"equality of outcomes"

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Ab

Define "clear" in the context of your example. Define "measurable" in the context of your example.

Your example also seems to fall into a trap common to nearly all discussions of inequality: that a job is more likely to be populated by people over a certain height does not necessarily mean that people below it are being actively prevented from accessing that job.

Those words seem less bound to context? What's the confusion for you?

I have not fallen into this trap, issues of inequality are not simple, yet this forum only allows simple concepts to be discussed. Also I'm trying to avoid being accused of buzz words and the various traps that are laid to prevent this discussion from being discussed seriously.

[Ab]

What is clear inequality?

What is a measurable segment of the population?

[Lightspeed]

Restating the question does not help me understand it better...

[Lightspeed]

Are you suggesting that inequality can never be clear and segments of the population cannot be measured? Or that human populations cannot be segmented in any meaningful way? Perhaps you mean inequality is in the eye of the beholder. I'm not sure, so I don't really know how to answer.

[Ab]

Equality is a difficult thing to discuss because most people don't understand what it is. They try and cover up their lack of understanding by padding out their sentences with other words as if those words make it obvious what equality is. Because equality is a difficult thing to discuss it's even more important that words not be used unless they add something meaningful. If a word is being used for no good reason that means it's being used for a bad reason.

For example: "clear inequality". What does the word "clear" add to the discussion? In what sense is the word "clear" being used? Is "clear inequality" something distinct from normal common or garden inequality? Is inequality qua inequality OK so long as it's not "clear"?

Every time I see a sentence that looks like it came from a management consultant I instinctively ask "what the fuck does that mean" because in my experience people rarely have the balls to point out that the emperor has no clothes.

[StN]

Going forward.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Ab

What is clear inequality?

What is a measurable segment of the population?

Outcomes only need to be broadly equal so there would be clear inequality when a statistical threshold is exceeded. For example if 14 of Labour’s 34 MPs are female then it's not clearly an inequality problem. If it was only 10 out of 34 then you could argue it's clearly inequality.

A measurable segment of society is pretty standard. It's the categorization of people based on things like gender, age and ethnicity.

Again, my position is that aiming for equality of opportunity is great but outcomes are necessary to gauge how we're going in achieving equal opportunity. Which both Labour & National do, particularly with education and health outcomes.

[Ab]

Define "equal opportunity". Just so we're speaking the same language.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Outcomes only need to be broadly equal so there would be clear inequality when a statistical threshold is exceeded. For example if 14 of Labour’s 34 MPs are female then it's not clearly an inequality problem. If it was only 10 out of 34 then you could argue it's clearly inequality.

A measurable segment of society is pretty standard. It's the categorization of people based on things like gender, age and ethnicity.

Again, my position is that aiming for equality of opportunity is great but outcomes are necessary to gauge how we're going in achieving equal opportunity. Which both Labour & National do, particularly with education and health outcomes.

No. Half of 34 is 17. There aren't 17 female Labour MPs so the sex balance is UNEQUAL. You can't say that's not clearly an inequality problem as if that's a sensible answer. It is quite obviously unequal, but you're saying that's not a problem. Thus there's some other criterion at work but it's completely invisible. I have no idea by what criterion you're saying that the unequal 14 out of 34 is not a problem but that 10 out of 34 would be.

Again, back to the words: what does "measurable" mean in the context of "measurable segment of society". Does it serve a purpose? If you leave that word out does the meaning change at all?

[Lightspeed]

It seems like this is a broad statement you would try and apply to specific scenarios, i.e. when faced with people who are complaining about or someone believes they have identified inequality.

At this point you would do things like define what is "clear inequality" for that case, ask questions like can we identify a particular segment of society that benefit or lose from this inequality, is this inequality due to something that would otherwise not be expected to be a barrier. And then you would try and seek agreement on these definitions by stakeholders.

At any point we try to nail down definitions we then have to ask who are making these definitions because we need to consider are these definers the ones who would lose out if there was equality and do these definitions perpetuate the status quo?

There is only one thing we have identified that everyone agrees on all the time and that is the speed of light. Every other definition is dependent on the specific bit of space-time you're in.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Ab

Define "equal opportunity". Just so we're speaking the same language.

Well if "equal opportunity" and "equality of opportunity" are interchangeable then I'd define it in relation to removing systemic and socioeconomic barriers to successfully participating in society.

Originally Posted by Ab

No. Half of 34 is 17. There aren't 17 female Labour MPs so the sex balance is UNEQUAL. You can't say that's not clearly an inequality problem as if that's a sensible answer. It is quite obviously unequal, but you're saying that's not a problem. Thus there's some other criterion at work but it's completely invisible. I have no idea by what criterion you're saying that the unequal 14 out of 34 is not a problem but that 10 out of 34 would be.

You're setting the bar that anything less than a 50/50 split is an inequality problem. Obviously 16 out of 34 and 1 out of 34 are both unequal but I wouldn't say 16 is a problem but I would say 1 is. But yes, you've brought up a good point that defining a standard statistical threshold that's acceptable; has it's issues.

Originally Posted by Ab

Again, back to the words: what does "measurable" mean in the context of "measurable segment of society". Does it serve a purpose? If you leave that word out does the meaning change at all?

Measurable as in a specific categorization rather than a random sample.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Well if "equal opportunity" and "equality of opportunity" are interchangeable then I'd define it in relation to removing systemic and socioeconomic barriers to successfully participating in society.

Maybe it would be easier if you started with the words "equal opportunity is".

Equal opportunity is.... what?

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Measurable as in a specific categorization rather than a random sample.

But that's not what "measurable" means to the person in the street. Or any other person. Measurable means "can be measured". OK, so you're talking about a segment of society that can be measured. WTF does that mean? Measured according to what? In what units?

[chubby]

ab,all that obfuscation bullshit youre spouting kinda reads funny-but its pretty sad that you feel the need to continue.its sounding more and more ccs-esque.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Ab

But that's not what "measurable" means to the person in the street. Or any other person. Measurable means "can be measured". OK, so you're talking about a segment of society that can be measured. WTF does that mean? Measured according to what? In what units?

Are you completely unfamiliar with or dismissive of social science? Do you think anti-violence campaigns are made out of the goodness of our politicians hearts? That children's hospitals are warm and hospitable instead of sterile and clinical because it gives us warm fuzzies to think of it that way?

These expensive changes have been made because there is good science showing that these are things that are good for us. How do you think this science is done?

[aR Que]

This is bs, no way am i going to be made, to hire an ugly receptionist.

[Lightspeed]

lolz

I haven't read much of whatever it is Labour is cooking up, but it sounds like the kind of thing they could only get away with when they know they're not going to win the next election.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by chubby

ab,all that obfuscation bullshit youre spouting kinda reads funny-but its pretty sad that you feel the need to continue.its sounding more and more ccs-esque.

Asking for understandable definitions of words and removal of unnecessary words is obfuscation now?

When I see or hear someone talking managment speak, and when that person refuses to actually explain the meaning of the words they're using, I instinctively suspect bullshit.

[aR Que]

what we;re looking for here, is a step change.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Ab

Maybe it would be easier if you started with the words "equal opportunity is".

Equal opportunity is.... what?

Ok I'll say that equal opportunity is when at birth someone has the same prospects of success as anyone else.

Originally Posted by Ab

But that's not what "measurable" means to the person in the street. Or any other person. Measurable means "can be measured". OK, so you're talking about a segment of society that can be measured. WTF does that mean? Measured according to what? In what units?

The sections I'm referring to are grouped based on specific traits. The success/outcomes of these groups can be measured against other groups without that specific trait.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

equal opportunity is when at birth someone has the same prospects of success as anyone else.

Vague meaningless twaddle.

[Lightspeed]

A good example of "clear inequality in measurable segments of the population as defined by irrelevant things" are Maori men in prison.

The inequality is clear, it's measurable in number of ways, there's a defined population and there's no evidence that being Maori is relevant to imprisonment.

Of course, there are stakeholders, such as those who would have to do something about this inequality, who would argue the inequality is unclear, or try to somehow obfuscate what Maoridom is, or somehow make it out that it's right that a greater proportion of Maori drug users face punishment for their drug use than non-Maori.

Does this mean those who perceive this inequality should ignore their perception?

No doubt though this is all vague and meaningless.

[Ab]

Hint: to have "equality" or "inequality" you have to be talking about at least TWO THINGS.

That there is a number of Maori men in prison is neither equal nor unequal.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Ab

Vague meaningless twaddle.

You need a page or two to properly define "prospects" and "success"? Or you don't think that demographics at birth have any correlation with outcomes?

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Ab

Hint: to have "equality" or "inequality" you have to be talking about at least TWO THINGS.

That there is a number of Maori men in prison is neither equal nor unequal.

So wouldn't you say that unequal and disproportionate are really different ways of saying the same thing?

That is if I was to say that there is a disproportionate number of Maori men prosecuted for drug offenses compared to total number of actual drug offenses in the population (i.e. Maori smoke 10% of drugs but account for 15% of drug prosecutions), that wouldn't indicate inequality?

To be clear this is an example that has some resemblance to reality, but I'm not an expert on this particular issue or its underlying factors.

[pxpx]

fixed_truth used CONFUSE, it was super effective!

[chubby]

Originally Posted by Ab

Asking for understandable definitions of words and removal of unnecessary words is obfuscation now?

When I see or hear someone talking managment speak, and when that person refuses to actually explain the meaning of the words they're using, I instinctively suspect bullshit.

nah.it all seemed pretty clear really...interference being run.
par for the nzg course

[Ab]

It's like when some politician calls for "tougher sentences for crimes of whatever" without seeming to know what whatever actually is and without seeming to know how the tougher sentences would relate to the punishment for crimes that aren't whatever. When the people who make laws about things look ignorant of the things they're making laws about it means Parliament is just a fucking soap opera of politicians trying to be popular.

Similarly, when talking about concepts like equal opportunity it's kinda important to show that you understand what equality is and what it means to be equal and what an opportunity is and how a person could be deprived of it. Otherwise you're just parroting buzzwords because all the other cool kids are saying those words too.

I described fixed_truth's definition of equal opportunity as "when at birth someone has the same prospects of success as anyone else" as "vague meaningless twaddle" because it is vague meaningless twaddle. It says nothing meaningful. Or, put another way, it means absolutely anything you want.

[fixed_truth]

I disagree. It only means 'absolutely anything you want' if you ignore that outcomes are the measure of whether there is equal opportunity.

[Ab]

Outcomes? I though equality of opportunity is something calculated at birth?

[pxpx]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

I disagree. It only means 'absolutely anything you want' if you ignore that outcomes are the measure of whether there is equal opportunity.

Wrong. Outcome is the measure of USE of opportunity, not that there was opportunity in the first place.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Ab

Outcomes? I though equality of opportunity is something calculated at birth?

If at birth someone has the same prospects of success as anyone else then yeah, it can be calculated that we have equality of opportunity.

Originally Posted by pxpx

Wrong. Outcome is the measure of USE of opportunity, not that there was opportunity in the first place.

Actually, whether someone is able to effectively use the opportunity is an intrinsic part of it being an opportunity. If someone is being hampered from utilizing an opportunity then it's not really much of an opportunity now is it?

For example you can give a child the same access to education as another child but if one of them is going to school hungry or is worried about getting the bash from his dad; then it's hardly an equal opportunity.

[aR Que]

So, to keep the playing field level, we should just starve and beat all children. Easy.

[Golden Teapot]

Or give these folk Stewart Island and let them set themselves up like Cuba.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by aR Que

So, to keep the playing field level, we should just starve and beat all children. Easy.

lolz. But seriously, Tonight Campbell Live did a piece on what looks like a pretty good programme:

MOKO Programme (gets into it after a minute)

[Lightspeed]

This seems to fit here...

[Ab]

Simple solution: fail all the white kids. Boom, equal outcome.

[Cyberbob]

Government imposed higher education with lower standards. Boom, black kids can't leave and can't fail.

[CCS]

Nah, you let them drop out but then you just give them grades to match the white kids and a nice certificate. They've had an equal opportunity as well as an equal outcome! Thanks government equality legislation!

[DrTiTus]

Open the window or something, it reeks of white male privilege.

If you sincerely believe that everything you have achieved was purely a result of your own hard work, you probably vote National.

[Cyberbob]

Originally Posted by DrTiTus

Open the window or something, it reeks of white male privilege.

If you sincerely believe that everything you have achieved was purely a result of your own hard work, you probably vote National.

but what was unfair? the opportunity, or the outcome?