4 ms·
Note that "not having the background to understand a problem" isn't the same as "incapable of understanding a problem." However, having the capability and havin
by Iftheshoefits 12y ago
Note that "not having the background to understand a problem" isn't the same as "incapable of understanding a problem." However, having the capability and having the experience are two different things.
If a group of people haven't got the background to understand a problem, they aren't likely to produce a solution that is viable. I don't see how that's a controversial statement. We "exclude" on this basis all the time in our every day lives (e.g. by selecting doctors for solutions to medical problems, as opposed to, say, firemen or physicists), because it's entirely rational and the empirically correct thing to do.
- Karunamon 12y agoThe answer to that is to get people the background to understand a problem. People go to to med school to become doctors, you don't automatically blacklist everyone of a particular socioeconomic/racial background (NB: there's a word for this..) as being incapable of having the background necessary to be a doctor.
- Iftheshoefits 12y agoYes, and "incapable" isn't anything I suggested applied to "young, energetic" types. That was an equivalence you drew while your knee was jerking.
- Karunamon 12y agoNo, you merely suggested it applied to "privileged" white males.
- Iftheshoefits 12y agoI did no such thing. I wrote, quite explicitly, that they haven't the empirical foundation; not that they aren't capable of obtaining it.
- Karunamon 12y agoAnd even that is an unsupported assertion.