5 ms·

I think what is missing from a lot of these conversations, particularly in academia, is the topic of meritocracy. Does being black make you a measurably worse

I think what is missing from a lot of these conversations, particularly in academia, is the topic of meritocracy. Does being black make you a measurably worse candidate (in aggregate)? Does being black mean you will have a harder time succeeding in a meritocracy? If the answer is no, then what we see in terms of results are a matter of personal choice and there is no business in performing interventions. If the answer is yes, then the follow up question is why? If the answer is genetics, that is incredibly hazardous with extremely bleak societal consequences. If the answer is parental wealth, that means as long as black people (in aggregate) are poor, black candidates (in aggregate) are going to be measurably worse. The obvious conclusion that an academic or DEI executive must reach is that meritocracy promotes systemic "-isms". The obvious conclusion is that the only way to deal with the problem are social programs or reparative efforts (reparations -- such as affirmative action).

t-writescode 4y ago
This _also_ presupposes it's actually a meritocracy - unless "knowing a guy that knows a guy" gives someone merit, or our interpretation of merit, or our approximation of merit. And, just as your series of rhetorical questions also directs, that has long-reaching consequences.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- kevviiinn 4y ago
  Meritocracy is a lie because we live in an entirely deterministic system
s1artibartfast 4y ago
>If the answer is parental wealth, that means as long as black people (in aggregate) are poor, black candidates (in aggregate) are going to be measurably worse This just means it will take more than one generation to reach a random socioeconomic distribution, which is exactly what you would expect. If you have two buckets, poor & not poor, with a 10% chance to escape poverty, the system will reach random equilibrium eventually. It might just take a long time (10 generations to get within 5% of a random distribution in this example). If outcomes are based on parental wealth (races treated equal), you will eventually achieve a random race distribution among social classes. If outcomes are based on biased treatment due to skin color (not wealth), the system will not reach a random racial equilibrium. We know parental wealth produces better performing children (merit). This is one reason why growing up in poverty is considered a bad thing (lost potential). The question then becomes (1) do we care more about having meritocratic systems or racial equality. If we care more about racial economic equality, the question then becomes (2) how much are we willing to deviate from meritocracy to achieve racial economic equality. The more you deviate from meritocracy, the faster racial equality will be achieved. I think these are both valid questions and worth discussing openly.
- hayst4ck 4y ago
  Your initial post rubbed me the wrong way, but the change is intellectually satisfying. I think the major component missing on the "do more" side is generational suffering, I think the major component on the other side is "why do I have to sacrifice for my parents sins." Ultimately it is not "us vs them" and the solution does not have to be zero sum. That framing, the default framing, is bad for everyone. All of these discussions should come down to one core idea. Take more money from the rich and give it to the poor in the form of social programs in order to promote a more efficient and productive society. A rising tide lifts all boats. People can exist in a state of deprivation, satisfaction, and excess. As a society we have a responsibility to minimize deprivation. If we minimize deprivation, I think institutions will be able to stay meritocratic (which benefits society) without being corrupted by culture wars and political battles. I think that is probably the happy medium.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Thanks for giving it a reread. I edited my post quite heavily to spell out my point and avoid language that might induce knee-jerk reactions to the idea. I think I broadly agree with what you are saying. The zero sum part comes into the picture when people consider it in terms of stack ranking, opposed to total suffering or deprivation. To advance from last place in a stack, someone needs to go down. Unfortunately so much of the conversation is mired in this framing that it is difficult to escape - so I am glad to find someone else willing to look beyond it. I do think there is a fundamental conflict between merit and an expectation of equal outcomes. How could there not be given the massive harm and intergenerational legacy of slavery. That is to say, we must deal with the world as it is, and this incudes real differences in merit, not because of genetics, but due to a harm so great the impacts are still persistent today. By way of metaphor, you can't beat someone bloody today, and expect them to perform with average merit tomorrow. The sad but inescapable truth is that this damage will persist for generations to come, no matter how much we tilt the scales of competition or break the rules. It is my personal opinion that we should double down on blinding our institutions to race, ensure equality of competition, while doing our best to help the poor engage in productive society, independent of race. I think many people would find this disagreeable, but I think it is the only solution compatible with treating people equally as induvial humans.

t-writescode 4y ago

This _also_ presupposes it's actually a meritocracy - unless "knowing a guy that knows a guy" gives someone merit, or our interpretation of merit, or our approximation of merit. And, just as your series of rhetorical questions also directs, that has long-reaching consequences.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
kevviiinn 4y ago
Meritocracy is a lie because we live in an entirely deterministic system

s1artibartfast 4y ago

>If the answer is parental wealth, that means as long as black people (in aggregate) are poor, black candidates (in aggregate) are going to be measurably worse This just means it will take more than one generation to reach a random socioeconomic distribution, which is exactly what you would expect. If you have two buckets, poor & not poor, with a 10% chance to escape poverty, the system will reach random equilibrium eventually. It might just take a long time (10 generations to get within 5% of a random distribution in this example). If outcomes are based on parental wealth (races treated equal), you will eventually achieve a random race distribution among social classes. If outcomes are based on biased treatment due to skin color (not wealth), the system will not reach a random racial equilibrium. We know parental wealth produces better performing children (merit). This is one reason why growing up in poverty is considered a bad thing (lost potential). The question then becomes (1) do we care more about having meritocratic systems or racial equality. If we care more about racial economic equality, the question then becomes (2) how much are we willing to deviate from meritocracy to achieve racial economic equality. The more you deviate from meritocracy, the faster racial equality will be achieved. I think these are both valid questions and worth discussing openly.

hayst4ck 4y ago
Your initial post rubbed me the wrong way, but the change is intellectually satisfying. I think the major component missing on the "do more" side is generational suffering, I think the major component on the other side is "why do I have to sacrifice for my parents sins." Ultimately it is not "us vs them" and the solution does not have to be zero sum. That framing, the default framing, is bad for everyone. All of these discussions should come down to one core idea. Take more money from the rich and give it to the poor in the form of social programs in order to promote a more efficient and productive society. A rising tide lifts all boats. People can exist in a state of deprivation, satisfaction, and excess. As a society we have a responsibility to minimize deprivation. If we minimize deprivation, I think institutions will be able to stay meritocratic (which benefits society) without being corrupted by culture wars and political battles. I think that is probably the happy medium.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Thanks for giving it a reread. I edited my post quite heavily to spell out my point and avoid language that might induce knee-jerk reactions to the idea. I think I broadly agree with what you are saying. The zero sum part comes into the picture when people consider it in terms of stack ranking, opposed to total suffering or deprivation. To advance from last place in a stack, someone needs to go down. Unfortunately so much of the conversation is mired in this framing that it is difficult to escape - so I am glad to find someone else willing to look beyond it. I do think there is a fundamental conflict between merit and an expectation of equal outcomes. How could there not be given the massive harm and intergenerational legacy of slavery. That is to say, we must deal with the world as it is, and this incudes real differences in merit, not because of genetics, but due to a harm so great the impacts are still persistent today. By way of metaphor, you can't beat someone bloody today, and expect them to perform with average merit tomorrow. The sad but inescapable truth is that this damage will persist for generations to come, no matter how much we tilt the scales of competition or break the rules. It is my personal opinion that we should double down on blinding our institutions to race, ensure equality of competition, while doing our best to help the poor engage in productive society, independent of race. I think many people would find this disagreeable, but I think it is the only solution compatible with treating people equally as induvial humans.