4 ms·

> People point out disparities as evidence that there aren’t equal opportunities That’s a very low bar if you take population level disparities and assume it’s

> People point out disparities as evidence that there aren’t equal opportunities That’s a very low bar if you take population level disparities and assume it’s a lack of equity causing this. You’re talking about having a deep understanding of incredibly complex systems layered on top of one another. Equality of opportunity is never possible. We’re all born with different genetics. Anything less is just arbitrary line drawing as to what’s ok and what isn’t (ie tribalism).

wbsss4412 4y ago
> That’s a very low bar if you take population level disparities and assume it’s a lack of equity causing this Are racial disparities socially determined or not?
- MockObject 4y ago
  What does "socially determined" mean, and what are the alternatives?
  - wbsss4412 4y ago
    The best analogy I can think of is sports. In sports, the rules are whatever we say they are, that’s the part that’s socially determined. Lebron James is a amazing basketball player, due to a combination of his genetics and his hard work. But there’s a parallel reality wherein basketball was never invented. And people enjoy sports like horse racing or marathon running, where he would never be able to be world class given his frame. What sports are popular is based on culture and happenstance, and up to the whims of society, not genetics or hard work of individuals. For several hundred years, America literally constructed a society where it was decided that white people were considered more valuable than black people. That had nothing to do with what individual black people did, those were just the rules of the game. You may say “but that’s not how it is anymore”, and yes things have certainly changed. But at the same time, there are people who are alive today who weren’t allowed to attend the same schools as whites, weren’t allowed to drink from the same fountains as whites, etc. The argument that is being made, is that society continues to favor people based upon the color of their skin. Certainly, individual talents and hard work contribute to one’s place in life, but that does not mean that the playing field is level.
    - MockObject 4y ago
      Does social determination include culture? That's a greater determinant of outcomes than skin color, as the example of outcomes between African Americans and Nigerian immigrants indicates.
      - wbsss4412 4y ago
        Culture is socially determined in the sense that culture is simply the collective actions and decisions that a group of people make. Reading the intent behind that statement, though, that Nigerians have succeeded in America despite any hinderances they may have faced due to wider societies treatment of black people, that would be somewhat outside of the framework of what I am talking about. The construction here is, do Black Americans have worse outcomes, on average, because of themselves, or because of societies treatment of them. Culture would fall into the bucket of “they are the reason for their own problems”. Obviously Nigerians do well on average, but they are also a small fraction of the population. Pointing to Nigerians and saying that race isn’t a contributing factor is making an argument after having found the statistical outlier that proves your argument, how do Nigerians compare to the top cohort of white Americans based on ethnicity or whatever? Is it possible that Nigerians would actually be doing better were there not racial barriers?
        MockObject 4y ago
        Rewriting "culture" as "they are the reason for their own problems” seems rather uncharitable, and unhelpful to the discussion. Why are you doing that, given that it's not adding any clarity? > having found the statistical outlier that proves your argument Well, why are they a statistical outlier? If you ask Nigerians, they'll tend to credit their culture. Do you have a different explanation? > Is it possible that Nigerians would actually be doing better were there not racial barriers? I suppose it's more possible that they should be doing much worse than they are, because of the racial barriers.
        wbsss4412 4y ago
        > Rewriting "culture" as "they are the reason for their own problems” seems rather uncharitable, and unhelpful to the discussion. Why are you doing that, given that it's not adding any clarity? I was under the impression that it did add clarity, so I find your question odd. What would be the charitable interpretation of the statement “socioeconomic disparities between black Americans and white Americans are due to their respective cultures”?
- bendbro 4y ago
  Can something be sticky to a race but not genetic? Obviously yes.
- lliamander 4y ago
  Thomas Sowell has a great book on the subject called Discrimination and Disparities. There are interviews where he goes over the high-level ideas in the book if you don't have time to read it, but the basic punchline is that this: no two populations have ever been equal, and only sometimes is that because of some form of oppression or because of genetic differences. There are a multitude of cultural and environmental differences that cause disparate outcomes, and unless equality of outcome is your goal those differences shouldn't bother you.
  - wbsss4412 4y ago
    > unless equality of outcome is your goal those differences shouldn't bother you. I’m sorry, but this simply doesn’t follow. The premise: that there are a multitude of things that lead to to disparities (even just random chance). If disparities are random then yes, that’s not a problem I’m going to get tussled up about. But it’s not a matter of “it could be anything”. We have strong evidence that it is oppression, and when that is the case, that I do have reason to care about, and it’s about opportunity not outcome.
    - lliamander 4y ago
      If it is actually oppression, then yes that is a valid reason to be concerned. But let's be clear, you just claimed that the mere existence of disparities is evidence of oppression. That only follows if group outcomes would be equal in the absence of oppression, but that is a completely invalid assumption that has no basis in historical fact.
      - wbsss4412 4y ago
        I claimed that disparities are evidence, not that they are proof. It’s not nor us it ever been about the disparities alone, but the disparities in conjunction with the long history of racial oppression in America. People are alive today who grew up under Jim Crow. People are alive today who were threatened with violence for attending elementary school.
- someguydave 4y ago
  No, differences in learning ability are largely heritable. Self-identified racial groups vary in statistical distribution of their mental abilities. I think generally in the West the chief cause of differing group outcomes on mental tasks is differing learning abilities.
- kaba0 4y ago
  I believe they are social, but I also believe it is very much not the task of a school program to solve racial disparities that are multi-generational and perhaps one of the most complex issues in the US. It is the equivalent of a hospital closing down because they can’t save everyone.

wbsss4412 4y ago

> That’s a very low bar if you take population level disparities and assume it’s a lack of equity causing this Are racial disparities socially determined or not?

MockObject 4y ago
What does "socially determined" mean, and what are the alternatives?
- wbsss4412 4y ago
  The best analogy I can think of is sports. In sports, the rules are whatever we say they are, that’s the part that’s socially determined. Lebron James is a amazing basketball player, due to a combination of his genetics and his hard work. But there’s a parallel reality wherein basketball was never invented. And people enjoy sports like horse racing or marathon running, where he would never be able to be world class given his frame. What sports are popular is based on culture and happenstance, and up to the whims of society, not genetics or hard work of individuals. For several hundred years, America literally constructed a society where it was decided that white people were considered more valuable than black people. That had nothing to do with what individual black people did, those were just the rules of the game. You may say “but that’s not how it is anymore”, and yes things have certainly changed. But at the same time, there are people who are alive today who weren’t allowed to attend the same schools as whites, weren’t allowed to drink from the same fountains as whites, etc. The argument that is being made, is that society continues to favor people based upon the color of their skin. Certainly, individual talents and hard work contribute to one’s place in life, but that does not mean that the playing field is level.
  - MockObject 4y ago
    Does social determination include culture? That's a greater determinant of outcomes than skin color, as the example of outcomes between African Americans and Nigerian immigrants indicates.
    - wbsss4412 4y ago
      Culture is socially determined in the sense that culture is simply the collective actions and decisions that a group of people make. Reading the intent behind that statement, though, that Nigerians have succeeded in America despite any hinderances they may have faced due to wider societies treatment of black people, that would be somewhat outside of the framework of what I am talking about. The construction here is, do Black Americans have worse outcomes, on average, because of themselves, or because of societies treatment of them. Culture would fall into the bucket of “they are the reason for their own problems”. Obviously Nigerians do well on average, but they are also a small fraction of the population. Pointing to Nigerians and saying that race isn’t a contributing factor is making an argument after having found the statistical outlier that proves your argument, how do Nigerians compare to the top cohort of white Americans based on ethnicity or whatever? Is it possible that Nigerians would actually be doing better were there not racial barriers?
      - MockObject 4y ago
        Rewriting "culture" as "they are the reason for their own problems” seems rather uncharitable, and unhelpful to the discussion. Why are you doing that, given that it's not adding any clarity? > having found the statistical outlier that proves your argument Well, why are they a statistical outlier? If you ask Nigerians, they'll tend to credit their culture. Do you have a different explanation? > Is it possible that Nigerians would actually be doing better were there not racial barriers? I suppose it's more possible that they should be doing much worse than they are, because of the racial barriers.
        wbsss4412 4y ago
        > Rewriting "culture" as "they are the reason for their own problems” seems rather uncharitable, and unhelpful to the discussion. Why are you doing that, given that it's not adding any clarity? I was under the impression that it did add clarity, so I find your question odd. What would be the charitable interpretation of the statement “socioeconomic disparities between black Americans and white Americans are due to their respective cultures”?
bendbro 4y ago
Can something be sticky to a race but not genetic? Obviously yes.
lliamander 4y ago
Thomas Sowell has a great book on the subject called Discrimination and Disparities. There are interviews where he goes over the high-level ideas in the book if you don't have time to read it, but the basic punchline is that this: no two populations have ever been equal, and only sometimes is that because of some form of oppression or because of genetic differences. There are a multitude of cultural and environmental differences that cause disparate outcomes, and unless equality of outcome is your goal those differences shouldn't bother you.
- wbsss4412 4y ago
  > unless equality of outcome is your goal those differences shouldn't bother you. I’m sorry, but this simply doesn’t follow. The premise: that there are a multitude of things that lead to to disparities (even just random chance). If disparities are random then yes, that’s not a problem I’m going to get tussled up about. But it’s not a matter of “it could be anything”. We have strong evidence that it is oppression, and when that is the case, that I do have reason to care about, and it’s about opportunity not outcome.
  - lliamander 4y ago
    If it is actually oppression, then yes that is a valid reason to be concerned. But let's be clear, you just claimed that the mere existence of disparities is evidence of oppression. That only follows if group outcomes would be equal in the absence of oppression, but that is a completely invalid assumption that has no basis in historical fact.
    - wbsss4412 4y ago
      I claimed that disparities are evidence, not that they are proof. It’s not nor us it ever been about the disparities alone, but the disparities in conjunction with the long history of racial oppression in America. People are alive today who grew up under Jim Crow. People are alive today who were threatened with violence for attending elementary school.
someguydave 4y ago
No, differences in learning ability are largely heritable. Self-identified racial groups vary in statistical distribution of their mental abilities. I think generally in the West the chief cause of differing group outcomes on mental tasks is differing learning abilities.
kaba0 4y ago
I believe they are social, but I also believe it is very much not the task of a school program to solve racial disparities that are multi-generational and perhaps one of the most complex issues in the US. It is the equivalent of a hospital closing down because they can’t save everyone.