Mens Rights Thread

iptba

<deleted>

KomradeBishop

The 'Theory of the Second Best' - usually applied to economics, but applies more generally to political policy as well (to 'systems' in general) - states that trying to achieve the 'First Best' solution (in this case, perfect meritocracy - which is completely impossible), when it can't be implemented perfectly, is often in-practice worse than implementing a theoretically-worse but in-practice better 'Second Best' solution.

Assume a system with multiple variables. Take the most desirable state the whole system could assume and the associated values that all of the variables must assume to produce this state: call this condition, the first-best state of the system and call the associated values of the variables, the first-best values.

Now assume that one variable will not (or cannot) assume the value necessary for the first-best state of the whole system: call this the constrained variable. Holding the constrained variable constant, consider the most desirable state the whole system could then assume and the associated values that all the nonconstrained variables must assume to produce this state: call this the second-best state of the system.

There are systems in which achieving the second-best state will require that at least one variable other than the constrained variable must assume a value other than the first-best value: call these value(s) the second-best value(s).

And here is the way that Lipsey and Lancaster formulated the idea:
If there is introduced into a general equilibrium system a constraint which prevents the attainment of one of the Paretian [KB: 'optimal'] conditions, the other Paretian conditions, though still attainable, are in general, not desirable.

http://legaltheorylexicon.blogspot.ie/2003/11/legal-theory-lexicon-011-second.html

That's a bit complex - but what it means when applied here, is that trying to achieve a 'perfect' but impractical/impossible solution here, can have worse outcomes than deliberately aiming for a not-perfect yet practical/possible solution.


This doesn't mean completely abandoning the idea of promoting a meritocratic system and holding it to those standards - it means being practical and acknowledging that it is an impossible goal, and means supplementing that system with other measures, which may be counterproductive to 'true' meritocracy, yet still result in an overall better outcome.

You can't have the 'first best' perfect meritocratic system, and the 'second best' system in terms of outcomes, can contain conditions that even work against 'true' meritocracy, while still providing an overall better outcome.

I understand that fine.

I however asked you quite a straightforward direct question (twice now). I'd appreciate an answer to that if you don't mind.

KomradeBishop

It is an answer to that. What I said explicitly states that meritocracy is still a standard that aught to be upheld, but with supplementary measures which recognize its limits, and which acknowledge that better outcomes can be had, through supplementing a meritocratic system, with measures which even work against 'true' meritocracy.

You can support upholding 'equality of opportunity' as a standard, while supplementing/peppering that system with measures aimed at selective 'equality of outcome' goals - in a case by case basis - to try and make up for the imperfections in the supposedly 'meritocratic' system.


We still value/uphold free speech, even though we have legal measures which curtail free speech in select cases, such that we don't have 'absolute'/'perfect' free speech - similar deal here.

iptba

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The 'Theory of the Second Best' - usually applied to economics, but applies more generally to political policy as well (to 'systems' in general) - states that trying to achieve the 'First Best' solution (in this case, perfect meritocracy - which is completely impossible), when it can't be implemented perfectly, is often in-practice worse than implementing a theoretically-worse but in-practice better 'Second Best' solution.

Assume a system with multiple variables. Take the most desirable state the whole system could assume and the associated values that all of the variables must assume to produce this state: call this condition, the first-best state of the system and call the associated values of the variables, the first-best values.

Now assume that one variable will not (or cannot) assume the value necessary for the first-best state of the whole system:

Why does this apply in this situation?

KomradeBishop wrote: »

call this the constrained variable. Holding the constrained variable constant, consider the most desirable state the whole system could then assume and the associated values that all the nonconstrained variables must assume to produce this state: call this the second-best state of the system.

There are systems in which achieving the second-best state will require that at least one variable other than the constrained variable must assume a value other than the first-best value: call these value(s) the second-best value(s).

Just because there are systems where this might be true doesn't mean it is true in this case, as far as I can see.

KomradeBishop

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It is an answer to that. What I said explicitly states that meritocracy is still a standard that aught to be upheld, but with supplementary measures which recognize its limits, and which acknowledge that better outcomes can be had, through supplementing a meritocratic system, with measures which even work against 'true' meritocracy.

You can support upholding 'equality of opportunity' as a standard, while supplementing/peppering that system with measures aimed at selective 'equality of outcome' goals - in a case by case basis - to try and make up for the imperfections in the supposedly 'meritocratic' system.


We still value/uphold free speech, even though we have legal measures which curtail free speech in select cases, such that we don't have 'absolute'/'perfect' free speech - similar deal here.

It is not an answer to the question. It is at best a "buttering up" or a "preparatory statement" which you can then refer to when defending the answer that you are trying to not give me.

I'll ask explicitly a third time.

Does the probability that we might never be able to attain perfect equality of opportunity mean that we should give up on attempting that, and instead move to scrap it entirely in favour of equality of outcome?

KomradeBishop

iptba wrote: »

Why does this apply in this situation?
Just because there are systems where this might be true doesn't mean it is true in this case, as far as I can see.

An attempt at a perfect system which nonetheless results in some level of inequality here - i.e. which isn't a perfect meritocracy - is worse than any system which accepts an imperfect meritocracy, yet has measures implemented to ameliorate those imperfections, providing a better overall outcome.

That's the case we have here - people are advocating a system based solely on meritocracy, even though a perfect meritocracy is an impossible goal and discrimination will still be a part of it no matter what happens (and a lot of it will be undetectable), so that's automatically inferior to a system which has additional measures which ameliorate that unavoidable discrimination, even if those measures don't fit with an impossible 'ideal' meritocracy.

KomradeBishop

Deleted User wrote: »

It is not an answer to the question. It is at best a "buttering up" or a "preparatory statement" which you can then refer to when defending the answer that you are trying to not give me.

I'll ask explicitly a third time.

Does the probability that we might never be able to attain perfect equality of opportunity mean that we should give up on attempting that, and instead move to scrap it entirely in favour of equality of outcome?

It's not a 'probability', it's a complete certainty that perfect equality of opportunity is impossible - that amounts to every employer in the economy, being completely unhindered by both conscious/unconscious bias - in all practical consideration, that's impossible.

No - we should not scrap entirely the idea of meritocracy - we should scrap entirely the idea of perfect meritocracy, because that would hinder us from developing the best system that can practically be achieved in reality.

It's not a matter of one-or-the-other absolutes - 'equality of opportunity' vs 'equality of outcome' - when considering policy, those two are not mutually exclusive, you can develop a system of policy based on one principle (equality of opportunity), and supplement that system in select areas where such a principle is flawed/imperfect, with another principle (equality of outcome), if that provides better results in that specific area.

KomradeBishop

KomradeBishop wrote: »

An attempt at a perfect system which nonetheless results in some level of inequality here - i.e. which isn't a perfect meritocracy - is worse than any system which accepts an imperfect meritocracy, yet has measures implemented to ameliorate those imperfections, providing a better overall outcome.

You'll have to do an awful lot of work to validate that this is the case we have here.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

That's the case we have here - people are advocating a system based solely on meritocracy, even though a perfect meritocracy is an impossible goal and discrimination will still be a part of it no matter what happens (and a lot of it will be undetectable), so that's automatically inferior to a system which has additional measures which ameliorate that unavoidable discrimination, even if those measures don't fit with 'ideal' meritocracy.

As we used to be told in 2nd class Maths, please show your workings.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's not a 'probability', it's a complete certainty that perfect equality of opportunity is impossible - that amounts to every employer in the economy, being completely unhindered by both conscious/unconscious bias - in all practical consideration, that's impossible.

I'm not sure why you placed inverted commas around 'probability' there? The probability is clearly extremely small. It's still the probability, without air quotes.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

No - we should not scrap entirely the idea of meritocracy - we should scrap entirely the idea of perfect meritocracy, because that would hinder us from developing the best system that can practically be achieved in reality.

Please show your workings. In order to apply your Theory of the Second Best here, you will need to show that the cost of attempting to achieve a society which enshrines equality of opportunity is larger than the societal cost which you are willing to bear (some level of discrimination of opportunity). Best of luck with this. You might want to try and get some funding, and use it within your PHD.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's not a matter of one-or-the-other absolutes - 'equality of opportunity' vs 'equality of outcome' - when considering policy, those two are not mutually exclusive, you can develop a system of policy based on one principle (equality of opportunity), and supplement that system in select areas where such a principle is flawed/imperfect, with another principle (equality of outcome), if that provides better results in that specific area.

Please explain how on earth they are not mutually exclusive. They only, and I mean the only way for them to NOT be mutually exclusive, is when the actor's actions are wholly and absolutely irrelevant from the outcome. I.e ability, effort and application are totally and absolutely independent from the outcome. Which I hope you agree is a terribly small subset of possibilities.

KomradeBishop

Deleted User wrote: »

You'll have to do an awful lot of work to validate that this is the case we have here.

As we used to be told in 2nd class Maths, please show your workings.

No not really - in fact, you have to convince me that it's not worth trying, given that we already know the current system is imperfect and needs improvement.

Deleted User wrote: »

Please show your workings. In order to apply your Theory of the Second Best here, you will need to show that the cost of attempting to achieve a society which enshrines equality of opportunity is larger than the societal cost which you are willing to bear (some level of discrimination of opportunity). Best of luck with this. You might want to try and get some funding, and use it within your PHD.

The society we are in is the one with some level of discrimination of opportunity - it will always be like that, as it is impossible (as in: completely, for all practical intents and purposes, impossible) to have a perfect meritocracy.

You achieve a better system, by recognizing the inevitable imperfections, recognizing when it is impossible to make conditions perfect, and by adding measures to counteract those imperfections.

You have quite a huge burden of proof to provide, for convincing everyone that a perfect meritocracy is possible - e.g. that it's possible to completely rid every single employer of both conscious/unconscious biases that can produce discrimination...

Deleted User wrote: »

Please explain how on earth they are not mutually exclusive. They only, and I mean the only way for them to NOT be mutually exclusive, is when the actor's actions are wholly and absolutely irrelevant from the outcome. I.e ability, effort and application are totally and absolutely independent from the outcome. Which I hope you agree is a terribly small subset of possibilities.

It's not mutually exclusive, in the same way that free speech and protecting people from defamation are not mutually exclusive...

What you're saying, amounts to claiming that a person who wants to protect people from defamation, is against free speech - which is not true unless you're talking in the most pedantically black-and-white polarized fashion possible.

Shifting the burden of proof, even though you made the assertion that I have questioned? That's not quite cricket.

The society we have does not have discrimination of opportunity. Or if indeed it does, it is both not-the-norm and also illegal and that discrimination should be brought to the attention of the law. You are proposing that we might instead of refusing that discrimination, advise that it should indeed happen and be the norm, and perhaps even enshrine it in law?

Regards that final sentence, no thats not what I'm saying in the slightest. Please read what I have written and try again. The only way that equality of opportunity and equality of outcome can be mutually exclusive is in the event that the agent has zero effect on the outcome. I can write it in Math form if you'd prefer. Or you could give a single example of something which breaks this logic.

KomradeBishop

I think the burden of proof, of showing that a perfect meritocracy is impossible, is piss easy - and I've already done that, because the idea that you can't practically rid every single employer of both conscious/unconscious bias, is so rock-solid that it can be considered the default position.

I think you need to re-read what I said about mutual exclusivity originally, as I exactly described a system where both policies can co-exist.

KomradeBishop

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I think the burden of proof, of showing that a perfect meritocracy is impossible, is piss easy - and I've already done that, because the idea that you can't practically rid every single employer of both conscious/unconscious bias, is so rock-solid that it can be considered the default position.

I think you need to re-read what I said about mutual exclusivity originally, as I exactly described a system where both policies can co-exist.

I've not asked you to prove that a meritocracy is impossible.
I've asked you this;

Deleted User wrote:

Please show your workings. In order to apply your Theory of the Second Best here, you will need to show that the cost of attempting to achieve a society which enshrines equality of opportunity is larger than the societal cost which you are willing to bear (some level of discrimination of opportunity). Best of luck with this. You might want to try and get some funding, and use it within your PHD.

I think you only need to give a single example of a situation where both equality of opportunity and equality of outcome can occur. Just one example will show that they're not mutually exclusive.

KomradeBishop

Deleted User wrote: »

Shifting the burden of proof, even though you made the assertion that I have questioned? That's not quite cricket.

The society we have does not have discrimination of opportunity. Or if indeed it does, it is both not-the-norm and also illegal and that discrimination should be brought to the attention of the law. You are proposing that we might instead of refusing that discrimination, advise that it should indeed happen and be the norm, and perhaps even enshrine it in law?

Regards that final sentence, no thats not what I'm saying in the slightest. Please read what I have written and try again. The only way that equality of opportunity and equality of outcome can be mutually exclusive is in the event that the agent has zero effect on the outcome. I can write it in Math form if you'd prefer. Or you could give a single example of something which breaks this logic.

Oh look, your edit just fúcking brushes past everything I've said over the last two pages, as you're both denying discrimination of opportunity happens, yet at the same time trying to brush-away that the current system fails to enable a perfect meritocracy.

Fúck this, debate with someone else. If another poster wants to try and take your arguments, and put them in their own words, I'll debate with them instead - I don't consider you as capable of constructive argument, and I'm not going to put more time into replying to you.

KomradeBishop

Deleted User wrote: »

I've not asked you to prove that a meritocracy is impossible.
I've asked you this;


I think you only need to give a single example of a situation where both equality of opportunity and equality of outcome can occur. Just one example will show that they're not mutually exclusive.

Yea and you just ignored what I replied again, as you're posting as if a system with perfect equality of opportunity is possible - when I explained we're already in a system of imperfect equality of opportunity.

Utter waste of time trying to reply to you, as you literally just ignore what has been said in response to you, so you can repeat the same thing again.

I don't understand why you're getting so wound up about?

Just point out what I've said that is wrong. And answer the questions that are asked of / defend your assertions.

You know, debate.

Might be worth recalling what started this conversation

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=99400296&postcount=2446

Using the same logic that you have presented, I could say "It's extremely unlikely we'll ever achieve a society where everyone always respects everyone else's right to life (there will always be murders etc), therefore we should stop trying to have that right to life".

Of course, if I said that, I'd have to defend it when asked.

Pawwed Rig

Mod note

easy now

Icemancometh

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I think the burden of proof, of showing that a perfect meritocracy is impossible, is piss easy - and I've already done that, because the idea that you can't practically rid every single employer of both conscious/unconscious bias, is so rock-solid that it can be considered the default position.

I think you need to re-read what I said about mutual exclusivity originally, as I exactly described a system where both policies can co-exist.

Isn't your argument a little bit like the God of the Gaps? As in, a perfect meritocracy is impossible, therefore anything is better. I don't have a problem with affirmative action, and measures to correct wide imbalances seem like a good idea, but a rigidly enforced 50/50 split seems crude, and unlikely to achieve a good outcome.

KomradeBishop

Icemancometh wrote: »

Isn't your argument a little bit like the God of the Gaps? As in, a perfect meritocracy is impossible, therefore anything is better. I don't have a problem with affirmative action, and measures to correct wide imbalances seem like a good idea, but a rigidly enforced 50/50 split seems crude, and unlikely to achieve a good outcome.

I didn't say 'anything is better' than attempting meritocracy though, and I didn't advocate a wide-ranging 50/50 split - I stated that a meritocracy should still be strived for as a base principle, but where it fails, it should be supplemented on a case-by-case basis with other policies which attempt to make up for the fact that a perfect meritocracy is impossible.

Many posters don't seem to get this though, and opt to interpret what I'm saying in purely black-and-white/all-or-nothing terms - why?

tritium

I'm unclear why equality of outcome would ever be desirable over equality of opportunity. If I'm guaranteed an equal outcome what incentive do I actually have to contribute? Even if the equality if opportunity is imperfect, even a partial imbalance impkies some gain for those who apply effort and ambition.

Even in a segmented system there's no incentive for other groups to overtake the lead group or achieve their potential.

KomradeBishop

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I didn't say 'anything is better' than attempting meritocracy though, and I didn't advocate a wide-ranging 50/50 split - I stated that a meritocracy should still be strived for as a base principle, but where it fails, it should be supplemented on a case-by-case basis with other policies which attempt to make up for the fact that a perfect meritocracy is impossible.

Many posters don't seem to get this though, and opt to interpret what I'm saying in purely black-and-white/all-or-nothing terms - why?

Because of the mutual exclusivity of Equality of Opportunity and Equality of Outcome other than in the Special Case where the agent's activities are utterly and wholly fixed independent from the outcome.

Imagine a Lottery where everyone was permitted to choose one entry (equality of opportunity), when the draw is taken, instead of drawing one set, they continually draw until every possibility is exhausted. Every entry receives an equal payout (equality of outcome). That's the Special Case.

That's it.

In order to guarantee equality of outcome in any situation (or even 'aspire to'!), we must suspend equality of opportunity.

We have spent hundreds of years fighting each other for the right to a society that affords us equality of opportunity, we have not gotten there fully yet. But we have enacted laws and legislation that give us protection against most if not all attempts to reduce that equality. If you can make an argument that shows that we have been wrong and aiming for the wrong thing and that we ought to begin repealing those laws, I'd love to hear it.

KomradeBishop

tritium wrote: »

I'm unclear why equality of outcome would ever be desirable over equality of opportunity. If I'm guaranteed an equal outcome what incentive do I actually have to contribute? Even if the equality if opportunity is imperfect, even a partial imbalance impkies some gain for those who apply effort and ambition.

Even in a segmented system there's no incentive for other groups to overtake the lead group or achieve their potential.

You're doing the black-and-white representation again.

You can have a system based on equality of opportunity, supplemented with policies which selectively implement equality of outcome, where inequality of opportunity still persists.


I am not making a 'one or the other' argument, so any posters replying to me as if I am, are not replying to me, but to a made-up argument put in my place.

KomradeBishop

Also, just like Free Speech is not mutually exclusive with laws against Defamation in our legal system, in our overall political/economic/legal system, equality of opportunity as a base principle, is not mutually exclusive with supplementary equality of outcome policies, in select cases where inequality of opportunity persists.

People trying to shoe-horn the idea of mutual exclusivity here, are trying to restrict the debate to black and white terms - and in the process, are trying to straw-man me by painting me as holding a black-white position.

I'd like people to debate with what I actually say, not with a made-up straw-man which I didn't argue - as that is not debating, that is talking to yourself (your own made up straw man), not replying to me...


That gets old, extremely quickly - as the only reason I have left to reply then, is to explain how I did not say what people are straw-manning me as saying.

KomradeBishop

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You're doing the black-and-white representation again.

You can have a system based on equality of opportunity, supplemented with policies which selectively implement equality of outcome, where inequality of opportunity still persists.


I am not making a 'one or the other' argument, so any posters replying to me as if I am, are not replying to me, but to a made-up argument put in my place.

As soon as you demonstrate a single scenario where it is viable to have both at the same time, the argument that suggesting we make policy changes for equality of outcome cannot come without suspending equality of opportunity - the "one or the other" - dissolves.

Perhaps you might try doing that? Because until you do, it is quite simply a "one or the other" argument you're putting forward.

KomradeBishop

I'm not going to debate with you Jeremiah Short Teenager - and I don't have to convince you of anything - I've already explained earlier, that I don't give you benefit of the doubt, in arguing with honest intent.

If your arguments have any merit, than anyone else who wants to take up your arguments, and own them themselves, putting them in their own words - I'll debate with them instead.

No problem. No reply needed tbh. You set yourself an extraordinarily difficult task, I have no issue with you not attempting to follow through. Like I said, you'd probably require some funding towards the PHD that you would certainly earn by attempting to prove what you've asserted.

I don't think that I personally have anything whatsoever to do with the arguments that I am putting forward (they are wholly independent of me, I am simply writing them), which you are not answering so I am fairly mystified at the need to personalise the debate.

Those arguments remain there in black and white for any others to see and develop / defeat as they wish.

Icemancometh

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I didn't say 'anything is better' than attempting meritocracy though, and I didn't advocate a wide-ranging 50/50 split - I stated that a meritocracy should still be strived for as a base principle, but where it fails, it should be supplemented on a case-by-case basis with other policies which attempt to make up for the fact that a perfect meritocracy is impossible.

Many posters don't seem to get this though, and opt to interpret what I'm saying in purely black-and-white/all-or-nothing terms - why?

Oh well, in that case I misunderstood you and I agree.

tritium

There's also of course the complication of how choice affect outcome and the equivalent utility of different choices to different people. The gender pay gap is a good example- we know women with children earn less on average than men or women without and also than men with children, but there's no attempt to quantify the value of the opportunity they have to spend time with their children that is often denied to fathers. In this case its apparent that choice lead to the different outcomes and in fact the inequality of opportunity has to extend to fathers not having certain opportunity. Yet the oft promoted 'equal outcome solution' does nothing to address this.

KomradeBishop

Nobody said that people who choose to put minding their children ahead of their careers, should have an equal outcome with people who prioritize their careers.

The main point made, was that equality of opportunity is not automatically an invalid goal - it needs to be argued on a case by case basis.

iptba

tritium wrote:

There's also of course the complication of how choice affect outcome and the equivalent utility of different choices to different people. The gender pay gap is a good example- we know women with children earn less on average than men or women without and also than men with children, but there's no attempt to quantify the value of the opportunity they have to spend time with their children that is often denied to fathers. In this case its apparent that choice lead to the different outcomes and in fact the inequality of opportunity has to extend to fathers not having certain opportunity. Yet the oft promoted 'equal outcome solution' does nothing to address this.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Nobody said that people who choose to put minding their children ahead of their careers, should have an equal outcome with people who prioritize their careers.

Women getting 50% of the professorships could have this effect to an extent.

For example, the women who achieve these positions could work less on average (including at weekends) than men.

Academia involves long hours of work:
Teaching incl. preparation work, dealing with other questions from students and correcting;
Supervising students' research;
Doing own research;
Writing up own research and dealing with reviewers' comments;
Likely doing some peer-review;
Applying for grants;
Keeping up with developments in specific interests as well as more generally;
Meetings within colleges;
Other work get roped into/volunteer for e.g. to do a conference, editing a journal, etc.
Maybe some networking.
etc

Many academics would work 60+ hours a week.

A 50/50 split could lower what women need to do to get a position while increase what men need to do (as they're fighting over fewer positions)

Letree

iptba wrote: »

Women getting 50% of the professorships could have this effect to an extent.

For example, the women who achieve these positions could work less on average (including at weekends) than men.

Academia involves long hours of work:
Teaching incl. preparation work, dealing with other questions from students and correcting;
Supervising students' research;
Doing own research;
Writing up own research and dealing with reviewers' comments;
Likely doing some peer-review;
Applying for grants;
Keeping up with developments in specific interests as well as more generally;
Meetings within colleges;
Other work get roped into/volunteer for e.g. to do a conference, editing a journal, etc.
Maybe some networking.
etc

Many academics would work 60+ hours a week.

A 50/50 split could lower what women need to do to get a position while increase what men need to do (as they're fighting over fewer positions)

The 60+ hrs a week man will soon drop down to under 40 hrs a week once he is passed over for promotion to a women working about 30 hrs per week.

KomradeBishop

iptba wrote: »

Women getting 50% of the professorships could have this effect to an extent.

For example, the women who achieve these positions could work less on average (including at weekends) than men.

Academia involves long hours of work:
Teaching incl. preparation work, dealing with other questions from students and correcting;
Supervising students' research;
Doing own research;
Writing up own research and dealing with reviewers' comments;
Likely doing some peer-review;
Applying for grants;
Keeping up with developments in specific interests as well as more generally;
Meetings within colleges;
Other work get roped into/volunteer for e.g. to do a conference, editing a journal, etc.
Maybe some networking.
etc

Many academics would work 60+ hours a week.

A 50/50 split could lower what women need to do to get a position while increase what men need to do (as they're fighting over fewer positions)

You're talking partly about hypotheticals here, which are based on assumptions, not on any hard data.

If there's a failure in providing a true meritocracy, to the point that equality of outcome policies are deemed to be worth using to try and make up for this failure, then that inherently means that there will be a discriminatory outcome (because there would have been anyway, from the imperfect meritocracy - except instead discrimination would be added to try and counteract this), which will persist until the types of inequalities that prevent a true meritocracy, are resolved.

What types of discrimination that will involve, and (beyond impacting on meritocracy) the severity of their negative effects (if anything more than negligible), vs the severity of the negative effects of discrimination that would otherwise happen from an imperfect meritocracy, are something that has to be examined on a case-by-case basis, and which can't really be speculated about that well, unless hard data is gathered after the fact (which is difficult to do, as a lot of this is impossible to quantify).

So, these policies are just going to have to be experimented with - where it's deemed appropriate - and data gathered (if practically possible) to judge the impact.

iptba

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Nobody said that people who choose to put minding their children ahead of their careers, should have an equal outcome with people who prioritize their careers.

If more women than men do this, then either one sees this sort of thing happening or there are more senior positions per woman who prioritises their career over the numbers of senior positions available per man who prioritises their career: in other words discrimination against men.

KomradeBishop

You're repeating what I just replied to?

iptba

I'm teasing out the point further.

I'm pointing out that if one assumes that a higher percentage of men than women prioritise their careers, which I don't think is a big assumption (it would certainly hold true in many populations), if there is a 50-50 split of senior positions one will tend to have the situation that the amount of positions available per woman who prioritises their career will be higher than than the number of senior positions available per man who prioritises their career, a form of discrimination.

iptba

Letree wrote: »

The 60+ hrs a week man will soon drop down to under 40 hrs a week once he is passed over for promotion to a women working about 30 hrs per week.

Just to make this explicit:
If that is true, the policy would lead to lower productivity of the workers (in this case academics).

KomradeBishop

iptba wrote: »

I'm teasing out the point further.

I'm pointing out that if one assumes that a higher percentage of men than women prioritise their careers, which I don't think is a big assumption (it would certainly hold true in many populations), if there is a 50-50 split of senior positions one will tend to have the situation that the amount of positions available per woman who prioritises their career will be higher than than the number of senior positions available per man who prioritises their career, a form of discrimination.

You're not teasing out the point further, you're ignoring that I said:

Nobody said that people who choose to put minding their children ahead of their careers, should have an equal outcome with people who prioritize their careers.

tritium

iptba wrote: »

I'm teasing out the point further.

I'm pointing out that if one assumes that a higher percentage of men than women prioritise their careers, which I don't think is a big assumption (it would certainly hold true in many populations), if there is a 50-50 split of senior positions one will tend to have the situation that the amount of positions available per woman who prioritises their career will be higher than than the number of senior positions available per man who prioritises their career, a form of discrimination.

That goes to the fundamental problem with equality of outcome-i.e. what does it actually look look and where should it stop. Can I justifiably give someone the same outcome without full consideration of any other benefits that they may have held that counterbalance the inequality in that outcome?

The pay gap I mentioned is a good example . Let's say we selectively discriminate so that more of one group now gets ahead to balance things. However what if that group has actually forsaken getting ahead for some other benefit. True equality of outcome would suggest that the first group should also receive some additional compensation for not receiving that alternative.

The most obvious approach is not to balance the final outcome but rather to balance the earlier choices so that the unequal outcome that arises from them doesn't manifest in the first place - initiative such as mandatory paternity leave and affordable childcare, and an assumption of 50:50 parenting rights are good examples of this yet maddeningly rare in the list of solutions proposed by various advocates.

Maguined

KomradeBishop wrote: »

To be honest, I used to reflexively reject the concept of equality of outcome - but when you consider that we don't, and won't ever, live in a real meritocracy, where equality of opportunity is unhindered, then equality of outcome can be considered a valid goal.

It depends on the strength of the overall case on how bad/proven the damages from inequality are mind - and it's a principle I'd apply on a case by case basis, rather than universally apply.

Is it not an assumption that equality of outcome is a positive thing therefore it should be considered a valid goal? Would introducing policies to ensure equality of outcome on a construction site inherently be a positive thing?

Surely such policies are only positive in situations where discrimination is stopping equality of opportunity taking place but inherently the policy then becomes negative in situations were no such discrimination is stopping equality of opportunity so the policy is interfering where it is not needed?

KomradeBishop

The construction site example paints me as supporting equality of outcome, in a situation where I never advocated it - most posters in the thread have done this with me in one variation or another, so far - and many other posts who haven't done this with me, have supported posts which straw-man me in such ways.

If I say "I used to reflexively reject the concept of equality of outcome", then I can't be assuming it is a positive thing.


Your second paragraph pretty much sums my position - and I'd add, that I believe true/perfect meritocracy is practically impossible, and that this is very easy to establish (e.g. employers are capable of discriminating undetectably, and would rarely be stupid enough to be open about it) - such that considering implementation of equality of outcome policies, is never invalid 'by default' in preference to 'perfect meritocracy', as the latter doesn't exist.

So this means weighing things up on a case-by-case basis - with a preference for equality of opportunity, but willing to use equality of outcome to make up for the shortfalls of the former, when deemed appropriate.

KomradeBishop

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The construction site example paints me as supporting equality of outcome, in a situation where I never advocated it - most posters in the thread have done this with me in one variation or another, so far - and many other posts who haven't done this with me, have supported posts which straw-man me in such ways.

If I say "I used to reflexively reject the concept of equality of outcome", then I can't be assuming it is a positive thing.


Your second paragraph pretty much sums my position - and I'd add, that I believe true/perfect meritocracy is practically impossible, and that this is very easy to establish (e.g. employers are capable of discriminating undetectably, and would rarely be stupid enough to be open about it) - such that considering implementation of equality of outcome policies, is never invalid 'by default' in preference to 'perfect meritocracy', as the latter doesn't exist.

So this means weighing things up on a case-by-case basis - with a preference for equality of opportunity, but willing to use equality of outcome to make up for the shortfalls of the former, when deemed appropriate.

So give us an example of any case where we might suspend the legally recognised equality of opportunity that we have been aspiring to for centuries in order to exemplify your preference for the equality of outcome that you seek.

If you refuse to discuss the tangibles, and refuse to discuss the abstract, then you will find it easy to accuse others of straw-manning your position, as you have not offered them any development on it.

Maguined

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The construction site example paints me as supporting equality of outcome, in a situation where I never advocated it - most posters in the thread have done this with me in one variation or another, so far - and many other posts who haven't done this with me, have supported posts which straw-man me in such ways.

If I say "I used to reflexively reject the concept of equality of outcome", then I can't be assuming it is a positive thing.


Your second paragraph pretty much sums my position - and I'd add, that I believe true/perfect meritocracy is practically impossible, and that this is very easy to establish (e.g. employers are capable of discriminating undetectably, and would rarely be stupid enough to be open about it) - such that considering implementation of equality of outcome policies, is never invalid 'by default' in preference to 'perfect meritocracy', as the latter doesn't exist.

So this means weighing things up on a case-by-case basis - with a preference for equality of opportunity, but willing to use equality of outcome to make up for the shortfalls of the former, when deemed appropriate.

You have not shown how equality of outcome is ever a good thing though so why strive for something not positive? We can agree a meritocracy is a good thing and it is something we should aspire to. I can agree with you that it is not always the case and flaws in the process can result in dicrimination interferring with meritocracy but you then just assume that enacting a policy for equality of outcome is any way better than the current flawed system.

You would have to show why a flawed equality of outcome approach is superior to the current potential for discrimination in the meritocracy approach. I don't see you making any points to why it would be better just merely stating the current approach is flawed and therefore assuming anything else would be worthy of a an attempt.

Letree

Hardworking and intelligent male staff at Galway University can kiss the idea of a promotion to senior level goodbye for the next 15 years. What will the unintended consequences of that be. Many will reduce the effort they put into their work and others may leave.

KomradeBishop

Maguined wrote: »

You have not shown how equality of outcome is ever a good thing though so why strive for something not positive? We can agree a meritocracy is a good thing and it is something we should aspire to. I can agree with you that it is not always the case and flaws in the process can result in dicrimination interferring with meritocracy but you then just assume that enacting a policy for equality of outcome is any way better than the current flawed system.

You would have to show why a flawed equality of outcome approach is superior to the current potential for discrimination in the meritocracy approach. I don't see you making any points to why it would be better just merely stating the current approach is flawed and therefore assuming anything else would be worthy of a an attempt.

The entire idea that equality of outcome is a bad thing, is premised on it interfering with meritocracy - except I've only stated it should be used to target areas where meritocracy fails.
That removes the premise that equality of outcome, is an inherently 'bad' thing in those circumstances.

I haven't put forward an argument of replacing a meritocratic system either, only of supplementing it with equality of outcome policies (among other policies), to try and make up for meritocracies failures.

It's replacing the discrimination from a failed meritocracy (discriminating against one group, and in the favour of another), with the discrimination from equality of outcome (to try and remove the discriminatory disadvantage one group faces, and remove the discriminatory advantage of another) - which is not an illegitimate goal, in certain circumstances.


What I have stated, is only that equality of outcome is not inherently an illegitimate goal, where it is useful to make up for the failures in meritocracy.

I don't need to be drawn into examples, as I've already shown that many posters are against the very concept of this.

silverharp

KomradeBishop wrote: »

What I have stated, is only that equality of outcome is not inherently an illegitimate goal, where it is useful to make up for the failures in meritocracy.

it breaks down at the individual level I would have thought and is inherently unjust as it means selecting some individuals for discrimination because they have been lumped into some arbitrary group.

Maguined

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The entire idea that equality of outcome is a bad thing, is premised on it interfering with meritocracy - except I've only stated it should be used to target areas where meritocracy fails.
That removes the premise that equality of outcome, is an inherently 'bad' thing in those circumstances.

I haven't put forward an argument of replacing a meritocratic system either, only of supplementing it with equality of outcome policies (among other policies), to try and make up for meritocracies failures.

It's replacing the discrimination from a failed meritocracy (discriminating against one group, and in the favour of another), with the discrimination from equality of outcome (to try and remove the discriminatory disadvantage one group faces, and remove the discriminatory advantage of another) - which is not an illegitimate goal, in certain circumstances.


What I have stated, is only that equality of outcome is not inherently an illegitimate goal, where it is useful to make up for the failures in meritocracy.

I don't need to be drawn into examples, as I've already shown that many posters are against the very concept of this.

But you are not showing how it is making up for the failures of meritocracy. You are only stating it as an assumption.

Under the current system a failure to be based on meritocracy can be brought to court. This is done on an individual level so yes there can be cases when the discrimination is done subtley so there is not enough evidence for it to be proven or else a victim of such discrimination does not feel brave enough to come forward. It is not perfect and discrimination can happen but there is a framework for dealing with it.

Under your supplemental equality of outcome you are applying a more broad and general approach to an entire section/industry. There would still have be to some sort of evidence in place to warrant your case by case measure so you are left with the same flaws in that there might be discrimination taking place but it is subtle so cannot be proven so it either goes under the radar the same as what we currently have or else you are willing to apply equality of outcome policies in a more liberal manner with less evidence required than current employment law which I see as more likely to cause more frequent cases of discrimination than the subtle cases of discrimination that happen under the current process.

I think forcing an equality of outcome in teaching would cause more cases of discrimination against women than current discrimination numbers against men in that industry for example. To me it genuinely feels like cutting off the foot to treat an ingrown toenail.

KomradeBishop

silverharp wrote: »

it breaks down at the individual level I would have thought and is inherently unjust as it means selecting some individuals for discrimination because they have been lumped into some arbitrary group.

It means counteracting some other form of discrimination - that derived from a failed meritocracy - in order to try and achieve a better overall result.

KomradeBishop

Maguined wrote: »

But you are not showing how it is making up for the failures of meritocracy. You are only stating it as an assumption.

Under the current system a failure to be based on meritocracy can be brought to court. This is done on an individual level so yes there can be cases when the discrimination is done subtley so there is not enough evidence for it to be proven or else a victim of such discrimination does not feel brave enough to come forward. It is not perfect and discrimination can happen but there is a framework for dealing with it.

Under your supplemental equality of outcome you are applying a more broad and general approach to an entire section/industry. There would still have be to some sort of evidence in place to warrant your case by case measure so you are left with the same flaws in that there might be discrimination taking place but it is subtle so cannot be proven so it either goes under the radar the same as what we currently have or else you are willing to apply equality of outcome policies in a more liberal manner with less evidence required than current employment law which I see as more likely to cause more frequent cases of discrimination than the subtle cases of discrimination that happen under the current process.

I think forcing an equality of outcome in teaching would cause more cases of discrimination against women than current discrimination numbers against men in that industry for example. To me it genuinely feels like cutting off the foot to treat an ingrown toenail.

Except I didn't apply it broadly - I haven't applied it at all - I've stated solely, that it is not by-default an illegitimate policy tool, for cases where meritocracy fails.

You are making assumptions here. You are assuming, that it would result in greater discrimination in all possible cases, than the discrimination it is put in place to counteract.

silverharp

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It means counteracting some other form of discrimination - that derived from a failed meritocracy - in order to try and achieve a better overall result.

but you dont know which particular individuals have allegedly benefited from "something" or not "something" and likewise you dont know which individuals have allegedly been discriminated against.
Its all so vague that it sounds like a make work scheme for civil servants. Maybe we should all count our privilege points :pac: