4 ms·

Somewhat relatedly, as a person who's discussed these issues with you in the past, it sounds like you'll be gathering new evidence. How will your beliefs change

Somewhat relatedly, as a person who's discussed these issues with you in the past, it sounds like you'll be gathering new evidence. How will your beliefs change? For example, suppose $GROUP is over/underrepresented among top starfighter performers. What will be your new belief about $GROUP's technical talent and the causes of over/underrepresentation in tech in general?

pron 12y ago
I don't think my beliefs about the facts are any different from yours; we disagree on the causes of the facts and their mutability. Therefore, my beliefs will change when the dynamics are tested. But this kind of data provides evidence for our disagreement no more than a still image of a flying arrow can settle the one between Aristotle's and Newton's theories of motion. Somewhat relatedly I'd like to add that while the result of an experiment in dynamics will obviously change my theory, it will in no way change my values[1]. Privilege based on an immutable characteristic such as intelligence (assuming such a result were to be obtained) is no more arbitrary than one based on bloodline. A smart person, though she will obtain it, deserves no more power than the average bloke, just as a nobleman, though he will obtain it, deserves no more power than a commoner. This is one reason the original meaning of "meritocracy" is satirical[2], as it does not change anything other than for the worse, by making the wielders of power believe that they actually deserve it (like the nobility in ancient times but unlike more recent ruling classes such as the American WASPs). So far I have found that people who believe that the variance of some traits such as intelligence between population groups is dominantly the result of genetics do so because they think it provides a moral justification to the social order: things are as they ought to be because nature dictates so. I see no connection between the two. Nature (if it is, in fact, at play) has little bearing on ethics[3], and thus can, at most, explain but never justify an unfair distribution of power. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact%E2%80%93value_distinction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact%E2%80%93value_distinction [2]: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  Tom and I disagree on how much of the underrepresentation of women in tech is due to skill deficits. His new platform can answer that question quite effectively. My disagreement with you stems from the fact that I don't believe in any privileged population groups - I only believe in individual rights. I may or may not disagree with you about "power" but so far you've yet to provide a clear definition of it. (I did read your wikipedia links, but they provided multiple disparate and unclear definitions.)
  - pron 12y ago
    > His new platform can answer that question quite effectively. Assuming his game tests for skill and skill alone. Though even if so, it wouldn't explain the difference -- just report it. > I don't believe in any privileged population groups - I only believe in individual rights I don't understand. One of these things is normative (individual rights) and the other is positive (privileged population groups). The existence of privileged population groups is a matter of fact[1] -- no one thinks they should (normatively) exist. As to individual rights -- everybody believes in them, too. The question is what would be their nature. For example, I believe that if the wealthy were allowed to wield their power (money) over the poor unhindered, then the poor should be allowed to wield their power (numbers) unhindered over the rich as well. The point is that power, by definition (see next paragraph), means restricting in some way the freedom of others, so to obtain freedom you must either restrict all power or unloose all power. > they provided multiple disparate and unclear definitions. Perhaps, but not different enough or unclear enough to preclude study or reasoning. The gist of it is, power = the ability to bend (or sway) others to your will. Power is measured by how many people you can sway, and to what degree you can sway them. [1]: For example, that white men are more privileged in America than black men is a fact.
    - yummyfajitas 12y ago
      The existence of privileged population groups is a matter of fact[1] -- no one thinks they should (normatively) exist. As a person who cares only about individual rights, I don't care if membership in some particular group is correlated with lack of privilege. If you want to argue that lack of privilege is an individual injustice, fine - but then you need to stop discussing race since there are plenty of privileged blacks/women and underprivileged asians/males. ...not different enough or unclear enough to preclude study or reasoning. You assert that white men are more privileged than black men. The definitions you've provided are insufficient for me to concretely state a test we could run to to disprove that. For example, being black will sway college admissions officers for you but police against you. How do any of these definitions allow me to say that on balance, these things are negative? At what magnitude would the balance become positive? Anyway, this is completely tangential to starfighter.
kenko 12y ago
"What will be your new belief about $GROUP's technical talent" Hopefully the most reasonable one: that there's no such thing about the technical talent of "$GROUP" per se, though our society might presently be so organized that it's easier for members of $GROUP to excel at certain kinds of tasks.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  Of course there is such a thing - cook up a tech talent score based on these test results (see my other post on that topic) and then measure a group's mean, sigma or credible intervals. How society is organized may be a cause for a group having higher/lower technical talent (so might "intrinsic" features, i.e. things not mutable by "society"), but it doesn't mean that talent doesn't exist.

pron 12y ago

I don't think my beliefs about the facts are any different from yours; we disagree on the causes of the facts and their mutability. Therefore, my beliefs will change when the dynamics are tested. But this kind of data provides evidence for our disagreement no more than a still image of a flying arrow can settle the one between Aristotle's and Newton's theories of motion. Somewhat relatedly I'd like to add that while the result of an experiment in dynamics will obviously change my theory, it will in no way change my values[1]. Privilege based on an immutable characteristic such as intelligence (assuming such a result were to be obtained) is no more arbitrary than one based on bloodline. A smart person, though she will obtain it, deserves no more power than the average bloke, just as a nobleman, though he will obtain it, deserves no more power than a commoner. This is one reason the original meaning of "meritocracy" is satirical[2], as it does not change anything other than for the worse, by making the wielders of power believe that they actually deserve it (like the nobility in ancient times but unlike more recent ruling classes such as the American WASPs). So far I have found that people who believe that the variance of some traits such as intelligence between population groups is dominantly the result of genetics do so because they think it provides a moral justification to the social order: things are as they ought to be because nature dictates so. I see no connection between the two. Nature (if it is, in fact, at play) has little bearing on ethics[3], and thus can, at most, explain but never justify an unfair distribution of power. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact%E2%80%93value_distinction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact%E2%80%93value_distinction [2]: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

yummyfajitas 12y ago
Tom and I disagree on how much of the underrepresentation of women in tech is due to skill deficits. His new platform can answer that question quite effectively. My disagreement with you stems from the fact that I don't believe in any privileged population groups - I only believe in individual rights. I may or may not disagree with you about "power" but so far you've yet to provide a clear definition of it. (I did read your wikipedia links, but they provided multiple disparate and unclear definitions.)
- pron 12y ago
  > His new platform can answer that question quite effectively. Assuming his game tests for skill and skill alone. Though even if so, it wouldn't explain the difference -- just report it. > I don't believe in any privileged population groups - I only believe in individual rights I don't understand. One of these things is normative (individual rights) and the other is positive (privileged population groups). The existence of privileged population groups is a matter of fact[1] -- no one thinks they should (normatively) exist. As to individual rights -- everybody believes in them, too. The question is what would be their nature. For example, I believe that if the wealthy were allowed to wield their power (money) over the poor unhindered, then the poor should be allowed to wield their power (numbers) unhindered over the rich as well. The point is that power, by definition (see next paragraph), means restricting in some way the freedom of others, so to obtain freedom you must either restrict all power or unloose all power. > they provided multiple disparate and unclear definitions. Perhaps, but not different enough or unclear enough to preclude study or reasoning. The gist of it is, power = the ability to bend (or sway) others to your will. Power is measured by how many people you can sway, and to what degree you can sway them. [1]: For example, that white men are more privileged in America than black men is a fact.
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    The existence of privileged population groups is a matter of fact[1] -- no one thinks they should (normatively) exist. As a person who cares only about individual rights, I don't care if membership in some particular group is correlated with lack of privilege. If you want to argue that lack of privilege is an individual injustice, fine - but then you need to stop discussing race since there are plenty of privileged blacks/women and underprivileged asians/males. ...not different enough or unclear enough to preclude study or reasoning. You assert that white men are more privileged than black men. The definitions you've provided are insufficient for me to concretely state a test we could run to to disprove that. For example, being black will sway college admissions officers for you but police against you. How do any of these definitions allow me to say that on balance, these things are negative? At what magnitude would the balance become positive? Anyway, this is completely tangential to starfighter.

kenko 12y ago

"What will be your new belief about $GROUP's technical talent" Hopefully the most reasonable one: that there's no such thing about the technical talent of "$GROUP" per se, though our society might presently be so organized that it's easier for members of $GROUP to excel at certain kinds of tasks.

yummyfajitas 12y ago
Of course there is such a thing - cook up a tech talent score based on these test results (see my other post on that topic) and then measure a group's mean, sigma or credible intervals. How society is organized may be a cause for a group having higher/lower technical talent (so might "intrinsic" features, i.e. things not mutable by "society"), but it doesn't mean that talent doesn't exist.