4 ms·

Note also that the methods of 60 years ago (a) discovered Gwen's ability, (b) promoted her to a commensurate position, (c) gave a productive citizen a genuine s

by moldbug 15y ago

Note also that the methods of 60 years ago (a) discovered Gwen's ability, (b) promoted her to a commensurate position, (c) gave a productive citizen a genuine sense of achievement and accomplishment. All in a period which was universally racist and sexist by today's progressive standards. Now? Gwen's intelligence would probably also be detected, if by less straightforward and reliable methods. Because her African X chromosomes confer not one but two Diversity Points (tm), every institution she came in contact with would have a strong bureaucratic incentive to promote her not only to her actual abilities - but beyond them. As a result, she'd be very likely to end up placed in a position where rather than leading enterprise IT projects, she was competing with (say) top-notch particle physicists. Lacking (like almost all of us) the mental horsepower to perform at this level, she would constantly feel like a fraud, and her colleagues would constantly suspect her of being a fraud. A suspicion which would be correct, though you couldn't really say it was her fault. Lesson: be careful about hating on the past. Often the past looks pretty retarded by the standards of the present. Often the converse is the case as well.

barrkel 15y ago
So, in essence, black people today are "likely" incompetent at their jobs because of affirmative action? That seems to be what you're writing. And it doesn't look good.
- moldbug 15y ago
  Why doesn't it "look good?" Oh, noes - am I a witch? Could you, as an engineer, design a better system to make sure that all Eskimos are "likely" incompetent at their jobs, than promoting Eskimos over Tamils just because they are Eskimos and not Tamils? Another cross-cultural comparison might be useful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumiputera_(Malaysia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumiputera_(Malaysia)
  - rmc 15y ago
    Why doesn't it "look good?" Oh, noes - am I a witch? Witch, no. Racist, maybe.
    - moldbug 15y ago
      Or a fascist, possibly? Which is worse - a racist, or a fascist? Discuss. I'll give you my standard deal - I'll admit to being a fascist, if you'll admit to being a communist. I haven't gotten any takers yet but I'm looking forward to the first.
      - moldbug 15y ago
        Apparently fascist is even worse! You know what - if someone, anyone, can tell me why it's absolutely necessary to persecute racists and fascists, yet utterly and completely wrong to persecute communists, I'll go whole hog and buy the R-word. Operators are standing by...
        corin_ 15y ago
        Because on one side you are discriminating against people, and on the other you aren't? They're not just opposite ends of the same spectrum, they're completely different. The opposite of communism isn't facism, it's capitalism - and the opporsite of facism isn't communism, it's just non-racism.
        moldbug 15y ago
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulak http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulak I can even anticipate your response: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
        corin_ 15y ago
        > this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule I don't need to do that.. I just need to point out that by picking an example of what one or more communists did or said doesn't make their actions a part of communism. The only logical fallacy here is yours - I could equally point at some American murderers and say "capitalism is terrible, look at those capitalists murdering people for money". So good job anticipating my response... the response of pointing out that your argument is basically bullshit, because sadly for you it isn't easy to back up racism.
- tomjen3 15y ago
  Can you say they are not? Granted before some, perhaps most, would be below their level but it seems rather impossible to assume that nobody has now been moved artificially higher than they should have.
  - barrkel 15y ago
    The claim isn't that nobody is above their "level"; it's that black people are "likely" to be - and I read that as "most" are - above their "level". At what "level" are people with good connections, powerful parents etc.? Is affirmative action more effective in advancing people than pulling strings and calling in favours? Isn't this mechanism - the social status quo - what affirmative action is designed to change? Why would one expect more incompetence from one than the other?
    - moldbug 15y ago
      It's well known, of course, that two wrongs make a right. It's also well known that all white people have rich, powerful parents. (Wasn't that a Dave Chappelle skit?)
- roguecoder 15y ago
  It's also not how affirmative action works, even if it was still broadly used (which it's not): http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/02/granting-women-a-competitive-advantage-wont-destroy-society.ars http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/02/granting-women-a... Aggregate performance was either unaffected or improved in the presence of affirmative action. This fits with history: until 1972 almost no women were admitted to MIT, but it didn't make the men perform less well for all the affirmative action they received nor cheapen their accomplishments.
  - moldbug 15y ago
    which it's not Jesus. Do we live in the same reality? http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2010/07/how_diversity_punishes_asians.html http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2010/07/how_divers... TL;DR: The Espenshade study found that African chromosomes (by the "one-drop rule") equaled 450 SAT points over Asian chromosomes as a college admissions factor. (Not that actual genetic testing was used. It probably should be, though. Why encourage race fraud?) Your link is to a study in which "affirmative action" is used in the sense it was originally implied, not the sense in which it is actually used: Note that none of these constitute "reverse discrimination," an accusation affirmative action plans often face. In no case was a top-performing man denied a reward if he outperformed everyone else. The main effect the researchers found was an increase in the number of able women willing to participate.
  - yummyfajitas 15y ago
    The issue is not that men perform less well because women are admitted into MIT. The issue is that women admitted due to AA might be lower quality than other candidates (men and women who would be admitted without AA), and therefore drag their group average down.
    - roguecoder 15y ago
      I'm arguing that men who were admitted might be lower quality than women who weren't admitted because their gender exclude them, but that didn't mean those men were unqualified or even necessarily dragged their group averages down. None of our measurements are accurate enough to correctly distinguish 5,000 very good students from the next 5,000 nearly-identically-but-slightly-better students.
astine 15y ago
she would constantly feel like a fraud, Nonsense. Americans today are trained from a young age to have a sense of entitlement. People who are promoted above their ability are quite capable of blaming their inability to perform on prejudice or conspiracy on the part of peers or subordinates.
- moldbug 15y ago
  True enough. But I'd say this is an even worse outcome than feeling like a fraud.
- RandallBrown 15y ago
  Women in computing constantly feel like frauds.
  - RandallBrown 15y ago
    I'm not sure why I'm getting down voted. It's the truth. Most women are made to feel like they don't belong in computing. I convinced my girlfriend to major in Computer Science in school and she's constantly telling me how she faked her way through school. She feels like the only reason she got through it is because I helped her. The reason she got through it is because she was smart. I didn't help her with her exams and I didn't help her land her job at Amazon. That was all her. Cheryl Sandberg, the COO of Facebook gave a talk at the Grace Hopper conference about how she felt like a fraud. She wasn't as technical as the engineers so she didn't feel like she deserved her position. Turns out she's really good at her job. Lots of women feel this way.
    - Jem 15y ago
      I'm not sure you're being down-voted either. I agree with you.
rmc 15y ago
This the old trope that now-a-days the pendulum has swung too far and women, blacks etc. are now in a privileged position compared to white, straight, anglo men. Nonsense. And spreads the idea that all black people shouldn't be where they are in the company and are all tricksters who are rubbish at their job.
- moldbug 15y ago
  Think like a smart person - you obviously are one. If you wanted to confirm or deny this "old trope," how would you do so? What evidence would prove or disprove it? If you wanted to identify such privileges, what would they look like? What about counter-privileges which offset them? A fun thought-experiment, for instance, is imagining that "women, blacks etc." could sell whatever privileges they have to groups that I consider underprivileged, such as Asians. With some money changing hands, the Asian would become legally black and the black legally Asian, for all official purposes (educational, legal, etc). What do you think the price of this transaction would be? And who would be paying whom? And spreads the idea that all black people shouldn't be where they are in the company and are all tricksters who are rubbish at their job. This is certainly the case for some black people, as it's certainly the case for some whites, Asians, Eskimos, etc. Perhaps we just differ in our estimated percentages.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - rmc 15y ago
    If you wanted to identify such privileges, what would they look like? People have done this already, this is what they look like: White Privilege Checklist: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/files/mcintosh.html http://www.amptoons.com/blog/files/mcintosh.html Male Privilege Checklist: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/ http://www.amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/ Heterosexual Privilege Checklist: http://www.cs.earlham.edu/~hyrax/personal/files/student_res/straightprivilege.htm http://www.cs.earlham.edu/~hyrax/personal/files/student_res/... Cis gender privilege checklist: http://takesupspace.wordpress.com/cis-privilege-checklist/ http://takesupspace.wordpress.com/cis-privilege-checklist/

by moldbug 15y ago

barrkel 15y ago

So, in essence, black people today are "likely" incompetent at their jobs because of affirmative action? That seems to be what you're writing. And it doesn't look good.

moldbug 15y ago
Why doesn't it "look good?" Oh, noes - am I a witch? Could you, as an engineer, design a better system to make sure that all Eskimos are "likely" incompetent at their jobs, than promoting Eskimos over Tamils just because they are Eskimos and not Tamils? Another cross-cultural comparison might be useful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumiputera_(Malaysia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumiputera_(Malaysia)
- rmc 15y ago
  Why doesn't it "look good?" Oh, noes - am I a witch? Witch, no. Racist, maybe.
  - moldbug 15y ago
    Or a fascist, possibly? Which is worse - a racist, or a fascist? Discuss. I'll give you my standard deal - I'll admit to being a fascist, if you'll admit to being a communist. I haven't gotten any takers yet but I'm looking forward to the first.
    - moldbug 15y ago
      Apparently fascist is even worse! You know what - if someone, anyone, can tell me why it's absolutely necessary to persecute racists and fascists, yet utterly and completely wrong to persecute communists, I'll go whole hog and buy the R-word. Operators are standing by...
      - corin_ 15y ago
        Because on one side you are discriminating against people, and on the other you aren't? They're not just opposite ends of the same spectrum, they're completely different. The opposite of communism isn't facism, it's capitalism - and the opporsite of facism isn't communism, it's just non-racism.
        moldbug 15y ago
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulak http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulak I can even anticipate your response: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
        corin_ 15y ago
        > this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule I don't need to do that.. I just need to point out that by picking an example of what one or more communists did or said doesn't make their actions a part of communism. The only logical fallacy here is yours - I could equally point at some American murderers and say "capitalism is terrible, look at those capitalists murdering people for money". So good job anticipating my response... the response of pointing out that your argument is basically bullshit, because sadly for you it isn't easy to back up racism.
tomjen3 15y ago
Can you say they are not? Granted before some, perhaps most, would be below their level but it seems rather impossible to assume that nobody has now been moved artificially higher than they should have.
- barrkel 15y ago
  The claim isn't that nobody is above their "level"; it's that black people are "likely" to be - and I read that as "most" are - above their "level". At what "level" are people with good connections, powerful parents etc.? Is affirmative action more effective in advancing people than pulling strings and calling in favours? Isn't this mechanism - the social status quo - what affirmative action is designed to change? Why would one expect more incompetence from one than the other?
  - moldbug 15y ago
    It's well known, of course, that two wrongs make a right. It's also well known that all white people have rich, powerful parents. (Wasn't that a Dave Chappelle skit?)
roguecoder 15y ago
It's also not how affirmative action works, even if it was still broadly used (which it's not): http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/02/granting-women-a-competitive-advantage-wont-destroy-society.ars http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/02/granting-women-a... Aggregate performance was either unaffected or improved in the presence of affirmative action. This fits with history: until 1972 almost no women were admitted to MIT, but it didn't make the men perform less well for all the affirmative action they received nor cheapen their accomplishments.
- moldbug 15y ago
  which it's not Jesus. Do we live in the same reality? http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2010/07/how_diversity_punishes_asians.html http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2010/07/how_divers... TL;DR: The Espenshade study found that African chromosomes (by the "one-drop rule") equaled 450 SAT points over Asian chromosomes as a college admissions factor. (Not that actual genetic testing was used. It probably should be, though. Why encourage race fraud?) Your link is to a study in which "affirmative action" is used in the sense it was originally implied, not the sense in which it is actually used: Note that none of these constitute "reverse discrimination," an accusation affirmative action plans often face. In no case was a top-performing man denied a reward if he outperformed everyone else. The main effect the researchers found was an increase in the number of able women willing to participate.
- yummyfajitas 15y ago
  The issue is not that men perform less well because women are admitted into MIT. The issue is that women admitted due to AA might be lower quality than other candidates (men and women who would be admitted without AA), and therefore drag their group average down.
  - roguecoder 15y ago
    I'm arguing that men who were admitted might be lower quality than women who weren't admitted because their gender exclude them, but that didn't mean those men were unqualified or even necessarily dragged their group averages down. None of our measurements are accurate enough to correctly distinguish 5,000 very good students from the next 5,000 nearly-identically-but-slightly-better students.

astine 15y ago

she would constantly feel like a fraud, Nonsense. Americans today are trained from a young age to have a sense of entitlement. People who are promoted above their ability are quite capable of blaming their inability to perform on prejudice or conspiracy on the part of peers or subordinates.

moldbug 15y ago
True enough. But I'd say this is an even worse outcome than feeling like a fraud.
RandallBrown 15y ago
Women in computing constantly feel like frauds.
- RandallBrown 15y ago
  I'm not sure why I'm getting down voted. It's the truth. Most women are made to feel like they don't belong in computing. I convinced my girlfriend to major in Computer Science in school and she's constantly telling me how she faked her way through school. She feels like the only reason she got through it is because I helped her. The reason she got through it is because she was smart. I didn't help her with her exams and I didn't help her land her job at Amazon. That was all her. Cheryl Sandberg, the COO of Facebook gave a talk at the Grace Hopper conference about how she felt like a fraud. She wasn't as technical as the engineers so she didn't feel like she deserved her position. Turns out she's really good at her job. Lots of women feel this way.
  - Jem 15y ago
    I'm not sure you're being down-voted either. I agree with you.

rmc 15y ago

This the old trope that now-a-days the pendulum has swung too far and women, blacks etc. are now in a privileged position compared to white, straight, anglo men. Nonsense. And spreads the idea that all black people shouldn't be where they are in the company and are all tricksters who are rubbish at their job.

moldbug 15y ago
Think like a smart person - you obviously are one. If you wanted to confirm or deny this "old trope," how would you do so? What evidence would prove or disprove it? If you wanted to identify such privileges, what would they look like? What about counter-privileges which offset them? A fun thought-experiment, for instance, is imagining that "women, blacks etc." could sell whatever privileges they have to groups that I consider underprivileged, such as Asians. With some money changing hands, the Asian would become legally black and the black legally Asian, for all official purposes (educational, legal, etc). What do you think the price of this transaction would be? And who would be paying whom? And spreads the idea that all black people shouldn't be where they are in the company and are all tricksters who are rubbish at their job. This is certainly the case for some black people, as it's certainly the case for some whites, Asians, Eskimos, etc. Perhaps we just differ in our estimated percentages.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- rmc 15y ago
  If you wanted to identify such privileges, what would they look like? People have done this already, this is what they look like: White Privilege Checklist: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/files/mcintosh.html http://www.amptoons.com/blog/files/mcintosh.html Male Privilege Checklist: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/ http://www.amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/ Heterosexual Privilege Checklist: http://www.cs.earlham.edu/~hyrax/personal/files/student_res/straightprivilege.htm http://www.cs.earlham.edu/~hyrax/personal/files/student_res/... Cis gender privilege checklist: http://takesupspace.wordpress.com/cis-privilege-checklist/ http://takesupspace.wordpress.com/cis-privilege-checklist/