3 ms·

A lot of calls for discrimination are also jumping the gun in assuming that what they're witnessing aren't just expected statistical outcomes. I have yet to see

A lot of calls for discrimination are also jumping the gun in assuming that what they're witnessing aren't just expected statistical outcomes. I have yet to see someone making claims of bigotry in cases like these actually compare their cause with a sound mathematical model of the situation to see if there are any significant differences in outcome. Maybe the problem isn't bill gates, and it's just that there aren't enough minority authors in the US to begin with, due to our school system turning low-income students off from reading? There's so many plausible explanations for the patterns we see, that any immediate call to 'unconscious' racism/sexism is likely to be a red herring.

hackuser 12y ago
> Maybe the problem isn't bill gates, and it's just that there aren't enough minority authors in the US to begin with, due to our school system turning low-income students off from reading? Agreed; I think this is part of a good discussion. Are few books being written by minorities and women? If so, are few of minorities/women getting the opportunities (e.g., book deals)? Do few have the qualifications to write on such topics? Your idea certainly seems plausible, and then I wonder: Why do the bad schools seem overwhelming concentrated in minority and poor communities? For example, I suspect some is the result of generations of historical discrimination: * Red-lining kept even economically successful minorities (which were were few due to overwhelming discrimination in employment and finance) from owning homes (nobody would give them a loan) and in depressed neighborhoods. I doubt it's coincidence that, despite the explosion of the black middle class, many remain in those neighborhoods. * Women were denied opportunities in many of these fields. I'd have a very hard time believing some isn't due to ongoing discrimination. ----- However, the rest of the post seems a return to the same damaging shout-downs of anyone raising these issues: If you re-read the comments, nobody calls Gates a bigot or blames him at all; I suspect many like me would share your hypothesis. Sorry to pick on your message, but your post is a good example of the reflexive response I was talking about that prevents us from moving forward. You seem to agree: > any immediate call to 'unconscious' racism/sexism is likely to be a red herring. Think of it this way: Aren't you enforcing a new political correctness? That is, it's now 'politically incorrect' on HN to point out racism. (Historically, that's been the most common political incorrectness.) EDIT: typo on last word
- axlprose 12y ago
  > Think of it this way: Aren't you enforcing a new political correctness? I'm not saying that discrimination shouldn't be pointed out, I'm merely in support of substantiating such claims with good evidence. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and all that, and if the discrimination isn't blatant (like early 1900's US racism), then a good argument could be made that maybe we're just seeing things, because it is known that the human brain loves spotting patterns where they don't actually exist. Therefore if anything fishy is up, it should be able to be substantiated with some kind of coherent argument that isn't just appealing to the 'unfairness' of the 'system'. If you were in a situation where you were randomly accused for something as serious as racism, you'd probably want your accuser to provide a good argument for it too. I'm merely saying that we should hold this as the standard for this type of discussion, because clearly it can quickly devolve if we're just throwing anecdotes around. PS: I didn't downvote you, as I think you did well contributing to the discussion, so I apologize for you being in the grey; HN is obnoxiously downvote happy.
  - hackuser 12y ago
    Thanks, this is a much more interesting discussion. > I'm not saying that discrimination shouldn't be pointed out, I'm merely in support of substantiating such claims with good evidence. Agreed. I think 5 out of 5 white male authors is not great evidence, and in something this sensitive and well-discussed, we should be careful. However, awareness is really the central issue (see below) which is why I like the original comment -- though clearly it should be carefully expressed! ---- > "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and all that, and if the discrimination isn't blatant (like early 1900's US racism) In my opinion, the evidence is very strong: Look at the dominance of white males in our society, in business, in government (look at a group photo of Congress -- notice something statistically odd?), in our culture, etc. When white males are only (33%?) of the population, I think the evidence is overwhelming that some sort of widespread discrimination must exist to explain the outcomes. Add to that our history of discrimination against these very same groups, minorities and women, and personally I am convinced that discrimination occurs widely even if specific situations are hard to prove. It's not as bad as 1900 or 1950, but it's still a very serious problem -- I can just talk about it, but it's a very real problem for those who live it every day, with every job they apply to, with every social situation, every store they walk into, etc. etc. Also, anecdotally, many white people I know privately repeat the old racial and gender stereotypes (and I don't seek out that crowd). ---- > If you were in a situation where you were randomly accused for something as serious as racism, you'd probably want your accuser to provide a good argument for it too. Most importantly, I think being racist is the human condition. We all do it, me too. It's in our nature to be tribal and to dehumanize others. It's like being accused of being a sinner or having bugs in your code (not to trivialize racism): Of course I do; the question, is what do I do about it. Awareness is the key I think, and many who study the issue say the same. Few want to discriminate, it's just that we're all naturally blind to it. That tribal instinct has a very unfortunate coincidence of properties: We are naturally a little blind, and it is the cause of the worst of what humanity does to itself: Generations of oppression for women, black teens getting shot, wars of genocide, reckless invasions of other countries, etc. etc.

hackuser 12y ago

> Maybe the problem isn't bill gates, and it's just that there aren't enough minority authors in the US to begin with, due to our school system turning low-income students off from reading? Agreed; I think this is part of a good discussion. Are few books being written by minorities and women? If so, are few of minorities/women getting the opportunities (e.g., book deals)? Do few have the qualifications to write on such topics? Your idea certainly seems plausible, and then I wonder: Why do the bad schools seem overwhelming concentrated in minority and poor communities? For example, I suspect some is the result of generations of historical discrimination: * Red-lining kept even economically successful minorities (which were were few due to overwhelming discrimination in employment and finance) from owning homes (nobody would give them a loan) and in depressed neighborhoods. I doubt it's coincidence that, despite the explosion of the black middle class, many remain in those neighborhoods. * Women were denied opportunities in many of these fields. I'd have a very hard time believing some isn't due to ongoing discrimination. ----- However, the rest of the post seems a return to the same damaging shout-downs of anyone raising these issues: If you re-read the comments, nobody calls Gates a bigot or blames him at all; I suspect many like me would share your hypothesis. Sorry to pick on your message, but your post is a good example of the reflexive response I was talking about that prevents us from moving forward. You seem to agree: > any immediate call to 'unconscious' racism/sexism is likely to be a red herring. Think of it this way: Aren't you enforcing a new political correctness? That is, it's now 'politically incorrect' on HN to point out racism. (Historically, that's been the most common political incorrectness.) EDIT: typo on last word

axlprose 12y ago
> Think of it this way: Aren't you enforcing a new political correctness? I'm not saying that discrimination shouldn't be pointed out, I'm merely in support of substantiating such claims with good evidence. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and all that, and if the discrimination isn't blatant (like early 1900's US racism), then a good argument could be made that maybe we're just seeing things, because it is known that the human brain loves spotting patterns where they don't actually exist. Therefore if anything fishy is up, it should be able to be substantiated with some kind of coherent argument that isn't just appealing to the 'unfairness' of the 'system'. If you were in a situation where you were randomly accused for something as serious as racism, you'd probably want your accuser to provide a good argument for it too. I'm merely saying that we should hold this as the standard for this type of discussion, because clearly it can quickly devolve if we're just throwing anecdotes around. PS: I didn't downvote you, as I think you did well contributing to the discussion, so I apologize for you being in the grey; HN is obnoxiously downvote happy.
- hackuser 12y ago
  Thanks, this is a much more interesting discussion. > I'm not saying that discrimination shouldn't be pointed out, I'm merely in support of substantiating such claims with good evidence. Agreed. I think 5 out of 5 white male authors is not great evidence, and in something this sensitive and well-discussed, we should be careful. However, awareness is really the central issue (see below) which is why I like the original comment -- though clearly it should be carefully expressed! ---- > "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and all that, and if the discrimination isn't blatant (like early 1900's US racism) In my opinion, the evidence is very strong: Look at the dominance of white males in our society, in business, in government (look at a group photo of Congress -- notice something statistically odd?), in our culture, etc. When white males are only (33%?) of the population, I think the evidence is overwhelming that some sort of widespread discrimination must exist to explain the outcomes. Add to that our history of discrimination against these very same groups, minorities and women, and personally I am convinced that discrimination occurs widely even if specific situations are hard to prove. It's not as bad as 1900 or 1950, but it's still a very serious problem -- I can just talk about it, but it's a very real problem for those who live it every day, with every job they apply to, with every social situation, every store they walk into, etc. etc. Also, anecdotally, many white people I know privately repeat the old racial and gender stereotypes (and I don't seek out that crowd). ---- > If you were in a situation where you were randomly accused for something as serious as racism, you'd probably want your accuser to provide a good argument for it too. Most importantly, I think being racist is the human condition. We all do it, me too. It's in our nature to be tribal and to dehumanize others. It's like being accused of being a sinner or having bugs in your code (not to trivialize racism): Of course I do; the question, is what do I do about it. Awareness is the key I think, and many who study the issue say the same. Few want to discriminate, it's just that we're all naturally blind to it. That tribal instinct has a very unfortunate coincidence of properties: We are naturally a little blind, and it is the cause of the worst of what humanity does to itself: Generations of oppression for women, black teens getting shot, wars of genocide, reckless invasions of other countries, etc. etc.