This is the kind of ideology that leads to trouble. If there is equality of opportunity, there will be equality of outcomes, at least on average. When you see inequality rising it is a serious clue that opportunities are not the same for everyone.
>If there is equality of opportunity, there will be equality of outcomes, at least on average.
No there won't. Paradoxically the opposite will happen and differences (even small differences) will be maximized. A simple example, two kids are in the same high-school, with similar marks and similar ability - fast-forward 10 years and they are in wildly different careers, possibly making wildly different incomes. Maybe one chooses to pursue their interest in a STEM field, while the other focuses on Humanities. In our world it just so happens there is an shortage of engineers and a glut of humanities majors. Plenty engineers make six figures, whereas humanities majors will struggle to hit that income milestone. So one of the kids could be in SV making $160k/year, while the other is in Minnesota working at Starbucks making $30k/year. Same opportunity, different outcomes.
>at least on average.
On average you would expect a gradient of outcomes across a possible spectrum. I suspect it would resemble a bell curve with most outcome concentrated in some standard deviation from the mean but with tails on either side.
This is nonsense. If you give 100 people the same starting point, you'll very likely end up with 100 different outcome.
Also, even if you have an "average" equality of outcome, you'll still find a small fraction of those left out screaming about inequality and how unfair the system has been to them.
The best framing is the headwind/tailwind issue. We feel the headwinds (obstacles in our way) and take our tailwinds for granted (the privileges and luck we enjoy).
There's lots of evidence that the successful in our society are largely deluded in how much they downplay the significance of their privileges and luck.
The worse-off people aren't any smarter, but when everyone is mainly aware only of headwinds and not tailwinds, those who happen to have less tailwinds inherently are aware of a greater percentage of their context.
>The best framing is the headwind/tailwind issue. We feel the headwinds (obstacles in our way) and take our tailwinds for granted (the privileges and luck we enjoy).
Is that the best framing? Are you sure it isn't a seriously flawed analogy since it is based on one factor explaining a very simple outcome? In reality, a typical person will have hundreds of factors associated with them some of which give them a competitive advantage when compared to the average and some of which will be detrimental to them in some way. A tall handsome straight white male with a crippling social anxiety will struggle in life in ways that an outgoing, short, stocky, gay black man may not. A middle-class black woman from a two person household in NY will have advantages that a poor white male from a single-parent household in rural Alabama will not. Even some specific combination of particular skills (none of which the individual excels in) can infer privilege. Being an average developer with average technical ability, with average business development instinct, average personability and people skills, and average level of leadership skills and some particular career choices - may lend you a Director or C-level executive at a technical corporation.
Leftists and more specifically, leftists that subscribe to the ideology of intersectionality, tend to only identify one or two of factors (usually sexual orientation, skin color, and/or gender) as defining success or failure. It's lazy and wrong.
>There's lots of evidence that the successful in our society are largely deluded in how much they downplay the significance of their privileges and luck.
I'll spin this around. Even if you are a victim in some way, deluding yourself that you're not is much more preferable than accepting reality. Once you internalize that your lot in life is due to factors outside of your control it really does kill your incentive to try and change it.
We seem to be typing past one another. Nothing in your comment is directly about about I wrote. It's about generalities of what other people may say.
The analogy of headwind/tailwind is merely a visceral way to recognize that privileges are typically taken for granted and unnoticed while challenges and obstacles are very much noticed.
That works both to recognize why people constantly complain about their obstacles (i.e. members of minorities focusing on their minority status and the challenges they face) and privileged folks downplaying their privilege.
The socially-anxious otherwise privileged character will give more weight and awareness to their anxiety than to all their privileges, and the outgoing minority member may give excessive weight to their minority status and how they overcame their challenges and ignore their luck in being naturally outgoing.
So, yes, this is the most useful framing.
Your understanding of intersectionality amounts to asserting that most other people get it wrong. The concept is that people are actually an intersection of all the factors, including even whether they are naturally anxious or outgoing or whatever else. Indeed, far too many people these days treat it as a limited Venn diagram sort of way to label the most and least privileged, but that simplistic approach is in opposition to the nuanced concept that intersectionality is supposed to be about. That many people are lazy and get it wrong is both true and troubling.
As to your point about delusional optimism becoming self-fulfilling, that is totally valid. And yet, it's one thing to discuss the facts about inequities and injustices in our society and another thing to talk about the attitude people should have for success.
Yes, underprivileged people focusing on their lot in life can lead to self-fulfilling pessimism and lack of ambition. But there's a balance here. If everyone remains deluded in believing that we actually all have equal opportunities, then we won't be motivated to fix the injustices.
I know it's tragically awful how the "left" has now tended to overemphasize the victim issue. It's become a boy-cried-wolf situation. It lets people like you focus on the problems with that narrative. At the same time, there are real extreme injustices and inequities happening in our world.
The starting point for the whole issue is to realize how BAD we are at being objective. We DO experience headwinds and tailwinds with a totally different degree of awareness. Recognizing this fact does not lead us directly to answers, it leads us to productive conversation.
>Nothing in your comment is directly about about I wrote.
Yes it is. I disagree with your fundamental characterization of privilege. There is no privilege, that was my point.
Here I defined two individuals to serve as a counter-example to what you argued and you still went ahead and identified one as inherently privileged solely due to their skin color - even if they struggle through life due to a social disorder. To me, that's an illustration of how not only useless your concept of 'privilege' is, it's also dangerous because of how easy it is to misuse.
>The concept is that people are actually an intersection of all the factors
Not all factors. Very specific factors are emphasized and that's the problem. A person is nothing but a set of stereotypes of specific set of identities, based on nothing more than genetics. There is no room for ideas or 'content of character'. You are your skin color, gender, and a sexual orientation.
>At the same time, there are real extreme injustices and inequities happening in our world
Inequities are a result of a free world. People make different decision which end in different outcomes. Raising a family with a spouse will produce a different outcome for your children, then raising children without a spouse. Studying to be an engineer will yield a different (and unequal) outcome versus studying History.
As for injustices - no. In the West the vast vast majority of all people don't live in the a world of extreme injustices.
>It lets people like you focus on the problems with that narrative.
When you abuse the language as a shortcut to supporting an argument you shouldn't complain when you called out on it. When you call someone a loaded word like 'privileged' without knowing anything about them other than the color of their skin expect push-back. And then when they refuse to accept your ugly characterization of them, you simply close yourself off and label them as people who simply are too privileged to see it. Thanks.
>Recognizing this fact does not lead us directly to answers, it leads us to productive conversation.
Does it? I viscerally disagree with everything you argued. Do you accept that perspective as valid? Or am I just too privileged to see my privilege?
If you literally mean that the concept of privilege doesn't show up in reality (as in how supernatural miracles are pure fiction), then you'd be just flat-out wrong.
> identified one as inherently privileged
You clearly don't understand the concept of privilege. If I happen to get a job that includes vacation pay, that is a privilege compared to the reality for many people who don't have that. It's all relative. And acknowledging that something is a privilege doesn't mean it's inherently undeserved or something you shouldn't have.
I didn't say the white character in your case was privileged and the black character wasn't. It's not black and white or even a single dimension on a continuum. You don't just have quantifiable more or less privilege. It's far more complex.
White men in our society do, in general and vast majority of situations, have some privileges over the experience they would have with darker skin or being labeled female. There are also privileges to being female or having darker skin, although there's some valid comparing where male privileges generally outweigh female privileges.
In your example, the black character has the privileges that come with being naturally outgoing.
"Privilege" is nothing more than a general term for recognizing advantages you have over others in some regard. You can enjoy the privilege of loving stable parents and loyal friends without the privilege of wealth and vice versa or you could have both or neither. Framing these things as "privileges" simply means acknowledging that these are far from universal and many others do not have them.
> Very specific factors are emphasized and that's the problem
But that's not a problem with the concept of intersectionality, it's a problem with the people (mis)use the concept in practice.
> In the West the vast vast majority of all people don't live in the a world of extreme injustices.
If you define "the West" as those places without extreme injustice, it's just circular logic. But specifically, we can be thrilled that today there are lots of systems in place to promote real justice and rule of law. "Extreme" is all relative. Of course, the folks in Flint with kids suffering major lead poisoning because of incompetent political decisions that would never have been made for richer communities… they think extreme injustice exists here.
> When you abuse the language as a shortcut to supporting an argument you shouldn't complain when you called out on it
Well, I agree completely. There's a ton of such abuse going on right now, and it's fair to call it out.
> ugly characterization of them
Are you saying that merely mentioning a concept like "white privilege" is an ugly characterization of someone?
> I viscerally disagree with everything you argued
Well, I really had no idea in this plain text conversation that I was interacting with someone who was so emotional and defensive about this situation.
> am I just too privileged to see my privilege?
I have no idea, I wasn't judging you personally. I have no idea who you are at all. My best guess is that you have the typical headwind/tailwind issue where you are viscerally aware of the headwinds (challenges) that you've faced, you've worked hard to overcome them, and you're quite aware that there are others with far more advantages that you never enjoyed. You probably have seen the absurdly ridiculous identity-politics that the "left" has gotten obsessed with and are viscerally offended at the simplistic stereotyping and political-correctness and other bullshit those folks are doing.
Let's consider an analogy. Imagine a context in which you happen to be surrounded by Scientologists. You sometimes try to argue with them about scientific reasoning and point out how exploitive and absurd their "religion" is. But they keep using illogical bullshit that their dogma teaches them. When you get out of that milieu, you commiserate with your friends who talk with you about how absurd the Scientologists are. One day, you interact with someone who happens to be into Buddhist-style meditation even though they aren't really into any supernatural claims about reincarnation or anything, but they use the Buddhist language to talk about their quest for Nirvana. Instead of having an interesting conversation, you talk to them like they are obviously a ridiculous cult-follower comparable to the Scientologists. It's an understandable reaction, but quite unfortunate.
Yeah, I get that certain online mob-mentality identity-politics young folks are making words like "privilege" toxic to many because they have an aggressive and simplistic ideology around it. But your reaction is just assuming anyone who uses the term or talks about equity and injustice as real issues are automatically those people.
You're probably not "too privileged to see my privilege", you're probably just too pissed off at some things that are understandable to be pissed off about to be open minded to reasonable discussion.
>You clearly don't understand the concept of privilege.
You're purposely equivocating on the the concept. At one end you're giving me the dictionary definition to argue the point. But then you're simply falling back on the ideological definition - the one that I actually argued against and the one that is used in practice to push policy and browbeat those who disagree with you (this includes your responses and arguments).
>If you define "the West" as those places without extreme injustice, it's just circular logic
I define the West as however it is commonly understood. What circular logic?
>White men in our society do, in general and vast majority of situations, have some privileges over the experience they would have with darker skin or being labeled female.
Like what? Asians have the highest personal and house-hold income in America. When controlled for the difference in single vs two-parent households in black and white populations, the income disparity between blacks and whites disappears as well. There are more whites in prison and in poverty than all other groups combined. Race makes for great politics, but it isn't a factor to success. Nobody gets breaks. You have to go to work, bust your ass, and pay rent. If you don't pay rent, you get evicted. Bill Gates doesn't hand out stipends because you match his skin tone.
>Are you saying that merely mentioning a concept like "white privilege" is an ugly characterization of someone?
Yes. It is a loaded, ideological term that isn't based on reality. It is exclusively used by those who want to push a particular extreme ideology and dehumanize 'THOSE OTHERS'. If I get a group of people with varying skin colors, give you no other information, and I ask you to tell me about their life, their struggles, about what they believe, and if they are a good person, or an evil person or a criminal, or intelligent - you would be able to say nothing. And yet, here we are, you tell me how much 'headwind' the whites in the group got and how much easier their life is due to all their white privilege. Urgh.
>Yeah, I get that certain online mob-mentality identity-politics young folks are making words like "privilege" toxic to many because they have an aggressive and simplistic ideology around it.
I don't know about those 'young folks', but everything you've written thus far is on about the same level of toxicity.
>Imagine a context in which you happen to be surrounded by Scientologists. You sometimes try to argue with them about scientific reasoning and point out how exploitative and absurd their "religion" is. But they keep using illogical bullshit that their dogma teaches them. When you get out of that milieu, you commiserate with your friends who talk with you about how absurd the Scientologists are. One day, you interact with someone who happens to be into Buddhist-style
Consider that you're the Scientologist in your analogy.
>But your reaction is just assuming anyone who uses the term or talks about equity and injustice as real issues are automatically those people.
> There are more whites in prison and in poverty than all other groups combined.
Come on. At least make an attempt at fair statistics. The percentage of blacks in prison and poverty is far higher than whites. That's what matters, not absolute numbers.
> Race makes for great politics, but it isn't a factor to success.
Race is totally unrelated to success in terms of causation, but it is correlated to success on a statistical basis such that it can be used to predict things with better-than-average success. In other words, we do not live in an ideal color-blind world where race isn't predictive of anything outside of basic genetics-related factors.
If you want to argue that the causation behind the correlation is something like a counter-productive victim-hood culture, that's a legitimate hypothesis to discuss. But there's no room given facts on the ground to deny the correlations between race and various factors like education, success, wealth etc.
Thankfully, we indeed live in a world with far less racism and race-based privilege than historic times, and there are definitely cases where other privileges outweigh the issues in race. But if you believe we actually are in a world where there's no privilege to being white or Asian versus being black, you really aren't making a sincere effort to study the evidence.
You can point all day to the non-straw-men who actually make ludicrous arguments about race and privilege. That doesn't disprove reasonable arguments. As an analogy, Piltdown Man was a hoax, but it doesn't disprove the facts of evolution.
> It is exclusively used by those who want to push a particular extreme ideology and dehumanize 'THOSE OTHERS'.
Well, now you're just wrong. I used the term "white privilege" and I don't believe the extreme ideology and don't aim to dehumanize anyone. I also know many others who use that term without the extreme ideology.
Your claims that I could say nothing about a group of people based on race is also wrong. I can't honestly just apply stereotypes to an individual, but you can make guesses and be statistically right more often than chance. I can guess a bunch of things about experience based on someone's race. I can guess that a black guy has experienced things like white folks crossing the street when they are out walking or other subtle things like that. I can guess that they at least know many people who have single parents and that they know people who have spent time in jail or prison. Those guesses can be wrong, but they will be right more often than chance.
> you tell me how much 'headwind' the whites in the group got and how much easier their life is due to all their white privilege
You seem to even misunderstand the terms. Having privilege is like having a tailwind. And you're putting a lot of assumptions and words-in-my-mouth that I never said. I never said anything like a claim that whites all have easier lives.
> Consider that you're the Scientologist in your analogy.
That's ludicrous. That's like saying to the Buddhist that they are a Scientologist and refusing to listen to anything they actually claim about their beliefs. You seem totally convinced that anyone who even uses the language that so viscerally offends you necessarily believes a bunch of nonsense. You're not even willing to consider the possibility that my beliefs are different from your assertions.
What you're doing is a good job of validating the crazy people's views. You're so willing to jump to conclusions about my beliefs, this conversation will be read by any of the extreme P.C. folks as proof that people like you are just racists at that core. I don't believe that. I don't really know what you think. I just am reading that you are willing to make emotionally-based and incorrect assumptions about my views, so that leads me to discount whether you might be an intellectually reasonable person generally.
> I'm just going by what you said.
No, you're going by imagining a bunch of stuff behind what I wrote that isn't there. From the beginning, you made assumptions, and you aren't (re)considering how I could write the things I did without believing the things you assume I believed.
Anyway, "social mobility" generally just means there's no caste system or effective caste system. If the inequity in the system means that a small percent of people hold most of the wealth and power, what difference does it make if anyone has a chance to join that elite?
In a zero-sum game, social mobility is better to exist than not but it isn't going to actually change anything fundamental.
Equality of opportunity is not measurable. Equality of outcome is. Given that we know some variables such as race, sex, and sexual preferences shouldn't affect outcome, we should look for equality of outcome without correlation with these variables.
>Equality of opportunity is not measurable. Equality of outcome is. Given that we know some variables such as race, sex, and sexual preferences shouldn't affect outcome, we should look for equality of outcome without correlation with these variables.
Why shouldn't these variables affect outcomes? To assert that any two groups should have identical economic outcomes, one first has to prove that those two groups are identical with regard to all preferences and genetic factors that can affect economic outcomes.
For example, sex may correlate with career choice, and career choice correlates with economic outcomes. Race has been found in some studies to correlate with results on IQ tests, which have been found to correlate with economic outcomes. To assert that such factors shouldn't affect economic outcomes, one hence first has to rule out all such potential correlations.
oh, so "being a nurse" should not correlate with "being a female", or "working in STEM" should not correlate with "being good at math and having with poor verbal/social skills".
I do believe there is something directly related to this thread. My intention was to point out the fact that the concept of "equality of outcome" is an erroneous metric. I specifically amended the second part of my comment to omit orientation of gender and focus on the personality traits.
That is, two grade A student may end up in totally different outcome, skewing statistics which would limit themselves to phenotypical attributes.
The topic is education in Canada, not equality of outcome vs. equality of opportunity. Off-topic tangents can be fine when they're concrete, but generic tangents inevitably head off in a worse direction, and generic ideological tangents are the worst.
