5 ms·

There is a conflation in the idea behind this comment that drives me crazy. This version of equity based on race is using race as a proxy for outcomes in life t

by scoofy 2y ago

There is a conflation in the idea behind this comment that drives me crazy. This version of equity based on race is using race as a proxy for outcomes in life that are actually based on a wide variety of factors. Equality based on race is treating peoples race as equal. The idea that we care about equity is important, but using race as a proxy means we need to care especially about the proxy and making sure the proxy is representative of the outcomes and how the inputs are effecting the outputs. And, if we're being honest, it's kind of an arbitrary proxy beyond the correlation. We are already seeing huge problems here with men vs women using gender as a proxy for outcomes, where we've basically flip-flopped graduation rates, but since it's a lagging indicator, we've really gotten ourselves into a pickle where we are creating an equity problem while trying to solve an equity problem, because we're so focused on outputs throughout every stage of the life process that we're missing a massive shift in the inputs (like who we're graduating). Equality is important. Equity is important. They are different things, that should have different attention. Equality uses identity directly. Equity uses identity as a proxy for outcomes. We need to be very careful when we focus too much on one over the other.

fc417fc802 2y ago
Why use various proxies at all? Most of the group differences seem to largely share poverty as a primary root factor, and this impacts plenty of sub-groups within the supposedly advantaged groups as well. So why are we not simply addressing that directly? A refrain I've been seeing a lot lately is that the outcome of a system is its purpose. Perhaps that reasoning should be equally applied to an analysis of the implementation choices made by various social programs and the solutions espoused by various political movements.
- scoofy 2y ago
  Why? I presume that people don’t look for second and third order effects. They see disproportionate numbers of people of color struggling, they blame the first order grouping as the cause. Statistics is complicated. People reject even straightforward theories with obvious scientific bases. It makes sense.
- maerF0x0 2y ago
  the fun part here is seeing interesting tradeoffs like a wealthy person of <Race-preferred> chosen over a poor person of <Race-tarnished> for some kind of wealth producing choice. Making a wealthy member of that group wealthier will pull up the average, but IMO the just choice is to help the lagging human regardless of their race. It leads to weird outcomes too like the deaths of despair in Appalachia being "non news" because it largely covers a group we deem as "privileged". A big part of the issue is reductionistic / simplistic thinking that wants to reduce the cognitive load of decision making by setting up only a few binary gates instead of having to do complex analysis on a case by case basis. This is normal for human brains to try and do.
relaxing 2y ago
> This version of equity based on race is using race as a proxy for outcomes in life Because racism is ongoing and negatively impacts people of color, it makes sense to focus where harm is being done. There is a leftist school of thought that agrees with you (focus on class instead of race). But I personally don’t believe that a focus purely on outcomes would be applied equitably while racism still exists. > we're so focused on outputs throughout every stage of the life process that were missing a massive shift in the inputs It is a fallacy to think we can’t focus on multiple things at once. Nothing keeps us for helping boys in some sectors and women in others.
- leereeves 2y ago
  > Nothing keeps us for helping boys in some sectors and women in others In theory, perhaps, but in practice nothing is being done to help boys. In fact, DEI programs in universities continue to favor young women even as they approach 60% of students. We're all familiar with Girls Who Code, Women in STEM, and similar organizations. Where are equivalent organizations for young men? Would it even be possible to start such an organization without being ostracized as a bigot?
  - relaxing 2y ago
    > In theory, perhaps, but in practice nothing is being done to help boys. Untrue. There’s a ton of work being done on how to better support boys in school. > In fact, DEI programs in universities continue to favor young women even as they approach 60% of students. What are these DEI programs favoring university admission for young women?
    - leereeves 2y ago
      Here's the opinion of the Society for Women Engineers: > Cutting these [DEI] programs means fewer resources for students that need support. It’s devastating for women https://swe.org/magazine/dei-faces-rising-waters/ https://swe.org/magazine/dei-faces-rising-waters/ That's an admission that DEI in schools supports women, from some of its biggest advocates. Where are the programs to support boys in school? Edit: Of course, the mere existence of the Society for Women Engineers, AAUW, and other groups focused on women in education, without comparable groups for men, is another example of the phenomenon. They're a remnant of a time when they were necessary, now favoring the group that has not only caught up, but taken the lead.
trogdor 2y ago
> Equity is important As I understand it, “equity” in this content generally refers to equality of outcomes between groups. I don’t see why that is desirable, important, or even possible. Would you explain why you believe that equity is important?
- mcphage 2y ago
  > I don’t see why that is desirable, important, or even possible. Are you okay with being in one of the groups where the outcomes are worse?
  - trogdor 2y ago
    I am not sure what you mean. Would you give me an example?
    - mcphage 2y ago
      I’m not sure what groups you were referring to in your original post, so it would probably be better if you provided the example.
- scoofy 2y ago
  It means equal outcomes for arbitrary groups. We should expect fairly similar outcomes for groups based on arbitrary differences. If we don’t, it should concern us. Non-arbitrary issues should obviously affect outcomes, but the prevalence of melanin should affect skin cancer rates, not incomes.

by scoofy 2y ago

fc417fc802 2y ago

Why use various proxies at all? Most of the group differences seem to largely share poverty as a primary root factor, and this impacts plenty of sub-groups within the supposedly advantaged groups as well. So why are we not simply addressing that directly? A refrain I've been seeing a lot lately is that the outcome of a system is its purpose. Perhaps that reasoning should be equally applied to an analysis of the implementation choices made by various social programs and the solutions espoused by various political movements.

scoofy 2y ago
Why? I presume that people don’t look for second and third order effects. They see disproportionate numbers of people of color struggling, they blame the first order grouping as the cause. Statistics is complicated. People reject even straightforward theories with obvious scientific bases. It makes sense.
maerF0x0 2y ago
the fun part here is seeing interesting tradeoffs like a wealthy person of <Race-preferred> chosen over a poor person of <Race-tarnished> for some kind of wealth producing choice. Making a wealthy member of that group wealthier will pull up the average, but IMO the just choice is to help the lagging human regardless of their race. It leads to weird outcomes too like the deaths of despair in Appalachia being "non news" because it largely covers a group we deem as "privileged". A big part of the issue is reductionistic / simplistic thinking that wants to reduce the cognitive load of decision making by setting up only a few binary gates instead of having to do complex analysis on a case by case basis. This is normal for human brains to try and do.

relaxing 2y ago

> This version of equity based on race is using race as a proxy for outcomes in life Because racism is ongoing and negatively impacts people of color, it makes sense to focus where harm is being done. There is a leftist school of thought that agrees with you (focus on class instead of race). But I personally don’t believe that a focus purely on outcomes would be applied equitably while racism still exists. > we're so focused on outputs throughout every stage of the life process that were missing a massive shift in the inputs It is a fallacy to think we can’t focus on multiple things at once. Nothing keeps us for helping boys in some sectors and women in others.

leereeves 2y ago
> Nothing keeps us for helping boys in some sectors and women in others In theory, perhaps, but in practice nothing is being done to help boys. In fact, DEI programs in universities continue to favor young women even as they approach 60% of students. We're all familiar with Girls Who Code, Women in STEM, and similar organizations. Where are equivalent organizations for young men? Would it even be possible to start such an organization without being ostracized as a bigot?
- relaxing 2y ago
  > In theory, perhaps, but in practice nothing is being done to help boys. Untrue. There’s a ton of work being done on how to better support boys in school. > In fact, DEI programs in universities continue to favor young women even as they approach 60% of students. What are these DEI programs favoring university admission for young women?
  - leereeves 2y ago
    Here's the opinion of the Society for Women Engineers: > Cutting these [DEI] programs means fewer resources for students that need support. It’s devastating for women https://swe.org/magazine/dei-faces-rising-waters/ https://swe.org/magazine/dei-faces-rising-waters/ That's an admission that DEI in schools supports women, from some of its biggest advocates. Where are the programs to support boys in school? Edit: Of course, the mere existence of the Society for Women Engineers, AAUW, and other groups focused on women in education, without comparable groups for men, is another example of the phenomenon. They're a remnant of a time when they were necessary, now favoring the group that has not only caught up, but taken the lead.

trogdor 2y ago

> Equity is important As I understand it, “equity” in this content generally refers to equality of outcomes between groups. I don’t see why that is desirable, important, or even possible. Would you explain why you believe that equity is important?

mcphage 2y ago
> I don’t see why that is desirable, important, or even possible. Are you okay with being in one of the groups where the outcomes are worse?
- trogdor 2y ago
  I am not sure what you mean. Would you give me an example?
  - mcphage 2y ago
    I’m not sure what groups you were referring to in your original post, so it would probably be better if you provided the example.
scoofy 2y ago
It means equal outcomes for arbitrary groups. We should expect fairly similar outcomes for groups based on arbitrary differences. If we don’t, it should concern us. Non-arbitrary issues should obviously affect outcomes, but the prevalence of melanin should affect skin cancer rates, not incomes.