3 ms·

AFAIK+IMO, perfect equal opportunity turns out is a terrible goal, and is unreasonably impossible - you can't even get close, and getting close wouldn't end up

AFAIK+IMO, perfect equal opportunity turns out is a terrible goal, and is unreasonably impossible - you can't even get close, and getting close wouldn't end up being a good thing anyway - for pretty much the reasons you point out. Birth circumstances (genes, parents, etc) mean that the opportunities would never be equal, and (IMO) you wouldn't want them to be - people deserve to be able to be different. AFAIK, "equity" is what you actually want. [Here's](https://interactioninstitute.org/illustrating-equality-vs-equity/ https://interactioninstitute.org/illustrating-equality-vs-eq...) the usual explanation I see. Interestingly - I think "fairness" here is going to use the same definition as used in AI/ML, which (AFAIK) is "these inputs should not affect the outputs". Or, as it usually get encoded into English inside my head - find out what each person needs to succeed, and then give it to them. Now you have a lot more people succeeding than you did when their circumstances had to be a good match for the opportunity. I do think there's a bit of legitimacy in the reactions against all this, in one very specific way - I think a lot of times it's assumed that this or that member of "privileged" life circumstances has had some specific need met - aka "the white guys don't need any help" - when a specific individual might not have. Personally, I really would have benefited from any mentor at certain crucial times of my life - college in particular comes to mind - and I think people assume I had them, or had access. I didn't, even if people "like me" did. (side note - that's also why rule #1 is: don't make statements about other people's lives, only ever ask questions) > differ Near as I can tell, your definition limits "equity" to only concerning itself with outcome - and specifically equality of outcome - instead of (overly simplifying) methods plus outcome of maximized and/or sufficient success. That is - "equity" as I understand it doesn't need everyone to reach the same degree of success, it's more about making sure everyone reaches enough success ("to see over the fence") and beyond that to reach as much success as they each person can. As freakin' always, here's the best tirade on "means vs ends" I've ever seen: https://strongfemaleprotagonist.com/issue-6/page-112-2/ https://strongfemaleprotagonist.com/issue-6/page-112-2/

pseudo0 3y ago
> That is - "equity" as I understand it doesn't need everyone to reach the same degree of success, it's more about making sure everyone reaches enough success ("to see over the fence") and beyond that to reach as much success as they each person can. Okay, but what is sufficient success and who gets to define it? A CEO who says "25% of our employees are women, mission accomplished" would be tarred and feathered by the media and DEI activists. Even if that is the natural outcome of the choices individuals make in a society with excellent gender equality. For example, Scandinavian women are less likely to go into STEM than women in less equal countries. If that is in fact a matter of preference rather than coercion, shouldn't the "equitable" level of employment in STEM be based on the level of demonstrated interest? But in virtually every DEI training I have experienced, anything other than perfect representation is viewed as failure, and the agency of minority groups is ironically dismissed. It's quite depressing really. Maybe you prefer the equity model in theory, but from what I have seen in practice, it is often implemented in a toxic and divisive way. https://www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem-girls-3848156-Feb2018/ https://www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem-gir...
- RangerScience 3y ago
  > Okay, but what is sufficient success and who gets to define it? As best as I "get it" - that's like asking "okay but there's the object?" in functional programming. This stuff is "means"-oriented rather than "ends"-oriented. You find the people most in need of help, then you help them; rinse, repeat. Trying to base it off of ends is a code smell, indicative of other problems and ills that'll either prevent or undermine your progress, even if measuring those ends is useful to calibrating your means. > But in virtually every DEI training I have experienced, anything other than perfect representation is viewed as failure, and the agency of minority groups is ironically dismissed. It's quite depressing really. Maybe you prefer the equity model in theory, but from what I have seen in practice, it is often implemented in a toxic and divisive way. Well shit, that sucks. Sorry you're having to go through that. It's pretty alien to my experience; at worst, the DEI stuff I've experienced has felt vapid - The best has been amazing tho, and felt like it gave agency to many minority groups, and greater connection (less division) between people of different demographics. Equality stuff on the other hand, generally feels like finding ways to avoid the issue, and absolve someone of doing more - at least, now that I've seen "under the hood" more. Maybe you prefer the equality model in theory, but what I have seen in practice, it is often implemented in a shallow and avoidant way.

pseudo0 3y ago

> That is - "equity" as I understand it doesn't need everyone to reach the same degree of success, it's more about making sure everyone reaches enough success ("to see over the fence") and beyond that to reach as much success as they each person can. Okay, but what is sufficient success and who gets to define it? A CEO who says "25% of our employees are women, mission accomplished" would be tarred and feathered by the media and DEI activists. Even if that is the natural outcome of the choices individuals make in a society with excellent gender equality. For example, Scandinavian women are less likely to go into STEM than women in less equal countries. If that is in fact a matter of preference rather than coercion, shouldn't the "equitable" level of employment in STEM be based on the level of demonstrated interest? But in virtually every DEI training I have experienced, anything other than perfect representation is viewed as failure, and the agency of minority groups is ironically dismissed. It's quite depressing really. Maybe you prefer the equity model in theory, but from what I have seen in practice, it is often implemented in a toxic and divisive way. https://www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem-girls-3848156-Feb2018/ https://www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem-gir...

RangerScience 3y ago
> Okay, but what is sufficient success and who gets to define it? As best as I "get it" - that's like asking "okay but there's the object?" in functional programming. This stuff is "means"-oriented rather than "ends"-oriented. You find the people most in need of help, then you help them; rinse, repeat. Trying to base it off of ends is a code smell, indicative of other problems and ills that'll either prevent or undermine your progress, even if measuring those ends is useful to calibrating your means. > But in virtually every DEI training I have experienced, anything other than perfect representation is viewed as failure, and the agency of minority groups is ironically dismissed. It's quite depressing really. Maybe you prefer the equity model in theory, but from what I have seen in practice, it is often implemented in a toxic and divisive way. Well shit, that sucks. Sorry you're having to go through that. It's pretty alien to my experience; at worst, the DEI stuff I've experienced has felt vapid - The best has been amazing tho, and felt like it gave agency to many minority groups, and greater connection (less division) between people of different demographics. Equality stuff on the other hand, generally feels like finding ways to avoid the issue, and absolve someone of doing more - at least, now that I've seen "under the hood" more. Maybe you prefer the equality model in theory, but what I have seen in practice, it is often implemented in a shallow and avoidant way.