4 ms·

>The underlying important question is what do you define as equality? Equality of outcomes, or equality of opportunity? On an individual level, the obvious ans

>The underlying important question is what do you define as equality? Equality of outcomes, or equality of opportunity? On an individual level, the obvious answer is opportunity, but how do you measure that? Generally via outcomes. If two groups are equally capable and have equal opportunity, you would expect similar outcomes.

dcow 3y ago
[flagged]
- BobbyJo 3y ago
  > At a most naïve level, yes. But the post-modern left’s big assumption is that evolutionary, biological, and other factors can’t play a roll in those outcomes. Democracy's big assumption too btw. > At some level we have to be okay allowing for inequality of outcomes because we cant even identify let alone control all the social and biological variables of being human. We are. MIT isn't admitting people with IQs in 60s due to genetic defects are they? It's a matter of degree, and managing that requires measuring. We can't measure people's inborn abilities, so we have to make palatable assumptions measure what we can, and act accordingly. The "to discriminate or not to discriminate" choice is purely one of lesser evil. There is no good answer here.
  - dcow 3y ago
    I’m not sure I understand your MIT point. So what are the numbers today? Where’s the gap? In my example Native Americans are expected to thrive in a college environment that promotes binge drinking despite having equal distribution of IQs. That’s arguably unfair to them and isn't solved by tweaking the input distribution by identifiable racial characteristics. Rather, it’s an unfortunate adversity that needs to be overcome (ideally with awareness, empathy, and support of other people even those who do not have to face that adversity).
    - BobbyJo 3y ago
      > Rather, it’s an unfortunate adversity that needs to be overcome. Well yeah, but again > ideally with awareness, empathy, and support of other people even those who do not have to face that adversity the question here is how much support and what kinds. Any amount based on race is still a form of affirmative action, it's just not happening in a college admissions office.
      - dcow 3y ago
        In the context here I think people take affirmative action to mean “official race-based consideration in the college admissions process”. While helping others out when they demonstrate need is action, it’s usually just called being a decent person and you don't have to limit it to artificial racial boundaries.
        BobbyJo 3y ago
        > While helping others out when they demonstrate need is action, it’s usually just called being a decent person and you don't have to limit it to artificial racial boundaries. 100% But back to the context: controlling for racial disparity. If your answer is "just be nice" then you're choosing the "wait it out for 100's of years" option. That's totally your prerogative, and I personally flip flop between the two in terms of which I think is better for society.
naasking 3y ago
> If two groups are equally capable and have equal opportunity, you would expect similar outcomes. No, because this assumes that different groups have equivalent values. This is plainly false. There are some broad similarities for sure, but each gender, ethnicity and culture values different things which will inevitably produce different outcomes. This is why obsessing over outcome equity is doomed from the start. It implicitly relies on either enforcing homogeneity, thus erasing cultural uniqueness, or outright discrimination in preferring some groups over others to overcome any cultural values that might impact outcomes so the final numbers look pretty.
- BobbyJo 3y ago
  > No, because this assumes that different groups have equivalent values. Values are not intrinsically tied to your race, they just correlate to some degree like income and geography. Saying we shouldn't compensate for your parents values is like saying we shouldn't compensate for your parents income or zip code. That's fine, and it's not immoral to believe that, but just make sure you're being logically consistent in the things you believe we should and shouldn't control for.
- calf 3y ago
  But what empirical historical example of "outcome equity" has proven as harmful in scale and magnitude as slavery or other oppressive, authoritarian social orders? How much of this concern is founded in actual history? Even one example would help ground such a hypothetical concern.
  - naasking 3y ago
    Who said anything about harm? Harm is not the only consideration. We could reduce harm to indigenous peoples living in the Amazon by forcibly moving them into cities with proper healthcare, but this would destroy their culture and violate their right to autonomy.
    - calf 3y ago
      My parent comment explicitly said that AA is harmful, and I see it like how people abstractly state that communism is harmful to the social fabric or something. Now give a relevant empirical example. Even a scientific study would suffice. Stop playing lazy abstract word games unbefitting of STEM experts. And please carefully reread the upthread remakes before joining replying, Naasking.

dcow 3y ago

[flagged]

BobbyJo 3y ago
> At a most naïve level, yes. But the post-modern left’s big assumption is that evolutionary, biological, and other factors can’t play a roll in those outcomes. Democracy's big assumption too btw. > At some level we have to be okay allowing for inequality of outcomes because we cant even identify let alone control all the social and biological variables of being human. We are. MIT isn't admitting people with IQs in 60s due to genetic defects are they? It's a matter of degree, and managing that requires measuring. We can't measure people's inborn abilities, so we have to make palatable assumptions measure what we can, and act accordingly. The "to discriminate or not to discriminate" choice is purely one of lesser evil. There is no good answer here.
- dcow 3y ago
  I’m not sure I understand your MIT point. So what are the numbers today? Where’s the gap? In my example Native Americans are expected to thrive in a college environment that promotes binge drinking despite having equal distribution of IQs. That’s arguably unfair to them and isn't solved by tweaking the input distribution by identifiable racial characteristics. Rather, it’s an unfortunate adversity that needs to be overcome (ideally with awareness, empathy, and support of other people even those who do not have to face that adversity).
  - BobbyJo 3y ago
    > Rather, it’s an unfortunate adversity that needs to be overcome. Well yeah, but again > ideally with awareness, empathy, and support of other people even those who do not have to face that adversity the question here is how much support and what kinds. Any amount based on race is still a form of affirmative action, it's just not happening in a college admissions office.
    - dcow 3y ago
      In the context here I think people take affirmative action to mean “official race-based consideration in the college admissions process”. While helping others out when they demonstrate need is action, it’s usually just called being a decent person and you don't have to limit it to artificial racial boundaries.
      - BobbyJo 3y ago
        > While helping others out when they demonstrate need is action, it’s usually just called being a decent person and you don't have to limit it to artificial racial boundaries. 100% But back to the context: controlling for racial disparity. If your answer is "just be nice" then you're choosing the "wait it out for 100's of years" option. That's totally your prerogative, and I personally flip flop between the two in terms of which I think is better for society.

naasking 3y ago

> If two groups are equally capable and have equal opportunity, you would expect similar outcomes. No, because this assumes that different groups have equivalent values. This is plainly false. There are some broad similarities for sure, but each gender, ethnicity and culture values different things which will inevitably produce different outcomes. This is why obsessing over outcome equity is doomed from the start. It implicitly relies on either enforcing homogeneity, thus erasing cultural uniqueness, or outright discrimination in preferring some groups over others to overcome any cultural values that might impact outcomes so the final numbers look pretty.

BobbyJo 3y ago
> No, because this assumes that different groups have equivalent values. Values are not intrinsically tied to your race, they just correlate to some degree like income and geography. Saying we shouldn't compensate for your parents values is like saying we shouldn't compensate for your parents income or zip code. That's fine, and it's not immoral to believe that, but just make sure you're being logically consistent in the things you believe we should and shouldn't control for.
calf 3y ago
But what empirical historical example of "outcome equity" has proven as harmful in scale and magnitude as slavery or other oppressive, authoritarian social orders? How much of this concern is founded in actual history? Even one example would help ground such a hypothetical concern.
- naasking 3y ago
  Who said anything about harm? Harm is not the only consideration. We could reduce harm to indigenous peoples living in the Amazon by forcibly moving them into cities with proper healthcare, but this would destroy their culture and violate their right to autonomy.
  - calf 3y ago
    My parent comment explicitly said that AA is harmful, and I see it like how people abstractly state that communism is harmful to the social fabric or something. Now give a relevant empirical example. Even a scientific study would suffice. Stop playing lazy abstract word games unbefitting of STEM experts. And please carefully reread the upthread remakes before joining replying, Naasking.