The problem comes up when making policy. Let’s say there are green people who average 10% less intelligent than purple people, and that jobs for smart people pay better than jobs for stupid people. Waving a magic wand to end racial prejudice and provide equal schools, safety, housing, and food would still leave the average green person worse off than the average purple person. You could wave the magic wand to end racial inequality of opportunity until your arm falls off and not get rid of the average pay gap between green and purple people because less intelligent people are being paid less no matter whether they are green or purple but more of them are green. If you want the average green person to be as well off as the average purple person, you need to make jobs for stupid people pay as well as jobs for smart people or take money from the mostly-purple rich and give it to the mostly-green poor.
If you are a commoner in an absolute monarchy or a subject in a dictatorship, maybe it’s best for you to forget about that because policy-making is in the hands of your betters. But you probably live in a democracy which means you have a small say in policy and need to think about whether a policy will do what you want before you support it.
I spent a good part of my post arguing a difference in intelligence (even if we accept it currently exists) 1) isn’t necessarily inherent, and 2) raw IQ isn’t necessarily the only factor that goes into being intelligent. So why did you your response just go ahead and disregard all that and assume the green people are simply inherently less intelligent and everything else is equal?
or take money from the mostly-purple rich and give it to the mostly-green poor.
Weird assumption.
Let’s say I’m a purple person with completely average intelligence. If I meet 100 random other purple people, statistically 50 of them are going to be less intelligent than me. Right? Now I meet 100 random green people. How many of them on average are going to be less intelligent than me?
But you probably live in a democracy which means you have a small say in policy and need to think about whether a policy will do what you want before you support it.
If I had to choose - without knowing my color in advance, I’d have no problem going for the world where if I lucked into being born as purple my ability to be wealthy would be subject to a slight limitation.
Whether the IQ part is true or not, there’s basically no reason for the average person to bring it up or account for it.
Finally, let’s say for the sake of argument people with a certain skin color are just plain 10% intelligent…
I’m running with your “for the sake of argument” scenario and constructing a fairy-tale-level example to illustrate why the average citizen of a democracy has a reason to care. Namely, the average citizen votes on policy, and a policy of equality of opportunity doesn’t lead to ethnic equality when there is a big gap in average intelligence, or tenacity, or health, or what have you.
Let’s say I’m a purple person with completely average intelligence. If I meet 100 random other purple people, statistically 50 of them are going to be less intelligent than me. Right? Now I meet 100 random green people. How many of them on average are going to be less intelligent than me?
If I’ve got the statistics right, on average 75 of those random green people will be less intelligent than you (and 25 more intelligent). I am surprised and expected the numbers to be less skewed. I wouldn’t expect 75 of those random green people to also be poorer than you, but 60-65 sounds reasonable.
If I had to choose - without knowing my color in advance, I’d have no problem going for the world where if I lucked into being born as purple my ability to be wealthy would be subject to a slight limitation.
Then my post did its job of making you think about what policy you’d vote for in this situation.
I’m running with your “for the sake of argument” scenario and constructing a fairy-tale-level example to illustrate why the average citizen of a democracy has a reason to care.
Okay, I didn’t see the point you were going for until now. You’re only illustrating something in the fairy tale scenario though, because reality is more nuanced than “green people just plain are 10% dumber and everything else is the same”. This is sort of what I was talking about originally: when this subject comes up, most of the time people don’t account for these nuances, either due to bad faith or just ignorance.
If I’ve got the statistics right, on average 75 of those random green people will be less intelligent than you (and 25 more intelligent). I am surprised and expected the numbers to be less skewed.
Same here, assuming your math was correct. I’m actually not entirely sure what the correct number would be.
I wouldn’t expect 75 of those random green people to also be poorer than you, but 60-65 sounds reasonable.
But this sounds roughly in line with what I’d expect. So in the hypothetical situation of meeting 100 random green and 100 random purple people, 50 purples would be poorer than me, 60-65 greens would be poorer than me. Technically you wouldn’t be wrong to say “mostly green poor” but the numbers are pretty close to even.
Then my post did its job of making you think about
My position on that sort of thing is already pretty well established but fair enough.
I think it’s useful to construct simplified models to show how changing just one thing works without getting lost in the mire of other effects, counter-effects, and opportunities to twist the answer. Even if it’s unrealistic until you add those effects back in.
After thinking about it some, I was surprised how much “magic” was required to get something reasonably like equality of opportunity. Equal schools, yes, but also food, maybe clothes, neighborhood pacification, and trying to find an answer to the runaway loop of rational prejudice. In a more complex example, I’d have to deal with green kids growing up in worse conditions and anti-green prejudice opening a bigger gap between collective green success and collective purple success.
My math went like so: assume that purple people average 100 IQ (because the test was made for purple people), green people average 90 IQ on the purple scale, distribution is normal, and the standard deviation is 15 (like a real IQ test). Adjusting the mean and making the averages 105/95 doesn’t seem to affect the math. However, if there’s a combined IQ test in this world, the standard deviation is probably larger than the 15 that real IQ tests aim for and that would wreck my math.
I think it’s useful to construct simplified models to show how changing just one thing works without getting lost in the mire of other effects, counter-effects, and opportunities to twist the answer. Even if it’s unrealistic until you add those effects back in.
Well, I wouldn’t say something rude like “your post is useless” even if I believed it (which I don’t) but at the same time I’m kind of struggling to see how to apply your point seeing as it was made in the ideal hypothetical scenario. After we do add those effects back in like:
There isn’t actually a race that’s just inherently X% dumber and everything else equal.
Intelligence is a multifaceted thing. You can measure and average those facets and come up with a single number, but it doesn’t really tell you much about how a person can practically apply “intelligence” or what they can accomplish with their “intelligence”.
Tests like the IQ test have significant flaws and culture/education level can have a non-trivial effect on the result. So someone that was deprived of access to education might score lower even though they have the exact same intrinsic potential for intelligence as someone else that scored higher.
How do we relate the real situation to what you said?
trying to find an answer to the runaway loop of rational prejudice.
That’s kind of the problem: Prejudice can seem rational in the simplified example that doesn’t have any nuance. In reality though, there are too many factors to account for, too much missing data. So when someone introduces “Greens have 10% lower IQ scores” to the conversation it’s virtually never going to be constructive. That’s the point I was making originally.
In a more complex example, I’d have to deal with green kids growing up in worse conditions and anti-green prejudice opening a bigger gap between collective green success and collective purple success.
Indeed. Even a small discrepancy that wouldn’t really have much practical effect could absolutely be magnified by bigotry. Again, I feel like this is kind of reinforcing my original point.
My math went like so:
My statistics knowledge isn’t good enough to call you out (or confirm that you’re correct). The 60-65 number you came up with sounded reasonable to me, so I don’t really have a reason to argue about that.
However, if there’s a combined IQ test in this world, the standard deviation is probably larger than the 15 that real IQ tests aim for and that would wreck my math.
You mean a test that includes both the greens and purples? I’m not sure how that would be relevant in this specific scenario since we’re talking about comparing greens and purples.
The thought exercise was good to show that if there were a race that is inherently 10% dumber, everything else would not stay equal for more than a few years.
I’m a bit confused by how you seem to think I’d be surprised to find that an unbalanced situation that is set to some configuration will tend to return to its equilibrium. The real situation is so complex that we can’t even definitely say exactly where the equilibrium is though. Real people aren’t one dimensional, so one person maybe less intelligent but more dedicated.
It’s also possible to go too far trying to make things balanced. Kurt Vonnegut wrote a story called Harrison Bergeron that you might enjoy: https://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html
We can at least try to make sure people meet their basic needs like food, water, health care and have access to education and information.
The problem comes up when making policy. Let’s say there are green people who average 10% less intelligent than purple people, and that jobs for smart people pay better than jobs for stupid people. Waving a magic wand to end racial prejudice and provide equal schools, safety, housing, and food would still leave the average green person worse off than the average purple person. You could wave the magic wand to end racial inequality of opportunity until your arm falls off and not get rid of the average pay gap between green and purple people because less intelligent people are being paid less no matter whether they are green or purple but more of them are green. If you want the average green person to be as well off as the average purple person, you need to make jobs for stupid people pay as well as jobs for smart people or take money from the mostly-purple rich and give it to the mostly-green poor.
If you are a commoner in an absolute monarchy or a subject in a dictatorship, maybe it’s best for you to forget about that because policy-making is in the hands of your betters. But you probably live in a democracy which means you have a small say in policy and need to think about whether a policy will do what you want before you support it.
I spent a good part of my post arguing a difference in intelligence (even if we accept it currently exists) 1) isn’t necessarily inherent, and 2) raw IQ isn’t necessarily the only factor that goes into being intelligent. So why did you your response just go ahead and disregard all that and assume the green people are simply inherently less intelligent and everything else is equal?
Weird assumption.
Let’s say I’m a purple person with completely average intelligence. If I meet 100 random other purple people, statistically 50 of them are going to be less intelligent than me. Right? Now I meet 100 random green people. How many of them on average are going to be less intelligent than me?
If I had to choose - without knowing my color in advance, I’d have no problem going for the world where if I lucked into being born as purple my ability to be wealthy would be subject to a slight limitation.
Quoting your previous post:
I’m running with your “for the sake of argument” scenario and constructing a fairy-tale-level example to illustrate why the average citizen of a democracy has a reason to care. Namely, the average citizen votes on policy, and a policy of equality of opportunity doesn’t lead to ethnic equality when there is a big gap in average intelligence, or tenacity, or health, or what have you.
If I’ve got the statistics right, on average 75 of those random green people will be less intelligent than you (and 25 more intelligent). I am surprised and expected the numbers to be less skewed. I wouldn’t expect 75 of those random green people to also be poorer than you, but 60-65 sounds reasonable.
Then my post did its job of making you think about what policy you’d vote for in this situation.
Okay, I didn’t see the point you were going for until now. You’re only illustrating something in the fairy tale scenario though, because reality is more nuanced than “green people just plain are 10% dumber and everything else is the same”. This is sort of what I was talking about originally: when this subject comes up, most of the time people don’t account for these nuances, either due to bad faith or just ignorance.
Same here, assuming your math was correct. I’m actually not entirely sure what the correct number would be.
But this sounds roughly in line with what I’d expect. So in the hypothetical situation of meeting 100 random green and 100 random purple people, 50 purples would be poorer than me, 60-65 greens would be poorer than me. Technically you wouldn’t be wrong to say “mostly green poor” but the numbers are pretty close to even.
My position on that sort of thing is already pretty well established but fair enough.
I think it’s useful to construct simplified models to show how changing just one thing works without getting lost in the mire of other effects, counter-effects, and opportunities to twist the answer. Even if it’s unrealistic until you add those effects back in.
After thinking about it some, I was surprised how much “magic” was required to get something reasonably like equality of opportunity. Equal schools, yes, but also food, maybe clothes, neighborhood pacification, and trying to find an answer to the runaway loop of rational prejudice. In a more complex example, I’d have to deal with green kids growing up in worse conditions and anti-green prejudice opening a bigger gap between collective green success and collective purple success.
My math went like so: assume that purple people average 100 IQ (because the test was made for purple people), green people average 90 IQ on the purple scale, distribution is normal, and the standard deviation is 15 (like a real IQ test). Adjusting the mean and making the averages 105/95 doesn’t seem to affect the math. However, if there’s a combined IQ test in this world, the standard deviation is probably larger than the 15 that real IQ tests aim for and that would wreck my math.
Well, I wouldn’t say something rude like “your post is useless” even if I believed it (which I don’t) but at the same time I’m kind of struggling to see how to apply your point seeing as it was made in the ideal hypothetical scenario. After we do add those effects back in like:
How do we relate the real situation to what you said?
That’s kind of the problem: Prejudice can seem rational in the simplified example that doesn’t have any nuance. In reality though, there are too many factors to account for, too much missing data. So when someone introduces “Greens have 10% lower IQ scores” to the conversation it’s virtually never going to be constructive. That’s the point I was making originally.
Indeed. Even a small discrepancy that wouldn’t really have much practical effect could absolutely be magnified by bigotry. Again, I feel like this is kind of reinforcing my original point.
My statistics knowledge isn’t good enough to call you out (or confirm that you’re correct). The 60-65 number you came up with sounded reasonable to me, so I don’t really have a reason to argue about that.
You mean a test that includes both the greens and purples? I’m not sure how that would be relevant in this specific scenario since we’re talking about comparing greens and purples.
The thought exercise was good to show that if there were a race that is inherently 10% dumber, everything else would not stay equal for more than a few years.
I’m a bit confused by how you seem to think I’d be surprised to find that an unbalanced situation that is set to some configuration will tend to return to its equilibrium. The real situation is so complex that we can’t even definitely say exactly where the equilibrium is though. Real people aren’t one dimensional, so one person maybe less intelligent but more dedicated.
It’s also possible to go too far trying to make things balanced. Kurt Vonnegut wrote a story called Harrison Bergeron that you might enjoy: https://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html
We can at least try to make sure people meet their basic needs like food, water, health care and have access to education and information.
I read Harrison Bergeron in school. That’s what would be needed for full equality of opportunity, if you think about it.
I agree that we (if we’re in similar countries) can do a much better job than we do on meeting basic needs.