Hacker News Reader

Comment by angelzen | Hacker News Reader

Ibram X. Kendi: Any disparity in group outcomes is proof of a deeply flawed and malicious system. The darling of American academia and corporate. You can either have equality of opportunity and accept that the outcomes will be disparate, or have equality of (group) outcome. You can't have both. Your friends have not thought through the consequences of the current dominant ideology.

> 'When I See Racial Disparities, I See Racism.'

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/27/upshot/reader...

View on HN

Arguing against disparity of group outcomes is not arguing for equality of outcome at the individual level.

It is arguing that there are no differences between groups that justifies disparities unless there are biases or oppression.

Even if he is wrong, this still does not become an argument for individual equality of outcome.

Can equality of opportunity at individual level coexist with equality or outcome at group level? This is indeed a reasonable question to ask. Upvoted.

We might imagine that humans are akin to gas molecules and human groups are ideal gases, thus an ideal gas law of sorts holds for humans, PV = nRT. There is brownian motion at individual level, but we expect that, statistically, all ideal gases / human groups to have the exact same macro properties. And perhaps if we hard subscribe to rational choice theory (a popular theory among American economists with deep roots in The Enlightenment) we might imagine that indeed humans are atomized undistinguishable gas molecules, pushed around randomly by the vagaries of fate and character.

Alas, there are other ways for matter to organize. Witness the bewildering diversity of minerals out there. 'The Smithsonian's mineral and gem collection [...] consists of approximately 350,000 mineral specimens and 10,000 gems'. As soon as we allow for some degree of matter / social cohesion, the ideal gas / human group law is blown to the smithereens.

I'll let you ponder whether hard atomized rational choice theory is a reasonable assumption when it comes to human groups. Or whether it is a reasonable goal to aspire to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory

https://www.si.edu/spotlight/geogallery

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory#Critici....

> It is arguing that there are no differences between groups that justifies disparities unless there are biases or oppression.

So would you say that men having shorter lifespans than women is due to bias or oppression against men?

Should we reallocate public health spending from women to men until lifespans are equal?

Or that black domination in sports is due to bias against whites and black people should be limited in sports so white people can have a fair chance? It seems even woke people recognize that this difference is probably not just cultural bias?

I was explaining the views presented, not expressing my views on them, so you're directing your questions at the wrong person.

Ibram X. Kendi is one person. You can find individuals who espouse any view you want. The question is are there any large groups actually pushing for this. Though the parent didn't, I would s/large/mainstream/ because the internet makes it easy to find large groups of people talking about any old topic.

In other words, a subjective opinion is being asked that anyone can disagree with and similar to "cancel culture", we're just going to pretend this does not exist.

> Ibram X. Kendi is one person.

This is essentizlly false. Ibram X. Kendi is a Harvard professor, author, and widely published by the New York Times, the Atlantic, etc.

He is literally a leader of a large group of people pushing for exactly the views he espouses.

So what is the large group he leads? Or are you saying anyone that has listened to what he had to say, e.g. people who've read his columns or taken his classes or colleagues, are part of his "group"?

Your second statement does not follow from the first.

Yes it does. He is an academic leader, and he is widely considered to be a leader in antiracist thought.

You are free to claim that he isn’t, but there is a preponderance of evidence that he is.

“IBRAM X. KENDI is one of America’s foremost historians and leading antiracist scholars.”

But that's my point. Being a leading scholar and leading a large group of people toward some end are entirely different things.

Sure, in some abstract world, but to make that claim about Kendi, you have to ignore what he has written and said, and most of what has been written about him.

“Dr. Kendi strives to be a hardcore antiracist”

“In 2020, The Root 100 listed him as the seventh most influential African American between the ages of 25 and 45 and the most influential college professor.”

We know what his goals are, and we know that he is independently regarded as extremely influential. He is de facto leading people towards his goals.

What isn’t clear is why you’d try to claim otherwise. He certainly wouldn’t.

OP: 'How many divisions does Kendi have?'.

[Side conversation] As to the why question, consider:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/why-we-blame/201709/...

> Willful ignorance occurs when individuals realize at some level of consciousness that their beliefs are probably false, or when they refuse to attend to information that would establish their falsity.

> In contrast to this sort of willful ignorance, self-deception occurs when individuals believe false things with complete conviction.

We are all subject to these kinds of cognitive biases. The best we can hope is to learn some of our own and try to avoid them. Likely we will fail most of the time :(

It’s not always clear what is willful ignorance, and what is a rhetorical device.

This goes in both directions, though, and it's a problem with modern internet-fueled politics and discourse. No one truly speaks for a group in many cases, but nonetheless a group can be seen to have a certain character and set of values. Surely amorphous groups cannot be beyond criticism?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com