3 ms·

You've only provided one clear definition of "power", namely "influences the behavior of others". This is simply a relation. It is not an ordering or a cardinal

You've only provided one clear definition of "power", namely "influences the behavior of others". This is simply a relation. It is not an ordering or a cardinality. Yet you then turn around and use "power" in an ordinal way ("power difference") and sometimes even a cardinal way. The definition you give here almost does that, but how do I assign a number to "magnitude in the change of behavior"? You've not defined a "hegemonic group" either. Anyway, since I can't quite understand your theory, maybe you can clearly state a hypothetical observation which would prove your theory incorrect. That's usually a good way to illustrate what a theory does and does not predict. For example, to disprove my "more math less women" theory, you should find a broad category of similar careers, run linear regression on math content vs % female, and find a flat or upward sloping line. I.e., the same analysis as was done on Scott Alexander's post (see my link), but with the opposite result.

pron 11y ago
> but how do I assign a number to "magnitude in the change of behavior"? You don't. Read what I wrote. > You've not defined a "hegemonic group" either. If you're interested, look it up. I feel a strong sense of deja-vu. > maybe you can clearly state a hypothetical observation which would prove your theory incorrect I think I've done it twice in the past when talking to you, so I'll only provide a short abstract here (and again, it's not my theory but the consensus theory): If groups with power were not to resist social mobility (i.e. for less powerful groups to obtain more power) we'd see a constant shift in power distribution, which would be very fluid, while what we observe is the complete opposite: a very stable power structure that then breaks and gets restructured relatively very rapidly during revolutions that are rare. So the pattern is long periods of stability and then quick changes brought about by some explosive event or a demonstrable pattern of slow power acquisition through many struggles. When it comes to women, the pattern is often the latter (there's a simple explanation for that), but you can see how women gain access to politics, law, medicine etc. only after very long fights against very strong opposition (that invariably cite innate ability as the barrier). > For example, to disprove my "more math less women" theory, you should find a broad category of similar careers, run linear regression on math content vs % female, and find a flat or upward sloping line. I.e., the same analysis as was done on Scott Alexander's post (see my link), but with the opposite result. Two problems with that. First, yours is not a theory but a description. Second, it is not a very relevant one because it doesn't explain the constant change in participation, nor the gender-gap in the software industry. Finally, while "more math less women" may have always held on average, the slope has changed. I don't think anybody minds if the gender distribution in physics is 60-40%, even if that difference is entirely due to innate ability. So your description does not even compete with mine because it doesn't even try to explain the same phenomenon, which is the one we care the most to explain. That has little to do with the 4:1 or even 10:1 difference we see in the software industry.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  You don't. Then we are back to power being a non-ordinal concept. ...more power... If power is not an ordinal concept, this phrase is meaningless. I'm also confused as to how you can even determine that such a "constant shift" isn't happening - in terms of edges in your influence graph, they shift regularly. Yesterday I met a new person at work and we now interact and influence each other. The power digraph has gained 2 edges. Could you explain how you quantify this?
  - pron 11y ago
    > If power is not an ordinal concept, this phrase is meaningless. You're reading things that I'm not saying. It is an ordinal concept, but we don't have the ability to measure it well, only notice large differences. You can think of it as a quantity for which we have very inaccurate measurement devices. > I'm also confused as to how you can even determine that such a "constant shift" isn't happening - in terms of edges in your influence graph, they shift regularly. Yesterday I met a new person at work and we now interact and influence each other. The power digraph has gained 2 edges. Could you explain how you quantify this? Because in this discussion we are talking about groups (social mobility in individuals is an interesting, yet somewhat different discussion), and when we look at a large number of people, it's easier to approximate power through proxies such as income, percentage of powerful roles such as CEOs, leading journalists etc. (it's harder to compare power in individuals, because it's hard to tell which is more influential, a media personality or the CEO of a large company, especially as the latter's influence might sometimes be hidden). Shifts in power from nobility to the bourgeois class, or in the relative cultural and technological power of Europe, were sudden changes of relative homeostases. Similarly, you can track power distribution between men and women, or between whites and blacks in the US. They point at very stable states that are violently changed, or (usually in the case of women), a faster rate of smaller revolutions (or a more steady rate of change). The difference between male/female and race hegemonies is also well understood (and seen in many other cultures), because the classification of women as "strangers" is always very different from that of actual foreign ethnicities.
    - 11y ago

pron 11y ago

> but how do I assign a number to "magnitude in the change of behavior"? You don't. Read what I wrote. > You've not defined a "hegemonic group" either. If you're interested, look it up. I feel a strong sense of deja-vu. > maybe you can clearly state a hypothetical observation which would prove your theory incorrect I think I've done it twice in the past when talking to you, so I'll only provide a short abstract here (and again, it's not my theory but the consensus theory): If groups with power were not to resist social mobility (i.e. for less powerful groups to obtain more power) we'd see a constant shift in power distribution, which would be very fluid, while what we observe is the complete opposite: a very stable power structure that then breaks and gets restructured relatively very rapidly during revolutions that are rare. So the pattern is long periods of stability and then quick changes brought about by some explosive event or a demonstrable pattern of slow power acquisition through many struggles. When it comes to women, the pattern is often the latter (there's a simple explanation for that), but you can see how women gain access to politics, law, medicine etc. only after very long fights against very strong opposition (that invariably cite innate ability as the barrier). > For example, to disprove my "more math less women" theory, you should find a broad category of similar careers, run linear regression on math content vs % female, and find a flat or upward sloping line. I.e., the same analysis as was done on Scott Alexander's post (see my link), but with the opposite result. Two problems with that. First, yours is not a theory but a description. Second, it is not a very relevant one because it doesn't explain the constant change in participation, nor the gender-gap in the software industry. Finally, while "more math less women" may have always held on average, the slope has changed. I don't think anybody minds if the gender distribution in physics is 60-40%, even if that difference is entirely due to innate ability. So your description does not even compete with mine because it doesn't even try to explain the same phenomenon, which is the one we care the most to explain. That has little to do with the 4:1 or even 10:1 difference we see in the software industry.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
You don't. Then we are back to power being a non-ordinal concept. ...more power... If power is not an ordinal concept, this phrase is meaningless. I'm also confused as to how you can even determine that such a "constant shift" isn't happening - in terms of edges in your influence graph, they shift regularly. Yesterday I met a new person at work and we now interact and influence each other. The power digraph has gained 2 edges. Could you explain how you quantify this?
- pron 11y ago
  > If power is not an ordinal concept, this phrase is meaningless. You're reading things that I'm not saying. It is an ordinal concept, but we don't have the ability to measure it well, only notice large differences. You can think of it as a quantity for which we have very inaccurate measurement devices. > I'm also confused as to how you can even determine that such a "constant shift" isn't happening - in terms of edges in your influence graph, they shift regularly. Yesterday I met a new person at work and we now interact and influence each other. The power digraph has gained 2 edges. Could you explain how you quantify this? Because in this discussion we are talking about groups (social mobility in individuals is an interesting, yet somewhat different discussion), and when we look at a large number of people, it's easier to approximate power through proxies such as income, percentage of powerful roles such as CEOs, leading journalists etc. (it's harder to compare power in individuals, because it's hard to tell which is more influential, a media personality or the CEO of a large company, especially as the latter's influence might sometimes be hidden). Shifts in power from nobility to the bourgeois class, or in the relative cultural and technological power of Europe, were sudden changes of relative homeostases. Similarly, you can track power distribution between men and women, or between whites and blacks in the US. They point at very stable states that are violently changed, or (usually in the case of women), a faster rate of smaller revolutions (or a more steady rate of change). The difference between male/female and race hegemonies is also well understood (and seen in many other cultures), because the classification of women as "strangers" is always very different from that of actual foreign ethnicities.
  - 11y ago