 8y ago
But is humility actually good? Or is it just virtue signalling? I think some people construed it as good in opposition to pride, especially excessive, and to arrogance. Probably neither is actually good especially in excess. Ultimately what matters more is what one does, the actions, not the approach. There is equality, equal treatment and equal opportunity. None exist in reality since were all different (including genetically) with different backgrounds, and exceptional people can sometimes force the environment to bend to their will. Equal treatment is the most seductive of those, but in current implementations it just results in wasting potential - and is unnatural way of thinking. People have preferences. Resourceful people have resources to ensure better treatment. It happens all the time. Rich purple can get high level private treatment in terms of medicine. Or education. Or perhaps just housing. That everyone theoretically can have it does not mean everybody does. And the places open to everyone suffer from the tragedy of the commons and lack of funding.

woodandsteel 8y ago

This is a great article. However, I would like to add that there is a small proportion of the population who are sociopaths and are simply bad.

jwatte 8y ago
Yes. It's long been my belief that the actual sociopaths cannot be cured, and they need closed psychiatric care for life. For everyone else, places like prison just cost money and ruin lives that can totally be turned around much cheaper. But I digress...
ttonkytonk 8y ago
I disagree. This kind of thinking keeps opens the door for precisely the type of thinking the article is trying to counter.
- woodandsteel 8y ago
  No, I said a small* proportion of the population. Which means that if someone is behaving badly, you should assume that is likely for some other reason than sociopathy, and get curious about finding out what it is, which fits the author's message.