13 ms·
The leftist position isn't that everyone is inherently equal but that everyone should be valued equally and afforded equal opportunity regardless of their race/
by mike00632 8y ago
The leftist position isn't that everyone is inherently equal but that everyone should be valued equally and afforded equal opportunity regardless of their race/gender/ability. The idea of an "IQ" measure is too close to the idea of measuring inherent value, which shouldn't be contingent on things like how much nutrition you had as a child. Furthermore, the idea of "IQ" could be considered dangerous because it often serves to mask the harmful biases that actually inform our impressions of people.
- jf- 8y agoI think individuals on the left have a variety of beliefs on the subject.
- mike00632 8y agoYes, and almost none of the beliefs on the Left are akin to "everyone is equal in all measurements, therefore IQ is dangerous." Even Karl Marx acknowledges inherent differences in people when he writes, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
- leereeves 8y agoThe left uses any inequality of outcome, like the unequal representation of minorities and women in the software development industry, as evidence of discrimination without allowing for the possibility these differences are due to different abilities, choices, or desires. And if anyone challenges the belief that all outcomes should be equal, they retreat behind the very different argument you've just made, which nearly everyone agrees with. The motte and bailey tactic.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> The left uses any inequality of outcome, like the unequal representation of minorities and women in the software development industry, as evidence of discrimination without allowing for the possibility these differences are due to different abilities, choices, or desires. No, the left doesn't. On a number of levels; as well as not ruling out the possibility of non-discriminatory causes (while being skeptical of handwaves in that direction), the left broadly recognizes that differences in choices and desires are natural and obvious consequences of visible discrimination in society, and thus even when they are direct factors not inconsistent with discrimination as root cause.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- leereeves 8y agoI'm as skeptical as you are of "handwaves", and I'd like to see definitive research into this very important topic. Government intervention should be based on proof, not skepticism or bias. But the left won't allow research or even discussion of the topic, so we don't know whether IQ, for example, is actually a cause of the unequal outcome in software development. Merely discussing the greater male variability hypothesis is enough to cause research to be disappeared. [1] And suggesting that IQ may be unequal between groups is enough to end careers. 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17938318 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17938318
- repolfx 8y agoGreater male variability isn't a hypothesis, is it? It's clear in the data from longitudinal IQ studies, or so I thought. It's more a fact than a hypothesis.
- goldcd 8y agoHold on, I'm a lefty - and don't particularly like that brush you're tarring me with. Now before we go on, I do agree with some of your points. The results we observe are driven by many factors and individual choice is one of them. I object to 'positive discrimination' and the like as it's personally unfair. However, I do have that deep troubling feeling that there is bias all over the place. I'll just go with gender, as you mentioned it (and yes, this is all anecdotal). I'm in the UK, working for an Israeli company. The UK office (and US) is a veritable 'sausage-fest' - however Israel and India have a far higher proportion of women doing these technical roles. My point is that these "personal desires" seem to vary by geography, rather than gender. Now, why would this matter, if everybody gets to do what they want? Well, income. Many western industries seem to have massive gender bias within them - and women always seem to end up in the ones that pay less (which for want of a better metric is our best indicator of 'value' we have). Now within a job role, once you balance in hours worked/flexibility/anything-you-care to include the gender pay gap isn't too bad. It's there, but not enough to annoy me. My quibble is that if you/I had two children, one male, one female, equal in every way - the male child is going to earn more.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- kazinator 8y agoWell, the leftist position is that everyone is equally capable of producing economic value beneficial to the collective state, and should be given those opportunities to do that.
- vtfv 8y agoThe left is a spectrum, there are left leaning people, and people who would like to see communism implemented in the United States. For left leaning people, center, and right leaning people equality of opportunity is desirable and will maximize scientific progress, abundance, and quality of life. What far left people want is equity, which is vastly different and is equality of outcome. They view the world in a very black and white lens in which any endeavor/business/group which doesn't perfectly match population distributions must be inherently racist/sexist/etc because there aren't any differences or preferences between any groups.