Also, if X is an overrepresented minority (e.g. Chinese, Indians), the only way to fix the ratio is by reducing their numbers or recruiting unrealistic numbers of every other group. Do you favor this?
The reason talking in ratios (as shorthand) is better than your goal of "void excluding people, and allow them entry if they want (and are capable) of it", is that we know that what people want and are capable of are much of the time what power directs them to want or be capable of (obviously, not entirely, but it's a strong component). So that means that if those in society manage to make some people not want power, then everything is fine -- while others, like me, think it is not.
I spent some time writing about poor youth, and one of the things that surprised me is that they all wanted money. That wasn't the surprising thing -- what surprised me was that when I asked them how much money they wanted they said something like $60K a year, which seemed like an enormous amount to them. That's what the most successful people they know make. So they wanted to open a small convenience store and make that amount of money (or make that money in crime). When I told them that people who go to college and become, say, engineers make a lot more, they just couldn't believe me.
> Do you favor this?
I favor all groups having equal(ish) representation in the seats of power. That means no group is underrepresented, and that no group is overrepresented. Whether to achieve that by what you Americans call affirmative action (which is what you seem to be alluding to) or by fixing the fundamental causes for the inequality -- or both -- is a completely different matter.
Also, I have no problem with different groups achieving power in different means. If, say, Asians were overrepresented in tech but underrepresented in banking -- that would be fine. What isn't fine is when the same group is underrepresented in most seats of power overall.
Are you really postulating that because society categorizes something as a group, therefore members of this group suddenly act in a completely altruistic manner towards their groupmates?
That's a pretty remarkable claim. Interestingly, the only people I've seen making this claim besides you are the (normatively) racist side of the human biodiversity movement. You might find Jayman's debunking of these folks enlightening - he's focused on ethnic groups specifically, but social groups have even less motivation for altruism.
https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2015/08/02/ethnic-genetic-inte...
To put this concretely, my real world choices are a) hire a Guju to help a Punjabi get rich while going home and banging a hot nigerian woman or b) less money, less enjoyable work, less capable coworkers and less attractive women, but I'll suffer with that out of group altruism. I guess you believe b) is the logical choice that virtually everyone makes.
Also, let me list the numbers and make my question clear. Asians are currently about 40% of tech and 4.7% of America. For black Americans to be represented in tech in equal proportions, and for us to NOT kick Asians out, then we'd need to recruit a number of black people equal to 104% of the entire tech industry. I.e., we'd need about 3 million black people to enter tech.
To bring Asians back down to 4.7% in tech, overall you'd need to increase the size of the industry by 750%, bringing it up to 25.5M people (from approx 3M). That seems a little implausible.
Your real world choices are a) accept unequal representation or b) kick Asians out. Which do you favor?
Huh? No. Why do you think I think that? Social groups often have shared experiences (often because society views them as a group), and people with shared experience often have shared needs, and to get those needs you need power. If you don't have the power, other groups have power over you, and they may not share your needs, and have their own, and as a result act less in your interest.
There is an interesting concept called ingroup/outgroup[1] that is subject to a lot of current research in social psychology, which has found that kids at a very young age display ingroup allegiance and outgroup rejection even for made up groups (e.g. experimenters tell a kid, "you're in the blue group", and then ask them play the dictator game[2], namely decide how much and what kind of rewards to give to another kid they've never met, who they only know belongs to their made-up group or not. The group association makes a lot of difference (incidentally in boys more than girls, but that depends on age). Ingroup/outgroup is a well-known, well-studied concept, but it's not altruism, let alone "complete altruism". It's not entirely relevant to my view anyway, but since you brought up altruism I thought I'd explain the "proper term" for the "feeling" one has towards one's own social group vs. others. Again, even ingroup/outgroup is not directly related to the objective unequal distribution of power.
> That's a pretty remarkable claim. Interestingly, the only people I've seen making this claim besides you are the (normatively) racist side of the human biodiversity movement. You might find Jayman's debunking of these folks enlightening - he's focused on ethnic groups specifically, but social groups have even less motivation for altruism.
Remarkable indeed! Why in god's name would you think I make that claim?[3]
> Your real world choices are a) accept unequal representation or b) kick Asians out. Which do you favor?
I must say I'm surprised you think that. First -- this isn't a zero-sum game. Groups that are underrepresented in power are often underrepresented because their ability to achieve a good social standing (and a good chance at power) through education, connections, familiarity with the business world or politics etc.. is very much reduced. That's precisely where society's economic potential lies. If they get better education, better connections and so on, the economy would grow very, very significantly (they will make more money to buy things and be more productive). Second, if you think it is a zero-sum game, you must accept the possibility (which is the reality) that the current state of things is after blacks have been kicked out. You've already kicked out a group out of the economic process[4], and all we want is to let them back in. So, yeah, if it's a zero-sum game (it isn't), the end result will be more-or-less equal representation in power (not tech alone -- I said that we have no problem in one community being overrepresented in one seat of power and underrepresented in another). Of course, it's not a zero-sum game, because those who have no access to power are almost always in a state of "untapped potential" that benefits everyone.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroups_and_outgroups
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictator_game
[3]: In this particular case, the entirety of their contribution to the economic process for hundreds of years has been stolen from them, and then, with whatever money they could earn (without any inheritance or connections) you disallowed them from fully participating in the economy by preventing them from buying land, voting (and thus getting their interests heard and help from the government -- like other groups) and starting businesses with the same opportunities of white businesses. All this has sort-of ended as recently as 45 years ago.
[3]: BTW, out of curiosity I read the link, and I think it's not a lot less ridiculous as the claims it wishes to debunk. The famous Price equation, which models altruism as kin selection was never meant to be a full explanation of altruism in people (although it bothered George Price enough to kill himself) but in slime-mold and ants. Altruism in people is probably a result of a completely different process, because it operates at a much higher level of abstraction. That guy's analysis makes as much sense as tracing human ability to solve differential equations back to kin selection. Both (altruism and ODEs) are probably side effects of something else.
"...all groups...don't normally yield power to others; they don't want others to control them."
A group is a collection of individuals. You seem to be asserting those individuals behave in a manner that protects their group power rather than helping individuals. Assign whatever word you want to it.
Can you make it explicit? If an individual can gain $1 in personal benefit, but transfer $X from his group to an out group, what value of X must be chosen so that the average person will be indifferent? I.e., how much money do you believe I'm willing to turn down for the cause of white power?
I must say I'm surprised you think that.
Yes, multiplication and division does sometimes yield surprising results. Arithmetic shows 3 choices:
1) Recruit 22M non-Asians into tech (assuming 3M people in tech, 40% Asians in tech and 4.7% Asians in America), and prevent any more Asians from joining. Do you believe this is feasible? Or do you think I made an arithmetic error? If so, feel free to correct it.
2) Kick Asians out.
3) Accept non-proportionate representation.
Do you believe (1) is feasible? It's a simple yes or no question. Assuming it's not feasible, which of (2) and (3) do you favor? Let me guess - more wordplay that ignores the simple arithmetic and uncomfortable question?
No, I don't. First, there is the general notion of collective behavior. I can tell you almost exactly the result of a thousand coin tosses, but I can't tell you the result of one. Second, you see a tradeoff where there isn't any. Thirdly, power is something that is best achieved in a group (e.g. unions). Finally, you assume individuals behave in a rational behavior to maximize their expected utility over a long term, while it's been shown that people don't behave this way even in the short term. Most people would often lose 1$ to gain absolutely nothing other than some internal psychological reward.
I must say, though, that responding to this kind of statements is hard. It's like you're saying, "a photon is either a particle or a wave; it can't be both; please make up your mind". Where do I even begin? Your premises about human behavior -- both as individuals and in groups -- are false, and then you argue about the conclusions. Just to give you a little bit of the basics, people make choices, but those choices are in large part influenced (and by that I don't mean 100% determined) by social influences.
> Can you make it explicit? If an individual can gain $1 in personal benefit, but transfer $X from his group to an out group, what value of X must be chosen so that the average person will be indifferent? I.e., how much money do you believe I'm willing to turn down for the cause of white power?
Sure. You will turn down exactly the amount you think you're expected to gain if the cause of white power wins. I mean, this isn't some theory. Black people in power means that more collective resources are used to advance black concerns. Black concerns (like white concerns) are unique, because, statistically, their experience is different.
> Do you believe (1) is feasible? It's a simple yes or no question. Assuming it's not feasible, which of (2) and (3) do you favor? Let me guess - more wordplay that ignores the simple arithmetic and uncomfortable question?
I'm not ignoring your math, but you're applying kindergarten math to graduate physics. It's like me saying, well, the speed of light is C, and you're going this way and she's going that way so C + C = 2C!
In a social system there are feedback mechanisms. If you're increasing the number of educated blacks, who knows what's going to happen specifically in tech? Maybe the tech sector will grow. Maybe bio-med will grow, and black people will go there. But yes -- to answer your question directly -- if, say, Asians have a disproportionately large portion of power (as a whole; it doesn't matter how its divided among sectors), then a desired result is that they'll have relatively less of it. I really don't see the problem. To me it sounds like you're saying, but if we'll let blacks vote then you're kicking whites out of the decision process.
Also, I don't understand your implied horror at "kicking Asians out" while you're seemingly fine with kicking blacks out, because that's what's really happening. If someone must be kicked out, I'd rather all groups would get a share of the kicks.
Of course there is a tradeoff. If you ever have the opportunity to make more money/enjoy your job more/invest well but in a way that benefits the outgroup over the ingroup, you are suddenly faced with this tradeoff.
E.g. I want to hire someone but the best guy isn't white.
The only way there isn't a tradeoff is if the best investment always has a white CEO, the best candidate is always the white male, etc. Is this really your belief?
It's like you're saying, "a photon is either a particle or a wave; it can't be both; please make up your mind". Where do I even begin?
Very easy: https://xkcd.com/895/
Feel free to provide equations, or even just clear and unambiguous statements.
...power is something that is best achieved in a group (e.g. unions)...You will turn down exactly the amount you think you're expected to gain if the cause of white power wins.
You are ignoring the collective action problem here. I can hire the best guy for the job and make money now. Then, in the future, if if white power ever wins, I can reap the rewards of that also.
For much the same reason, I don't vote, and I'd skip paying taxes if it wasn't for the threats of violence.
I'm not ignoring your math, but you're applying kindergarten math to graduate physics.
Since you seem to think the laws of arithmetic don't apply to counting humans, go ahead and do the grad physics - I promise I can follow along.
To me it sounds like you're saying...you're seemingly fine with kicking blacks out...
That's because you ignored what I said in search of an easy straw man.
I repeat my prediction: "more wordplay that ignores the simple arithmetic and uncomfortable question." I add a new prediction: "no equations or unambiguous statements shall be forthcoming."
No.
> Very easy: https://xkcd.com/895/
So if a system is too complex for us to discover its equations (so far) that means that we don't know anything about it? Let me tell you that in grad school I studied applied math, and we had those very, very simple non-linear ODEs, yet the best we could do with them was simulate them numerically and make general statements about their behavior from observation. Every person is probably governed many non-linear equations, much more complicated than the simple ones people usually study, and they all interact in a complex system. So, for now, I guess we have to settle to many years of observational research. That doesn't mean we haven't learned anything.
> Feel free to provide equations, or even just clear and unambiguous statements.
My statements are very clear (I think; I'm not a native English speaker). I still don't understand how you manage to misinterpret them or think they're vague. My guess is that you're not trying to understand what it is that I'm saying.
> You are ignoring the collective action problem here.
No, I'm not. You are ignoring both the state and the dynamics of the system. Groups that have little power have little means of increasing it (basically, it takes money to make money) other than through collective action. Some forms of power can't be obtained alone. If you want to be elected to office, you have to have a base and form alliances. The only reason I used your terminology of money (You will turn down exactly the amount you think you're expected to gain) is because you keep reducing a complex system to simple scenarios, and when I say that the system is complex you say I'm evading your question (which is about an irrelevant model), so this time I tried to answer using your model, and now you've expanded it -- ambiguously, because you didn't explain how white power can win without your cooperation if every player behaves like you do. Your model invariably leads to local-minimum Nash equilibria, yet history has shown over and over how Nash equilibria are overcome; ergo -- your model is very, very wrong.
But I'll tell you what. If you're willing to explain what your entire model for society is, I'll gladly point out the mistakes.
> For much the same reason, I don't vote
You don't vote or participate in demonstrations or other collective actions because you feel that your position is not in any imminent danger. Alternatively, you might feel that you won't make a difference anyway. Yet another possibility is that your empathy is low, so you gain little emotional reward by helping people in need. Or, your empathy is high, but not applied to faceless strangers. We are all different.
> Since you seem to think the laws of arithmetic don't apply to counting humans
It's not the laws of arithmetic, it's their applicability to reality. C+C=2C, but that doesn't mean that that's the speed you'd observe.
> I promise I can follow along.
Perhaps, if you were really interested in understanding how society works, but even though I'm sure I'd enjoy it -- and so will you -- it would take too much time. My professional training is in history (and math) but I am not expert enough to reduce the important parts to something manageable in HN comments.
> I repeat my prediction: "more wordplay that ignores the simple arithmetic and uncomfortable question." I add a new prediction: "no equations or unambiguous statements shall be forthcoming.
At first I thought I'd write simply "kick those Asians out", but then I thought I'd better make a prediction of my own: you'll go on insisting on not learning how social systems work and how people behave, but keep on believing that smart people who spend their lives studying such systems get it wrong. The capability of people to convince themselves that what they don't know is not worth knowing -- or that people who know it are wrong -- is not only very powerful, but a well-known psychological coping mechanism. Otherwise, we'd all be in constant dread of what we don't know.
I'd say if you can't express your beliefs as equations, code, or similar unambiguous form, then you don't understand your own beliefs. (Or alternately, you don't want others to have the ability to unambiguously debunk them.)
...when I say that the system is complex you say I'm evading your question...It's not the laws of arithmetic, it's their applicability to reality.
This is a perfect example of evading the question. You make some weird analogy to special relativity, but refuse to actually state why simple arithmetic doesn't apply to counting humans.
...ambiguously, because you didn't explain how white power can win without your cooperation if every player behaves like you do.
It can't. But since changing my behavior won't change theirs, I still have no incentive to cooperate.
This is why collective action problems usually require enforcement mechanisms (men with guns threatening me if I refuse to pay taxes, Jim Crow laws forcing me to serve white power, that type of thing). Except yours, apparently.
Then most human knowledge is not understood, yet a lot of progress has been made without equations. Sometimes, the model is too approximate and statistical, that putting it in an equation is useless; that's just not an appropriate representation. That doesn't mean that general qualitative observations are wrong. Even behavior of non-linear ODEs is sometimes described in prose because we can only describe it in very broad strokes.
I mentioned elsewhere that 19th-century-style hyper-optimism regarding technology in some groups (esp. in SV), which is based not on some deep philosophy but on utility. Namely, they believe that if it works and has utility that means we know it. If that's the case, the same logic should apply to social events. We have made progress; we made revolutions, therefore we know enough about society to change it (and please don't ask me to define progress. For whatever definition you choose, a social movement has made it happen someplace on Earth).
> but refuse to actually state why simple arithmetic doesn't apply to counting humans.
I did not evade the question. I specifically said there are feedback loops. Linear extrapolations are a terrible approximations of ODEs, and this is much more complicated than that. Maybe the economy will grow, maybe new fields will be opened up. We can hardly predict the weather for more than a few days; it stands to reason that trying to predict a much more complex system decades into the future is futile.
> This is why collective action problems usually require enforcement mechanisms
Enforcement mechanism arise naturally through a process that starts with self-reinforcement. Modern democracy was started in the American and French revolutions. Those are just two examples. In fact, most big social changes started this way. This is again an opinion which stands in complete opposition to historical facts.
You are not motivated to action because your position is not threatened enough. If it were, you would be and others too, and then you'd see how changes are made. This happens all the time. In about any given moment, there is at least one such major change happening somewhere in the world, and many more gradual ones. It is the rule rather than the exception.