Hacker News Reader

Why use various proxies at all? Most of the group differences seem to largely share poverty as a primary root factor, and this impacts plenty of sub-groups within the supposedly advantaged groups as well. So why are we not simply addressing that directly?

A refrain I've been seeing a lot lately is that the outcome of a system is its purpose. Perhaps that reasoning should be equally applied to an analysis of the implementation choices made by various social programs and the solutions espoused by various political movements.

Why? I presume that people don’t look for second and third order effects. They see disproportionate numbers of people of color struggling, they blame the first order grouping as the cause.

Statistics is complicated. People reject even straightforward theories with obvious scientific bases. It makes sense.

the fun part here is seeing interesting tradeoffs like a wealthy person of <Race-preferred> chosen over a poor person of <Race-tarnished> for some kind of wealth producing choice. Making a wealthy member of that group wealthier will pull up the average, but IMO the just choice is to help the lagging human regardless of their race.

It leads to weird outcomes too like the deaths of despair in Appalachia being "non news" because it largely covers a group we deem as "privileged".

A big part of the issue is reductionistic / simplistic thinking that wants to reduce the cognitive load of decision making by setting up only a few binary gates instead of having to do complex analysis on a case by case basis. This is normal for human brains to try and do.

> Equity is important

As I understand it, “equity” in this content generally refers to equality of outcomes between groups. I don’t see why that is desirable, important, or even possible.

Would you explain why you believe that equity is important?

> I don’t see why that is desirable, important, or even possible.

Are you okay with being in one of the groups where the outcomes are worse?

I am not sure what you mean. Would you give me an example?

I’m not sure what groups you were referring to in your original post, so it would probably be better if you provided the example.

It means equal outcomes for arbitrary groups. We should expect fairly similar outcomes for groups based on arbitrary differences. If we don’t, it should concern us.

Non-arbitrary issues should obviously affect outcomes, but the prevalence of melanin should affect skin cancer rates, not incomes.

> This version of equity based on race is using race as a proxy for outcomes in life

Because racism is ongoing and negatively impacts people of color, it makes sense to focus where harm is being done.

There is a leftist school of thought that agrees with you (focus on class instead of race). But I personally don’t believe that a focus purely on outcomes would be applied equitably while racism still exists.

> we're so focused on outputs throughout every stage of the life process that were missing a massive shift in the inputs

It is a fallacy to think we can’t focus on multiple things at once. Nothing keeps us for helping boys in some sectors and women in others.

> Nothing keeps us for helping boys in some sectors and women in others

In theory, perhaps, but in practice nothing is being done to help boys. In fact, DEI programs in universities continue to favor young women even as they approach 60% of students.

We're all familiar with Girls Who Code, Women in STEM, and similar organizations. Where are equivalent organizations for young men?

Would it even be possible to start such an organization without being ostracized as a bigot?

> In theory, perhaps, but in practice nothing is being done to help boys.

Untrue. There’s a ton of work being done on how to better support boys in school.

> In fact, DEI programs in universities continue to favor young women even as they approach 60% of students.

What are these DEI programs favoring university admission for young women?

Here's the opinion of the Society for Women Engineers:

> Cutting these [DEI] programs means fewer resources for students that need support. It’s devastating for women

https://swe.org/magazine/dei-faces-rising-waters/

That's an admission that DEI in schools supports women, from some of its biggest advocates. Where are the programs to support boys in school?

Edit: Of course, the mere existence of the Society for Women Engineers, AAUW, and other groups focused on women in education, without comparable groups for men, is another example of the phenomenon.

They're a remnant of a time when they were necessary, now favoring the group that has not only caught up, but taken the lead.

That's an admission that a group focused on women is concerned with the impacts of issues on women.

Is there a society for Men Engineers that is concerned with the impacts of issues on men?

For most of history that would be any society for engineers.

If you feel there are issues uniquely impacting male engineers though why not start one?

Women are not close to even 50% of engineering students or industry or academic engineers yet you go after society of women engineers?

Let's flip it - nursing, where men are a minority:

https://www.aamn.org/

Oh look, a society dedicated to men in nursing. This is completely reasonable. The idea to go from "women are most of college graduates" to "society of women engineers should not exist" is insane.

> without comparable groups for men

Did you even try?

https://www.naesp.org/resource/male-models/

It's a serious topic in education, yes it's a thing people care about.

I studied with and was friends with women in my computer engineering major, SWE helped connect them with industry engineers who could speak about what it was like being a women in engineering.

As a man studying that field, I was surprised I'd never heard of that group. Then I saw how tiny it is. There are only four local chapters in all of California, with none on any UC campus.

https://www.aamn.org/chapter-directory

I would personally guess that men are conditioned to "man up" and therefore are less likely to discuss, form, and join groups like this. But maybe I think that because I'm ""woke"".

But if you're interested - https://www.aamn.org/starting-a-chapter

Here's a story I was listening to today about a program at an all-boys school trying to address the growing prevalence of loneliness, depression, and bad behavior in school.

https://www.haverford.org/the-big-room-blog/blog-post/~board...

Where are the equivalent for young men? Literally all of the other hackathons ever. Girls who Code arose because of toxic men chasing girls and women out of those spaces. Women worked tirelessly for decades to make these spaces happen. Men just want to whine about it because to actually address the issue is too “woke”. I’m sorry you created your prison, but don’t look to us to bail you out while you’re punching us down for not helping.

It reminds me of the white supremacists raging about Black Miss America pageants for existing. But they were ignorant of the fact that the official Miss America pageant had a rule that said “no negroes” up until 1972-73.

> ... toxic men chasing girls and women out ... Men just want to whine ... while you’re punching us down .... reminds me of the white supremacists

Thank you for providing an example of the hostility faced by anyone who even raises the issue, let alone tries to improve things.

You’re not improving things. You’re trying to take away things that make the world better.

If you stuck to programs that help boys - yes they exist - maybe you’d have a moral leg to stand on.

Discriminating against some people for the benefit of others does not make the world better. And that's all DEI is.

I have no problem with programs that benefit students. All students. (Likewise workers - all workers.)

>Because racism is ongoing and negatively impacts people of color, it makes sense to focus where harm is being done.

My point is that there are plenty of -isms going around and focusing on race alone completely ignores the fact that our lives are impacted in different ways. When we take a flat reductionist view, as if Sasha and Malia Obama face the same challenges as some randomly chosen person of the same race, we have the potential create a significant class divides within communities, as the folks of a certain race with a privileged background fill the rolls that ought to be set aside for folks who are still dealing with the significant economic after-effects of a discriminatory past.

>It is a fallacy to think we can’t focus on multiple things at once. Nothing keeps us for helping boys in some sectors and women in others.

The point and the problem is that there is no coordination, so if everyone is trying to make a positive impact, it is very likely that we will overshoot. This is always the case when you have an uncoordinated approach to dealing with a lagging indicator.

> My point is that there are plenty of -isms going around and focusing on race alone completely ignores the fact that our lives are impacted in different ways.

No it doesn’t. We have other means of support for people whose lives are impacted by e.g. poverty.

> When we have a flat reductionist as our view, as if Sasha and Malia Obama face the same challenges as some randomly chosen person of the same race, we have the potential create a significant class divides within communities.

There are already significant class divides in the community. Our system specifically encourages that sort of thing. The idea that a few high performers get the same benefits (ones that aren’t already means tested) as the poorest is irrelevant in the scheme of things.

> The point and the problem is that there is no coordination

A interesting point. I suspect it’s not true, but either way this is the first I’ve heard anyone arguing for better coordination. I don’t see that present in any of the current efforts.

>There are already significant class divides in the community. Our system specifically encourages that sort of thing. The idea that a few high performers get the same benefits (ones that aren’t already means tested) as the poorest is irrelevant in the scheme of things.

I think this is where we might disagree most. I see racism as a form of stupidity, that is, a general induction error given perception bias, where you generalize the examples of a small sample size to a group and draw a wrong conclusion... based on race. Here, due to the history of discrimination, we have significant class difference that lead to more racism, which is class differences but projected as a race difference. I'd note here, we don't have the same kind of deliberate class as a place like the UK does, but we do have class and it's class beyond just an economic class.

I'll obviously admit that that's certainly not an explanation for all current racism, but I think a significant amount of our concern may be here. In this case, I worry that using race as a proxy for existing class differences in racially different communities will be incorrectly addressed in DEI programs based on race. You can already see the awkwardness of this in Asian and Indian communities, as they are racial minorities, yet they are often seen as overrepresented in outcomes. A traditional "racism is just racism" view really doesn't explain this mismatch, but a race-as-a-proxy-for-class easily does.