What if X are NOT better?

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

What if X are NOT better than Y in certain traits, skills, and talents? What implication(s) does that have for public policy and societal structure?

X and Y are meant to be selections within categories typically associated with discrimination such as age, gender, race/ethnicity, creed, national origin, etc, but NOT religion. The reason to exclude religion is that we're excluding ideas as a factor in comparison for innate abilities being compared.

This is meant to be a very abstract exercise but also get you to think about policy in fair ways. Or maybe not if you can successfully argue against it.

So consider things like representation in government, representation in institutions, how to recruit in the workforce, jury selection, taxation.

ABSTRACT EXERCISE RULES:
1. You cannot whine that X or Y is better than the other.
2. You cannot name X, Y or the category under discussion.
3. You cannot complain about the hypothetical, just don't post if so.
4. You can only discuss principles and what fair policies they lead to. If you need to distinguish between X and Y, you can discuss them in terms of population percent differences, such as they are nearly the same or X is much less in population than Y or X owns 99% of the resources. This means that as a result your policies may apply equally to white people in South Africa as much as black people in Canada.

 

[dismal]

If you want to get women involved in the thread you should probably make it sound less like high school algebra.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If you are talking about groups and not individual there is little to be said or judged. Decisions about individuals shouldn't be made based on groupings you associate them with by whatever trait you may wish to do so, unless that trait is merit or aptitude for what is being selected for. Doing otherwise is prejudice.

 

[Metaphor]

What if X are NOT better than Y in certain traits, skills, and talents? What implication(s) does that have for public policy and societal structure?

X and Y are meant to be selections within categories typically associated with discrimination such as age, gender, race/ethnicity, creed, national origin, etc, but NOT religion. The reason to exclude religion is that we're excluding ideas as a factor in comparison for innate abilities being compared.

This is meant to be a very abstract exercise but also get you to think about policy in fair ways. Or maybe not if you can successfully argue against it.

So consider things like representation in government, representation in institutions, how to recruit in the workforce, jury selection, taxation.

ABSTRACT EXERCISE RULES:
1. You cannot whine that X or Y is better than the other.
2. You cannot name X, Y or the category under discussion.
3. You cannot complain about the hypothetical, just don't post if so.
4. You can only discuss principles and what fair policies they lead to. If you need to distinguish between X and Y, you can discuss them in terms of population percent differences, such as they are nearly the same or X is much less in population than Y or X owns 99% of the resources. This means that as a result your policies may apply equally to white people in South Africa as much as black people in Canada.

If X is not better than Y, it leaves two possibilities:

X is equal to Y, or near enough equal
Y is better than X.

Let's talk about both scenarios.

If X is equal to Y in a certain trait, and we see a difference in the number of X and Y making a career out of that trait, we might ask: do X and Y have different interests ithat lead to pursuing a career related to that trait, even if they're equal in it? If there's no discrimination between X and Y, society ought not force X and Y to make the same overall choices. To do so would reduce overall happiness.

If X and Y are equal in the trait, and X and Y both show evidence of the same interest in the trait, yet outcomes are unequal, then we should look at what is causing those unequal outcomes. Is it intentional discrimination? Is it unintentional bias? Is it something else?

If instead, Y is better than X in the trait, (other things being equal), we would expect to see more people in group Y pursuing a career related to the trait than people in group X, and more representation of Y. Not all other things are generally equal, obviously -- maybe interest is far stronger in group X, and so the distribution of people isn't what you'd predict based on the raw talent alone.

If average interest and ability is equal between the groups (without any other meaningful differences in the distribution, like a larger variance in one of the groups), then we ought look carefully at outcomes that deviate from equality.

If one or both of interest and ability is not equal, then we should expect outcomes to be unequal in the direction that reflects the underlying inequality.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Can we all just take a minute to derail the discussion by talking about what a bigot the OP is for making the default assumption that everybody fits into a binary choice between X and Y?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Can we all just take a minute to derail the discussion by talking about what a bigot the OP is for making the default assumption that everybody fits into a binary choice between X and Y?

Indeed! And also what if people of X choose to identify as people of Y? This thread is is anti-trans-X/Y

 

[Jarhyn]

I reiterate my position I have stated in both the other threads:

1. make every reasonable attempt to blind evaluators to the X/Y axis on applications/requests, etc.

2. Implement a review process to determine when statistically high rejections of particular applicants in second stage direct interactions are rejected for reasons of bias rather than failure to meet qualification (sanitized transcript review). In settings wherein interviews are found to show bias, whether intentional, direct, or unintentional or indirect (selection of applications differing from interview results), force future selections as a random lottery, eliminating the biased review stage for the offending organization.

3. Implement a system wherein, if there is a cultural bias towards X/against Y, eliminate some percentage of X applicants from every application pool, prior to initial qualifications screening to correct whatever preexisting "stereotype" bias that might exist in society.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

For those who didn't get it--the too literal or the tongue-in-check literalists, X and Y are equal.

 

[Bomb#20]

Can we all just take a minute to derail the discussion by talking about what a bigot the OP is for making the default assumption that everybody fits into a binary choice between X and Y?

Indeed! And also what if people of X choose to identify as people of Y? This thread is is anti-trans-X/Y

Oh, like we don't all know that when the OP said "X and Y" he had chromosomes in mind.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you want to get women involved in the thread you should probably make it sound less like high school algebra.

Stereotype alert! You're assuming women don't do math.


On the other hand, an algae bra doesn't sound too pleasant. I won't blame women for not being interested.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Reality: In most situations where this becomes an issue the reality is it depends on your yardstick.

 

[Jarhyn]

What if X are NOT better than Y in certain traits, skills, and talents? What implication(s) does that have for public policy and societal structure?

X and Y are meant to be selections within categories typically associated with discrimination such as age, gender, race/ethnicity, creed, national origin, etc, but NOT religion. The reason to exclude religion is that we're excluding ideas as a factor in comparison for innate abilities being compared.

This is meant to be a very abstract exercise but also get you to think about policy in fair ways. Or maybe not if you can successfully argue against it.

So consider things like representation in government, representation in institutions, how to recruit in the workforce, jury selection, taxation.

ABSTRACT EXERCISE RULES:
1. You cannot whine that X or Y is better than the other.
2. You cannot name X, Y or the category under discussion.
3. You cannot complain about the hypothetical, just don't post if so.
4. You can only discuss principles and what fair policies they lead to. If you need to distinguish between X and Y, you can discuss them in terms of population percent differences, such as they are nearly the same or X is much less in population than Y or X owns 99% of the resources. This means that as a result your policies may apply equally to white people in South Africa as much as black people in Canada.

If X is not better than Y, it leaves two possibilities:

X is equal to Y, or near enough equal
Y is better than X.

Let's talk about both scenarios.

If X is equal to Y in a certain trait, and we see a difference in the number of X and Y making a career out of that trait, we might ask: do X and Y have different interests ithat lead to pursuing a career related to that trait, even if they're equal in it? If there's no discrimination between X and Y, society ought not force X and Y to make the same overall choices. To do so would reduce overall happiness.

If X and Y are equal in the trait, and X and Y both show evidence of the same interest in the trait, yet outcomes are unequal, then we should look at what is causing those unequal outcomes. Is it intentional discrimination? Is it unintentional bias? Is it something else?

If instead, Y is better than X in the trait, (other things being equal), we would expect to see more people in group Y pursuing a career related to the trait than people in group X, and more representation of Y. Not all other things are generally equal, obviously -- maybe interest is far stronger in group X, and so the distribution of people isn't what you'd predict based on the raw talent alone.

If average interest and ability is equal between the groups (without any other meaningful differences in the distribution, like a larger variance in one of the groups), then we ought look carefully at outcomes that deviate from equality.

If one or both of interest and ability is not equal, then we should expect outcomes to be unequal in the direction that reflects the underlying inequality.

First, to investigate your claims, we should ask the question of whether, despite their word-of-god equality given the OP, there is a question of from whence comes interest; and if interest is the only thing in play.

The OP declares equality, but does not declare a public acceptance or perception of equality. Interest is not the only factor in play.

We might consider that in many scenarios that might fit the OP that there is a difference in training based on a prejudiced societal structure: Society may say "because more X (do job) than Y, X (job) is a Y job"; or society may say "Y are uninterested so we shall only teach X", ignoring that education and perception of opportunity are themselves drivers of interest.

And further, there may be real value in a mix of X and Y in various jobs because, while they may be functionally equal, they each bring different cultural expectations and ways of achieving that equal ability to the table.

For instance, there was a difference of cause of ability between me and fellow soldiers in the army. We could all perform most tasks equally well, but I achieved objectives not through strength but through endurance and will. Sometimes, I was forced to think around a problem rather than use force for the solution. This diversity becomes synergistic.

There is a plethora of reasons to want X and Y to both perceive their ability as equal, if that ability is equal, and to be encouraged in interests which are equal to their ability; surely if there are differences that predispose people to interest, people should be free to do as they please within their qualifications.

 

[ruby sparks]

If you are talking about groups and not individual there is little to be said or judged.

What do you mean?

 

[Jarhyn]

While browsing the thread full of racist panic over the situation in SA, another valid reason popped up for wanting to implement a system wherein there is positive pressure towards equal representation (though not which forces it outright): sometimes Y realizes that the cultural belief that X is better that they have merely been lied to, and rather than reaching the correct conclusion, there is a polar inversion: Y overthrows X and enforces the lie of "Y is better".

Only by equalization through distribution of education, power, wealth, and opportunity will a society get to the point where X and Y are actually equal and seen as such, wherein an inversion is unlikely.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If you are talking about groups and not individual there is little to be said or judged.

What do you mean?

Exactly what I wrote. What is unclear about it?