Hacker News Reader

Comment by fineIllregister | Hacker News Reader

I'm not sure I understand this line of thinking. It seems to suggest that there is some semblance of equality of opportunity (or, put another way, that we should ignore the multitude of ways in which we can observe that opportunities are grossly unequal).

It also seems to seems to suggest that if marginalized groups have drastically worse outcomes, it's because of some characteristic within those people. It seems a roundabout way of saying that all outcome disparities can be explained with, "Well, they're just lesser people in regards to intelligence/work ethic/whatever."

View on HN

> it's because of some characteristic within those people

But why can't this be true? Numerous studies have shown that genetic and particularly cultural traits produce vast differences in cognitive ability. Most recently for instance in a story about Korean twins separated at birth[1].

Research also shows that these differences can account for an overwhelming majority of the disparity in outcomes. This has been an active area of research for decades, and academia isn't at all in agreement that "marginalization" is the culprit here[2].

> marginalized groups have drastically worse outcomes

Not all "marginalized groups" do though, do they? Unless you only include groups with poor outcomes in your definition of "marginalized", in which case it's a bit circular isn't it?

1. https://www.psypost.org/2022/05/psychologists-found-a-striki...

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5csE8q9mho

> But why can't this be true? Numerous studies have shown that genetic and particularly cultural traits produce vast differences in cognitive ability. Most recently for instance in a story about Korean twins separated at birth[1].

Let's be honest, the reason so many people are opposed to this view is because it has been wrongfully used in the past to justify very real oppression and inequality of opportunity. At the very least, it is a very dangerous mindset historically, and even now it's not very well understood.

For example, in the study you mentioned around Korean twins, one was raised in a fairly standard Korean household while the other was tossed around the foster care system and had multitudes of setbacks given to them. And yet people will still use it as evidence that these differences are inherent and unchangeable. Do you not see how this reasoning can lead us to ignore our own blindspots and biases?

> wrongfully used in the past to justify very real oppression and inequality of opportunity

That doesn't mean that the view is factually inaccurate though does it? I think the best way to avoid oppression is to define and prohibit the practice of it, rather than measure the outcomes. This is what civil rights seems to be all about.

> differences are inherent and unchangeable

I never said that, I said that different childhood circumstances, cultural practices, and domestic environments clearly produce vastly different outcomes. I also think that using authority to standardize how children are raised would be tyrannical.

Most fundamentally, if you want to raise your children without, for instance, an emphasis on educational attainment, you should have the right to do so. Also, no one should be surprised that children raised in such circumstances don't go on to have equality of economic outcome. And no one should get bent out of shape about these facts in combination, as they are not a product of "marginalization".

> Most fundamentally, if you want to raise your children without, for instance, an emphasis on educational attainment, you should have the right to do so.

Perhaps that's true if you believe that parents should be the only ones responsible for their children's fate, but that puts a lot of power in parents' hands and doesn't leave much with the kids themselves.

I think there's a middle ground between complete standardization and complete reliance on one or two individuals that prevents the worst outcomes, although it may also prevent some of the best possible outcomes. But generally getting input from a number of different sources is a good thing, and even if "authority" may not be great at comprehensive development of varied individuals, it can still set minimum standards and make sure the child isn't entirely subject to their parents' whims.

Using authority to take power over their own children away from parents isn't something I'm sure I'm onboard with. I think it suggests a long conversation about the philosophy of cooperation and coexistence that may exceed the depth limit of this forum :)

Edit: More generally, parents are responsible to a large degree for their children's fate, as the importance of domestic environment in the research repeatedly shows. The question is what (if anything) we should do about this, exactly?

Edit 2: Come to think of it, using authority over parents in this way could constitute cultural genocide, for instance as it was perpetrated by the Canadian residential school system. Funny how casually it can be suggested.

> Using authority to take power over their own children away from parents isn't something I'm sure I'm onboard with.

Just in case you have not noticed, we do that nowadays, to combat child abuse. Giving parents 100% unrestricted power over their children would enable horrific child abuse, selling your children for slavery etc ... Funny how casually it can be suggested.

The answer lies in the middle, as the parent post suggested :)

If we connect the dots, it seems you're suggesting that raising children with different values, values that may not set them up for optimal economic outcomes, constitutes child abuse and should be actioned as such. I disagree. This was also the case made by the residential school system, just by the way.

Child abuse is pretty well bounded and defined. Ranking of cultural values is certainly not.

>>Let's be honest, the reason so many people are opposed to this view is because it has been wrongfully used in the past to justify very real oppression and inequality of opportunity. At the very least, it is a very dangerous mindset historically, and even now it's not very well understood.

And the denial of that view has historically been used to impose the most tyrannical societies that have ever existed, in the form of totalitarian communist states.

If you live in a society controlled by people who have concluded that it’s okay if your outcomes are terrible because you culture, genes, cognitive abilities, etc. are inferior, then I don’t really see any sense in which it makes sense to say that you received “equality of opportunity.” And my claim is completely independent of how confident the powerful people are that their beliefs about your inferiority are big-T True.

You're assuming that economic outcome is the one metric by which all people should be equalized. This seems a bit presumptive doesn't it?

> culture, genes, cognitive abilities, etc. are inferior

No one said they are inferior, only that they seem produce different results. It's you who is characterizing these as inferior. Equality of opportunity is apparent through the fact there is no policy (that I'm aware of), explicitly targeting people by, say, race (whatever that means), and that such policies are illegal.

This fact alone however provides no guarantee of economic equality, nor was it ever intended to, nor has economic equality ever been a goal of legal equality. The reasons for economic inequality are myriad and complex, and people have devoted their entire careers to their study. Did you watch the video I linked? What do you think of Dr. Sowell's perspective?

> You're assuming that economic outcome is the one metric by which all people should be equalized. This seems a bit presumptive doesn't it?

I didn’t mention anything specifically about economic outcomes, although obviously money can have a big effect on important outcomes like nutrition and medical care.

> No one said they are inferior, only that they seem produce different results. It's you who is characterizing these as inferior.

Someone did say this. The comment I’m responding to used the terms “drastically worse outcomes” and “lesser people.” Also, I’m not here to quibble about questions like “is it really worse to be starving than to be well-fed?”

It is far more empathetic and fair to acknowledge people's genetic disadvantages and adjust expectations accordingly, than to demand everyone competes at the same level.

Which is why women have their own sports leagues instead of being forced to compete with men.

It is you that is injecting the idea of "inferiority". Women and children cannot compete athletically with men, and that's okay. I don't think that you would try to suggest that women's and under 18's football leagues were the result of "society being controlled by people who have concluded that these groups are genetically inferior".

I couldn't agree more, and think the comparison to sports is particularly apt. No one reaches for "marginalization" when trying to explain why various sports leagues do not follow the general population with regards to ethnic composition. Also no one seems to be upset when genetic and cultural factors are offered as an explanation. Go figure.

I don’t think I’m injecting anything. The comment I’m referring to used the terms “drastically worse outcomes” and “lesser people.” I think my usage of “inferior” is a straightforward synonym.

Is this the study with N == 2 (one pair of twins) and with the lower-IQ twin who suffered three concussions, unlike the other twin?

How can something like that be even called a "study".

Can unequal outcomes be an indicator of unequal opportunity? Yes. Can unequal outcomes exist despite equal opportunity? Yes.

There are many non-intrinsic reasons for groups of individuals to not be equally represented.

The most obvious is human ethnic group migrations, and the most consistently studied is career-choice differences between men and women.

Equal opportunity does not guarantee equal outcomes - especially in only one or two generations after a migration. ...and in the case of gender differences in career interest, forcing equal outcomes is counter-productive. Humans are different. Different outcomes are evidence of diversity, not malice.

> especially in only one or two generations after a migration.

Thats a perfect example of unequal opportunity. As much as we try to make excuses around it, the single biggest predictor of someone's lifetime income is their parents income. The fact of the matter is being rich provides opportunities and advantages being middle class doesn't and definitely not being poor, and there is little evidence to suggest that this corrects itself after a few generations. The fact is historically poor populations tend to stay that way, with those who escape being outliers.

People also absorb their parents' attitudes about things like work, diligence, handling money, honor, investing, value of education, etc. These have a large effect on their future lives.

> there is little evidence to suggest that this corrects itself after a few generations

On the contrary. The vast bulk of modern American citizens emigrated to America as poor, even destitute, people. Look what happened to their descendants.

> The fact of the matter is being rich provides opportunities and advantages being middle class doesn't and definitely not being poor, and there is little evidence to suggest that this corrects itself after a few generations. The fact is historically poor populations tend to stay that way, with those who escape being outliers.

This is, in fact, the opposite of true. As noted below, pretty much every wave of American immigrants until recently (Irish, Germans, Italians, Southeast Asians) came here desperately poor and eventually attained economic parity with the groups that were already here. Indeed, that process continues with Hispanic immigrants: https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/135/2/711/5687353 ("Hispanic Americans have rates of intergenerational mobility more similar to whites than blacks, leading the Hispanic-white income gap to shrink across generations.")

In the U.S., structural poverty affecting a discrete minority affects Black and Indigenous people, and certain white sub-groups such as Appalachians and Cajuns. It's not a good default model for thinking about income mobility in general.

>>> single biggest predictor of someone's lifetime income is their parents income.

I would have guessed it would be incarceration. Do you have some numbers to support your belief? Wealthy parents likely were not incarcerated, so there may be overlap.

I expect your correct, wealthy parents tend not to be incarcerated. Also more likely to be able to supply their children with high quality care if they are.

As for numbers, here's some: https://www.businessinsider.com/parents-determine-child-succ...

Data Shows Affluent Black Kids Are More Likely to Be Incarcerated Than Poor White Kids https://eji.org/news/study-rich-black-kids-more-likely-incar...

There are a massive number of examples of this being untrue in America. Jewish Americans, Cubans, Irish, Asian Americans, Poles - all these groups started out poor, and regarded as something other than and lesser to "white" people, and now have at least the same incomes and often more.

They definitely didn't start out being regarded as chattel.

They were bombed out disconnected from family lines, lost history and recovered in a generation.

The people you are likely referring to for the chattel excuse history also under perform in country after country where such things were never allowed. Diversity is difference, and difference will lead to persistent disparity.

Not necessarily let me give you an example.

Welding is overwhelming a male profession. At least 85 percent of professional welders are male.

Is it a goal to make 50 percent of welders male and female? Why? How about equal representation between asian and white welders ? again why?

In todays world women welders are encouraged and hired with little difficulty. You could argue that they have close to an equal opportunity as anyone to become a welder (perhaps more so).

Just because this metric group does not work out proportionally to the population base does not necessarily indicate oppression.

It is possible that many women for some unknown reason just don’t want to be welders… maybe that’s okay.

There are many professions like this. My sons school has 35 teachers, none of which are men. Nursing seems to be another profession with many more women than men. Same with spa workers. Truck drivers are mostly men. Movers. NFL football players.

Are we supposed to equalize all of these?

> Are we supposed to equalize all of these?

No, but we are supposed to remove the barriers that prevent men becoming nurses and teachers, women becoming truck drivers, etc., etc.

So, all legal barriers have been removed for decades. There may be cultural barriers, or cultural incentives. How can you know when other barriers are gone, and you have a job that is just naturally more appealing to men or women?

Is there a point when you can say it's done?

> you have a job that is just naturally more appealing to men or women?

Unfortunately, I think this no longer appropriate to suggest. I think certain circles would cancel you for suggesting this.

Sometimes the change over time in professions like law has been used to disprove this case for formerly male dominated professions. This is also the case in teaching. There were far more male primary school teachers in the past.

The actual cause of the decline is usually identified as the risk of false claims of sexual abuse, which are taken far too seriously by the system and unfortunately too many parents/teachers take the stance of guilty-until-proven-innocent.

>No, but we are supposed to remove the barriers that prevent men becoming nurses and teachers, women becoming truck drivers, etc., etc.

I think this is a dangerous example in certain professions.

For example, someone I know was a volunteer fire fighter in a specific area that regularly required high risk fire suits + masks + oxygen tanks + supplemental gear. This is a huge amount of weight to be carrying around in sweltering temperatures, before even helping victims, or swinging an axe.

Likewise combat loads in the armed forces are regularly exceeding 40 lbs not to include crew served weapon systems. Add a stinger, a machine gun with a tripod+ full load, a Javelin, or a disassembled mortar and you have some serious weight. Armed forces have to remain mobile even when loaded.

Physics and engineering problems prevent the simplistic modification of these jobs to those that cannot meet the grueling physical requirements.

I think it is far better to define certain occupational requirements by certain requirements for entry. Now I know 95% of jobs don't require these, but for those that do it is a life & death matter.

Yes, but those aren't gender issues, those are a matter of strength requirements. And of course physical strength correlates with gender, but it's not true that all men are stronger than all women. Women who meet those requirements should be able to do those jobs and not get discriminated for it. And men who don't meet those requirements shouldn't be expected to do those jobs.

> In todays world women welders are encouraged and hired with little difficulty.

This is where you go off the rails. I know two women that are journeyman electricians. The amount of bullshit they have to continuously turn the other cheek on is incredible. They're put in a lose lose situation where sticking up for themselves will backfire, but not being confrontational means they continue to get thrown all sorts of harassment, abuse, and a lot of nonsense about who works what task on big jobs.

When we see disparities this huge, in jobs that are definitely desirable, it's smoke. Then you actually go talk to women in these industries, and they will indeed confirm that there's a huge fire.

This is not some great philosophical question about equality of outcomes and the sad unknowable complexity of how it relates to equality of opportunity. That's just an excuse to tell people trying to put out an obvious fire that they should just stop.

In particular I'd suggest you read the history of what happened to women that learned industrial fabrication skills during WW2 and wanted to keep working with them.

Agreed. I know more than one woman who endured very gender-specific abuse in physical trades, and this was in the past 10 years. The flip side of this is that men are frequently demeaned and harassed for entering traditional "female" jobs: teaching younger children, nursing, and so on. The cultural pressures causing this sorting are still very strong.

That said, I don't think this is something that can be entirely addressed by government action. Government can take action against overt harassment, but you can't pass a law against your grandma thinking your job means you're gay (true story, in the case of a friend of mine).

Harassment is not okay but who cares if grandma think your job means you're gay. Grandma thinking you're gay (or thinking a job is girly or boyish) is not a real obstacle to opportunity and lumping it in with harassment just confuses the problem.

People will always have various pressures and cultural biases that inform what occupations are picked. Humans are not the same, not every difference of opinion needs to be stamped out however misguided you believe them to be.

He isn't talking about grandmas. At least in the UK the primary reason for the steep decline in male primary school teachers is the perception that men are much more likely to be targeted by false claims of child abuse, and will be treated much less fairly if so.

I remember reading a story about such a case some years ago. The male teacher in it had eventually proven his innocence and that the child was a malicious liar, but the process had wrecked his family and made him unemployed. He wasn't going back into teaching and stated to the press, very clearly, that no man should ever work with children because the female-dominated profession would always find a man guilty until proven innocent, regardless of the merits of any case. I remember it clearly because his view was so stark, so bleak and yet so well articulated and justified. I decided right there and then that I'd take his advice and stay well away from teaching.

Not that things change much as adults, of course. Every time there's a run of men proving their innocence in false rape cases (in the UK), feminists go nuts and insist the law is changed to prevent men using that tactic to prove their innocence in future. The "females must always win" mentality is pervasive and makes working in female dominated professions risky.

Whether it's a problem that your grandma, or anyone else, thinks you're gay for having a certain job, depends entirely to how much discrimination gay people get from society. I think that the less discrimination gay people get, the less likely people are to think you're gay for having a certain job. All of this is connected somehow.

> women for some unknown reason just don’t want to be welders

If it's too difficult to guess the "unknown reason", imagine an extreme case: being the only woman on a fishing boat, maybe from a developing country.

I sometimes see this in academics; I like to call this phenomena, "trying so hard to be anti-racist that it comes out as racism."

A while ago, Biden announced that he hasn't selected a Supreme Court nominee yet, but that it was going to be a black woman.

I felt that was more vile racism than anything I have ever heard come out of Trump's mouth. I was appalled by the blatant racism that would have to thoroughly permeate your world view to allow you to proudly say something like that.

But, at the same time, Biden doesn't think he's racist. I believe that he truly despises racism. He's just got himself tied up into conceptual knots and self-contradictory values and beliefs, and rationalizations that he doesn't want to examine too closely. I don't think that's uncommon among academics and intelligent people in general.

I don't see the parent comment communicating those ideas.

There is no statement in the comment that there is currently "some semblance of equality of opportunity" only that "most humans would agree striving for equal opportunity is a universal goal". This is a directional statement, not a statements about current progress in that direction.

Nor do I see any statement that group outcomes are explained entirely "because of some characteristic within those people."

"It also seems to seems to suggest that if marginalized groups have drastically worse outcomes, it's because of some characteristic within those people."

What about minority groups that have drastically better outcomes?

For a non-US-controversial example, Chinese people in Malaysia, probably the only country that has affirmative action ("Bumiputera") for the majority ethnic group.

The historical experience says that disproportionally successful minority groups tend to live under a persistent shadow of violent retribution / ethnic cleansing / genocide at the hands of the majority, so their "privilege" is often very two-edged. But this situation, actually fairly common across the world, is rarely discussed in modern racial narrative.

The difficult part about these discussions is that there’s a principled philosophical aspect and a pragmatic aspect.

We’re all born equal, but take different paths. It’s a lazy answer to say “<“They”> are just a bunch of lazy rabble”, but it’s equally lazy to declare that we’re all prepared to do anything, given the opportunity.

Coming to a middle ground that respects human dignity and improves society as a whole is truly difficult.

>It also seems to seems to suggest that if marginalized groups have drastically worse outcomes

If they have equal opportunity, how can they be marginalized? Why can't remaining differences in outcome be explained by cultural or character differences? Given the opportunity to do what they want, people who don't value the same things probably aren't going to do the same thing.

History is a vector. If you think of it that way, it makes sense that some groups end up with relatively more negative outcomes than others. Our moral obligation is to provide everyone with the tools to overcome whatever disadvantages their ancestral vector has placed on them.

You forgot to mention people having different values and ways to go about achieving them - could explain the difference in outcomes without making them lesser in any way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com