4 ms·

From a social perspective, allowing an issue to breathe can act as an inoculation against groups who might harbor extreme interpretations. Alternatively, sideli

From a social perspective, allowing an issue to breathe can act as an inoculation against groups who might harbor extreme interpretations. Alternatively, sidelining the issue is likely to offer these groups time and space to fester in their echo chambers. Perhaps the mere fact that a thing is controversial is an indication it needs to be "aired out".

h0l0cube 7y ago
Sam Harris is sympathetic to this view point (famous for his defence of James Damore and hosting Charles Murray on his podcast), but he also cedes that individual differences are far more important than statistical brackets. This article gives heavy weight to the idea that the brackets are useful, and doesn't really give a compelling reason why, and I think it ought to, or at least give greater weight to the value of judging people in isolation of their superficial characteristics.
- zozbot234 7y ago
  Looking at people as individuals is what people and organizations do in everyday life, but "brackets" and averages explain large-scale social phenomena such as the way people tend to sort in occupational fields, making them "more" or "less" diverse. The two perspectives are quite compatible, indeed complementary.
  - h0l0cube 7y ago
    > The two perspectives are quite compatible, indeed complementary. I think you're being quite sanguine here. The two ideas are not perfectly orthogonal, and I've already explained why in other comments. If you were to, for example, use these 'brackets' to inform company policy, or city planning, you'd be only reinforcing the stereotype by increasing the activation energy for people to chose different. We can live in a pluralistic, cosmopolitan societies, where people are truly judged by the content of their characters and find their way to where they fit best. Our ability to personalize services and institutions to the unique abilities of the individual has been bolstered by modern information technology. Why bother using the blunt tools of prejudice? We've already been down that path. And how can we predict that society, and the brackets, would not shift in the future if given half the chance? Once again, what's the utility of this kind of thinking? And further to that, what could we be missing out on by reasserting this mode of thinking?

h0l0cube 7y ago

Sam Harris is sympathetic to this view point (famous for his defence of James Damore and hosting Charles Murray on his podcast), but he also cedes that individual differences are far more important than statistical brackets. This article gives heavy weight to the idea that the brackets are useful, and doesn't really give a compelling reason why, and I think it ought to, or at least give greater weight to the value of judging people in isolation of their superficial characteristics.

zozbot234 7y ago
Looking at people as individuals is what people and organizations do in everyday life, but "brackets" and averages explain large-scale social phenomena such as the way people tend to sort in occupational fields, making them "more" or "less" diverse. The two perspectives are quite compatible, indeed complementary.
- h0l0cube 7y ago
  > The two perspectives are quite compatible, indeed complementary. I think you're being quite sanguine here. The two ideas are not perfectly orthogonal, and I've already explained why in other comments. If you were to, for example, use these 'brackets' to inform company policy, or city planning, you'd be only reinforcing the stereotype by increasing the activation energy for people to chose different. We can live in a pluralistic, cosmopolitan societies, where people are truly judged by the content of their characters and find their way to where they fit best. Our ability to personalize services and institutions to the unique abilities of the individual has been bolstered by modern information technology. Why bother using the blunt tools of prejudice? We've already been down that path. And how can we predict that society, and the brackets, would not shift in the future if given half the chance? Once again, what's the utility of this kind of thinking? And further to that, what could we be missing out on by reasserting this mode of thinking?