4 ms·

Even if the delta was the result of a lack of candidates from disadvantaged castes, to me that suggests that the discrimination already happened earlier, weedin

by 542458 3y ago

Even if the delta was the result of a lack of candidates from disadvantaged castes, to me that suggests that the discrimination already happened earlier, weeding out the disadvantaged castes before they could even become qualified candidates.

raincom 3y ago
Equality of Opportunity vs. Equality of Outcome is a common dispute in these discussions. It also depends on the context: Equality of Opportunity at the n th step totally depends on Equality of Outcome at the n-1 th step. Who is responsible for every step in this process? Whoever responsible for this, it should not cause undue burden for other people, as it is not a zero-sum game.
andai 3y ago
What if differences in outcome are due to genetics? Do we then genetically engineer each group (this tech will soon be widespread) until all group outcomes are equalized? Serious question btw, I have heard someone applauding this (and seeing it as likely to occur as an emergent phenomenon due to free market competition). (As a humorous side-note: I heard someone say in an interview, "I hope that differences in intelligence are genetic, because then it means we can do something about it with technology. If not, we'd be doomed! When has a social policy ever produced the desired outcome?")
- cududa 3y ago
  I mean the vast majority of studies indicate environmental factors like access to healthy food, a strong family, educational opportunities, and the literal environment are what drives difference in outcomes, not "genetic inferiority". Maybe someone from a lower (poorer) caste was raised on a diet of food grown in polluted/ tainted fields, grew up with poor air quality, and their water comes through lead pipes or other means that permanently hinder their potential. You're arguing pure eugenics and apparently find it funny.
  - andai 3y ago
    I'm not arguing for or against anything. I asked "what if X" and you responded "not X, also you're a bad person." My argument was not "we should strive for equality of outcome, even if it means eugenics!" but rather to point out that it is an absurd goal. As for my amusement, it was at this person (I can't remember the name) expressing a hope that outcomes are due to genetics, because he saw this as the optimal situation (due to the inevitable progress of technology), rather than hopeless as most people do. Also just to be perfectly clear, I am not rejecting the role of environment. I am just also not rejecting the role of genetics. If genetics really didn't matter, differences in outcome between me and a banana would be purely environmental.
rhuru 3y ago
> to me that suggests that the discrimination already happened earlier Indian educational institutes both private and public have around 50% affirmative action to backward classes. Similarly all the educational levels below that can have around 10%-30% affirmative action based on caste.

by 542458 3y ago

raincom 3y ago

Equality of Opportunity vs. Equality of Outcome is a common dispute in these discussions. It also depends on the context: Equality of Opportunity at the n th step totally depends on Equality of Outcome at the n-1 th step. Who is responsible for every step in this process? Whoever responsible for this, it should not cause undue burden for other people, as it is not a zero-sum game.

andai 3y ago

What if differences in outcome are due to genetics? Do we then genetically engineer each group (this tech will soon be widespread) until all group outcomes are equalized? Serious question btw, I have heard someone applauding this (and seeing it as likely to occur as an emergent phenomenon due to free market competition). (As a humorous side-note: I heard someone say in an interview, "I hope that differences in intelligence are genetic, because then it means we can do something about it with technology. If not, we'd be doomed! When has a social policy ever produced the desired outcome?")

cududa 3y ago
I mean the vast majority of studies indicate environmental factors like access to healthy food, a strong family, educational opportunities, and the literal environment are what drives difference in outcomes, not "genetic inferiority". Maybe someone from a lower (poorer) caste was raised on a diet of food grown in polluted/ tainted fields, grew up with poor air quality, and their water comes through lead pipes or other means that permanently hinder their potential. You're arguing pure eugenics and apparently find it funny.
- andai 3y ago
  I'm not arguing for or against anything. I asked "what if X" and you responded "not X, also you're a bad person." My argument was not "we should strive for equality of outcome, even if it means eugenics!" but rather to point out that it is an absurd goal. As for my amusement, it was at this person (I can't remember the name) expressing a hope that outcomes are due to genetics, because he saw this as the optimal situation (due to the inevitable progress of technology), rather than hopeless as most people do. Also just to be perfectly clear, I am not rejecting the role of environment. I am just also not rejecting the role of genetics. If genetics really didn't matter, differences in outcome between me and a banana would be purely environmental.

rhuru 3y ago

> to me that suggests that the discrimination already happened earlier Indian educational institutes both private and public have around 50% affirmative action to backward classes. Similarly all the educational levels below that can have around 10%-30% affirmative action based on caste.