The Concept of Privilege

[carpedm9587]

Could this also include things that do not create implicit bias/prejudice but still could create disparity in outcomes?

For example, suppose the ant and the grasshopper (from the Aesop fable) are part of two different sub-cultures, where ant community teaches hard work, saving, etc., and the grasshopper subculture doesn't teach and/or value those things as much. These teachings may be things assimilated without being conscious of it. "That then colors how [the ant and the grasshopper] behave going forward, sometimes even unconsciously." Then, even if there is no prejudice between ants and grasshoppers (conscious or otherwise) there would still tend to be a disparity in outcomes.

Again in this case, the ant advantage (better cultural teachings) is not the thing to be fixed. Nor would this be case of the grasshoppers being oppressed by ants. To help grasshoppers in that case would require trying to get them to change their culture, I guess?

I would not categorize these as "implicit bias." For example, as best I can tell, there is a stronger ethic in Asian families to study/excellence then there tends to be on caucasian/black families. This has been documented several times in several studies. So there is a tendency for Asian students to out-perform caucasian/black students. Again, that doe snot mean all asian students operate this way and all caucasian/black students are lazy morons not worthy of school. It is simply a disparity in emphasis as an overall average.

I would not consider that reality "implicit bias." There is nothing "baked into the culture" (that I know of) that gives Asian students an advantage that caucasian/black students cannot gain with the same effort.

But if someone is tossing out my resume with at a higher rate because I have a black-sounding name, cutting me from consideration for the orchestra because I have breasts, or calling the cops on me because I am black, these are examples of "implicit bias." These are the things the person being disadvantaged has no control over, and we need to raise awareness and educate. Where appropriate, we need to take legal action.

[carpedm9587]

No, I don't think I did. Not sure I have the patience to go trolling through your post history again though. So if you have no objection to some people being raised properly and you don't think having a "privileged" upbringing imposes any obligations on them I'm not sure what is left of your argument. What exactly is there to fix?

What is to be fixed are systemic places where people have implicit advantages or disadvantages that are based on a personal attribute (i.e., gender, skin color, etc.) and not on their capabilities.

[Cow Poke]

What is to be fixed are systemic places where people have implicit advantages or disadvantages that are based on a personal attribute (i.e., gender, skin color, etc.) and not on their capabilities.

Meanwhile, we need people with the courage to lead by example, and explain that life is tough, it doesn't always go the way you want, there are obstacles, so "suck it up and drive on, soldier".

[Darth Executor]

You are correct, I do not. I do not think the privileges I enjoy should be torn down - I think they should be avaiable to everyone. If that were to happen, they would cease to be a privilege and would simply be "business as usual."

How would you make two parents available to everybody?

[Darth Executor]

What is to be fixed are systemic places where people have implicit advantages or disadvantages that are based on a personal attribute (i.e., gender, skin color, etc.) and not on their capabilities.

1) What if their capabilities are based on personal attributes? Men are physically stronger than women, for example. How would you fix that?
2) What if discrimination is natural and rational (IE: capabilities and personal attributes correlate)? For example, one of the institutional privileges blacks have is that they can get into college with much lower scores than other races. This makes the average black college graduate's diploma worth less than that of someone of another race. So everything else being similar, it would be entirely rational for the employer to pick the non-black candidate over the black one if their resumes are similar.

[Mountain Man]

Meanwhile, we need people with the courage to lead by example, and explain that life is tough, it doesn't always go the way you want, there are obstacles, so "suck it up and drive on, soldier".

Whenever my kids say, "That's not fair!", I tell them, "And you know what? Life isn't fair. Get used to it."

Now that I think about it, they haven't used that objection for some time.

[Cow Poke]

Whenever my kids say, "That's not fair!", I tell them, "And you know what? Life isn't fair. Get used to it."

Now that I think about it, they haven't used that objection for some time.

I'm having a deja vu all over again....

My kids learned early on to never use the "But that's not fair!" argument with me or my wife, because we would tell them without hesitation, "Too bad. Life isn't fair. Get used to it."

I taught Junior High many years ago, and on the first day of school, I would write my name on the board, and under that "I'm not Fair", double underlined.

Inevitably, I would have a student complain, "that's not fair", and I'd just walk over and point to the board - "I'm not fair".

[Starlight]

For example, one of the institutional privileges blacks have is that they can get into college with much lower scores than other races. This makes the average black college graduate's diploma worth less than that of someone of another race.

Eh? In college itself they sit exams and get grades. If they pass the exams and get good grades, that shows they can do well, regardless of what happened years earlier prior to their college tuition.

Your argument would only make sense if the college itself (rather than merely its admissions process) was up-scaling its own gradings of black students or auto-passing them.

[Cow Poke]

Eh? In college itself they sit exams and get grades. If they pass the exams and get good grades, that shows they can do well, regardless of what happened years earlier prior to their college tuition.

Your argument would only make sense if the college itself (rather than merely its admissions process) was up-scaling its own gradings of black students or auto-passing them.

If a college lowers its entry requirements, it's not a far stretch to think it lowers it's grading requirements, as well. It's no secret that a hiring manager will consider graduates from certain colleges as likely more qualified than graduates from certain other colleges.

[Darth Executor]

Eh? In college itself they sit exams and get grades. If they pass the exams and get good grades, that shows they can do well, regardless of what happened years earlier prior to their college tuition.

How often were you asked to send your report card with your job application? Many employees (especially for less important jobs) don't even look at your college diploma and just take what you put on your resume at its word. Nobody has time for that. There was a mini-scandal here about college professors being hired at our schools after lying about their credentials (which were never verified) and they get paid +100k/year, well above average. The only people i've heard having their marks checked were those who applied for co-ops/internships during their actual education.

[Mountain Man]

I'm having a deja vu all over again....

At least I'm consistent.

[Cow Poke]

At least I'm consistent.

I was thinking the same thing!

[Starlight]

I'm having a deja vu all over again....

My kids learned early on to never use the "But that's not fair!" argument with me or my wife, because we would tell them without hesitation, "Too bad. Life isn't fair. Get used to it."

I taught Junior High many years ago, and on the first day of school, I would write my name on the board, and under that "I'm not Fair", double underlined.

Inevitably, I would have a student complain, "that's not fair", and I'd just walk over and point to the board - "I'm not fair".

I'm reminded of a book I read a while back: Fairness and Freedom: A History of Two Open Societies: New Zealand and the United States.

The author is a US professor who while visiting NZ observed an election and was surprised how zero politicians mentioned "freedom" the way politicians of all parties constantly do in the US, while politicians of every political party in NZ were talking about "fairness" which he felt was little-talked-about in the US.

He was curious about this and traced it back to NZ being colonized from Europe a bit later than the US was, and as a result, European political thought had moved forward to taking democratic freedoms for granted (NZ automatically became a democracy after colonization, there was no fight for it the way there was in the US) and had moved on to trying to optimize free societies by focusing on fairness.

The US has become a bit stuck on the issue of "freedom", and talks about it through to the present day, and hasn't yet progressed much onto "fairness". Whereas NZ had freedom ingrained from the beginning and has spent the past 100+ years on "fairness" and trying to optimize society to be as fair as possible.

Perhaps that's why I have a strong gut moral reaction against both you and MM embracing the "life's not fair" / "I'm not fair" thing. My response is: Okay, so it's obviously morally wrong for something not to be fair, what are you doing to fix it? Writing "I'm not fair" on a board comes across to me as being functionally equivalent to writing "I'm a bad person" on the board.

[Cow Poke]

I'm reminded of a book I read a while back: Fairness and Freedom: A History of Two Open Societies: New Zealand and the United States.

The author is a US professor who while visiting NZ observed an election and was surprised how zero politicians mentioned "freedom" the way politicians of all parties constantly do in the US, while politicians of every political party in NZ were talking about "fairness" which he felt was little-talked-about in the US.

He was curious about this and traced it back to NZ being colonized from Europe a bit later than the US was, and as a result, European political thought had moved forward to taking democratic freedoms for granted (NZ automatically became a democracy after colonization, there was no fight for it the way there was in the US) and had moved on to trying to optimize free societies by focusing on fairness.

The US has become a bit stuck on the issue of "freedom", and talks about it through to the present day, and hasn't yet progressed much onto "fairness". Whereas NZ had freedom ingrained from the beginning and has spent the past 100+ years on "fairness" and trying to optimize society to be as fair as possible.

Perhaps that's why I have a strong gut moral reaction against both you and MM embracing the "life's not fair" / "I'm not fair" thing. My response is: Okay, so it's obviously morally wrong for something not to be fair, what are you doing to fix it?

There's a difference, in my case, between teaching kids the realities of life, and my own involvement in helping people overcome them.

Writing "I'm not fair" on a board comes across to me as being functionally equivalent to writing "I'm a bad person" on the board.

That's downright moronic.

[carpedm9587]

Meanwhile, we need people with the courage to lead by example, and explain that life is tough, it doesn't always go the way you want, there are obstacles, so "suck it up and drive on, soldier".

And that completely discounts contexts and places where the deck is stacked against in ways that are simply unjust.