5 ms·

There is a post on SSC about Isolated Demand for Rigor which, well, I can't link you to because it's down. But I think it is relevant to many points made in thi

There is a post on SSC about Isolated Demand for Rigor which, well, I can't link you to because it's down. But I think it is relevant to many points made in this conversation. Is it better to have representation when making policy decisions? Pretty much everybody is saying yes. And somehow, this "yes" gets interpreted as "can't have an opinion on any topic as long as I'm not part of a certain group". That's identity politics taken to the extreme. I'm going to put common sense on the table and say that yes, I can have opinions on various topics. Including, among many others, disabled people. Are my opinions equally valid, given that I'm not part of that group? And here we start to see how things get confused - because absolutely nobody deigns to give a definition of "valid". Are my opinions correct? good? useful? - that's damn easy to judge, comparatively. But "valid"? Hell, I could have the best damn idea in the whole wide world, and it still wouldn't make it "valid" - in the climate we're moving towards. Are opinions of people not of that group, on average, equally good as those in the group? That's a completely different question, and now the isolated demand for rigor becomes clear: we move from a statistical bias to being allowed to do something. Being less likely to be right is not a criteria for being allowed in the public discourse. Nor should it be.

imperfect_blue 6y ago
To add, personal experience can be useful, but is not the end-all in decision making. It's useful in the ways anecdotes are useful, that is to say, good as an illustrative example but may not be statistically representative. In general, you do not need to have personally experienced X to have a useful or "valid" opinion on X. As a reductio ad absurdum, nobody would be allowed to have an valid opinion on murder.
- simlevesque 6y ago
  No one advocates that you should only speak if you lived it, we say that those who lived it must have a say if that is in any way possible.
  - imperfect_blue 6y ago
    The original question was > how much of this nuance is achieved by having discussions about issues which have real life-or-death impacts on people but without having any of those people inconveniently present? Followed by an assertion that > A group of X people is [not] capable of of empathising with, understanding and having a nuanced opinion of the concerns of !X people So I think there are people advocating that you should be speaking only if you lived it. Of course, anecdotes and personal experiences are valuable and including people with personal experience is helpful, but the central claim here is that you can have productive discussions about X without anyone with personal experience with X.
    - JohnBooty 6y ago
      You can have a discussion about X, as long as you recognize that the discussion is going to be flawed without anybody from X there. Sometimes this is a necessity. In history class we learn about ancient Sumerians without inviting them to the discussion, because they have all been dead for a long time. So we make do. Certainly, if we had the chance, we'd love to have them there. (A useful thought experiment: what if a bunch of ancient Sumerians fell out of a time machine and were available for discussion? Would we not think poorly of people who wanted to discuss ancient Sumerians did so without the Sumerians, who were standing like... right outside the room?) Can a bunch of e.g. men sit around and have a meaningful discussion about women? It... really depends. Certainly a group of male gynecologists could usefully discuss some procedure, although the history of gynecology also certainly suggests that for many years the profession surely suffered from a lack of female perspective. Men can usefully discuss gender relations, because they are a part of the group that experiences gender relations, although again this discussion will be a lot weaker if it involves exclusively male perspectives. A room full of men can probably not very usefully discuss issues highly specific to women, unless they were indirectly drawing upon female experiences (e.g., two men could certainly learn from a discussion about an article written by a female author about childbirth or male-on-female sexual assault, etc)
      - imperfect_blue 6y ago
JohnBooty 6y ago
Is it better to have representation when making policy decisions? Pretty much everybody is saying yes. And somehow, this "yes" gets interpreted as "can't have an opinion on any topic as long as I'm not part of a certain group". That's identity politics taken to the extreme. I would encourage you to think holistically. Here's (part of) my thought process. I don't know your demographics so I'll share mine. As a white man living in America... 1. Will I still have plenty of power and agency in my life, if I have the humility to refrain from forming opinions and/or exercising authority over matters in which I have no personal experience? 2. From a purely selfish perspective, won't I learn more and therefore become a better person if I do much more listening than talking when it comes to matters that affect groups I'm not a part of? 3. What are my odds of having better ideas on a given topic than the subject matter experts themselves? As a Ruby programmer, I basically don't have opinions at all on Python or how the Python community should run things. Why wouldn't I extend the same courtesy to women, or people of color? 4. Are there already a lot of areas in my life where I practice this kind of humility? When I step onto a plane, do I assume my opinions about flying the plane are on par with those of the pilots?
JohnBooty 6y ago
I can have opinions on various topics. Including, among many others, disabled people. Are my opinions equally valid, given that I'm not part of that group? There's a distinction here that I'm struggling to put into words. As largely non-disabled people, there is a lot we can and should be doing. If you have an idea for a better sort of wheelchair or walking aid, is that something you should pursue? Yeah! It's not that you should shut up and stay far, far, away from disabled people who are doing disabled things. But, each step of the way, we've got an obligation to make sure we're not overruling them. Pragmatically, this makes sense as well - we're unlikely to design some kind of gamechanging next-gen wheelchair without some serious collaboration from folks who are actually confined to wheelchairs. There are parallels when it comes to race relations. As a white man in America, should I largely (or entirely) shut up when it comes to the Black experience in America? Yes. I am not going to understand that experience by any means other than some voracious listening. But there is plenty of work to be done from the white side of things as well. My thoughts and actions are needed there. In fact, considering we have the majority of economic and political power in this country, most of the work needs to be done by us if the situation is to be improved.

imperfect_blue 6y ago

To add, personal experience can be useful, but is not the end-all in decision making. It's useful in the ways anecdotes are useful, that is to say, good as an illustrative example but may not be statistically representative. In general, you do not need to have personally experienced X to have a useful or "valid" opinion on X. As a reductio ad absurdum, nobody would be allowed to have an valid opinion on murder.

simlevesque 6y ago
No one advocates that you should only speak if you lived it, we say that those who lived it must have a say if that is in any way possible.
- imperfect_blue 6y ago
  The original question was > how much of this nuance is achieved by having discussions about issues which have real life-or-death impacts on people but without having any of those people inconveniently present? Followed by an assertion that > A group of X people is [not] capable of of empathising with, understanding and having a nuanced opinion of the concerns of !X people So I think there are people advocating that you should be speaking only if you lived it. Of course, anecdotes and personal experiences are valuable and including people with personal experience is helpful, but the central claim here is that you can have productive discussions about X without anyone with personal experience with X.
  - JohnBooty 6y ago
    You can have a discussion about X, as long as you recognize that the discussion is going to be flawed without anybody from X there. Sometimes this is a necessity. In history class we learn about ancient Sumerians without inviting them to the discussion, because they have all been dead for a long time. So we make do. Certainly, if we had the chance, we'd love to have them there. (A useful thought experiment: what if a bunch of ancient Sumerians fell out of a time machine and were available for discussion? Would we not think poorly of people who wanted to discuss ancient Sumerians did so without the Sumerians, who were standing like... right outside the room?) Can a bunch of e.g. men sit around and have a meaningful discussion about women? It... really depends. Certainly a group of male gynecologists could usefully discuss some procedure, although the history of gynecology also certainly suggests that for many years the profession surely suffered from a lack of female perspective. Men can usefully discuss gender relations, because they are a part of the group that experiences gender relations, although again this discussion will be a lot weaker if it involves exclusively male perspectives. A room full of men can probably not very usefully discuss issues highly specific to women, unless they were indirectly drawing upon female experiences (e.g., two men could certainly learn from a discussion about an article written by a female author about childbirth or male-on-female sexual assault, etc)
    - imperfect_blue 6y ago

JohnBooty 6y ago

Is it better to have representation when making policy decisions? Pretty much everybody is saying yes. And somehow, this "yes" gets interpreted as "can't have an opinion on any topic as long as I'm not part of a certain group". That's identity politics taken to the extreme. I would encourage you to think holistically. Here's (part of) my thought process. I don't know your demographics so I'll share mine. As a white man living in America... 1. Will I still have plenty of power and agency in my life, if I have the humility to refrain from forming opinions and/or exercising authority over matters in which I have no personal experience? 2. From a purely selfish perspective, won't I learn more and therefore become a better person if I do much more listening than talking when it comes to matters that affect groups I'm not a part of? 3. What are my odds of having better ideas on a given topic than the subject matter experts themselves? As a Ruby programmer, I basically don't have opinions at all on Python or how the Python community should run things. Why wouldn't I extend the same courtesy to women, or people of color? 4. Are there already a lot of areas in my life where I practice this kind of humility? When I step onto a plane, do I assume my opinions about flying the plane are on par with those of the pilots?

JohnBooty 6y ago

I can have opinions on various topics. Including, among many others, disabled people. Are my opinions equally valid, given that I'm not part of that group? There's a distinction here that I'm struggling to put into words. As largely non-disabled people, there is a lot we can and should be doing. If you have an idea for a better sort of wheelchair or walking aid, is that something you should pursue? Yeah! It's not that you should shut up and stay far, far, away from disabled people who are doing disabled things. But, each step of the way, we've got an obligation to make sure we're not overruling them. Pragmatically, this makes sense as well - we're unlikely to design some kind of gamechanging next-gen wheelchair without some serious collaboration from folks who are actually confined to wheelchairs. There are parallels when it comes to race relations. As a white man in America, should I largely (or entirely) shut up when it comes to the Black experience in America? Yes. I am not going to understand that experience by any means other than some voracious listening. But there is plenty of work to be done from the white side of things as well. My thoughts and actions are needed there. In fact, considering we have the majority of economic and political power in this country, most of the work needs to be done by us if the situation is to be improved.