A few thoughts on rascism / affirmative action

[hmkpoker]

Let's say you are an employer of a certain business in technologies. You have one job opening, and you have two candidates. Both are of the same sex, same socio-econimic status, and have identical qualifications. There is only one variable: one is white, and one is black.

You are not regulated by affirmative action, and you want to choose the best employee. You recall reading a study that conclusively found a correlation between race and IQ, and it was clearly demonstrated that white people, on average, get higher IQ scores than black people. This being the only meaningful variable, you believe that there is a slightly better chance that the white candidate will be smarter/perform better than the black candidate.

Your logic would be flawed. A random black person might be more likely to have a lower IQ, but what if we knew that the black person was applying to a skilled, white-collar job? Isn't it equally reasonable to believe that this study might suggest that such a correlation might mean that blacks are less likely to be in such a situation in the first place? Knowing that this particular black person is in this situation despite the increased unlikelihood, wouldn't this render whatever inference you drew from the data meaningless?

Moreover, surely you know that this situation never happens. We do not make judgements about people in a vacuum. When are we in situations when you deal with a "random black" or a "random white"? All these decisions must exist in some kind of context, and the presence of these persons in that context provides us with more partial information that we are undoubtedly better off using. Poker books are full of ways to interpret various factors at the table: what it's likely to mean if the fellow wears a bowtie, what it's likely to mean if the guy furrows his brow, what it's likely to mean if the guy bets in a certain situation, etc. But when we are actually at the poker table making these decisions, we are not judging categories; we are taking a critical look at the individual, and judging him.

Suggesting that it is somehow meaningful to take a test and say "well whites are more X and blacks are more Y" is preposterous. Race is but one small factor in drawing a conclusions about somebody, and we are always provided with more meaningful information. How old is this person? What sex is he/she? Education? Background? Family life? Political beliefs? Religious beliefs? What does this person dress like? What kind of personality does this person have?

The sum of these variables is far more important in elucidating a meaningful judgement. No one can make a judgement about someone in a vacuum based solely on race. If I tell you "person X checks...what hand do you think he is holding," you would certainly know that you have completely insufficient information to render a meaningful decision. Putting so much emphasis on one variable leaves you equally crippled in your decision making.

We run into other problems when we place so much emphasis on our grouping mechanisms. A lot of people on this forum believe that affirmative action is justified. When the groups are given identity, the logic is enticing: blacks, statistically, aren't making as much as whites. Blacks are more likely to come from poor socio-economic backgrounds, and the correlation between early SES and later success in life is well understood. Affirmative action results, therefore, in just redistribution: rich whites are giving to poor blacks.

But this is not the case. In any hiring situation where affirmative action is involved, two people who are going for the same job have their outcome influenced by the AA variable. Now, if it were the case that these people were random whites and blacks functioning in a vacuum, yes, it would be more likely that the white person got a better shot at life and should give the black person his/her turn. But you'd be ignoring the context: the two people in this situation are applying for the same job. The justification for the affirmative action in the first place, which assumed that white people are more likely to have better social positions than blacks, is inherently voided. You're not taking a job away from the higher, statistically average white person that you'd like to be taking it away from, and giving it to a disadvantaged black; you're taking a job away from some white schmo who, despite a slightly higher unlikelihood, is in the same [censored] position. It would be more accurate to say that affirmative action redistributes opportunity from whites to blacks of similar socioeconomic positions, but suddenly that doesn't sound very just, now does it? The only difference is that you have created a victim: the consumer, who now must be serviced by someone who was chosen for the job for any reason other than his qualifications.

And meanwhile, the guy writing the checks to the employee is still going to be very rich, very priviledged, and (probably) very white anyway.

Race is but one variable of our being. It is no better or worse than the style of our fingerprints, the size of our feet, or the color of our eyes. We could certainly correlate any one of these with socioeconomic variables, attempt some sort of affirmative action accordingly, affect entirely different lives than we would affect had we chosen to group people in another fashion. Race is not the core of our being. It is not the entirety of our being. There is more to a black person than being black, yet to suggest that someone's jobs should be decided by this variable is to give irrational and unnecessary emphasis on this variable. It also specifically means that we must give people different moral rights; that some should be forcibly allowed priviledges that others are not allowed. It is to fly against everything that the civil rights leaders fought for. You cannot have both equality of opportunity and equality of result. It is impossible.

Argue with my logic, not my personal position in life.



Sincerely,

A priviledged upper middle class white male

[hmkpoker]

Also, yes, I am aware that I misspelled "racism" in the title [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, yes, I am aware that I misspelled "racism" in the title [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought it was clever worldplay! [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

PS You misspelled privileged. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[whiskeytown]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, yes, I am aware that I misspelled "racism" in the title [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Does an African American have a lower IQ score because of genetics?

or is a social/political/economic condition perpetuated by the US since the 1700's that basically considers Blacks 2nd class status in everything from how they should be educated to where/how they can or cannot vote?

Actually, a black man who has risen to the point where he is as equally qualified as a white man is someone who is probably actually smarter and harder working then his white counterpart, because you can be sure he had to work a lot harder to get where he is and had to overcome a lot more things like bigotry and blind ignorance.

IQ is less important then drive and resolve anyways - I'd give the job to the African-American.

RB

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought it was clever worldplay! [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, force of habit. Surely you know how quick I am to compare things to "fascism" [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
PS You misspelled privileged. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

What can I say, blacks are better spellers [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, yes, I am aware that I misspelled "racism" in the title [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Does an African American have a lower IQ score because of genetics?

or is a social/political/economic condition perpetuated by the US since the 1700's that basically considers Blacks 2nd class status in everything from how they should be educated to where/how they can or cannot vote?

Actually, a black man who has risen to the point where he is as equally qualified as a white man is someone who is probably actually smarter and harder working then his white counterpart, because you can be sure he had to work a lot harder to get where he is and had to overcome a lot more things like bigotry and blind ignorance.

IQ is less important then drive and resolve anyways - I'd give the job to the African-American.

RB

[/ QUOTE ]

you ENTIRELY missed what his post was about.

[Darryl_P]

I think your post describes the basics of conditional probability correctly, even if it's a bit long-winded. This conclusion, though,

[ QUOTE ]
It would be more accurate to say that affirmative action redistributes opportunity from whites to blacks of similar socioeconomic positions

[/ QUOTE ]

is incorrect IMO precisely because of the relatively small number of situations in which your hypothetical arises.

There are much fewer blacks in that socio-economic position, so the majority of companies having to satisfy AA rules are sitting there with mostly white employees and mostly white applicants with the occasional black applicant being significantly less qualified than the whites. In order to avoid being accused of discrimination they would have to discriminate against the whites by hiring the occasional underqualified black.

So basically the dilemma you desribe about choosing between equally qualified candidates is actually a rare (and lucky) situation for an employer to be in. I say lucky because he can hire the black to satisfy AA without compromising profitability. Most employers do have to compromise on profitability to satisfy AA rules.

If I were the employer, though, and I knew I could get away with it, I would certainly hire the white guy, even if the black is slightly more qualified, and it would be for pure profit-related reasons, not anything personal against the black. The reason is that there is more trust in a homogenous environment and that fosters efficiency. Few will think the black guy will try to steal or do something drastic, but many times they won't understand where he is coming from and as an employer I won't feel like financing a Bridging Cultures 101 training course if I don't have to.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
The only difference is that you have created a victim: the consumer, who now must be serviced by someone who was chosen for the job for any reason other than his qualifications.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is also a silly statement coming from a poker player. If the decision you have to make is truly a toss-up, then by definition it doesn't matter what you do, so there can't be any victims.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
If I were the employer, though, and I knew I could get away with it, I would certainly hire the white guy, even if the black is slightly more qualified, and it would be for pure profit-related reasons, not anything personal against the black. The reason is that there is more trust in a homogenous environment and that fosters efficiency. Few will think the black guy will try to steal or do something drastic, but many times they won't understand where he is coming from and as an employer I won't feel like financing a Bridging Cultures 101 training course if I don't have to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow..just wow.

[kickabuck]

[ QUOTE ]
I think your post describes the basics of conditional probability correctly, even if it's a bit long-winded. This conclusion, though,

[ QUOTE ]
It would be more accurate to say that affirmative action redistributes opportunity from whites to blacks of similar socioeconomic positions

[/ QUOTE ]

is incorrect IMO precisely because of the relatively small number of situations in which your hypothetical arises.

There are much fewer blacks in that socio-economic position, so the majority of companies having to satisfy AA rules are sitting there with mostly white employees and mostly white applicants with the occasional black applicant being significantly less qualified than the whites. In order to avoid being accused of discrimination they would have to discriminate against the whites by hiring the occasional underqualified black.

So basically the dilemma you desribe about choosing between equally qualified candidates is actually a rare (and lucky) situation for an employer to be in. I say lucky because he can hire the black to satisfy AA without compromising profitability. Most employers do have to compromise on profitability to satisfy AA rules.

If I were the employer, though, and I knew I could get away with it, I would certainly hire the white guy, even if the black is slightly more qualified, and it would be for pure profit-related reasons, not anything personal against the black. The reason is that there is more trust in a homogenous environment and that fosters efficiency. Few will think the black guy will try to steal or do something drastic, but many times they won't understand where he is coming from and as an employer I won't feel like financing a Bridging Cultures 101 training course if I don't have to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Darryl, are you from Vermont or something and never seen a black person? I'm definitely no 'our strength lies in our diversity ' kind of guy, but your Bridging Cultures 101 comment seems way out there. Care to elaborate what the heck you mean? And if not it is notions such as these that make affirmative action necessary.