4 ms·

Right. The argument against racism or sexism, for me, has never been founded on the belief that all populations are guaranteed to be exactly the same with their

Right. The argument against racism or sexism, for me, has never been founded on the belief that all populations are guaranteed to be exactly the same with their capabilities. The argument against racism/sexism to which I subscribe is that individuals within all populations vary so dramatically between one another, and individuals from every population seem to be capable of manifesting virtually any set of characteristics, that evaluating people as individuals rather than assuming traits from their respective populations is far less error prone. On the flip side, I'm also not asserting that populations are not the same when it comes to their capabilities; it just makes no difference. As stated, the variance between individuals is sufficient that I'd just as soon deal with the individual, rather than treating them as an avatar for some arbitrary collective. It makes no difference to me if less women are inherently interested in engineering, or if exactly as many women are inherently interested in engineering, it matters to me if an individual, woman or not, is not treated/evaluated in accordance with her own characteristics. "In the past, I have made no secret of my disdain for Chef Gusteau's famous motto: Anyone can cook. But I realize, only now do I truly understand what he meant. Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere." - Ratatouille

temp8964 5y ago
What you said is totally reasonable, the problem is that the discussion in the current state is not pushed by the question of how should we treat individuals. We have way passed that. The discussion in the current state is pushed by how can we explain the differences in outcomes and how to erase those differences. That's how the discussion is pushed to the point where some people claim there is no difference in inputs, all the differences are created in the process.
- ralusek 5y ago
  Typically the debate is between running two competing functions. One group's essentially takes the outcomes produced by two different populations, and takes any differences as sufficient evidence that the systems themselves are biased towards one population or another. Implicit in their argument is that the populations serve as identical inputs. This is the argument of the Ibram X. Kendi/Robin Diangelo, collectivist/CRT types of the left. The other group's essentially says that outcomes produced should be proportionately relative to inputs, and consistent between individuals such that comparable inputs produce comparable outputs. Implicit in this argument is that race and gender are almost never relevant inputs to any outputs, such that two individuals with comparable inputs aside from race or gender should be expected to net comparable outputs in most circumstances. This is the argument of the individualist/liberal types of the right. How I personally classify these problems is that the first solution is "bad code," it's a bad diagnosis and produces bad solutions. The second solution is "good code," it would produce a just and stable system. However, the second solution ignores "bad data" which is already in place, whereas the first solution implicitly picks up and addresses the bad data as the bad data will largely contribute to the different outputs. And what I mean by good code vs bad data is that previous "bad code" (i.e. procedural systems producing outputs from inputs) have put individuals from different populations in unequal circumstances. So while the system I described as being the better of the two for producing just society is better at actually serving as the basis for our procedural systems, it is insufficient in addressing the "bad data" which is already in place, such that people from different populations, and individuals in general, are given such drastically different starting positions, that it doesn't matter that their inputs are going to net them proportional outputs so long as their inputs were so dramatically hampered from the get go.
MikeUt 5y ago
> The argument against racism/sexism to which I subscribe is that individuals within all populations vary so dramatically between one another, and individuals from every population seem to be capable of manifesting virtually any set of characteristics, that evaluating people as individuals rather than assuming traits from their respective populations is far less error prone. But that argument concedes populations are different [1]. How does it counter those that say protecting these differences is legitimate? [1] https://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/07/more-uniform-sampling-of-human-genetic.html https://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/07/more-uniform-sampling-...
- ralusek 5y ago
  The argument concedes nothing. I'm not asserting that the populations are the same or different. I'm saying that individual variance is sufficient so as to be better off simply dealing with an individual within their own capacities. That would be true given that populations were roughly comparable or weighted differently in their mean capacities.

temp8964 5y ago

What you said is totally reasonable, the problem is that the discussion in the current state is not pushed by the question of how should we treat individuals. We have way passed that. The discussion in the current state is pushed by how can we explain the differences in outcomes and how to erase those differences. That's how the discussion is pushed to the point where some people claim there is no difference in inputs, all the differences are created in the process.

ralusek 5y ago
Typically the debate is between running two competing functions. One group's essentially takes the outcomes produced by two different populations, and takes any differences as sufficient evidence that the systems themselves are biased towards one population or another. Implicit in their argument is that the populations serve as identical inputs. This is the argument of the Ibram X. Kendi/Robin Diangelo, collectivist/CRT types of the left. The other group's essentially says that outcomes produced should be proportionately relative to inputs, and consistent between individuals such that comparable inputs produce comparable outputs. Implicit in this argument is that race and gender are almost never relevant inputs to any outputs, such that two individuals with comparable inputs aside from race or gender should be expected to net comparable outputs in most circumstances. This is the argument of the individualist/liberal types of the right. How I personally classify these problems is that the first solution is "bad code," it's a bad diagnosis and produces bad solutions. The second solution is "good code," it would produce a just and stable system. However, the second solution ignores "bad data" which is already in place, whereas the first solution implicitly picks up and addresses the bad data as the bad data will largely contribute to the different outputs. And what I mean by good code vs bad data is that previous "bad code" (i.e. procedural systems producing outputs from inputs) have put individuals from different populations in unequal circumstances. So while the system I described as being the better of the two for producing just society is better at actually serving as the basis for our procedural systems, it is insufficient in addressing the "bad data" which is already in place, such that people from different populations, and individuals in general, are given such drastically different starting positions, that it doesn't matter that their inputs are going to net them proportional outputs so long as their inputs were so dramatically hampered from the get go.

MikeUt 5y ago

> The argument against racism/sexism to which I subscribe is that individuals within all populations vary so dramatically between one another, and individuals from every population seem to be capable of manifesting virtually any set of characteristics, that evaluating people as individuals rather than assuming traits from their respective populations is far less error prone. But that argument concedes populations are different [1]. How does it counter those that say protecting these differences is legitimate? [1] https://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/07/more-uniform-sampling-of-human-genetic.html https://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/07/more-uniform-sampling-...

ralusek 5y ago
The argument concedes nothing. I'm not asserting that the populations are the same or different. I'm saying that individual variance is sufficient so as to be better off simply dealing with an individual within their own capacities. That would be true given that populations were roughly comparable or weighted differently in their mean capacities.