4 ms·

I personally believe in statistics and I believe you cannot use them to make derogatory generalizations. I mean racists REALLY love to pull out crime statistics

I personally believe in statistics and I believe you cannot use them to make derogatory generalizations. I mean racists REALLY love to pull out crime statistics out of their pockets in justification of their views. And, frankly, its not about my beliefs right now and enforcing of societal rules, its about you making derogatory generalizations and thinking that its okay, because "statistics" and because you've said sorry.

civilized 5y ago
Well, I don't believe what you believe. I think you have an overly general moral rule that you think is necessary for consistency, but it's not really, and it's just your personal belief. Your belief implies it is improper to use statistics to describe morally salient human behavior in any way, unless the conclusion is that there is no variation. I think that's silly and intellectually impoverishing. Groups have different average behavior and I don't see the point in blinding myself to that. We all know that averages don't determine an individual, and we all know that some generalizations should be avoided, but that doesn't imply some broad fatwa, completely irrespective of context, against noting broad variations in group behavior. The prosecutor attitude is very entertaining though. Feel free to keep doing that.
- artemonster 5y ago
  I personally dont require that consistency, I was merely asking WHY there is a difference in treatment of the same method (making generalized statements about group behaviour) when applied to different qualifiers. And yes, just as you've said, maintaining that consistency does imply that you suddenly can't use any statistics at all. Point taken on "prosecutor attitude", sorry about that. riding "moral high horse" got to my head.
  - civilized 5y ago
    It sounds like you don't believe what you just said you did? I'm genuinely asking what you believe, as opposed to what you assert for the sake of argument. For me, it's not an easy topic but I would say when negative generalizations escalate to exclusion and dehumanization, that's probably where to draw the line. I know some people with Audis and I don't think worse of them or anything like that. It's just a funny thing that's hard to ignore after a while on the road.
    - artemonster 5y ago
      Thank you for the insight on where you draw the line, that explains a lot. Still, a hard terrain to navigate on when you can say something and when you can't, even if you make correct statements backed up by data. Just to be clear we're on the same page: I've made absolutely same observation about other bmw drivers. and we, humans, do exactly that: observe and generalize. Regarding my personal beliefs, as I've stated above "I personally believe in statistics and I believe you cannot use* them to make derogatory* generalizations" 1. regarding "use": you cannot use specifically statistics/data to justify any *-ist remark. "I hate bmw drivers because most of them are assholes on the road", an example of that (not what you said!) 2. regarding "derogatory": you can(and should!) use statistics to do (just) generalizations, i.e. in a context of talking about group behaviour. "most of bmw drivers are agressive and dangerous drivers, as shown by this data" is a perfectly fine statement. My problem is that you can say that sort of statements about certain group of drivers, but if you would have pulled up a similar argument and used (for example) PoC and crime rates, you would have been torn to pieces by everyone. And for me, on the surface, the statement and the structure would be absolutely the same (and it is STILL not escalated to exclusion and dehumanization). So whats the difference? And why different treatment? People above are arguing that buying BMW its a choice and using inherent (immutable) properties (i.e. race/gender) is different for the case of stereotyping, but I cannot see the key difference that makes okay to do one and not okay to do another.
      - civilized 5y ago
        On the difference between making these generalizations along racial lines vs other things - it mostly comes down to the fact that our ancestors ruined the fun. After humanity had used certain type of statements to justify mass dehumanization, slavery, Holocaust, etc., people don't want to see that happen again. Then it's just a question of how big a red circle we want to draw around that kind of talk. Most people found a simple ban on racial generalizations relatively intuitive and practical. I'd prefer a more freewheeling culture but it's above my pay grade at this point. Side point - in general an important thing to remember here is the big, big difference between P(A|B) and P(B|A). It could be the case that all aggressive drivers I ever encounter are BMW drivers, and yet the rate of aggressive BMW drivers could be very low and of little practical predictive value on any individual BMW driver (e.g. 1% of BMW drivers versus 0% for non-BMW drivers). People are already bad at distinguishing an implication and its converse, and they're quite a bit worse at the statistical version of the same. Arguably this is a reason we should keep our generalizations to ourselves, even if they're accurate. A lot of people will take them to mean a lot more than they do. It's not my style, but I do recognize the risk.

civilized 5y ago

Well, I don't believe what you believe. I think you have an overly general moral rule that you think is necessary for consistency, but it's not really, and it's just your personal belief. Your belief implies it is improper to use statistics to describe morally salient human behavior in any way, unless the conclusion is that there is no variation. I think that's silly and intellectually impoverishing. Groups have different average behavior and I don't see the point in blinding myself to that. We all know that averages don't determine an individual, and we all know that some generalizations should be avoided, but that doesn't imply some broad fatwa, completely irrespective of context, against noting broad variations in group behavior. The prosecutor attitude is very entertaining though. Feel free to keep doing that.

artemonster 5y ago
I personally dont require that consistency, I was merely asking WHY there is a difference in treatment of the same method (making generalized statements about group behaviour) when applied to different qualifiers. And yes, just as you've said, maintaining that consistency does imply that you suddenly can't use any statistics at all. Point taken on "prosecutor attitude", sorry about that. riding "moral high horse" got to my head.
- civilized 5y ago
  It sounds like you don't believe what you just said you did? I'm genuinely asking what you believe, as opposed to what you assert for the sake of argument. For me, it's not an easy topic but I would say when negative generalizations escalate to exclusion and dehumanization, that's probably where to draw the line. I know some people with Audis and I don't think worse of them or anything like that. It's just a funny thing that's hard to ignore after a while on the road.
  - artemonster 5y ago
    Thank you for the insight on where you draw the line, that explains a lot. Still, a hard terrain to navigate on when you can say something and when you can't, even if you make correct statements backed up by data. Just to be clear we're on the same page: I've made absolutely same observation about other bmw drivers. and we, humans, do exactly that: observe and generalize. Regarding my personal beliefs, as I've stated above "I personally believe in statistics and I believe you cannot use* them to make derogatory* generalizations" 1. regarding "use": you cannot use specifically statistics/data to justify any *-ist remark. "I hate bmw drivers because most of them are assholes on the road", an example of that (not what you said!) 2. regarding "derogatory": you can(and should!) use statistics to do (just) generalizations, i.e. in a context of talking about group behaviour. "most of bmw drivers are agressive and dangerous drivers, as shown by this data" is a perfectly fine statement. My problem is that you can say that sort of statements about certain group of drivers, but if you would have pulled up a similar argument and used (for example) PoC and crime rates, you would have been torn to pieces by everyone. And for me, on the surface, the statement and the structure would be absolutely the same (and it is STILL not escalated to exclusion and dehumanization). So whats the difference? And why different treatment? People above are arguing that buying BMW its a choice and using inherent (immutable) properties (i.e. race/gender) is different for the case of stereotyping, but I cannot see the key difference that makes okay to do one and not okay to do another.
    - civilized 5y ago
      On the difference between making these generalizations along racial lines vs other things - it mostly comes down to the fact that our ancestors ruined the fun. After humanity had used certain type of statements to justify mass dehumanization, slavery, Holocaust, etc., people don't want to see that happen again. Then it's just a question of how big a red circle we want to draw around that kind of talk. Most people found a simple ban on racial generalizations relatively intuitive and practical. I'd prefer a more freewheeling culture but it's above my pay grade at this point. Side point - in general an important thing to remember here is the big, big difference between P(A|B) and P(B|A). It could be the case that all aggressive drivers I ever encounter are BMW drivers, and yet the rate of aggressive BMW drivers could be very low and of little practical predictive value on any individual BMW driver (e.g. 1% of BMW drivers versus 0% for non-BMW drivers). People are already bad at distinguishing an implication and its converse, and they're quite a bit worse at the statistical version of the same. Arguably this is a reason we should keep our generalizations to ourselves, even if they're accurate. A lot of people will take them to mean a lot more than they do. It's not my style, but I do recognize the risk.