= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Azathoth123 comments on Link: quotas-microaggression-and-meritocracy - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (163)
If this is indeed the case than why isn't the system approaching an equilibrium similar to the one the system reached for Asians, Irish, and Scottish Highlanders?
I don't think I can usefully attempt to answer the question, because it isn't perfectly clear to me (1) what sort of "equilibrium" you have in mind or (2) why you think I should "if this is indeed the case" expect the system to approach such an equilibrium. The linked article, consisting mostly of several pages of Macaulay, doesn't do much to make either of those things clear to me.
Would you care to be more explicit?
The point is that Asians, Irish, and Scottish Highlanders were able to overcome negative stereotypes and "microagressions", and whatever other epicycles the SJW crowd feels like inventing, towards them. Why not blacks and women? You know maybe there really are innate differences involved here.
The question seems like it has a false premise, namely that women and black people haven't made progress in overcoming those things. In fact the treatment of both groups has improved tremendously over, let's say, the last 50 years. Which is roughly what we might expect if in fact much of the difference in how they'd been treated before was due to bias.
(It's probably also what we'd expect if the difference was not due to bias and these groups gained in political power for some reason other than having their genuine merits recognized better. So I'm not claiming this as positive evidence for that bias. But your argument, if I've understood it right, is that the bias theory must be wrong because if it were right then the treatment of these groups would be improving -- and in fact it is improving. I'm not aware of any reason to think it's converged to its final state.)
I agree the "treatment" has improved. They still can't make it in intellectually demanding occupations except by affirmative action. Let's take the most technologically innovative part of the economy: Silicon Valley. Men massively outnumber women in technology jobs, as for race Blacks are massively underrepresented and Asians are massively overrepresented.
To avoid begging the question, that should be "don't".
200 years ago it was basically unthinkable for most women to have any role other than parent and housekeeper. 50 years ago it was basically unthinkable for women to have senior leadership roles or to work in the most intellectually demanding jobs. Now it is thinkable but uncommon; at least some of them appear to do pretty well but they are few in number. Prima facie, the continuing underrepresentation could be because of differences in ability distribution or personality traits or sometihng; or because of (reduced but still remaining) prejudice; or some mixture of both.
Your argument a couple of posts back, if I understand it right, was: It must be because of differences in ability, because otherwise they'd be doing OK now just like East Asians are. So far as I can see, that argument only works if there's some reason to think that if the past shortage of women in those roles were the result of prejudice, then by now it would be completely repaired. But I see no reason to expect that; prejudices can last a very long time. It looks to me (though I don't have statistics; do you?) as if the current rate of change in women's career prospects is still substantial, suggesting that if the last few decades' changes are the result of prejudice reduction then the process isn't yet complete and we shouldn't assume that we are now at the endpoint of the process.
Note also that there were no people tacking about "microagressions" or for that matter much in the way of affirmative action when these groups succeeded.
Also, the closing of the gender gap appears to have stopped during the last 30 years.
That language seems to presuppose that whatever change they achieved has now stopped. As I said above, I think that's very far from clear.
That post seems long on anecdote and short on data.
Pages 10-11 of this document seems to show a steady decline in full-time gender pay gap from 1970 to 2010. The part-time figures are weirdly different; by eye they seem to show one downward jump circa 1974, then approximate stasis, then another downward jump circa 2005.