3 ms·

> But even if we took the argument as fact, it doesn't mean that we have to accept every naive consequence. We don't need to say "Of course the vast majority of

> But even if we took the argument as fact, it doesn't mean that we have to accept every naive consequence. We don't need to say "Of course the vast majority of CEOs, world leaders, and very wealthy people are male, because the most intelligent people are almost all male". We can choose to have a better society than that. I don't think that intelligence is the most important factor for those positions, so let's talk about researchers and university teachers instead. Do you really think that society would be better if less intelligent people would be better represented there?

dagw 11y ago
Certainly for university teachers we don't want to solely go on 'intelligence'. Looking back at my university career the correlation between how good a teacher someone was and how they ranked globally as researchers within their field was at best very weakly correlated. In fact I think hiring undergraduate lecturers based on their research performance is a pretty flawed idea, but that's a different debate.
tfinniga 11y ago
Well, there is a reason why I chose those examples. I'm not arguing for diversity at all costs, which seems like what you're arguing against. I'd say in general having researchers and university teachers that are intelligent is good. Diversity is also good. There should be a balance - I think that diverse researchers and teachers can solve problems that a homogenous group of researchers would never solve. For example, what problems do researchers tackle? They tend to choose problems that they see, and may never try to solve problems that affect other groups. Or they may choose solutions that only work for people like themselves. For example, a lot of computer graphics algorithms like face recognition don't work well for black faces. Even more troublesome, many cameras (both digital and film) have a dynamic range that works well for white faces, but poorly for black faces. Another example, the amount of research into male birth control vs. female birth control is very uneven. Would it be worth it to have slightly less intelligent but much more diverse researchers and teachers? Would society as a whole be better off? It has to be a balance, but I'd bet the answer is 'sometimes yes'. All of this is somewhat beside my main point, which is that I think it's simplistic to say that society and morality should only be determined by genetics.
- stefantalpalaru 11y ago
  > For example, a lot of computer graphics algorithms like face recognition don't work well for black faces. There's probably less contrast to be used in edge detection. > Even more troublesome, many cameras (both digital and film) have a dynamic range that works well for white faces, but poorly for black faces. The dynamic range is limited by objective factors and the automated exposure setting takes into consideration what gets more pixels in the frame - usually not a human face.
- CWuestefeld 11y ago
  Diversity is also good. There should be a balance There's a huge assumption built into this, about what dimensions of diversity are virtuous. Our society places great value on showing diversity on scales of gender and race, and to a lesser extent also on religion and more recently, gender identity. Why are these demographics the ones for which we should be endeavoring to ensure diversity? Why shouldn't we strive to find a balance between, say, people from an urban background versus those from a rural background? Or people with fluency in various languages? Or "morning people" versus "night people", or those who prefer to file things versus those who stack papers on their desk, or left- versus right-handed? Having variations along all these dimensions, and countless others, would also bring greater variation in world view, and thus presumably improve the pool of ideas that could drive their work. So why is it that seeking diversity in race and sex is paramount, while finding someone from out in the countryside is never even thought of?
  - stared 11y ago
    In Soviet Union class background played a role (worker background was a plus). Moreover, many countries had Jewish quota (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_quota https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_quota) - very often at the percent of the Jews in their population. But what is striking, we now consider such quotas as blatant discrimination, rather than good affirmative actions for the (really or allegedly) underprivileged groups.
  - tfinniga 11y ago
    I think the general principle is that societal decision makers should be roughly representative of the people whose lives are impacted by the decisions. Of course it's possible to take this too far. As for why race and gender are considered important, I think it's probably because they are easy to measure, and there has been a lot of discrimination. Most of the other demographics are probably pretty evenly represented? I've never heard of someone getting passed over for promotion or housing because they were left-handed. The city/country split is a good point. There is some provision for that in many political systems, with different geographical regions being represented based on population, but it's far from a perfect system.

dagw 11y ago

Certainly for university teachers we don't want to solely go on 'intelligence'. Looking back at my university career the correlation between how good a teacher someone was and how they ranked globally as researchers within their field was at best very weakly correlated. In fact I think hiring undergraduate lecturers based on their research performance is a pretty flawed idea, but that's a different debate.

tfinniga 11y ago

Well, there is a reason why I chose those examples. I'm not arguing for diversity at all costs, which seems like what you're arguing against. I'd say in general having researchers and university teachers that are intelligent is good. Diversity is also good. There should be a balance - I think that diverse researchers and teachers can solve problems that a homogenous group of researchers would never solve. For example, what problems do researchers tackle? They tend to choose problems that they see, and may never try to solve problems that affect other groups. Or they may choose solutions that only work for people like themselves. For example, a lot of computer graphics algorithms like face recognition don't work well for black faces. Even more troublesome, many cameras (both digital and film) have a dynamic range that works well for white faces, but poorly for black faces. Another example, the amount of research into male birth control vs. female birth control is very uneven. Would it be worth it to have slightly less intelligent but much more diverse researchers and teachers? Would society as a whole be better off? It has to be a balance, but I'd bet the answer is 'sometimes yes'. All of this is somewhat beside my main point, which is that I think it's simplistic to say that society and morality should only be determined by genetics.

stefantalpalaru 11y ago
> For example, a lot of computer graphics algorithms like face recognition don't work well for black faces. There's probably less contrast to be used in edge detection. > Even more troublesome, many cameras (both digital and film) have a dynamic range that works well for white faces, but poorly for black faces. The dynamic range is limited by objective factors and the automated exposure setting takes into consideration what gets more pixels in the frame - usually not a human face.
CWuestefeld 11y ago
Diversity is also good. There should be a balance There's a huge assumption built into this, about what dimensions of diversity are virtuous. Our society places great value on showing diversity on scales of gender and race, and to a lesser extent also on religion and more recently, gender identity. Why are these demographics the ones for which we should be endeavoring to ensure diversity? Why shouldn't we strive to find a balance between, say, people from an urban background versus those from a rural background? Or people with fluency in various languages? Or "morning people" versus "night people", or those who prefer to file things versus those who stack papers on their desk, or left- versus right-handed? Having variations along all these dimensions, and countless others, would also bring greater variation in world view, and thus presumably improve the pool of ideas that could drive their work. So why is it that seeking diversity in race and sex is paramount, while finding someone from out in the countryside is never even thought of?
- stared 11y ago
  In Soviet Union class background played a role (worker background was a plus). Moreover, many countries had Jewish quota (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_quota https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_quota) - very often at the percent of the Jews in their population. But what is striking, we now consider such quotas as blatant discrimination, rather than good affirmative actions for the (really or allegedly) underprivileged groups.
- tfinniga 11y ago
  I think the general principle is that societal decision makers should be roughly representative of the people whose lives are impacted by the decisions. Of course it's possible to take this too far. As for why race and gender are considered important, I think it's probably because they are easy to measure, and there has been a lot of discrimination. Most of the other demographics are probably pretty evenly represented? I've never heard of someone getting passed over for promotion or housing because they were left-handed. The city/country split is a good point. There is some provision for that in many political systems, with different geographical regions being represented based on population, but it's far from a perfect system.