3 ms·

Didn't I specifically list some of the things I was talking about, explicitly? Privilege is used in various senses: both the narrow power one group has over an

by sago 12y ago

Didn't I specifically list some of the things I was talking about, explicitly? Privilege is used in various senses: both the narrow power one group has over another, propagated by their ability to pass it to others in the group and more generally (in the later camp I gave the example somewhere on here of privileges of high IQ). I was trying to be clear in my OP by listing what I meant, so I really don't see why the word is what you're hanging on. OR why you think my purpose was to define it. As I said, call it boondoggle, I was explicit what I meant by it. By definition, Asian males have 8x the "probabilistic causes of non-equal representation". It seems highly unlikely that they have 8x the "social biases unfairly favoring one group", which is what hackeruser and myself were actually discussing. Why would the factors have to be equal for the point to stand? If something isn't 100% the cause, then it isn't significant? If it turns out that 4x the effect is due to cultural privilege, of the kinds I listed, and 4x is due to demographic, bias, so what?

yummyfajitas 12y ago
You did not specifically list the things you were talking about - you ended the list with "and many other factors". That's not explicit at all. Then you said Call it 'probabilistic causes of non-equal representation', at which point I thought you were finally being clear. My mistake. If it turns out that 4x the effect is due to cultural privilege, of the kinds I listed, and 4x is due to demographic, bias, so what? Scroll up - as I said, you completely lost the context of the conversation. Hackuser was asking "if a system is truly meritocratic then why would 38% of a population[1] produce 90%[2] of the winners?" The implicit assumption here is that "money, power, privilege" (as defined by hackuser) and merit are distinct, otherwise the question makes little sense. Now if only 4x the effect is due to cultural privilege, then the answer to his question is "yes" - a perfectly meritocratic system can have disproportionate representation of Asian males.
- sago 12y ago
  Right, I think I understand why we're shouting loudly over each other's shoulders. If you scroll back, you'll see I was responding to a particular point that I quoted: the idea that, pointing out the over representation of Asian men would be considered racist and lead to (I assume) proponents of equality and social justice (or the "Pretty People" as you wrote) stopping intellectual discussion. My goal was to provide evidence for my disagreement with that point. So I wanted to show that, embedded in this idea of 'merit' are a whole bunch of factors that absolutely are talked about by those Pretty People (or, perhaps not them, but the intellectuals from whom their derive their outlook), albeit in different terms. And, modulo that change in terminology, not only do they not stop intellectual discussion, they are absolutely central to that discussion. So, given that was the point I responded to, and what I was trying to say (and, again, sorry if I was unclear). Can you see why being badgered about whether my definition of 'privilege' is overly broad seemed obtuse? Can you see why I felt that the definition of 'privilege', whether tautological, specific or not, was irrelevant? I suspect, in contrast, you tried to read my comment arguing against the entire point you were making, and therefore, trying to support hackeruser's argument in some sense. And therefore you missed what I was attempting to get at. Fair enough. Again, I could have been clearer. And I should have thought more carefully about why you seemed to be missing my point. It seemed I'd hit some nerve just using the word 'privilege'.

by sago 12y ago

yummyfajitas 12y ago

You did not specifically list the things you were talking about - you ended the list with "and many other factors". That's not explicit at all. Then you said Call it 'probabilistic causes of non-equal representation', at which point I thought you were finally being clear. My mistake. If it turns out that 4x the effect is due to cultural privilege, of the kinds I listed, and 4x is due to demographic, bias, so what? Scroll up - as I said, you completely lost the context of the conversation. Hackuser was asking "if a system is truly meritocratic then why would 38% of a population[1] produce 90%[2] of the winners?" The implicit assumption here is that "money, power, privilege" (as defined by hackuser) and merit are distinct, otherwise the question makes little sense. Now if only 4x the effect is due to cultural privilege, then the answer to his question is "yes" - a perfectly meritocratic system can have disproportionate representation of Asian males.

sago 12y ago
Right, I think I understand why we're shouting loudly over each other's shoulders. If you scroll back, you'll see I was responding to a particular point that I quoted: the idea that, pointing out the over representation of Asian men would be considered racist and lead to (I assume) proponents of equality and social justice (or the "Pretty People" as you wrote) stopping intellectual discussion. My goal was to provide evidence for my disagreement with that point. So I wanted to show that, embedded in this idea of 'merit' are a whole bunch of factors that absolutely are talked about by those Pretty People (or, perhaps not them, but the intellectuals from whom their derive their outlook), albeit in different terms. And, modulo that change in terminology, not only do they not stop intellectual discussion, they are absolutely central to that discussion. So, given that was the point I responded to, and what I was trying to say (and, again, sorry if I was unclear). Can you see why being badgered about whether my definition of 'privilege' is overly broad seemed obtuse? Can you see why I felt that the definition of 'privilege', whether tautological, specific or not, was irrelevant? I suspect, in contrast, you tried to read my comment arguing against the entire point you were making, and therefore, trying to support hackeruser's argument in some sense. And therefore you missed what I was attempting to get at. Fair enough. Again, I could have been clearer. And I should have thought more carefully about why you seemed to be missing my point. It seemed I'd hit some nerve just using the word 'privilege'.