4 ms·

I worry that we're now viewing all of society's interactions through a prism of demographics and privilege. The prevailing cultural narrative is now that your

I worry that we're now viewing all of society's interactions through a prism of demographics and privilege. The prevailing cultural narrative is now that your demographic is your destiny. Too much success is granted to privilege and too much failure is blamed on society. In my formative years, the rule for proper behavior seemed very simple: treat everyone the same, no matter their demographics or background. Now it seems there is a different ruleset for every demographic group. It all seems very retrograde and divisive.

codyb 12y ago
Hmm really? From the solutions that worked in the article I came to the exact opposite conclusion. No interruptions rule no matter who is talking worked and the team became stronger. The other was anonymously submitted ideas which were ranked prior to the meetings and the best ones adopted.
- nostromo 12y ago
  I actually liked the article's prescription. Not because of gender issues alone, but because I've worked in offices where the smartest people in the room were also the quietest (both men and women).
imissmyjuno 12y ago
Also, how much was the rule actually observed back in your formative years? I feel like mysoginy and inequality are issues that are only slowly and recently becoming tthought about and reconsidered by the North American societies.
afterburner 12y ago
The world is already divided, in terms of class now more than in recent times (in the Western world), people are simply realizing it. Of course your ideal would be nice and a good goal to strive for/recapture. But whether that happens depends more on government policy than politeness. In the past people were probably more divided on racial, sexual orientation, or other lines.
jimbokun 12y ago
The article pointed out instances of not treating people the same, treating men who speak out better than women who speak out.
JulianMorrison 12y ago
You are articulating the zeitgeist of the culture: equal treatment is enough. You are failing to accept the measured fact that people who think they are giving out equal treatment, are mistaken. Privilege blinds you. There are problems you never see, that if you knew about you'd be all like "Shit, seriously? that really happens? That's awful". But because you never know, you fill in the blanks with your own privileged experience and so erase them. There are problems, like this one, where your eyes believe they have seen equality, but a camera and stopwatch measures unfair treatment. You need to stop being so trusting of your own inputs. Those "different rules for every demographic" are there to (crudely) rebalance the scales. They aren't really different rules. They are compensating for the fact that supposed neutrality is skewed hard. Think of them as komi in go. And the concept of privilege is there to teach you how the real world works, because unaided, you'll never see it.
- jrells 12y ago
  A nice explanation of privilege. I'm not super fond of the term, since I hear too many people use it as an attack instead of a conversation starter. Its hard to convince someone they're wrong, that has to be a delicate conversation. Maybe: Do your best to treat everyone equally, and be aware of just how insanely hard this is for ANY human being to do.
  - thirdtruck 12y ago
    I would go with "Try to 'overcompensate' when it comes to repressed groups; only then will you trick your brain into more genuinely equitable behavior." It's similar to how, as a rule of thumb, we would do well to "over-document" our code. We're so close to the source that things that we consider "obvious" (due to constant exposure) are absolute headscratchers for people reading the code for the first time.
    - smokeyj 12y ago
      Your use of "overcompensate" seems to suggest unequal treatment is necessary for equality. That's a head scratcher. For your example to be relevant, shouldn't the programmer reserve her superb documentation skills for members of repressed groups?
pdabbadabba 12y ago
> I worry that we're now viewing all of society's interactions through a prism of demographics and privilege. I don't see why this is something to worry about. Perhaps you mean that you worry we're now viewing all of society's interactions exclusively through a prism of demographics and privilege. That would indeed be a problem, but I don't see any reason to believe that it is actually happening. It seems to me that that make-your-own-destiny, pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps narrative is still alive and well. Ideally we would want to keep both things in mind: people can make their own destinies but we need to respond to social dynamics that make it harder for some people to self determine than others. It's not about different rulesets, its trying to build a ruleset that achieves a certain equilibrium between giving everyone equal, unearned, social advantages and trying to maximize the aggregate social advantages conferred.
rmc 12y ago
If anything, these results are showing that currently, and hence in the past, people have been judged harshly based on their demographics. It's not true that everyone was judged based on their own merits in the past. It's just that people are starting to recognise it, and try to counter act it.
pokpokpok 12y ago
the thing is that this perceived cost is actually much tinier than it may feel to a privileged individual. feel-good rules like "treat everyone the same" havn't cut it, objectively, statistically. there are real injustices that sail completely under the vantage point of privileged individuals but are doing real systematic harm
rayiner 12y ago
> In my formative years, the rule for proper behavior seemed very simple: treat everyone the same, no matter their demographics or background. Now it seems there is a different ruleset for every demographic group. It all seems very retrograde and divisive. When you're a kid, you believe in fairy tales like that. But the fact is, your brain is a heuristic machine. It comes to snap conclusions, and you often don't even know why it is you feel a certain way or believe something you do. And studies back this up over and over again. If you just commit to "treat everyone the same" you are de facto committing to making life unfair for women.
- nostromo 12y ago
  I appreciate your intent. But as a sexual minority myself, I would be insulted if someone treated me differently because of it, even if they meant well. By all means, we should confront our biases, but for me the answer isn't layering new biases on top of old biases.

codyb 12y ago

Hmm really? From the solutions that worked in the article I came to the exact opposite conclusion. No interruptions rule no matter who is talking worked and the team became stronger. The other was anonymously submitted ideas which were ranked prior to the meetings and the best ones adopted.

nostromo 12y ago
I actually liked the article's prescription. Not because of gender issues alone, but because I've worked in offices where the smartest people in the room were also the quietest (both men and women).

imissmyjuno 12y ago

Also, how much was the rule actually observed back in your formative years? I feel like mysoginy and inequality are issues that are only slowly and recently becoming tthought about and reconsidered by the North American societies.

afterburner 12y ago

The world is already divided, in terms of class now more than in recent times (in the Western world), people are simply realizing it. Of course your ideal would be nice and a good goal to strive for/recapture. But whether that happens depends more on government policy than politeness. In the past people were probably more divided on racial, sexual orientation, or other lines.

jimbokun 12y ago

The article pointed out instances of not treating people the same, treating men who speak out better than women who speak out.

JulianMorrison 12y ago

You are articulating the zeitgeist of the culture: equal treatment is enough. You are failing to accept the measured fact that people who think they are giving out equal treatment, are mistaken. Privilege blinds you. There are problems you never see, that if you knew about you'd be all like "Shit, seriously? that really happens? That's awful". But because you never know, you fill in the blanks with your own privileged experience and so erase them. There are problems, like this one, where your eyes believe they have seen equality, but a camera and stopwatch measures unfair treatment. You need to stop being so trusting of your own inputs. Those "different rules for every demographic" are there to (crudely) rebalance the scales. They aren't really different rules. They are compensating for the fact that supposed neutrality is skewed hard. Think of them as komi in go. And the concept of privilege is there to teach you how the real world works, because unaided, you'll never see it.

jrells 12y ago
A nice explanation of privilege. I'm not super fond of the term, since I hear too many people use it as an attack instead of a conversation starter. Its hard to convince someone they're wrong, that has to be a delicate conversation. Maybe: Do your best to treat everyone equally, and be aware of just how insanely hard this is for ANY human being to do.
- thirdtruck 12y ago
  I would go with "Try to 'overcompensate' when it comes to repressed groups; only then will you trick your brain into more genuinely equitable behavior." It's similar to how, as a rule of thumb, we would do well to "over-document" our code. We're so close to the source that things that we consider "obvious" (due to constant exposure) are absolute headscratchers for people reading the code for the first time.
  - smokeyj 12y ago
    Your use of "overcompensate" seems to suggest unequal treatment is necessary for equality. That's a head scratcher. For your example to be relevant, shouldn't the programmer reserve her superb documentation skills for members of repressed groups?

pdabbadabba 12y ago

> I worry that we're now viewing all of society's interactions through a prism of demographics and privilege. I don't see why this is something to worry about. Perhaps you mean that you worry we're now viewing all of society's interactions exclusively through a prism of demographics and privilege. That would indeed be a problem, but I don't see any reason to believe that it is actually happening. It seems to me that that make-your-own-destiny, pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps narrative is still alive and well. Ideally we would want to keep both things in mind: people can make their own destinies but we need to respond to social dynamics that make it harder for some people to self determine than others. It's not about different rulesets, its trying to build a ruleset that achieves a certain equilibrium between giving everyone equal, unearned, social advantages and trying to maximize the aggregate social advantages conferred.

rmc 12y ago

If anything, these results are showing that currently, and hence in the past, people have been judged harshly based on their demographics. It's not true that everyone was judged based on their own merits in the past. It's just that people are starting to recognise it, and try to counter act it.

pokpokpok 12y ago

the thing is that this perceived cost is actually much tinier than it may feel to a privileged individual. feel-good rules like "treat everyone the same" havn't cut it, objectively, statistically. there are real injustices that sail completely under the vantage point of privileged individuals but are doing real systematic harm

rayiner 12y ago

> In my formative years, the rule for proper behavior seemed very simple: treat everyone the same, no matter their demographics or background. Now it seems there is a different ruleset for every demographic group. It all seems very retrograde and divisive. When you're a kid, you believe in fairy tales like that. But the fact is, your brain is a heuristic machine. It comes to snap conclusions, and you often don't even know why it is you feel a certain way or believe something you do. And studies back this up over and over again. If you just commit to "treat everyone the same" you are de facto committing to making life unfair for women.

nostromo 12y ago
I appreciate your intent. But as a sexual minority myself, I would be insulted if someone treated me differently because of it, even if they meant well. By all means, we should confront our biases, but for me the answer isn't layering new biases on top of old biases.