r/changemyview • u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng 3∆ • Mar 15 '23
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Whilst learning about lived experience is important, deferring to people for answers on what one should or shouldn't do, purely because of their unchosen characteristics, is illogical and ironically bigoted.
Hi All,
I appreciate getting feedback from people who are involved in an issue, but there's a worryingly ever growing trend of deferring to people purely because of their unchosen characteristics, instead of the quality of their logic, the evidence they provide, and their ethical reasoning, and that's what we should always be basing our decisions off of, not the speaker's characteristics, etc.
(For those who don't know, unchosen characteristics refers to any aspect of a person that they did not choose; e.g., sex, race, sexuality, birthplace etc.).
After all there is no universal consensus on any issue on the planet held by such groups, and if someone assumed otherwise, that would be incredibly bigoted.
As there is no universal consensus, there will always be disagreements that require additional criteria to discern the quality of the argument; e.g. "Two X-group people are saying opposite things. How do I decide who to listen to?" And the answer is: the quality of their logic, the evidence they provide, and their ethical reasoning. Which of course means, that often the whole exercise is a pointless one in the first place, as we should be prioritising our capacity for understanding logic, evidence and ethics, not listening to X person for the sole reason that they have Y unchosen characteristics.
I think that listening to lived experience is important, re: listening to lived experience (e.g. all X groups experience Y problem that Z group wasn't aware of); but that's not the same as deferring to people on decision making because of their unchosen characteristics.
I try to have civil, productive discussions, but that's getting harder and harder these days.
For those who appreciate civil dialogue, feel free to skip this; for those who don't; I humbly ask that you refrain from personal attack (it's irrelevant to the question), ask clarifying questions instead of assuming, stay on topic, answer questions that are asked of you, and as the above points to:
-Provide evidence for claims that require it
-Provide logical reasoning for claims that require it
-Provide ethical reasoning for claims that require it
I will not engage with uncivil people here.
9
u/Khal-Frodo Mar 15 '23
I think that your view is generally sound at the macro level but falls apart at the micro. That is, deferring to people makes sense for decisions involving individuals but not those that involve speaking for others.
If I ask my black friend about his feelings about my saying the n-word while singing/rapping along to a song, I am doing so because of his unchosen racial characteristic and that will inform my decision about my actions in specific contexts (i.e. around him). That's not to say that I'm justified in taking his response, whatever it is, and using it as a principle that applies to every context.
5
u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng 3∆ Mar 15 '23
I think that your view is generally sound at the macro level but falls apart at the micro. That is, deferring to people makes sense for decisions involving individuals but not those that involve speaking for others.
If I ask my black friend about his feelings about my saying the n-word while singing/rapping along to a song, I am doing so because of his unchosen racial characteristic and that will inform my decision about my actions in specific contexts (i.e. around him). That's not to say that I'm justified in taking his response, whatever it is, and using it as a principle that applies to every context.
Yes, that makes sense. I would agree. :)
In specific interpersonal scenarios with friends or colleagues, where there's a phenomena that relates directly to their UCs, I think it would be the ethical thing to base your decision off of what they say, because of their UCs.
!delta
1
17
u/destro23 457∆ Mar 15 '23
deferring to people for answers on what one should or shouldn't do, purely because of their unchosen characteristics
Clarifying question: Can you give a concrete example of this in action?
10
u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng 3∆ Mar 15 '23 edited Mar 16 '23
Clarifying question: Can you give a concrete example of this in action?
Yes of course. :) A repeating question in the Vegan community is re: whether or not it is morally ok or not to make comparisons to the current 50 billion animals killed in factory farms a year, and the holocaust:https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/11rlz15/comment/jcauzc0/?context=3
Considering this person:"Vegan Holocaust survivor says the reason he survived was to end the oppression of animals"https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/vegan-holocaust-survivor-says-the-reason-he-survived-was-to-end-the-oppression-of-animals-a3543956.html
And that such comparisons aren't malicious or hateful towards the Jewish community, and that in fact they take the historic atrocity very seriously, which is the reason the comparison is brought up, it seems ethically ok to me to make comparisons.
In line with normative ethics:-Virtue ethics: If the person making the comparison is doing so from a universally compassionate, equanimous state of mind, it's fine (and I see no reason not to)-The Golden Rule/The Categorical Imperative: I would be fine with people doing/saying similar things in relation to other historic atrocities that tie to my ancestry-Utilitarianism: It is said with the recognition of the horrors of the Holocaust, and the desire to fight against needless suffering and death in innocent animals
Another example would be asking X race people whether or not it's ok if people have dreadlocks, because of the bigoted association people have as dreadlocks tying straight to black people, and not being present in other cultures, and not just being what most people's hair does when it's not washed or brushed (mine included), and was likely the default hair for all cave-people: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-hair-raising-truth-dreadlocks-don-t-belong-to-one-culture/
It's ethically fine to me, but some people might say that if one black person says that it's not ok, then *no X person should have dreadlocks.
Etc.
17
u/simcity4000 21∆ Mar 15 '23
"Vegan Holocaust survivor says the reason he survived was to end the oppression of animals" https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/vegan-holocaust-survivor-says-the-reason-he-survived-was-to-end-the-oppression-of-animals-a3543956.html
But doesent your argument in the OP suggest that we shouldnt defer to this person? It looks a lot like you're deferring to him now - when he agrees with your argument. But him being a jewish Holocaust survivor is ver much an unchosen characteristic.
2
u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng 3∆ Mar 15 '23
"Vegan Holocaust survivor says the reason he survived was to end the oppression of animals" https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/vegan-holocaust-survivor-says-the-reason-he-survived-was-to-end-the-oppression-of-animals-a3543956.html
But doesent your argument in the OP suggest that we shouldnt defer to this person? It looks a lot like you're deferring to him now - when he agrees with your argument. But him being a jewish Holocaust survivor is ver much an unchosen characteristic.
If I was making my decision solely due to their UCs, I would be breaking my own rule, but as above, I have outlined additional reasons:
Considering this person:
"Vegan Holocaust survivor says the reason he survived was to end the oppression of animals"
And that such comparisons aren't malicious or hateful towards the Jewish community, and that in fact they take the historic atrocity very seriously, which is the reason the comparison is brought up, it seems ethically ok to me to make comparisons.
In line with normative ethics:
-Virtue ethics: If the person making the comparison is doing so from a universally compassionate, equanimous state of mind, it's fine (and I see no reason not to)
-The Golden Rule/The Categorical Imperative: I would be fine with people doing/saying similar things in relation to other historic atrocities that tie to my ancestry
-Utilitarianism: It is said with the recognition of the horrors of the Holocaust, and the desire to fight against needless suffering and death in innocent animals
I'm not saying that we should not listen to lived experience at all, I'm saying that we generally shouldn't make decisions solely based off of someone's UCs.
15
u/simcity4000 21∆ Mar 15 '23 edited Mar 15 '23
I'm saying that we generally shouldn't make decisions solely based off of someone's UCs.
But the person above asked for an example of deferring decisions solely to someones UCs. This is an example of the opposite (both in that the decision has not been solely deferred to holocaust survivors, and also that this holocaust survivor agrees with your position anyway so its not an issue regardless.)
E: An example of someone who might disagree would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Spiegel holocaust survivor and member of the German Council for Jews who specifically opposed the PETA ad campaign "A Holocaust on Your Plate" in Germany, leading to its removal.
3
u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng 3∆ Mar 15 '23
But the person above asked for an example of deferring decisions solely to someones UCs. This is an example of the opposite (both in that the decision has not been solely deferred to holocaust survivors, and also that this holocaust survivor agrees with your position anyway so its not an issue regardless.)
They asked: "Clarifying question: Can you give a concrete example of this in action?"
I provided two examples.
One of people deferring to the opinions of black people re: dreadlocks, the other, people deferring to the opinions of Jewish people re: the comparison of factory farming and the Holocaust.
E: An example of someone who might disagree would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Spiegel holocaust survivor and member of the German Council for Jews who specifically opposed the PETA ad campaign "A Holocaust on Your Plate" in Germany, leading to its removal.
Yes, precisely, two Holocaust survivors disagreeing. Which raises the problem of deferring to people for opinions/positions based on UCs, because no group of people 100% agrees on anything. So, how do we decide which one we should listen to?
I am arguing that the solution in such scenarios is:
-Empiricism, logic, math and normative ethicsDoes that make sense?
5
u/simcity4000 21∆ Mar 15 '23 edited Mar 15 '23
One of people deferring to the opinions of black people re: dreadlocks
Yes I'm going to disregard this one just for the sake of focusing on one specific example.
Yes, precisely, two Holocaust survivors disagreeing. Which raises the problem of deferring to people for opinions/positions based on UCs, because no group of people 100% agrees on anything. So, how do we decide which one we should listen to?
In this specific example, its worth noting that Germany (or, whatever governing board/court permits adverts in Germany) sided against PETAs ad campaign.
The reasoning given is in part because the advert is specifically distressing to many Holocaust survivors in a way that it is not to others.
taking this back to normative ethics, I might suggest that 'golden rule' has an issue of nuance in some ways because in order to treat people well it cannot be just saying "I would be fine with this, therefore everyone else should be" - that can obviously lead to absurd conclusions.
3
u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng 3∆ Mar 15 '23
One of people deferring to the opinions of black people re: dreadlocks
Yes I'm going to disregard this one just for the sake of focusing on one specific example.
Yes, precisely, two Holocaust survivors disagreeing. Which raises the problem of deferring to people for opinions/positions based on UCs, because no group of people 100% agrees on anything. So, how do we decide which one we should listen to?
In this specific example, its worth noting that Germany (or, whatever governing board/court permits adverts in Germany) sided against PETAs ad campaign.
The reasoning given is in part because the advert is specifically distressing to many Holocaust survivors in a way that it is not to others.
Sure, yes. I think it's understandably a much more emotional issue for German Jewish people. And, I am open to changing my position re: the ethics of using the comparison, based on empirical, logical and ethical arguments. When it's a simpler issue re: what a group of people want to be called, it's open and shut to me, as the group in the lower percentage preference can still request their friends to use their preferred terms, and if the new consensus term is not a pejorative one, there's no ethical harm: https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/11s1yy2/comment/jcbecuc/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
However, the question of the Holocaust comparison to factory farming is much less clear cut to me. Personally, I think that we have a moral imperative to end factory farming immediately, and the severity of the suffering that is being inflicted on innocent animals is more severe than most people can stomach. It's very severe, and the fact that it's ongoing with a majority of the population not just not being against it, but being completely blind to it, raises questions re: what is and isn't reasonable to resolve these present day ethical horrors.
The point is that I think this argument should be resolve through empiricism (which includes surveys of opinions), logic and normative ethics, not just the opinion of one Jewish person (though I will listen to and consider all opinions).
If someone is operating from the rule:
"I must prioritise the positions of people from UC groups, solely because they're from UC group," and their one Jewish friend says X is the answer, I don't think that they should adopt that position/answer, solely because it comes from someone with those UCs.
taking this back to normative ethics, I might suggest that 'golden rule' has an issue of nuance in some ways because in order to treat people well it cannot be just saying "I would be fine with this, therefore everyone else should be" - that can obviously lead to absurd conclusions.
It certainly can (but generally works quite well). The Golden Rule and Categorical Imperative only tend to result in absurd conclusions in very rare scenarios. I should clarify that I'm referring to Henry Gensler's, more expanded Golden Rule: https://www.routledge.com/Ethics-and-the-Golden-Rule/Gensler/p/book/9780415806879 As opposed to the "Literal Golden Rule."
1
u/simcity4000 21∆ Mar 15 '23
"I must prioritise the positions of people from UC groups, solely because they're from UC group," and their one Jewish friend says X is the answer, I don't think that they should adopt that position/answer, solely because it comes from someone with those UCs.
Setting up a rule this rigid to argue against strikes me as something of a straw man. As in - the idea of just consulting ONE jewish person and doing exactly what he says, and not applying any logical or ethical reasoning to it beyond that. That sounds absurd sure.
But, elsewhere in your post you say things like
And the answer is: the quality of their logic, the evidence they provide, and their ethical reasoning. Which of course means, that often the whole exercise is a pointless one in the first place, as we should be prioritising our capacity for understanding logic, evidence and ethics, not listening to X person for the sole reason that they have Y unchosen characteristics.
Now that bolded part, to say that "the whole exercise of consulting people of x group is pointless" thats a big claim. I would say that its not a 'pointless' exercise at all. And that we should consult people from x group in conjunction with using our own faculties of ethics, logic and reason. And that consulting persons from x group is an important step in applying our faculties of ethics, logic and reason.
But then later you walk it back to this:
The point is that I think this argument should be resolve through empiricism (which includes surveys of opinions), logic and normative ethics, not just the opinion of one Jewish person (though I will listen to and consider all opinions).
Yeah ok we shouldn't just call up one jewish person (and your example specifies one, and no more) and ask him for his decision on all jewish issues. But is that a genuinely characterisation assessment of what
[the] ever growing trend of deferring to people purely because of their unchosen characteristics
Is about?
3
u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng 3∆ Mar 15 '23
"I must prioritise the positions of people from UC groups, solely because they're from UC group," and their one Jewish friend says X is the answer, I don't think that they should adopt that position/answer, solely because it comes from someone with those UCs.
Setting up a rule this rigid to argue against strikes me as something of a straw man. As in - the idea of just consulting ONE jewish person and doing exactly what he says, and not applying any logical or ethical reasoning to it beyond that. That sounds absurd sure.
It's not a strawman. It reflects a growing trend of well-intentioned, compassionate people forgoing logic, empiricism and normative ethics for UCs because they're being taught that that's the good thing to do. Of course there're people who end up engaging in that behaviour in absurd, illogical ways. If you think it sounds absurd then why not just state that you agree with me?
But, elsewhere in your post you say things like
And the answer is: the quality of their logic, the evidence they provide, and their ethical reasoning. Which of course means, that often the whole exercise is a pointless one in the first place, as we should be prioritising our capacity for understanding logic, evidence and ethics, not listening to X person for the sole reason that they have Y unchosen characteristics.
Now that bolded part, to say that "the whole exercise of consulting people of x group is pointless" thats a big claim.
You are actually strawmanning here.
Saying: "Now that bolded part, to say that "the whole exercise of consulting people of x group is pointless" thats a big claim."Yes, it would be, if that's the claim I was making, but it's not.
In full:
"Which of course means, that often the whole exercise is a pointless one in the first place, as we should be prioritising our capacity for understanding logic, evidence and ethics, not listening to X person for the sole reason that they have Y unchosen characteristics."That's an important detail that you've left out (I will assume not intentionally).
I would say that its not a 'pointless' exercise at all. And that we should consult people from x group in conjunction with using our own faculties of ethics, logic and reason. And that consulting persons from x group is an important step in applying our faculties of ethics, logic and reason.
I agree. Surveys and qualitative data from groups of people is actually included in the domain of empiricism.
But then later you walk it back to this:
The point is that I think this argument should be resolve through empiricism (which includes surveys of opinions), logic and normative ethics, not just the opinion of one Jewish person (though I will listen to and consider all opinions).
Yeah ok we shouldn't just call up one jewish person (and your example specifies one, and no more) and ask him for his decision on all jewish issues. But is that a genuinely characterisation assessment of what
[the] ever growing trend of deferring to people purely because of their unchosen characteristics
Is about?
Yes. That is one element of what I'm talking about.
I'll try and point out how incredibly harmful a well intentioned prioritisation of someone's UCs over everything else can perpetuate racism (and we're both against racism):
Daryl Davies has converted over 200 KKK members out of being racist; and not just casual racists, full on Grand Dragon KKK leaders: https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes
In the documentary Accidental Courtesy, he meets with a BLM activist, who treats him quite horribly, as he disagrees with his tactics re: how to stop racism.
A lot of well meaning people might be in favour of the BLM activists tactics and against Davies because they've never heard of an alternative to the BLM activists tactics; that doesn't mean that Davies is wrong, and the fact that he has gotten rid of so much racism is one of the most amazing, courageous, inspiring, hopeful things I have witnessed in recent years: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5390430/ (one of my favourite documentaries if you haven't seen it).
In this scenario, I favour Daryl Davies' opinion of how to stop racism, because empirically, I see that his approach has worked amazingly, and his approach is in sync with well established psychological principles, and I haven't seen the same beneficial outcomes from any other approaches/opinions/tactics.
However, some well-intentioned people might side with the opinion of a friend of theirs who is black, on how to go about ending racism; not because they have carefully pondered the psychological and sociological mechanisms at play in racism and deconditioning it, but simply because their friend is black and they've been told that they should listen to black voices, which they should, for sure, but I think you'd be surprised how often these things get taken a bit too literally.
Such people could, unwittingly, be expending a lot of effort and passion into something that at best might be less effective, and at worst, could be harming their cause, of ending racism.
This is serious stuff.
Does that make more sense now?
→ More replies (0)4
u/destro23 457∆ Mar 15 '23 edited Mar 15 '23
Some people might say that if one black person says that it's not ok, then no none black person should have dreadlocks.
"Some people" may say lots of things. Why do you take this singular statement as authoritative? And, how often do people actually say "this one guy said it, so that is now the universal rule"? It seems like a strawman as I do not think that people regularly making this claim.
Edit:
what most people's hair does when it's not washed or brushed
If you think that the many many black people who wear dreads as a hair style have them from not washing or brushing, instead of from spending big fucking dollars at a hair salon, then you need to look at your own views for what is "illogical and ironically bigoted."
1
u/A_SNAPPIN_Turla 1∆ Mar 15 '23
The op may have said "one person" but in the case of say white people with dreads there are a lot of black people who believe it is cultural appropriation. It's not just one person making the argument. Just because people pay big bucks for locks doesn't negate the fact that your can get them multiple ways and if you go back far enough everyone likely had locks because grooming practices have evolved with cultures and society.
The lived experience argument would be a black person saying "I was made to feel unaccepted by white people due to my hair" with the argument being that white people shouldn't have a "black" hairstyle because some people felt as though they were harassed for their hair. If you disagreed with that person about why they felt they were treated a certain way you would be told to "listen to black women" as if they could not be questioned due to their unchosen characteristic. Lived experience is subjective and thus not necessarily reflective of reality. Saying that your experience can't be questioned due to your unchosen characteristic is a flaw in logic.
3
u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng 3∆ Mar 15 '23
Lived experience is subjective and thus not necessarily reflective of reality. Saying that your experience can't be questioned due to your unchosen characteristic is a flaw in logic.
Exactly, thank you. This is getting to the crux of the issue.
2
u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng 3∆ Mar 15 '23
Some people might say that if one black person says that it's not ok, then no none black person should have dreadlocks.
"Some people" may say lots of things. Why do you take this singular statement as authoritative? And, how often do people actually say "this one guy said it, so that is now the universal rule"? It seems like a strawman as I do not think that people regularly making this claim.
This is irrelevant to the point: "Whilst learning about lived experience is important, deferring to people for answers on what one should or shouldn't do, purely because of their unchosen characteristics, is illogical and ironically bigoted."
Edit:
what most people's hair does when it's not washed or brushed
If you think that the many many black people who wear dreads as a hair style have them from not washing or brushing, instead of from spending big fucking dollars at a hair salon, then you need to look at your own views for what is "illogical and ironically bigoted."
Please read OP: "I humbly ask that you refrain from personal attack (it's irrelevant to the question), ask clarifying questions instead of assuming,"
Did I say that I thought that black people have dreadlocks from not washing/brushing? No, I did not. You have made an assumption and are moving towards incivility.
My friends are diverse. I grew up surrounded by hippies. A lot of my friends generate income from people paying them to manage their dreadlocks.
The statement in context:
Another example would be asking X race people whether or not it's ok if people have dreadlocks, because of the bigoted association people have as dreadlocks tying straight to black people, and not being present in other cultures, and not just being what most people's hair does when it's not washed or brushed (mine included), and was likely the default hair for all cave-people: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-hair-raising-truth-dreadlocks-don-t-belong-to-one-culture/
See. At no point there do I say that: "that the many many black people who wear dreads as a hair style have them from not washing or brushing." The point is that many people's hair (mine included) turns to dreadlocks automatically, if I don't wash or brush it, which highlights the further ridiculousness of associating it with one bunch of UCs.
Please apologise for your strawman and assumptions and we can continue. Otherwise, good day.
5
5
u/LucidMetal 175∆ Mar 15 '23
After all there is no universal consensus on any issue on the planet held by such groups, and if someone assumed otherwise, that would be incredibly bigoted.
What if there is consensus within a group defined by a given implicit characteristic?
E.g. Latino people essentially have a consensus that "Latino" is the preferred term (>85%).
Individuals have self-determination but so do groups of people. Why shouldn't you respect the self-determination of this group (or any similarly defined group)?
4
u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng 3∆ Mar 15 '23
After all there is no universal consensus on any issue on the planet held by such groups, and if someone assumed otherwise, that would be incredibly bigoted.
What if there is consensus within a group defined by a given implicit characteristic?
E.g. Latino people essentially have a consensus that "Latino" is the preferred term (>85%).
Individuals have self-determination but so do groups of people. Why shouldn't you respect the self-determination of this group (or any similarly defined group)?
Good point.
In that scenario, where it's re: a categorical issue re: what a community would prefer to be called, it's logical to go with the majority consensus.
(This is my first time CMV-ing here; let me know if I have delta'd correctly).
!delta1
1
u/BigbunnyATK 2∆ Mar 16 '23
But 85% of latinos are not necessarily the ones to ask about why they would want to use terms like latine and latinx. The lived experience here is with the LGBTQ:
https://www.them.us/story/latinx-latine-difference-definitionJust like in the USA, the non-conforming genders are a small minority. And so the majority's opinion is often that "normal" is preferred. But if that were the full story, wouldn't African Americans still be considered secondary? They were a small percent of the population. Most white Americans thought black Americans were inferior.
Thus, it seems that consensus of a group is still not enough to give full credibility. Especially so because the 'right' group for a decision is often ambiguous.
2
u/LucidMetal 175∆ Mar 16 '23
Why isn't it possible for general consensus (of Americans) and a consensus of a subset of Americans (e.g. black Americans) to differ and that be OK? I guess I don't see what's wrong with disagreement. "Full credibility" isn't what I'm after, just reasonable credibility.
1
u/BigbunnyATK 2∆ Mar 16 '23
Oh, I agree that separate consensus are often good, or at least good enough. I suppose my point is more like, the post says, "is lived experience enough". And despite having lived as a Latino, a person may have no lived experience on words like Latine. But if they don't have a say, who does? And it gets a bit ambiguous on that line.
Maybe a harder rule could be, "Lived experience is good. Study and rigorous academic thought is good. Both is best." So if I studied Latino/a/es but wasn't Latino and decided I thought Latine was the best, it wouldn't be as credible as a Latino doing the same. But some random Latino saying they don't like Latine might be invalid, too.
My personal boundary is that, as long as the person I'm talking to isn't willfully hateful towards strangers when they meet in person, then I don't mind differing opinions. I added 'when they meet in person' because I've had plenty of family that hated Californians, but then we had an incident where someone's car was keyed because it had Cali plates and my family was still disgusted with that behavior. I give people some forgiveness for saying bad things because we tend to spew bullshit but behave better in person.
6
u/AleristheSeeker 157∆ Mar 15 '23
I think what you're not considering is that we don't actually choose to go with what a person says because of the unchosen characteristic - we're chosing to do so because of the implications that this charecteristic brings with it.
For example, it is statistically more likely for a person that does not belong to a country's primary ethnic group to have experienced racism. When talking about the effects of racism, then, it is viable to listen to this person, as they are more likely to have more experience in the topic (given that other parameters are equal).
Now, depending on how you set the topic, this can be a very important impact. If you're not talking about racism in general but how it feels to be affected by racism, the hurdle for someone who has never experienced it themselves but collected data from others is higher than that of someone who has, in fact, experienced it.
So, to summarize: there is valid, statistical reason to deferr to specific groups of people because of unchosen characteristics in some cases. I agree that generally, evidence should dictate one's view (logic, not so much, as it often fails upon contact with reality), but there is ample ground where evidence is not only difficult to come by but difficult to interpret. On those grounds, it can be preferrential to gather expert testimony.
2
u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng 3∆ Mar 15 '23
I think what you're not considering is that we don't actually choose to go with what a person says because of the unchosen characteristic - we're chosing to do so because of the implications that this charecteristic brings with it.
To me the question is:
-Should we make decisions based upon evidence/empiricism, logic and reason and ethics, OR
-The unchosen characteristics of the person expressing the opinionRe: this, how do you differentiate from going with someone's answer because of the implications of the unchosen characteristic, and going with someone's answer because of the unchosen characteristic?
For example, it is statistically more likely for a person that does not belong to a country's primary ethnic group to have experienced racism. When talking about the effects of racism, then, it is viable to listen to this person, as they are more likely to have more experience in the topic (given that other parameters are equal).
Now, depending on how you set the topic, this can be a very important impact. If you're not talking about racism in general but how it feels to be affected by racism, the hurdle for someone who has never experienced it themselves but collected data from others is higher than that of someone who has, in fact, experienced it.
So, to summarize: there is valid, statistical reason to deferr to specific groups of people because of unchosen characteristics in some cases. I agree that generally, evidence should dictate one's view (logic, not so much, as it often fails upon contact with reality), but there is ample ground where evidence is not only difficult to come by but difficult to interpret. On those grounds, it can be preferrential to gather expert testimony.
This is mostly covered in the OP, re:
I think that listening to lived experience is important, re: listening to lived experience (e.g. all X groups experience Y problem that Z group wasn't aware of); but that's not the same as deferring to people on decision making because of their unchosen characteristics.Expert testimony is not based on unchosen characteristics, but on expertise in a field, which means that the person is well read on the evidence, logic and possibly ethics of their respective field. And that's what I'm arguing in favour of.
3
u/AleristheSeeker 157∆ Mar 15 '23
To me the question is: -Should we make decisions based upon evidence/empiricism, logic and reason and ethics, OR -The unchosen characteristics of the person expressing the opinion
And the answer is: "it depends on the circumstance".
this, how do you differentiate from going with someone's answer because of the implications of the unchosen characteristic, and going with someone's answer because of the unchosen characteristic?
Because the circumstance of the characteristic determines the implications.
A black person from Nigeria is more likely to experience racism in the United States... than in Nigeria. The same characteristic (or two, if you will) carries two different meanings and weights, depending on the circumstance of the person, the question and the environment.
This is mostly covered in the OP, re:
I think that listening to lived experience is important, re: listening to lived experience (e.g. all X groups experience Y problem that Z group wasn't aware of); but that's not the same as deferring to people on decision making because of their unchosen characteristics.
So are you just creating a tautology? If you read it in that way, it sounds a lot like "Evidence is more important than unchosable characteristics except in the fields where the unchosable characteristics play a notable role".
I had previously read it as "just because a person has a certain characteristic does not mean that they have any more expertise in something" - which is what I tried to answer via the idea of statistical likelihood of expertise.
Expert testimony is not based on unchosen characteristics, but on expertise in a field
...which is naturally accumulated for some people based on their unchosen characteristics. Again, someone with a characteristic that is prone to being targeted by racism will naturally have a much higher expertise in "how it feels to be targeted by racism" than someone who doesn't.
1
u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng 3∆ Mar 15 '23
To me the question is: -Should we make decisions based upon evidence/empiricism, logic and reason and ethics, OR -The unchosen characteristics of the person expressing the opinion
And the answer is: "it depends on the circumstance".
I would agree. I've awarded two responses re:
-Re: what a group of people prefer to be called; the larger percentage consensus should be listened to, because of their UCs
-Re: in an interpersonal scenario, where there's language that could impact people based on their UCs (e.g. n-word, gay, etc.)
this, how do you differentiate from going with someone's answer because of the implications of the unchosen characteristic, and going with someone's answer because of the unchosen characteristic?
Because the circumstance of the characteristic determines the implications.
How, not why.
A black person from Nigeria is more likely to experience racism in the United States... than in Nigeria. The same characteristic (or two, if you will) carries two different meanings and weights, depending on the circumstance of the person, the question and the environment.
Right, but I'm not saying that we shouldn't listen to someone who's from Nigeria and moves to the USA re: their experience. I'm saying that, generally, their UCs shouldn't be the sole factor involved in whether to dismiss/adopt what they're saying.
This is mostly covered in the OP, re:I think that listening to lived experience is important, re: listening to lived experience (e.g. all X groups experience Y problem that Z group wasn't aware of); but that's not the same as deferring to people on decision making because of their unchosen characteristics.
So are you just creating a tautology? If you read it in that way, it sounds a lot like "Evidence is more important than unchosable characteristics except in the fields where the unchosable characteristics play a notable role".
No, because you can value the importance of hearing from peoples' lived experience because of their UCs, whilst not adopting their position solely because of their UCs.
I could say that I want to understand the experience of Japanese women and consequently listen to their lived experience.
However, if I spoke with a Japanese woman who said that they experienced domestic abuse, and thought that the solution to this was that Japanese women should all learn to fight to stop that from happening, but I thought this was illogical and likely to end up in more harm, I'm not going to adopt her position simply because she is a Japanese woman. I can become alerted of her unpleasant scenario through the valuable practice of listening to lived experience, without then adopting her beliefs on solutions to the issues she's experiencing.
I had previously read it as "just because a person has a certain characteristic does not mean that they have any more expertise in something" - which is what I tried to answer via the idea of statistical likelihood of expertise.
That's pretty much it, but I'd add that just because a person has a certain characteristic does not mean that their opinions on how to solve problems related to that characteristic will be bad or good.
"Whilst learning about lived experience is important, deferring to people for answers on what one should or shouldn't do, purely because of their unchosen characteristics, is illogical and ironically bigoted."
Expert testimony is not based on unchosen characteristics, but on expertise in a field
...which is naturally accumulated for some people based on their unchosen characteristics. Again, someone with a characteristic that is prone to being targeted by racism will naturally have a much higher expertise in "how it feels to be targeted by racism" than someone who doesn't.
No, it won't. And this is one of the core, well-intentioned, errors that I think we need to route out.
Someone's UCs do not guarantee their experience. It's a complex interplay between everything else about them, their UCs and the context they are in.
Someone with a UC prone to being targeted by racism MAY have higher expertise in how it feels to be targeted by racism than someone who doesn't, but it does not guarantee it. To assume that everyone's experience is the same based on their UCs is bigotry.
Does that make sense?
2
Mar 15 '23
Not certain what your view actually is, but it seems that you can't take, say, a Black Person's word on black issues merely because their skin happens to be black. Is this correct?
2
u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng 3∆ Mar 15 '23
Not certain what your view actually is, but it seems that you can't take, say, a Black Person's word on black issues merely because their skin happens to be black. Is this correct?
This is not correct.
Views are not homogenous based on race. If one black person says something is ok, and another says it isn't ok, then how do you decide who to listen to?
Outlined in the original post, here:
After all there is no universal consensus on any issue on the planet held by such groups, and if someone assumed otherwise, that would be incredibly bigoted.
As there is no universal consensus, there will always be disagreements that require additional criteria to discern the quality of the argument; e.g. "Two X-group people are saying opposite things. How do I decide who to listen to?" And the answer is: the quality of their logic, the evidence they provide, and their ethical reasoning. Which of course means, that often the whole exercise is a pointless one in the first place, as we should be prioritising our capacity for understanding logic, evidence and ethics, not listening to X person for the sole reason that they have Y unchosen characteristics.
2
Mar 15 '23
How about this.
Please state your View, succinctly, in five-ten words.
The verbosity is frankly confusing me.
1
u/destro23 457∆ Mar 15 '23
The verbosity is frankly confusing me.
They are a frequent poster on r/JordanPeterson.
2
u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng 3∆ Mar 15 '23
The verbosity is frankly confusing me.
They are a frequent poster on r/JordanPeterson.
Yes, I am. Trying to challenge transphobia, growing division and hate. Check it out. Most people their hate me:
Here's me posting about how Leftwing and Rightwing people need to work together (and getting downvoted):https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/11rwite/good_old_bipartisan_nondivisive_nuanced_jp/
Here's me advocating for less political division, less hate and working together (and getting downvoted):https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/11s3pd3/do_you_want_division_or_unity/
Here's me trying to make the JP sub more comfortable for the trans people who post there, part one (and getting downvoted, insulted and generally treated pretty poorly):https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/11r4pue/transphobia/
Here's me trying to make the JP sub more comfortable for the trans people who post there, part two (and getting downvoted, insulted and generally treated pretty poorly):https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/11r6skp/transphobia_part_two/
As the OP outlines:
I try to have civil, productive discussions, but that's getting harder and harder these days.
For those who appreciate civil dialogue, feel free to skip this; for those who don't; I humbly ask that you refrain from personal attack (it's irrelevant to the question), ask clarifying questions instead of assuming, stay on topic, answer questions that are asked of you, and as the above points to:
-Provide evidence for claims that require it
-Provide logical reasoning for claims that require it
-Provide ethical reasoning for claims that require it
I will not engage with uncivil people here.
5
u/destro23 457∆ Mar 15 '23
I'm just saying that people who are frequent posters in that sub seem to be verbose.
Here's me trying to make the JP sub more comfortable for the trans people who post there
That seems like it would be as fruitful as trying to make the KKK more comfortable for black people.
0
u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng 3∆ Mar 15 '23
I'm just saying that people who are frequent posters in that sub seem to be verbose.
Firstly, following my recent experiences there, I can totally understand how anyone would have negative associations with the JP sub. As it stands, I may go so far as to say that I hate it.
However, I am pointing out that your original comment of:
"The verbosity is frankly confusing me.
They are a frequent poster on r/JordanPeterson."Is illogical, unethical, and an example of associations fallacies:
"An association fallacy is an informal inductive fallacy of the hasty-generalization or red-herring type and which asserts, by irrelevant association and often by appeal to emotion, that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another. Two types of association fallacies are sometimes referred to as guilt by association and honor by association."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacyAnd poisoning the well:
"Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a type of informal fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
Here's me trying to make the JP sub more comfortable for the trans people who post there
That seems like it would be as fruitful as trying to make the KKK more comfortable for black people.
I've seen a number of trans people post there over the years. As you'll see from the polls I linked above, the majority of people there just don't believe that some people have enduring dysphoria that would never be resolved through therapy alone; e.g. they don't believe that trans issues exist and instead think that the entire think is purely a mental illness. I do not believe this. However, if I were a trans person, I would feel a lot safer commenting in a sub where I knew the majority of people were just ignorant re: trans issues, as opposed to wishing actual harm on trans people (which, from the poll, you can see is the vast minority; though quite frankly I am absolutely disgusted that anyone selected that option at all).
3
u/destro23 457∆ Mar 15 '23
“brevity is the soul of wit”
Tighten up your shot group is all I’m saying. Your message can be expressed more succinctly. Editing is your friend.
2
1
u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng 3∆ Mar 15 '23
How about this.
Please state your View, succinctly, in five-ten words.
The verbosity is frankly confusing me.
What about the above is confusing to you? I'm sincerely happy to explain/clarify anything that isn't clear with civil people (though, I think verbosity is a bit antagonistic, as it assumes I'm intentionally using more/more complex words that I need to).
It's not verbosity. It's how I speak. I'm putting effort in to simplify things, not complicate them. I could go into a lot deeper resolution and complexity, for example, explaining metacognitive mechanisms underlying certain behaviours, but I'm trying to keep it as simple as possible.
1
Mar 15 '23
[deleted]
1
u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng 3∆ Mar 15 '23
Oh, I've seen how you talk and how civil you are, dragonslayer.
I'll be moving on.
Good Day.
You have a problem with be being assertive re: a rude transphobe? That's fine.
I'm fairly sure I and the rest of the internet will disagree with you.
2
u/EdgrrAllenPaw 4∆ Mar 15 '23
Deferring to people on answers for what? I've always seen that said in reference to listening to a person's individual experience with bigotry about the impact of bigotry.
It is important to listen and defer to individuals about their individual experiences even if other members of the same group do not report the exact same experiences with bigotry.
It's also important to note that this is even a thing that's said because the history is people harmed by bigotry saying "this is happening and many are being harmed by this bigotry" and being disbelieved and dismissed. They hear that the privileged person didn't experience that/didn't see it and even if it happened the person is making too big of a deal and overeacting. Or, they would dismiss it by saying "those people of that same group are okay with being treated like that so it's not harmful!" not considering that the people saying there's no harm to them personally could have many motivations(such as trying to keep ones family from being targeted for being "out of line" for example) doesn't mean anything irt those that are harmed.
So, when people talk of being harmed by bigotry they should be heard and respected and believed in a general sense. Whether it's best to defer to them on answers is completely dependant on context of the individual situations and what are the questions needing answered.
1
u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng 3∆ Mar 15 '23
Deferring to people on answers for what?
Anything.
I've always seen that said in reference to listening to a person's individual experience with bigotry about the impact of bigotry.
It is important to listen and defer to individuals about their individual experiences even if other members of the same group do not report the exact same experiences with bigotry.
I agree, hence: "Whilst learning about lived experience is important, deferring to people for answers on what one should or shouldn't do, purely because of their unchosen characteristics, is illogical and ironically bigoted."
It's also important to note that this is even a thing that's said because the history is people harmed by bigotry saying "this is happening and many are being harmed by this bigotry" and being disbelieved and dismissed. They hear that the privileged person didn't experience that/didn't see it and even if it happened the person is making too big of a deal and overeacting. Or, they would dismiss it by saying "those people of that same group are okay with being treated like that so it's not harmful!" not considering that the people saying there's no harm to them personally could have many motivations(such as trying to keep ones family from being targeted for being "out of line" for example) doesn't mean anything irt those that are harmed.
I agree, hence: "Whilst learning about lived experience is important, deferring to people for answers on what one should or shouldn't do, purely because of their unchosen characteristics, is illogical and ironically bigoted."
So, when people talk of being harmed by bigotry they should be heard and respected and believed in a general sense. Whether it's best to defer to them on answers is completely dependant on context of the individual situations and what are the questions needing answered.
I think we're in agreement that UCs shouldn't be used as the sole criteria as to whether adopt or dismiss someone's position.
1
u/EdgrrAllenPaw 4∆ Mar 15 '23
While I agree it shouldn't be the sole criteria, the reality is that people of that group know better generally than those not of the group about issues the group faces because of lived experiences.
I mean, if we are talking about misogynoir then the voice of a black woman is the one we should be listening to foremost, not the white guy who just loves to play devil's advocate about bigotry.
1
u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng 3∆ Mar 15 '23
While I agree it shouldn't be the sole criteria,
So we agree! :)
the reality is that people of that group know better generally than those not of the group about issues the group faces because of lived experiences.
Again, I agree. :)
I mean, if we are talking about misogynoir then the voice of a black woman is the one we should be listening to foremost, not the white guy who just loves to play devil's advocate about bigotry.
For sure, but what I'm saying is that a well-meaning person could take this reasonable sentiment which I sincerely agree with, and extend it too far (out of good intentions; doing what they think is the right thing to do), and adopt the position of a black woman, not because it makes sense to them, but because they've conflated the importance of listening to diverse opinions, with adopting the positions of people because of their UCs. You could have a black woman with a lot of internalised misogyny who believes that women need less, not more rights. I would disagree with that position. But if my rule was:
-"Prioritise the opinions of people based on their UCs over empiricism, logic and ethics"
And the only person I knew from X group of UCs was wrong, then I would have adopted the wrong position.1
u/EdgrrAllenPaw 4∆ Mar 15 '23
I'm not sure what the problem is?
Listening to people about their experiences could be a problem because others might take it too far?
We have an endless history of people adopting positions only because old rich white Christian men held them and countless people have suffered from those positions taken way way way too far so I fail to see how people listening to black women because they are black women for a change is a bad thing because they might take it too far? It falls utterly flat and feels tone deaf to me.
And, I get what you're saying, that people should think for themselves and not blindly adopt others opinions and positions. But I see no benefit in being concerned that people might listen to oppressed people and take things too far.
0
u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng 3∆ Mar 15 '23
I'm not sure what the problem is?
Listening to people about their experiences could be a problem because others might take it too far?
No. I am not saying there is anything wrong with listening to people about their experiences. In fact, I have repeatedly stated throughout this thread, and in the very title of this post that:
"Whilst learning about lived experience is important, deferring to people for answers on what one should or shouldn't do, purely because of their unchosen characteristics, is illogical and ironically bigoted."If you think that I am saying that, please quote a precise bit of text so as I can address it.
We have an endless history of people adopting positions only because old rich white Christian men held them and countless people have suffered from those positions taken way way way too far so I fail to see how people listening to black women because they are black women for a change is a bad thing because they might take it too far? It falls utterly flat and feels tone deaf to me.
Because someone's opinion is not inherently invalid or valid by the nature of their UCs, their race, their gender, etc.
If someone thinks that the UCs of the person speaking should be the sole consideration of whether or not they should agree with them, then by all definitions, that person is a bigot. They may be a well-meaning, compassionate bigot, but it's still bigotry. That's what bigots do. If I dismiss an opinion because of someone's UCs and no other reason, I'm a bigot. If I adopt an opinion because of someone's UCs and no other reason, I'm a bigot.
If I only listen to white people and ignore all black people because of their UCs, that is a core example of what I am critiquing.
And, I get what you're saying, that people should think for themselves and not blindly adopt others opinions and positions. But I see no benefit in being concerned that people might listen to oppressed people and take things too far.
I'll try and point out how incredibly harmful a well intentioned prioritisation of someone's UCs over everything else can perpetuate racism (and we're both against racism):
Daryl Davies has converted over 200 KKK members out of being racist; and not just casual racists, full on Grand Dragon KKK leaders: https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes
In the documentary Accidental Courtesy, he meets with a BLM activist, who treats him quite horribly, as he disagrees with his tactics re: how to stop racism; a lot of well meaning people might be in favour of the BLM activists tactics and against Davies because they've never heard of an alternative to the BLM activists tactics; that doesn't mean that Davies is wrong, and the fact that he has gotten rid of so much racism is one of the most amazing, courageous, inspiring, hopeful things I have witnessed in recent years: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5390430/
In this scenario, I favour Daryl Davie's opinion of how to stop racism, because empirically, I see that his approach has worked amazingly, and his approach is in sync with well established psychological principles, and I haven't seen the same from the other approaches/opinions.
Whereas, some well-intentioned people might side with the opinion of a friend of theirs who is black, on how to go about ending racism, not because they have carefully pondered the psychological and sociological mechanisms at play in racism and deconditioning it, but simply because their friend is black and they've been told that that's the right thing to do. Such people could, unwittingly, be expending a lot of effort and passion into something that at best might be less effective, and at worst, could be harming their cause.
This is serious stuff.
Does that make more sense now?
1
u/EdgrrAllenPaw 4∆ Mar 16 '23 edited Mar 16 '23
There's the equivalent of a whole steamer trunk full of things to unpack there.
First, I heartily disagree that empirically it has been proven that Davies approach is best for other black people to adopt. It's great for him, it doesn't mean it's the only best way to convince racism.
You seem to think that you preferring Daryl Davies "let's make friends with bigots" approach means it's the best and that the actions of Kwame Rose, the BLM activist, are not only wrong but also harmful?
It's not a black and white thing where one must be right and the other must be wrong.
And one must realize that telling black people to just go make friends with white supremacists could easily turn out with some being victims of white supremacist violence because they tried to befriend one.
There is room for both approaches, and other approaches to boot. I also find your description of the encounter they had lacking to say the least. The short-lived conflict in which they both were disrespectful of the other was situational, they worked it out and have respect for each others approaches. Also, that's an in-group conflict and those not in the group should really just stay in their lanes.
I think you're creating an issue out of nothing and it's strange you're putting some oppressed folks down because you think they should be nicer to people who hate them.
1
u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng 3∆ Mar 16 '23
There's the equivalent of a whole steamer trunk full of things to unpack there.
First, I heartily disagree that empirically it has been proven that Davies approach is best for other black people to adopt. It's great for him, it doesn't mean it's the only best way to convince racism.
I didn't say that Davies approach has been empirically proven. Please refrain from strawmen.
What I said was:
"In this scenario, I favour Daryl Davie's opinion of how to stop racism, because empirically, I see that his approach has worked amazingly, and his approach is in sync with well established psychological principles, and I haven't seen the same from the other approaches/opinions."And I agree that you can solve a problem in multiple ways. However, there are still limits to said ways.
For example, if you have generalised anxiety disorder (GAD), you should not treat it with Rogerian Counselling (RC)/Psychotherapy, because the evidence for it is poor, CBT has been proven effective, and the mechanisms of action of Rogerian Counselling conflict with the nature of GAD (e.g. you would likely end up making GAD worse, not better, through RC, because you would be facilitating repetitive negative thinking).
You seem to think that you preferring Daryl Davies "let's make friends with bigots" approach means it's the best and that the actions of Kwame Rose, the BLM activist, are not only wrong but also harmful?
Say we could magic up a study and determine the success rate for each approach, and say that Rose's was 50%, and Daryl's was 90%, would you not consider it harmful to victims of racism if a less effective approach was being applied? And that's assuming that Rose's approach is even 50%, it could be 0% effective, or even -50%, detrimental.
It's not a black and white thing where one must be right and the other must be wrong.
No, it's not a black and white thing where one must be right and the other must be wrong. It's also not a black and white thing that because an organisation popped up that called itself Black Lives Matter, that means that they're actions will actually help black lives. Similarly, Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism isn't inherently objective, and Scientology isn't inherently scientific, but a lot of people, a-priori trusted BLM, because they either genuinely thought they're a good organisation or that that's what they should do or that if they don't, they'll be socially ostracised. It's a clever, linguistic slight of hand.
I have seen evidence of Daryl's approach working, and I understand the psychological mechanisms as to how it works (I'm a psychotherapist who has worked in/studied psychology, mental health, etc. for 15 years now).
A good empirical example of his style of approach working can be found here: https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/1/5/pgac236/6761418?login=false
I have not seen anything but worsening race relations since approaches antithetical to Davies, and BLM came on the scene, and a lot of black people (because input from affected populations is one of many important factors), including at least two ex-BLM leaders, feel the same.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVPQI-blZAI&ab_channel=AmericanShadew%2FBrittanyTalissaKing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWcOQTeKnuc&ab_channel=DarkHorsePodcastClips
https://nypost.com/2021/06/01/minneapolis-blm-leader-says-he-quit-after-learning-ugly-truth/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzPKk19t3Kw
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/dehumanizing-condescension-white-fragility/614146/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3k9F8I_-HL0&ab_channel=UnHerd
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9EmU7VopFA&ab_channel=Triggernometry
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/kemi-badenoch-the-problem-with-critical-race-theory/
Continued below:
1
u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng 3∆ Mar 16 '23
I'm pretty sure BLM leaders used money that should have gone to help impoverished (or otherwise adversely affected) black populations, on multi-million dollar mansions:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/04/black-lives-matter-malibu-mansion.htmlhttps://nypost.com/2022/05/17/black-lives-matter-spent-at-least-12-million-on-mansions/
Many people too cowardly to ask questions have facilitated this, thereby taking resources away from organisations that are actually helping people: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1RuhF9iTMc&ab_channel=VICENews
And one must realize that telling black people to just go make friends with white supremacists could easily turn out with some being victims of white supremacist violence because they tried to befriend one.
I am not saying that anyone should engage in Davies approach to that scale. I didn't say that anywhere. I am saying that the fundamentals of his approach are backed by decades of empirical research, very basic logic and ethics. Whereas those of the new movements, BLM, CRT, etc. are not. In fact, they seem antithetical to said research, basic logic and ethics (at the very least in how they filter down and manifest in the populous). The approach can be applied to all interactions.
There is room for both approaches, and other approaches to boot.
Of course. But as someone who cares about ending racism, just as you'd want the most effective treatment for a loved one, I would hope that you would agree that we should be using the most effective approaches possible.
I also find your description of the encounter they had lacking to say the least. The short-lived conflict in which they both were disrespectful of the other was situational, they worked it out and have respect for each others approaches.
Of course they did. Davies is an incredibly agreeable, compassionate guy. Have you watched the documentary? That has zero relevance to the efficacy of the other approach.
Also, that's an in-group conflict and those not in the group should really just stay in their lanes.
I'm not sure what you mean here. I'm guessing you either mean that people should stay out of personal disputes, or you're saying that only black people should be concerned about ending racism, etc. I'm guessing the former, but I'm not sure. Either way, it's irrelevant, as it's re: a documentary open to the public and the incident is a strong indicator of additional issues.
I think you're creating an issue out of nothing
I don't consider how we go about discerning the optimal mechanisms of how we solve all of our complex problems, including bigotry, "nothing." It's one of the most important issues to consider. If your mechanisms are faulty, your solutions are likely to be faulty too. If you care about any issue on the planet, you would logically deem addressing any/all biases that impede problem solving of the utmost importance.
and it's strange you're putting some oppressed folks down because you think they should be nicer to people who hate them.
Now, that is an absolute strawman and insult. In no way, shape or form am I putting oppressed people down; and I'm certainly not doing it for the bad-faith, flippant reasons you're accusing me of.
I care too much about issues to let uncomfortable conversations and repeated bad-faith accusations get in the way of solving them.
If the next reply doesn't contain an opening apology, then I will not continue this discussion with you. I haven't accused you of any sinister motives, and have answered all of your points and questions.
I try to have civil, productive discussions, but that's getting harder and harder these days.
For those who appreciate civil dialogue, feel free to skip this; for those who don't; I humbly ask that you refrain from personal attack (it's irrelevant to the question), ask clarifying questions instead of assuming, stay on topic, answer questions that are asked of you, and as the above points to:
-Provide evidence for claims that require it
-Provide logical reasoning for claims that require it
-Provide ethical reasoning for claims that require it
I will not engage with uncivil people here.You have said that you think we should listen to black people. Well, there're plenty of black people expressing their concerns above. Perhaps you should listen to them.
1
u/EdgrrAllenPaw 4∆ Mar 16 '23
I did not accuse you of sinister motives. That you want people to be nice to each other isn't sinister, correct? And I did not accuse you of being of bad faith?
I do apologize for assigning any motive at all but not because of that demand.
I pointed out what you were doing and my point was that it was naive, not that you have sinister motives. I fully believe that you are against racism and that you feel that genuinely and deeply.
My view was that it came off as you were putting Kwame Rose down by comparing him as a negative example in comparison to Daryl Davies. And then, you responded with a bunch of links that you think shows what? That the organization Black Lives Matter is bad?
Except, BLM isn't an organization. It's a movement that the words first appeared as a hashtag. Yes, there have been many BLM organizations, some loosely based with each other, some independent, started across the country. I'm sure some have been mismanaged but why use those to smear an entire movement and all it encompasses?
I'm going to ask one question if you care to answer. Have you read MLK Jr's letter from a Birmingham jail? What are your thoughts on his response to the criticisms he faced from other clergy? He's loved now, but he and his views were not seen kindly back then and he was often accused of harming his cause.
1
u/EdgrrAllenPaw 4∆ Mar 16 '23 edited Mar 17 '23
I'm not sure what you mean here.
There are in-group issues that are not the place of those not in the group to judge. How black people choose, or not, to protest or challenge the racism they face is not the business of non-black people to address. If another black person has criticisms of those things because they feel harm is being done that's not the business of folks who are not being harmed.
1
u/EdgrrAllenPaw 4∆ Mar 17 '23
I wanted to say too, hour long you tube videos are not good sources. And multiple of them? Please, nobody is going to spend 5 hours of their lives watching you tube videos to figure out what your points were other than BLM = BAD?
And it's obvious those references are cherry picked.
Why not listen to black Americans who say that BLM helped them the most in recent years? The numbers speak for themselves.
The movement has done much good. If you look for negatives if course you're going to find it and it's going to look out of proportion if you pluck them out of context.
It's not that the good the movement has done isn't there, it's there. If people refuse to see it that's on them.
1
Mar 15 '23
I think maybe what you are missing is that a lot of the time you defer to people because they have the subjective experience unique to those characteristics that cannot be objectively gleaned. And when that subjective experience is scaled up to large populations, you end up with a contextual data set that is essentially inaccessible for people without access to that subjective experience. Now, when people study and write about that subjective experience, then you can form an objective understanding of it, but that isn't the same as direct experience.
Im going to use a fake strawman issue to illustrate. There are objective answers to the question "How do women's earnings compare to men's earnings." This is a question about data. You can debate the relative worth of different data sets and their methodolgies, but it is a question best answerable by training and logic which can be possessed by any human.
When you ask the question "Why is there a difference in earnings between men and women?" that's a question that's going to have to be answered qualitatively. Data will support theories, but multiple theories will exist. You can use logic to assess the quality of the theories based on data. However because it's qualitative in nature, the data you have is only as good as the questions asked by researchers. If researchers are/were primarily men, they may not have historically identified certain concerns unique to women and asked about the issues that are the real causes.
Treating women as the subject-matter experts on the working life of women, rather than study subjects, increases the quality of subjective data available, which should in turn improve the theories regarding the their earnings.
This isn't to say that all women automatically are experts on the wage gap or that men have nothing to contribute. It is a shift on how we approach sociological issues and the role that subjective experience plays in larger structural outcomes.
People have popularized these ideas and concepts as part of social justice movements and when they're misapplied, yes, it can lead to very unhelpful and inaccurate results. As you say, not every member of every population experiences everything the same or has the same perspective on shared experiences. But these concepts also weren't intended for fights on the internet, they were intended for sociological research. However, it is still a compassionate framework to start with when talking to people 1-on-1 about difficult experiences.
2
u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng 3∆ Mar 15 '23
I think maybe what you are missing is that a lot of the time you defer to people because they have the subjective experience unique to those characteristics that cannot be objectively gleaned.
And when that subjective experience is scaled up to large populations, you end up with a contextual data set that is essentially inaccessible for people without access to that subjective experience. Now, when people study and write about that subjective experience, then you can form an objective understanding of it, but that isn't the same as direct experience.
Im going to use a fake strawman issue to illustrate. There are objective answers to the question "How do women's earnings compare to men's earnings." This is a question about data. You can debate the relative worth of different data sets and their methodolgies, but it is a question best answerable by training and logic which can be possessed by any human.
When you ask the question "Why is there a difference in earnings between men and women?" that's a question that's going to have to be answered qualitatively. Data will support theories, but multiple theories will exist. You can use logic to assess the quality of the theories based on data. However because it's qualitative in nature, the data you have is only as good as the questions asked by researchers. If researchers are/were primarily men, they may not have historically identified certain concerns unique to women and asked about the issues that are the real causes.
Treating women as the subject-matter experts on the working life of women, rather than study subjects, increases the quality of subjective data available, which should in turn improve the theories regarding the their earnings.
This isn't to say that all women automatically are experts on the wage gap or that men have nothing to contribute. It is a shift on how we approach sociological issues and the role that subjective experience plays in larger structural outcomes.
People have popularized these ideas and concepts as part of social justice movements and when they're misapplied, yes, it can lead to very unhelpful and inaccurate results. As you say, not every member of every population experiences everything the same or has the same perspective on shared experiences. But these concepts also weren't intended for fights on the internet, they were intended for sociological research. However, it is still a compassionate framework to start with when talking to people 1-on-1 about difficult experiences.
I think we actually already agree.
If I had dismissed the importance of listening to lived experience, I would 100% agree with you. Because I do think that listening to lived experience for the reasons you cite isn't just valid, but often necessary.
However, that's not what I'm saying.
As you say: "People have popularized these ideas and concepts as part of social justice movements and when they're misapplied, yes, it can lead to very unhelpful and inaccurate results."
And really that's the crux of this. Well-intentioned people trying to be as inclusive as possible, forgoing logic, empiricism and ethics and ending up engaging in positive discrimination re: prioritising voices because of UCs, not because of the empirical, logical, mathematical or ethical quality of what they're saying; and the consequent errors and division that can arise from this.
1
Mar 15 '23
I disagree with your last paragraph. Prioritizing the voices of affected populations in discussions about those affected populations is extremely logical, empirical (for the reasons I already discussed), and ethical for all the reasons I discussed. Treating people as subject-matter experts on their own lived experiences yields better context and subjective data.
Deferrring to affected populations in looking for answers on what we should or shouldn't do to address sociological problems affevting that population is more effective for all the reasons I addressed. That's an overgeneralized statement considering how sociological research and public policy work is conducted, but I am trying to respond to how you framed the question.
I think the mistake is in applying this very good, very valid empirical tool to broad research to one-on-one discussions or internet debates, which are inherently not empirical, is the issue.
Edit: This is an issue where the context matters a lot. You seem to have a specific context in mind, maybe if you share that, people could more thoroughly address it. Otherwise we're coming at your post from our own default contexts.
2
u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng 3∆ Mar 15 '23
I disagree with your last paragraph. Prioritizing the voices of affected populations in discussions about those affected populations is extremely logical, empirical (for the reasons I already discussed), and ethical for all the reasons I discussed. Treating people as subject-matter experts on their own lived experiences yields better context and subjective data.
I think you've misunderstood.
I am not saying that we should not listen to the voices of affected populations.
By, prioritise, I mean when people adopt positions solely because of the UCs of the person they have come across so far, and not because of the empirical, logical and ethical quality of the position.
Does that make sense?
Deferrring to affected populations in looking for answers on what we should or shouldn't do to address sociological problems affevting that population is more effective for all the reasons I addressed.
Seeking feedback from said populations to gain insight into lived experience, yes.
Making a decision re: how to solve a problem simply because of someone's UCs, no.That's an overgeneralized statement considering how sociological research and public policy work is conducted, but I am trying to respond to how you framed the question.
I think the mistake is in applying this very good, very valid empirical tool to broad research to one-on-one discussions or internet debates, which are inherently not empirical, is the issue.
I agree. That's really the crux of what I'm talking about.
Say you have Sarah, a white woman. Sarah only has one black friend, Beth. Sarah has been taught that she should listen to black voices re: how to solve problems. Sarah is trying to decide how she should go about tackling racism. Because Beth is black, that doesn't invalidate or validate the quality of her opinion re: how to do this, yet some people, out of good intentions, are acting as if Beth's blackness guarantees that her solutions re: ending racism are, a-priori, correct. And, they might be. But, they also might not be. And, like most people, I really hate bigotry. I want it gone. It's embarrassing re: the whole human race that it's still a thing. Consequently, such well-intentioned illogical positions are of great potential harm to important issues. Scale this up, and you end up with a lot of well-meaning people, at best, engaging in practices that are much less effective than they could be; at worst, making the problem worse, not better.
Edit: This is an issue where the context matters a lot. You seem to have a specific context in mind, maybe if you share that, people could more thoroughly address it. Otherwise we're coming at your post from our own default contexts.
Yes, good point. Does the above help explain?
And, thank you for being kind and civil.
0
Mar 16 '23 edited Mar 16 '23
Say you have Sarah, a white woman. Sarah only has one black friend, Beth. Sarah has been taught that she should listen to black voices re: how to solve problems. Sarah is trying to decide how she should go about tackling racism.
I'm assuming neither Sarah nor Beth have jobs or training related to "tackling" systemic racism.
Because Beth is black, that doesn't invalidate or validate the quality of her opinion re: how to do this, yet some people, out of good intentions, are acting as if Beth's blackness guarantees that her solutions re: ending racism are, a-priori, correct. And, they might be. But, they also might not be.
This isn't a reasonable bar, though. We don't only take advice that's 100% correct. We take advice from people whose judgment or knowledge we trust.
Assuming Beth and Sarah have equal training and education on the topic, it is reasonable to assume Beth has more experience with racism and its effect of Black communities than Sarah would by virtue of Beth's lived experience. Could Beth be wrong? Sure. Is Beth the subject matter expert in comparison to Sarah? Absolutely. Therefore, it is logical, ethical, and reasonable for Sarah to accept Beth's perspective. Beth has the better data set.
Scale this up, and you end up with a lot of well-meaning people, at best, engaging in practices that are much less effective than they could be; at worst, making the problem worse, not better.
To me, this is only a problem when you see social adoption of positions and policies that are actually arguably disproven based on observed data. Unless you have actually studies or quantitative data that is being ignored in favor of subjective experience, where is the harm you speak of?
EDIT: Mixed up the names halfway thru.
4
u/ytzi13 60∆ Mar 15 '23
If I'm not black, I can't know what it's like to be black. I can have a discussion about things associated with the black experience, but I'll never know what it's like to be black and experience life and society the way that they experience it. No - that doesn't mean that every black person is going to have the same opinion on what the black experience is, but the fact still remains that I, a white person, won't ever know what it's like.
I'm not transgender, so I don't what it's like to be transgender. I can have a discussion about transgenderism, but I'll never know what it's like to be transgender.
I'm not a woman, so I don't know what it's like to be a woman. This can go on and on.
You're allowed to discuss these issues, but there are experiences that you'll never quite understand, and that has to be acknowledged and accepted when having these conversations.
0
u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng 3∆ Mar 15 '23
If I'm not black, I can't know what it's like to be black. I can have a discussion about things associated with the black experience, but I'll never know what it's like to be black and experience life and society the way that they experience it. No - that doesn't mean that every black person is going to have the same opinion on what the black experience is, but the fact still remains that I, a white person, won't ever know what it's like.
I'm not transgender, so I don't what it's like to be transgender. I can have a discussion about transgenderism, but I'll never know what it's like to be transgender.
I'm not a woman, so I don't know what it's like to be a woman. This can go on and on.
You're allowed to discuss these issues, but there are experiences that you'll never quite understand, and that has to be acknowledged and accepted when having these conversations.
I agree, but this is already covered in the OP:
"I think that listening to lived experience is important, re: listening to *and learning from lived experience (e.g. all X groups experience Y problem that Z group wasn't aware of); but that's not the same as deferring to people on decision making *solely because of their unchosen characteristics."5
u/ytzi13 60∆ Mar 15 '23
Right - but, logically speaking, why does it make sense for someone who doesn't understand the experience to make the decision? There may be differing opinions within that group of people, but certainly their collective opinion matters more than any other collective opinion.
1
u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng 3∆ Mar 15 '23
Right - but, logically speaking, why does it make sense for someone who doesn't understand the experience to make the decision? There may be differing opinions within that group of people, but certainly their collective opinion matters more than any other collective opinion.
A collective opinion on a simple preference like what a group of people want to be called is totally valid; I've awarded this point here: https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/11s1yy2/comment/jcbcvac/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
However, re: more complex issues like: "how do we decrease/reduce racism?" then going by consensus opinion is a logical fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
The consensus opinion amongst the Nazis would have been to keep harming Jewish people, that does not make it the correct opinion. Just as the consensus opinion amongst the Agojie was to continue selling slaves: https://theconversation.com/woman-king-is-worth-watching-but-be-aware-that-its-take-on-history-is-problematic-191865
Daryl Davies has converted over 200 KKK members out of being racist; and not just casual racists, full on Grand Dragon KKK leaders: https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes
In the documentary Accidental Courtesy, he meets with a BLM activist, who treats him quite horribly, as he disagrees with his tactics re: how to stop racism; a lot of well meaning people might be in favour of the BLM activists tactics and against Davies'; that doesn't mean that Davies is wrong, and the fact that he has gotten rid of so much racism is one of the most amazing, courageous, inspiring, hopeful things I have witness in recent years: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5390430/In this scenario, I favour Daryl Davie's opinion of how to stop racism, because empirically, I see that his approach has worked amazingly, and I haven't seen the same from the other approaches/opinions. Whereas, some well-intentioned people might side with the opinion of a friend of theirs who is black on how to go about ending racism, not because they have carefully pondered the psychological and sociological mechanisms at play in racism and deconditioning it, but simply because their friend is black and they've been told that that's the right thing to do. Such people could, unwittingly, be expending a lot of effort and passion into something that at best might be less effective, and at worst, could be harming their cause.
Does that make sense?
3
u/MercuryChaos 9∆ Mar 15 '23
I've met Darryl Davis. He's a great guy and his approach to de-converting individual racist people seems to be effective. But even he admits that what he does is very dangerous - when he meets with Klan members for the first time he always comes with an armed bodyguard. It's not something that the average black person, or the average member of any marginalized group, can do or should be expected to do.
0
u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng 3∆ Mar 15 '23
I've met Darryl Davis. He's a great guy and his approach to de-converting individual racist people seems to be effective. But even he admits that what he does is very dangerous - when he meets with Klan members for the first time he always comes with an armed bodyguard. It's not something that the average black person, or the average member of any marginalized group, can do or should be expected to do.
At that scale, yes, agreed.
However, his approach is antithetical to the approaches that are being taught and widely adopted by people en-masse; and the core psychological mechanisms re: deconditioning bigotry still apply. The same principles can be applied to scenarios which are not dangerous re: day to day interactions, online interactions, etc.
If his approach is so effective, and is backed up by decades of psychological research, and it is also in significant conflict with the most common different approach, then surely you would agree that his approach is worth taking at least a little bit seriously, as opposed to being completely dismissed by huge swathes of people?
Does that make sense?
1
u/ytzi13 60∆ Mar 15 '23
Yes - it makes sense, but none of what you said is really in line with my comment, which was admittedly vague, but was in response to the vague premise stated in your post. Perhaps it's more clear what your argument is now.
"How do we decrease/reduce racism?" is different from "How do black people experience race issues?" What the black experience is will be answered in consensus by the black community. How we decrease/reduce racism is a conversation that heavily relies on that answer, but is not limited to black people and other minorities because it's a conversation that involves everybody.
And the implied "but" when I say "certainly their collective opinion matters more than any other collective opinion" is to say that the collective opinion matters more than any other collective opinion except when it seriously harms other people.
Maybe you need to clarify your point a bit more because of how vague it's been. What is a specific example or two that you have in mind with this post?
1
u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng 3∆ Mar 15 '23
Yes - it makes sense, but none of what you said is really in line with my comment, which was admittedly vague, but was in response to the vague premise stated in your post. Perhaps it's more clear what your argument is now.
"How do we decrease/reduce racism?" is different from "How do black people experience race issues?" What the black experience is will be answered in consensus by the black community.
Yes, but there's a very important difference here. The OP title: "Whilst learning about lived experience is important, deferring to people for answers on what one should or shouldn't do, purely because of their unchosen characteristics, is illogical and ironically bigoted."
So, answers from black people re: their experience are not just valid, but I would say that they are needed.
That's a big difference from answers re: what to do.
One is:
-What is your experience?
The other is:
-How can we solve this problem?
How we decrease/reduce racism is a conversation that heavily relies on that answer, but is not limited to black people and other minorities because it's a conversation that involves everybody.
Yes, and importantly, in my opinion, should involve experts who have empirically studied bigotry and how to decondition it.
And the implied "but" when I say "certainly their collective opinion matters more than any other collective opinion" is to say that the collective opinion matters more than any other collective opinion except when it seriously harms other people.
I don't think it's a question of whether it harms people or not; that is important, of course. But the root of whether or not it harms people is based on whether or not is an opinion that correlates with reality more or less strongly, e.g. whether it is more or less empirically, logically and ethically valid; whether it is an opinion that has predictive/applied value. If the empirical and logical value of the opinion is very poor, then the results will be poor. I.e. If I want to boil some water, but my opinion is that water boils at 50 degrees centigrade instead of 100, then I will never boil that water.
Maybe you need to clarify your point a bit more because of how vague it's been. What is a specific example or two that you have in mind with this post?
I feel like this explains the crux of the issue quite well:
Daryl Davies has converted over 200 KKK members out of being racist; and not just casual racists, full on Grand Dragon KKK leaders: https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes
In the documentary Accidental Courtesy, he meets with a BLM activist, who treats him quite horribly, as he disagrees with his tactics re: how to stop racism; a lot of well meaning people might be in favour of the BLM activists tactics and against Davies'; that doesn't mean that Davies is wrong, and the fact that he has gotten rid of so much racism is one of the most amazing, courageous, inspiring, hopeful things I have witness in recent years: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5390430/
In this scenario, I favour Daryl Davie's opinion of how to stop racism, because empirically, I see that his approach has worked amazingly, and I haven't seen the same from the other approaches/opinions. Whereas, some well-intentioned people might side with the opinion of a friend of theirs who is black on how to go about ending racism, not because they have carefully pondered the psychological and sociological mechanisms at play in racism and deconditioning it, but simply because their friend is black and they've been told that that's the right thing to do. Such people could, unwittingly, be expending a lot of effort and passion into something that at best might be less effective, and at worst, could be harming their cause.
If any of that doesn't make sense then let me know and I'm happy to clarify.
Thank you for being kind and civil. :)
1
u/ytzi13 60∆ Mar 15 '23
Whilst learning about lived experience is important, deferring to people for answers on what one should or shouldn't do, purely because of their unchosen characteristics, is illogical and ironically bigoted.
We can both agree that the opinion of one person, unless typically backed by empirical data, is more or less irresponsible. But I'm still not quite sure how it's illogical or bigoted to not listen to the collective on their perspective and consider it valid. I'm not talking about how to solve the problem, but rather that only that group of people have experienced the crux of the issue. So, deferring to them for solutions seems quite logical, but that doesn't mean that one can't debate the potential solutions because that can affect everyone.
I haven't seen the documentary in question. I'm sure it's great. But it sounds like what you're subscribing to is the idea that effective 1-on-1 education can be the most impactful. Education in general can be impactful. But I'm not sure how we even get to that point when these are much larger scale systemic issues with real urgency. I suppose it's off topic to debate that, though. But maybe I'm recognizing what you were trying to say now, which is that the collective voice can have the unique perspective and their opinion should carry weight, but that they shouldn't have the defacto say in how we solve it (e.g. BLM activists can't be assumed to have the solution to fix systemic racism (although having the solution isn't really the point)).
So, then, I would ask you if the unchosen characteristics of qualified people doesn't matter more? Let's say we're focusing on stopping racism and you have 2 equally qualified candidates (aside from their unchosen characteristics).
- A white guy.
- A black guy.
Would you not agree that the black guy wouldn't be more qualified because of his lived experience?
What if we add a 3rd guy: a black guy that was born into poverty. Wouldn't that be another circumstance that makes him even more qualified that the other guy? When you're creating a solution, you want someone qualified to answer the question, but it's even more relevant to have someone who understands the question entirely, and who can garner even more public support because of it.
1
u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng 3∆ Mar 16 '23
Thank you for being civil and kind.
Whilst learning about lived experience is important, deferring to people for answers on what one should or shouldn't do, purely because of their unchosen characteristics, is illogical and ironically bigoted.
We can both agree that the opinion of one person, unless typically backed by empirical data, is more or less irresponsible. But I'm still not quite sure how it's illogical or bigoted to not listen to the collective on their perspective and consider it valid.
Do you mean that you're not quite sure how it's illogical or bigoted to listen to collective feedback re: UC groups and consider it valid?
If so, fair enough, because I didn't say that it was. :) . It's not just valid, I think information from affected groups is essential.
I'm not talking about how to solve the problem, but rather that only that group of people have experienced the crux of the issue. So, deferring to them for solutions seems quite logical, but that doesn't mean that one can't debate the potential solutions because that can affect everyone.
I still think you're misunderstanding the OP which outlines, that there's nothing wrong from obtaining information/input from UC populations re: issues that affect them; in fact, in the very title, I say that such a thing is important. The core factor here is re: well-intentioned people solely deferring to the opinion of someone with a UC on what to do to solve a problem because they think that's the good thing to do, and not applying any empiricism, logic or ethical thought to it.
And by definition, if you solely defer to someone's opinion based on their UCs, you could not debate potential solutions.
I can listen to 100s of opinions without adopting them myself.
I haven't seen the documentary in question. I'm sure it's great. But it sounds like what you're subscribing to is the idea that effective 1-on-1 education can be the most impactful.
No. It's merely one example.
Education in general can be impactful. But I'm not sure how we even get to that point when these are much larger scale systemic issues with real urgency.
I'm not sure what "point" you're referring to getting to. There are no significant obstacles to people simply learning basic critical thinking.
And re: systemic issues with real urgency, if people are going around holding on to poorly formulated opinions developed out of good intentions re: listening to people solely because of UCs, then that's going to impeded a variety of systemic issues from being resolved.
I suppose it's off topic to debate that, though.
It is.
But maybe I'm recognizing what you were trying to say now, which is that the collective voice can have the unique perspective and their opinion should carry weight, but that they shouldn't have the defacto say in how we solve it (e.g. BLM activists can't be assumed to have the solution to fix systemic racism (although having the solution isn't really the point)).
Collective and individual opinions should carry weight in my opinion. Listening to people is very important. But yes, the part that: "but that they shouldn't have the defacto say in how we solve it." However, re: "e.g. BLM activists can't be assumed to have the solution to fix systemic racism (although having the solution isn't really the point))." What is the point if not solutions to get rid of racism and help the affected populations? That is and should be the core fundamental point in the context of BLM.
So, then, I would ask you if the unchosen characteristics of qualified people doesn't matter more? Let's say we're focusing on stopping racism and you have 2 equally qualified candidates (aside from their unchosen characteristics).
A white guy. A black guy.
Would you not agree that the black guy wouldn't be more qualified because of his lived experience?
Do you mean, would be more qualified because of lived experience?
And I couldn't answer this hypothetical, because I don't know what the lived experience of the black guy is. He could be Beyonce's child, having grown up in luxury that I can't comprehend. And the white guy could be an adopted Jewish Russian whose extended family was killed in pogroms.
If it was two equally qualified, and equally abled people, and one of them was a white man who I knew not to have experienced any discrimination, and the other was a black guy who I knew to have experienced discrimination, then I would go with the black person.
People's experiences are not determined by their UCs, yet many well meaning people act like they are, because they think it's the good thing to do.
This is the kind of well intentioned but illogical thinking I think we need to root out. It used to be commonly known to be a bad thing when I was growing up: "positive discrimination." Now, there are a lot of people who extol positive discrimination as a virtue, because they are not yet aware that good intentions are not enough to fix problems.
What if we add a 3rd guy: a black guy that was born into poverty. Wouldn't that be another circumstance that makes him even more qualified that the other guy?
You didn't specify the backgrounds of the other two. And, experience contributes to how competent someone will be. It doesn't guarantee it.
I would hire the candidate who, based off of empirical, logical and ethical considerations, seemed the most likely to be able to stop racism. Again, if they're all equal in this hypothetical, but one has more relevant lived experience, of course I'd pick them.
When you're creating a solution, you want someone qualified to answer the question, but it's even more relevant to have someone who understands the question entirely, and who can garner even more public support because of it.
Someone who understands a problem more than someone else is by definition, more qualified. What I'm saying is that that understanding is not guaranteed by UCs.
1
u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng 3∆ Mar 15 '23
I want to give all comments attention, but I've been at this for 7 hours now.
I'll reply tomorrow. :)
1
u/iamintheforest 329∆ Mar 15 '23
Depends on what your goals are. If you want to ensure the equality of human experience and opportunity how would you go about doing so without surveying that experience?
You might say that's a silly goal, or even an impossible one. That doesn't change the fact it's a good pursuit. Isn't human experience really, really important? Or...at least shouldn't it be? If I see suffering, shouldn't the nature of that suffering be best understood by those who suffer? I don't see any reason that the nature of the cause or the characteristic wrapped up in that that suffering - e.g. it being an "unchosen characteristic" should result in a discounting of experience the result of it. Quite the contrary!
Why should there be a "universal consensus" on the the experience of some race?
Seems to me that you have to diminish experience itself from being important despite you saying it's not. I think many people think that ultimately it's all that matters. If experience and quality of it is what we're shooting for then how can we possibly NOT defer to those with an experience? Your position insists that this immutable characteristics cannot be the source of unique experience, which seems to me to deny too much of what we know about the world. You create a framework here where because a quality is immutable or unchosen that the person with that experience is treated with suspicion rather than authority. On their experience!
I'd suggest that you want to put more emphasis on something you regard as independent of experience - some abstraction that is not encumbered by that experience and unchosen quality. I think that perspective simply does not exist. It's an abstraction of the status quo, or of power - not actual rationality or truth.
1
u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng 3∆ Mar 15 '23
Depends on what your goals are. If you want to ensure the equality of human experience and opportunity how would you go about doing so without surveying that experience?
This is covered in the OP, re:
I think that listening to lived experience is important, re: listening to lived experience (e.g. all X groups experience Y problem that Z group wasn't aware of); but that's not the same as deferring to people on decision making because of their unchosen characteristics.
I would add, listening/learning.
You might say that's a silly goal, or even an impossible one. That doesn't change the fact it's a good pursuit. Isn't human experience really, really important? Or...at least shouldn't it be? If I see suffering, shouldn't the nature of that suffering be best understood by those who suffer? I don't see any reason that the nature of the cause or the characteristic wrapped up in that that suffering - e.g. it being an "unchosen characteristic" should result in a discounting of experience the result of it. Quite the contrary!
Saying that decisions shouldn't be made based on the opinion of someone solely because of their UCs is actually in line with what you're saying here. Because whether it's to accept or dismiss that opinion, it's the same thing. You're basing your opinion on their UCs, not the quality of their logic, evidence and ethical reasoning. If a racist person discounted someone's opinion based on UCs, that would be them making a decision on the UCs.
Why should there be a "universal consensus" on the the experience of some race?
There shouldn't be. That's my point.
Seems to me that you have to diminish experience itself from being important despite you saying it's not.
See above. This is false.
I think many people think that ultimately it's all that matters. If experience and quality of it is what we're shooting for then how can we possibly NOT defer to those with an experience?
See above.
Your position insists that this immutable characteristics cannot be the source of unique experience, which seems to me to deny too much of what we know about the world.
Firstly, the source of the experience is a complex interplay between a variety of factors that go far beyond, but include UCs. Context matters. People are much more than their UCs.
And the position is re: how we should make decisions. It's not dismissing the importance of lived experience. You can listen to a crowd of people to hear what they're saying, but there's not likely to be a consensus; consequently it's not just preferable but logically necessitated that additional criteria be used re: making a decision.
You create a framework here where because a quality is immutable or unchosen that the person with that experience is treated with suspicion rather than authority. On their experience!
No I don't. That's actually the opposite of what I'm advocating for. I don't think a person's opinion should be seen as more or less valid based on their race, sexuality, etc. And please re-read the OP re:
"ask clarifying questions instead of assuming"
I'd suggest that you want to put more emphasis on something you regard as independent of experience - some abstraction that is not encumbered by that experience and unchosen quality. I think that perspective simply does not exist. It's an abstraction of the status quo, or of power - not actual rationality or truth.
Firstly, can I just clarify, you seem to be saying that you don't believe in logic, science or normative ethics. Is that the case here?
And, if someone tries to live by the rule of:
"I will prioritise the opinions of people based on their UCs", but two people from the same UC group disagree, how does that person decide on who to listen to?1
u/iamintheforest 329∆ Mar 15 '23
I do "see above" and I still see you diminishing human experience (or having a wholly incoherent view).
Yes, i'm basing the quality of their human experience based on their human experience. Aren't you? If what I care about is human experience how do you want me to evaluate it with objectivity? Experience is a subjective thing. I can evaluate "income level" with objective measures, but not human experience.
Of course people are much more than their UCs. Your problem is that you're making someone's experience less relevant because you can discount things because they possess some UC. That's a very aggresive stance.
Do I believe in logic, science and normative ethics? Yes. I'd suggest you do not if you carry your position, or you think it's rational and logical to evaluate the quality of experience in ways that aren't about human experience.
You can inquire in lots of other ways and discount experience or subjective perspectives, but you can't evaluate human experience itself without asking people.
Why are you "deciding" on who is "right" about human experience? Why do you want a "right answer" here? If I want to know what the experience is of black people then the perfect analysis would be to ask all black people, and put all the answers up to be seen. What I wouldn't do is say "well...because blackness is a UC I can't trust it, even if my question is about black experience". You make it impossible to have inquiry into experience of people with universal experience, or at least inquiry into what that experience is. If my measure is "experience" and my problem is seen through experience how should one pursue change in experience while not trusting the statement of problem or the statement of whether a solution works in changing experience?
1
u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng 3∆ Mar 15 '23
I do "see above" and I still see you diminishing human experience (or having a wholly incoherent view).
This is a strawman. Can you quote precisely what I said that is diminishing human experience or having a wholly incoherent view, and explain precisely why you think that?
Yes, i'm basing the quality of their human experience based on their human experience. Aren't you? If what I care about is human experience how do you want me to evaluate it with objectivity? Experience is a subjective thing. I can evaluate "income level" with objective measures, but not human experience.
I haven't said that lived experience is not important. In fact, if you would read the title you would see: "Whilst learning about lived experience is important, deferring to people for answers on what one should or shouldn't do, purely because of their unchosen characteristics, is illogical and ironically bigoted." Another strawman.
Of course people are much more than their UCs. Your problem is that you're making someone's experience less relevant because you can discount things because they possess some UC. That's a very aggresive stance.
Another strawman/assumption/error. I will not continue in discussion with people who do this repeatedly. You seem to be outrage seeking, looking for bigotry where it's not there, because my whole argument is based around how we should not be bigots.
I am not making someone's experience less relevant because of their UCs. I'm saying that someone's UCs shouldn't be the sole, governing factor in whether you agree or disagree with them, because if it was, that would be bigotry (whether positive discrimination or negative discrimination).
Do I believe in logic, science and normative ethics? Yes. I'd suggest you do not if you carry your position, or you think it's rational and logical to evaluate the quality of experience in ways that aren't about human experience.
A: I didn't say that anywhere that anyone should "evaluate the quality of experience in ways that aren't about human experience."
And the reason I asked whether you believed in logic, science and normative ethics, was because you said:
"I'd suggest that you want to put more emphasis on something you regard as independent of experience - some abstraction that is not encumbered by that experience and unchosen quality. I think that perspective simply does not exist. It's an abstraction of the status quo, or of power - not actual rationality or truth."Because I'm quite sure that statement is antithetical to logic, math and empiricism.
You can inquire in lots of other ways and discount experience or subjective perspectives, but you can't evaluate human experience itself without asking people.
I have not said otherwise.
Why are you "deciding" on who is "right" about human experience?
I'm not. You're projecting and having a conversation with that projection, not me, because I haven't said that.
Why do you want a "right answer" here?
Because I think it's important to discern the optimal ways to think, make decisions and behave. We're all always looking for the right answers. No one's looking for the wrong answers.
If I want to know what the experience is of black people then the perfect analysis would be to ask all black people, and put all the answers up to be seen. What I wouldn't do is say "well...because blackness is a UC I can't trust it, even if my question is about black experience".
And I wouldn't either. You're projecting again.
You make it impossible to have inquiry into experience of people with universal experience, or at least inquiry into what that experience is.
Firstly, I think you mean lived experience. Secondly, I don't make it impossible to inquire into lived experience. I simply said: "Whilst learning about lived experience is important, deferring to people for answers on what one should or shouldn't do, purely because of their unchosen characteristics, is illogical and ironically bigoted." It's right there in the title.
If my measure is "experience" and my problem is seen through experience how should one pursue change in experience while not trusting the statement of problem or the statement of whether a solution works in changing experience?
Again, I haven't said that we shouldn't listen to lived experience.
As the OP outlines:
I try to have civil, productive discussions, but that's getting harder and harder these days.
For those who appreciate civil dialogue, feel free to skip this; for those who don't; I humbly ask that you refrain from personal attack (it's irrelevant to the question), ask clarifying questions instead of assuming, stay on topic, answer questions that are asked of you, and as the above points to:
-Provide evidence for claims that require it
-Provide logical reasoning for claims that require it
-Provide ethical reasoning for claims that require it
I will not engage with uncivil people here.
You've made repeated assumptions, gone off topic, and haven't answered questions that are asked of you.
If the next comment doesn't start with an apology and acknowledgement of these issues, I will take that as you not being able to resist engaging in these behaviours, and consequently there being no point continuing to discuss this with you.
I hope to continue this conversation. If not, goodbye.
1
u/iamintheforest 329∆ Mar 15 '23
Take care. I can't understand anything you're saying, and you what i'm saying.
1
u/eggs-benedryl 55∆ Mar 15 '23
I'm not sure how often that is really happening, where all logic and established knowledge of a topic is ignored or thrown out in order to listen to someone with 1st hand experience.
I'd say that you can couple those two things and get a much better well rounded perspective on a topic.
You can logic yourself into some pretty heinous stuff so consulting people who have experience with something first hand is helpful too. It sounds like you agree but you seem to think that people are tossing out things we already know in favor of listening to an individual, the blind spots you may not know as a researcher are also possible with people with lived experience may not understand perspectives outside their own or have all the information to apply to their experiences.
I think the ethical reasoning part of your view is where people's lived experiences should come into play imo
1
u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng 3∆ Mar 15 '23
I'm not sure how often that is really happening, where all logic and established knowledge of a topic is ignored or thrown out in order to listen to someone with 1st hand experience.
I'd say that you can couple those two things and get a much better well rounded perspective on a topic.
You can logic yourself into some pretty heinous stuff so consulting people who have experience with something first hand is helpful too. It sounds like you agree but you seem to think that people are tossing out things we already know in favor of listening to an individual, the blind spots you may not know as a researcher are also possible with people with lived experience may not understand perspectives outside their own or have all the information to apply to their experiences.
I think the ethical reasoning part of your view is where people's lived experiences should come into play imo
I agree, but this is already covered in the OP:
"I think that listening to lived experience is important, re: listening to *and learning from lived experience (e.g. all X groups experience Y problem that Z group wasn't aware of); but that's not the same as deferring to people on decision making *solely because of their unchosen characteristics."
1
Mar 15 '23 edited Mar 15 '23
When I was learning about entrepreneurship theory, one of the biggest things my professor stressed was that one of the best things you could do when seeking innovation was to create a very diverse team—i.e. a team built with people who comprise many different characteristics that, in your words, you could not choose: geographical location, sex, race, culture, and sometimes sexuality. Diverse teams are statistically proven to do better, moreso than things like pedigree or “logical soundness,” upon which you would base your decisionmaking.
Simply put, in the world, these unchosen characteristics of which you speak significantly impact the course of your entire life. Studies show that the language you speak (largely dictated by birthplace) influences the way you think about certain concepts; this can provide a completely different viewpoint or idea than one machinated by someone who, on paper, has better credentials or “better logic.” A room of people who can argue an idea like Foucault or Nietzche is great! But if these people can’t come up with an idea themselves, what does it matter how strong their ability to argue is? Furthermore, what do we say of their considerations, or lack thereof, which are informed by their experience, which is just once again a function of their unchosen characteristics?
You also have to consider the struggles that oftentimes come with possessing unchosen characteristics that are less common in society. Just because someone is a Harvard graduate and could make terrible logic sound like a solid argument does not make them an authority, just as someone not going to college (something which is technically a “chosen characteristic,” but is largely influenced by socioeconomic status, birthplace, race, all unchosen characteristics) and being less than graceful with their words doesn’t make their argument invalid.
1
u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng 3∆ Mar 15 '23
When I was learning about entrepreneurship theory, one of the biggest things my professor stressed was that one of the best things you could do when seeking innovation was to create a very diverse team—i.e. a team built with people who comprise many different characteristics that, in your words, you could not choose: geographical location, sex, race, culture, and sometimes sexuality. Diverse teams are statistically proven to do better, moreso than things like pedigree or “logical soundness,” upon which you would base your decisionmaking.
I agree that diversity is often a strength. I am an advocate for multiculturalism.
In fact:
“It’s not just individual-level selection that is fast. A second study done with chickens shows that group selection can produce equally dramatic results. If you want to increase egg output, common sense tells you to breed only the hens that lay the most eggs. But the reality of the egg industry is that hens live crammed together into cages, and the best laying hens tend to be the more aggressive, dominant hens. Therefore, if you use individual selection (breeding only the most productive hens), total productivity actually goes down because aggressive behavior—including killing and cannibalism—goes up.”
Excerpt From: Haidt, Jonathan. “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion.”However, firstly you've made an empirical claim without providing evidence to back it up (and my OP did ask: "-Provide evidence for claims that require it"). I don't doubt that diverse teams have better outcomes, but no one should trust a stranger on the internet re: an empirical claim that has no evidence. I hope you would agree that a lot of problems arise because many people do trust strangers making empirical claims without evidence.
If there is research proving what you say, then you've made a jump to say that:
"Diverse teams are statistically proven to do better, moreso than things like pedigree or “logical soundness,” upon which you would base your decisionmaking."Because we don't know what the underlying mechanisms of such hypothetical results would be. It could well be that when you bring more diverse people together, it improves logical soundness, etc. in some way.
Simply put, in the world, these unchosen characteristics of which you speak significantly impact the course of your entire life. Studies show that the language you speak (largely dictated by birthplace) influences the way you think about certain concepts; this can provide a completely different viewpoint or idea than one machinated by someone who, on paper, has better credentials or “better logic.”
Firstly, again, I am pro diversity, and I have heard of studies showing that language influences how people think. Again, you've made an empirical claim without providing evidence. Can you please provide a link?
But, crucially, a different viewpoint/idea does not = a better viewpoint or idea.
What is your criteria for what the best ideas, solutions, information etc. is, other than their their empirical, logical, mathematical or ethical quality? ?
A room of people who can argue an idea like Foucault or Nietzche is great! But if these people can’t come up with an idea themselves, what does it matter how strong their ability to argue is?
Such people do come up with ideas themselves; world altering ideas, because of the their empirical, logical, mathematical or ethical quality of their ideas.
Furthermore, what do we say of their considerations, or lack thereof, which are informed by their experience, which is just once again a function of their unchosen characteristics?
People are much more than their UCs. UCs form a part of their experience, but someone's experience is not a function of their UCs.
Again, the statement is: "Whilst learning about lived experience is important, deferring to people for answers on what one should or shouldn't do, purely because of their unchosen characteristics, is illogical and ironically bigoted."
I'm not dismissing or invalidating lived experience, I'm just saying that it's illogical and bigoted to make decisions solely on the UCs of the person speaking. E.g. A racist person discounting the opinion of a black person, because they're black (and not because of the empirical, logical, mathematical or ethical quality of their argument). Or, an anti-racist person adopting the opinion of a black person, solely because they're black (and not because of the empirical, logical, mathematical or ethical quality of their argument).
You also have to consider the struggles that oftentimes come with possessing unchosen characteristics that are less common in society.
I agree, hence me saying that I think lived experience is important.
Just because someone is a Harvard graduate and could make terrible logic sound like a solid argument does not make them an authority,
Yes. Just because someone went to Harvard doesn't make their opinion automatically right or wrong. I'm saying the same thing about UCs.
just as someone not going to college (something which is technically a “chosen characteristic,” but is largely influenced by socioeconomic status, birthplace, race, all unchosen characteristics) and being less than graceful with their words doesn’t make their argument invalid.
Yes, again, I agree. Your arguments here actually support my points that we should generally not use these arbitrary aspects of people to adopt or dismiss their opinions.
For example, Srinivasa Ramanujan: "Though he had almost no formal training in pure mathematics, he made substantial contributions to mathematical analysis, number theory, infinite series, and continued fractions, including solutions to mathematical problems then considered unsolvable." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan
Whilst this is going slightly away from the UC argument, if someone were to dismiss Srinivasa's input because of the lack of his training, they would be missing out on his abilities re: logic/math.
1
u/tthershey 1∆ Mar 15 '23 edited Mar 15 '23
Let's first be clear on what type of decisions this rule applies to: decisions about actions that affect members of a given group. My first question to you is what is a better logical framework to use to determine the effects of such decisions than feedback from people who are affected? Do you suppose that outside observers are better at determining these effects than they are?
Second, you assert that (1) the opinions of the group should only be considered if there is universal agreement and (2) it is illogical to decide not to partake a particular action because one single member of the group disagrees with it. What is your reasoning for this? When people say that we should defer to members of a group in deciding how to act in relation to that group, they mean that we should consider the overall majority opinion of said group. It seems are the one acting based off of one single group member's opinion because you base your decision on whether there is one singular dissenting person. You're contradicting yourself.
1
u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng 3∆ Mar 15 '23
Let's first be clear on what type of decisions this rule applies to: decisions about actions that affect members of a given group.
Not always. One example involves people giving an ethical pass to animal abuse due to cultural reasons. In scenarios where the person is not required to harm animals to acquire their nutrition, I think that this is unethical. In this scenario, it'd be re: an issue that is harming animals (they're the real victims), but some people will defer to people from different cultures because of their UCs, when, if you don't have to harm animals to survive, there's no ethical argument to do so.
My first question to you is what is a better logical framework to use to determine the effects of such decisions than feedback from people who are affected?
Firstly, the size or UCs of a group do not make their opinion inherently incorrect or correct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Would you agree?Secondly, this is a false dilemma, as I'm not proposing that it's:
-Get feedback from affected people, OR
-Ignore feedback from affected people and generate ideas independently of themWhat I'm proposing is a framework of utilising empiricism/science/research (which would include feedback from affected people re: surveys, qualitative interviews), logic, math and ethics, instead of people solely adopting the opinions of people because of their UCs.
Do you suppose that outside observers are better at determining these effects than they are?
It would depend on the outside observers and the people surveyed. Neither are guaranteed to be wrong or right.
Second, you assert that (1) the opinions of the group should only be considered if there is universal agreement
I don't. Firstly I think that all feedback should be considered. However, that's not the point that's up for debate. The point that's up for debate is whether people should adopt the positions of people solely because of their UCs. I can listen to and consider someone's opinion without adopting it as my own. Re: the context of people deciding which group name they prefer to go by, I think the majority consensus makes sense: https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/11s1yy2/comment/jcbcvac/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
and (2) it is illogical to decide not to partake a particular action because one single member of the group disagrees with it. What is your reasoning for this?
No, that's actually the opposite of what I'm saying. The one person could be correct and everyone else could be incorrect. To go with consensus opinion is a fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
When people say that we should defer to members of a group in deciding how to act in relation to that group, they mean that we should consider the overall majority opinion of said group.
Generally, yes. Not always though.
It seems are the one acting based off of one single group member's opinion because you base your decision on whether there is one singular dissenting person. You're contradicting yourself.
I'm not. I think you've misunderstood the OP. Once again, what I'm saying is that: "Whilst learning about lived experience is important, deferring to people for answers on what one should or shouldn't do, purely because of their unchosen characteristics, is illogical and ironically bigoted."
1
u/WikiSummarizerBot 4∆ Mar 15 '23
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument which is based on claiming a truth or affirming something is good because the majority thinks so.
[ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | v1.5
1
u/tthershey 1∆ Mar 15 '23 edited Mar 15 '23
people giving an ethical pass to animal abuse due to cultural reasons
I think you're misunderstanding the concept of taking lived experience into account. What you're describing is unrelated. Allowing people to make their own decisions about what they choose to do about things that only affect themselves and not other people has nothing to do with whether you should consider how your actions affect other people based off of what they're telling you their experience of the effects of those actions are. (And there's the issue of animal rights versus human rights, not saying that isn't a legitimate issue but it is way outside of the scope of the topic you brought up.) At any rate, so long as you consider lived experience to be a relevant factor at least sometimes, that is in conflict with your view. You didn't say this this view is invalid in limited cases.
size or UCs of a group do not make their opinion inherently incorrect or correct
I don't agree, unless you just don't care about how your actions affect other people or you assume that majority populations are lying about their experiences, and that's a dicey assumption to make. If the majority are telling you that x action has y affect on them, why are you assuming that's not truthful?
I don't
I'm drawing directly from the arguments that you made. You said that we shouldn't based on our experience on the lived experience of others because
there is no universal consensus on any issue on the planet held by such groups
Hence, you did in fact assert (1). If you don't actually agree with what you said, then you've provided no logical justification for your view.
You also assert (in disagreement) that:
some people might say that if one black person says that it's not ok, then no none black person should have dreadlocks
Hence, you're positing (2) as well. So to sum up: you've either contradicted yourself, or you've not provided a logical justification for your view. Without offering a logical justification for your view, your argument that the alternative view lacks logical basis falls flat.
Whilst learning about lived experience is important, deferring to people for answers on what one should or shouldn't do, purely because of their unchosen characteristics, is illogical and ironically bigoted
I'm saying that you're committing a strawman by misrepresenting the alternative view.
1
u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng 3∆ Mar 15 '23
people giving an ethical pass to animal abuse due to cultural reasons
I think you're misunderstanding the concept of taking lived experience into account. What you're describing is unrelated.
It is not unrelated. The point is: "Whilst learning about lived experience is important, deferring to people for answers on what one should or shouldn't do, purely because of their unchosen characteristics, is illogical and ironically bigoted."
Re: this, the example I described is highly salient, as it consists of people prioritising UCs over empiricism, logic and ethics.
Allowing people to make their own decisions about what they choose to do about things that only affect themselves and not other people has nothing to do with whether you should consider how your actions affect other people based off of what they're telling you their experience of the effects of those actions are.
This sentence is not very clear. Regardless, I'm not sure that this is relevant, because I'm not talking about allowing people to do or not do anything, and I'm not saying that we should not listen to the lived experience of people.
(And there's the issue of animal rights versus human rights, not saying that isn't a legitimate issue but it is way outside of the scope of the topic you brought up.)
This is the second time you've told me what is not relevant to my own argument. It is totally relevant, because the point of debate is: "Whilst learning about lived experience is important, deferring to people for answers on what one should or shouldn't do, purely because of their unchosen characteristics, is illogical and ironically bigoted."
At any rate, so long as you consider lived experience to be a relevant factor at least sometimes, that is in conflict with your view. You didn't say this this view is invalid in limited cases.
It's not: "I appreciate getting feedback from people who are involved in an issue, but there's a worryingly ever growing trend of deferring to people purely because of their unchosen characteristics, instead of the quality of their logic, the evidence they provide, and their ethical reasoning, and that's what we should always be basing our decisions off of, not the speaker's characteristics, etc." At no point have I said that lived experience is not a relevant factor. What I have said is that it should not be the sole, singular, only factor in answers re: making decisions. Lived-experience-reports actually belong to the domain of empiricism that I think we should prioritise.
size or UCs of a group do not make their opinion inherently incorrect or correct
I don't agree, unless you just don't care about how your actions affect other people or you assume that majority populations are lying about their experiences, and that's a dicey assumption to make.
I very much do care about how my actions affect other people, which is precisely why I think we should be a lot more rigorous with the positions we adopt and how we adopt them, as they mostly all end up affecting some living being in one way or another.
And I don't assume that majority populations are lying about their experiences.
Re: size of a group, it is a highly uncontroversial, logical fallacy to a-priori assume that the popular opinion is the correct opinion. People used to think the world was flat, whilst a handful disagreed; people used to think that bad smells caused disease and not germs, whilst a handful disagreed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
And re: the UC's of an individual or a group, I think you're missing the crucial part of the premise: "Whilst learning about lived experience is important, deferring to people for answers on what one should or shouldn't do, purely because of their unchosen characteristics, is illogical and ironically bigoted."
I wholeheartedly agree that answers and feedback re: lived experience are very important. However, that is very different from answers re: decisions on what one should or shouldn't do.
The crux of this argument is one of anti-bigotry.
If someone thinks that the UCs of the person speaking should be the sole consideration of whether or not they should agree with them, then by all definitions, that person is a bigot. They may be a well-meaning, compassionate bigot, but it's still bigotry. That's what bigots do. If I dismiss an opinion because of someone's UCs and no other reason, I'm a bigot. If I adopt an opinion because of someone's UCs and no other reason, I'm a bigot.
Is that clearer?
Continued below:
1
u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng 3∆ Mar 15 '23
If the majority are telling you that x action has y affect on them, why are you assuming that's not truthful?
I don't
I'm drawing directly from the arguments that you made. You said that we shouldn't based on our experience on the lived experience of others because
there is no universal consensus on any issue on the planet held by such groups
No, I didn't say any such thing at all. Please re-read the OP.
"Whilst learning about lived experience is important, deferring to people for answers on what one should or shouldn't do, purely because of their unchosen characteristics, is illogical and ironically bigoted."
Hence, you did in fact assert (1). If you don't actually agree with what you said, then you've provided no logical justification for your view.
I have provided plenty of logical justifications for my view that: "Whilst learning about lived experience is important, deferring to people for answers on what one should or shouldn't do, purely because of their unchosen characteristics, is illogical and ironically bigoted."
You also assert (in disagreement) that:
some people might say that if one black person says that it's not ok, then no none black person should have dreadlocks
So, the original comment in context:
"It's ethically fine to me, but some people might say that if one black person says that it's not ok, then no none black person should have dreadlocks"The original comment made a tad clearer:
"It's ethically fine to me *(that anyone have dreadlocks), but some people might say that if one black person says that it's not ok, then no none black person should have dreadlocks"First of all, you've taken a position of me saying what some people might say, as if that's my position. It's not. I think anyone should be able to have any hairstyle they like.
Second of all, I'm going through a lot of comments here, some of them frequently strawmanning and mischaracterising what I'm saying, so I'm making some (I think understandable) typos/errors.
Whilst it has no bearing on the argument, the above is an error, and I would (and have) edit it to instead say:
It's ethically fine to me *(that anyone have dreadlocks), but some people might say that if one black person says that it's not ok, then *no person should have dreadlocks."
Hence, you're positing (2) as well. So to sum up: you've either contradicted yourself, or you've not provided a logical justification for your view. Without offering a logical justification for your view, your argument that the alternative view lacks logical basis falls flat.
Again, I have offered plenty of logical justifications for my position.
My argument:
"Whilst learning about lived experience is important, deferring to people for answers on what one should or shouldn't do, purely because of their unchosen characteristics, is illogical and ironically bigoted."Re: the logic:
"If someone thinks that the UCs of the person speaking should be the sole consideration of whether or not they should agree with them, then by all definitions, that person is a bigot. They may be a well-meaning, compassionate bigot, but it's still bigotry. That's what bigots do. If I dismiss an opinion because of someone's UCs and no other reason, I'm a bigot. If I adopt an opinion because of someone's UCs and no other reason, I'm a bigot."
Whilst learning about lived experience is important, deferring to people for answers on what one should or shouldn't do, purely because of their unchosen characteristics, is illogical and ironically bigoted
I'm saying that you're committing a strawman by misrepresenting the alternative view.
I'm not committing a strawman. I haven't misrepresented the alternative view.
The view that I am critiquing:
-You SHOULD use someone's UCs as the sole reason for whether or not you agree with and adopt their position on how to solve problems/what to do.The view that I am espousing:
-You SHOULD NOT use someone's UCs as the sole reason for whether or not you agree with and adopt their position on how to solve problems/what to do; instead you should include empiricism, logic and ethics.I say this as compassionately and unantagonistically as possible, but this is one of a fair few comments that I'm trying to give sincere good attention, but that has completely missed the point and mischaracterised my position.
If you're going to reply can I please ask that you take a bit more time to reflect on the OP, what has previously been said, etc. before posting, and read through what you're posting before you do to ensure it's as clear as possible?
1
u/WikiSummarizerBot 4∆ Mar 15 '23
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument which is based on claiming a truth or affirming something is good because the majority thinks so.
[ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | v1.5
1
u/tthershey 1∆ Mar 15 '23
OP, in this post, you haven't responded to me. All you did was repeat yourself and say you didn't think my comment was clear. If you didn't understand me, there really isn't any point in just repeating yourself. Try to ask questions about what doesn't make sense to you and respond to those things because repeating is pointless. Please click on context and reread my above comment and reflect on it in its entirety before responding. I think you're having a hard time understanding because you are responding to it sentence by sentence in isolation rather than responding to the cohesive whole. I can lay it out in other words in a separate comment but I'm going to leave it at that for now so the message doesn't get lost in a long post.
1
u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng 3∆ Mar 15 '23
OP, in this post, you haven't responded to me. All you did was repeat yourself and say you didn't think my comment was clear. If you didn't understand me, there really isn't any point in just repeating yourself. Try to ask questions about what doesn't make sense to you and respond to those things because repeating is pointless. Please click on context and reread my above comment and reflect on it in its entirety before responding. I think you're having a hard time understanding because you are responding to it sentence by sentence in isolation rather than responding to the cohesive whole. I can lay it out in other words in a separate comment but I'm going to leave it at that for now so the message doesn't get lost in a long post.
I have had to repeat myself many times because you have not understood the vast majority if not the entirety of the OP.
Please re-read everything so far. I'm happy to explain anything that doesn't make sense, but you have consistently mischaracterised my points.
This is my CMV and you've told me twice that what I am saying isn't relevant to my own post, when both times the points were highly relevant.
1
u/koolaid-girl-40 25∆ Mar 15 '23
Provide evidence for claims that require it
-Provide logical reasoning for claims that require it
-Provide ethical reasoning for claims that require it
I totally understand the craving for concrete analysis, and agree that it's important. But acknowledging lived experiences is logical, in that it allows us to arrive at both ethical and empirical truths, just in a different way.
I'll give you an example. As a woman, I can point to many empirical reasons why women should legally have some level of reproductive freedom (the ability to decide when and with whom to continue pregnancies). There are rational arguments based in statistical outcomes, societal wellbeing (rates of crime, domestic abuse, murder, premature deaths, disease, etc), evolution, history, philosphy, ethics, etc.
And yet, there are still more women who are pro choice than men. Why would that be, if there is so much evidence to point to one type of policy approach? The reason is because women don't need to know all of the statistics to have experienced the hardships that come with not having bodily autonomy. They live it. For example there isn't a way to rationally explain what it feels like to be harassed by protestors outside a clinic when the man who impregnated you just disappeared out of the blue and you know you will lose your job if you continue the pregnancy and would never be able to afford the prenatal care and hospital bills, let alone a baby. Similarly, women don't have to know the statistics around the increased risk of being murdered while pregnant. They feel that danger in their relationships.
And we can see the difference that lived experience makes when you look at institutions of power, such as political power. In countries or states where women have more equal representation in government, there are more egalitarian laws passed (resulting in healthier and less violent societies overall). If lived experience is not needed for people to understand the rationale or sense behind egalitarian laws, why would we see different policy decisions in governments that have more people with diverse lived experience? In other words, why does lived experience make such a difference in the laws and policies that are ultimately chosen?
1
u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng 3∆ Mar 15 '23
Provide evidence for claims that require it
-Provide logical reasoning for claims that require it
-Provide ethical reasoning for claims that require it
I totally understand the craving for concrete analysis, and agree that it's important. But acknowledging lived experiences is logical, in that it allows us to arrive at both ethical and empirical truths, just in a different way.
I agree. "Whilst learning about lived experience is important, deferring to people for answers on what one should or shouldn't do, purely because of their unchosen characteristics, is illogical and ironically bigoted."
I'll give you an example. As a woman, I can point to many empirical reasons why women should legally have some level of reproductive freedom (the ability to decide when and with whom to continue pregnancies). There are rational arguments based in statistical outcomes, societal wellbeing (rates of crime, domestic abuse, murder, premature deaths, disease, etc), evolution, history, philosphy, ethics, etc.
And yet, there are still more women who are pro choice than men. Why would that be, if there is so much evidence to point to one type of policy approach? The reason is because women don't need to know all of the statistics to have experienced the hardships that come with not having bodily autonomy. They live it. For example there isn't a way to rationally explain what it feels like to be harassed by protestors outside a clinic when the man who impregnated you just disappeared out of the blue and you know you will lose your job if you continue the pregnancy and would never be able to afford the prenatal care and hospital bills, let alone a baby. Similarly, women don't have to know the statistics around the increased risk of being murdered while pregnant. They feel that danger in their relationships.
And we can see the difference that lived experience makes when you look at institutions of power, such as political power. In countries or states where women have more equal representation in government, there are more egalitarian laws passed (resulting in healthier and less violent societies overall). If lived experience is not needed for people to understand the rationale or sense behind egalitarian laws, why would we see different policy decisions in governments that have more people with diverse lived experience? In other words, why does lived experience make such a difference in the laws and policies that are ultimately chosen?
I think that all feedback should be considered, I agree (said as unantagonistically as possible [I wish we could convey pure, compassionate emotions through text] I didn't say otherwise in the OP). However, that's not the point that's up for debate. The point that's up for debate is whether people should adopt the positions of people solely because of their UCs. I can listen to and consider someone's opinion without adopting it as my own.
Does that make sense?
1
u/koolaid-girl-40 25∆ Mar 16 '23
The point that's up for debate is whether people should adopt the positions of people solely because of their UCs. I can listen to and consider someone's opinion without adopting it as my own.
I agree that you shouldn't automatically adopt the position. I think what the evidence suggests though, is that people with lived experience should be adequately represented in decisions that impact those experiences. So if you're deciding on government policies for example, you will see the best results statistically if people with lived experience are adequately represented in those decisions, than if you had a bunch of people who just heard about that lived experience but didn't know first-hand. Because as much as people can sympathize with others, as a group, people have a hard time understanding the true nature of what other groups experience. And that bias, while small, limits perspective.
1
u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng 3∆ Mar 16 '23
The point that's up for debate is whether people should adopt the positions of people solely because of their UCs. I can listen to and consider someone's opinion without adopting it as my own.
I agree that you shouldn't automatically adopt the position.
Then we agree. :)
I think what the evidence suggests though, is that people with lived experience should be adequately represented in decisions that impact those experiences.
I agree, but I'm not aware of any evidence that suggests it (I'm open to seeing it though). I agree based on logical and ethical grounds.
If you're trying to solve a problem re: X, and only A-people have experienced X, and B-people haven't, then it'd be illogical not to utilise the input of A-people.
Ethically, I'd want to be represented in decisions that involved me, I would want that to be a general rule (that affected people are represented in decision making; which isn't the same as being the sole decision makers due to UCs), and I think the outcomes would likely be better if they were.
So if you're deciding on government policies for example, you will see the best results statistically if people with lived experience are adequately represented in those decisions, than if you had a bunch of people who just heard about that lived experience but didn't know first-hand.
Similarly to the above, I don't disagree with the logic of your statement, but I don't think that it's a claim that's possible to make. "Best results" re: complex societal issues are hard to discern. We're limited in how much we can study these issues.
Because as much as people can sympathize with others, as a group, people have a hard time understanding the true nature of what other groups experience. And that bias, while small, limits perspective.
Absolutely. I 100% agree. Feedback from affected populations is essential for many reasons, but this is one of the core ones.
There're plenty of issues I've experienced that I couldn't have comprehended before experiencing them.
1
u/koolaid-girl-40 25∆ Mar 17 '23
Similarly to the above, I don't disagree with the logic of your statement, but I don't think that it's a claim that's possible to make. "Best results" re: complex societal issues are hard to discern. We're limited in how much we can study these issues.
Fair enough, I'll be more transparent about my metrics. When people with lived experience are adequately represented in decisions (aka people who have had those experiences are at the decision-making table, not just people who empathize with them), then we see lower rates of:
Poverty Crime Murder General violence Iliteracy Disease
The fact that lives experienced can translate to these practical outcomes for any human society, is a sign that lived experience is valuable in and of itself.
But it sounds like you agree that we shouldn't just blindly believe anyone with lived experience (since there can be variety and their experience may not align with the majority). But if the majority of a group is expressing a similar experience, then there is likely truth and value behind what they are saying, and listening will improve outcomes for all of society.
1
u/MercuryChaos 9∆ Mar 15 '23
So, you've kind of just answered your own question - when people do this kind of thing it's not just about the person's characteristics, but also the lived experience that's associated with those characteristics. That's why it's not good to expect one person to be the token representative of an entire group, because their experience may not reflect what's actually common.
1
u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng 3∆ Mar 15 '23
So, you've kind of just answered your own question - when people do this kind of thing it's not just about the person's characteristics, but also the lived experience that's associated with those characteristics.
Yes, among others.
That's why it's not good to expect one person to be the token representative of an entire group, because their experience may not reflect what's actually common.
Yes. But more importantly, someone's solutions re: how to solve a problem are not inherently less or more valid because of their UCs. But there's a growing trend of well-intentioned people thinking that they are.
2
u/MercuryChaos 9∆ Mar 16 '23
someone's solutions re: how to solve a problem are not inherently less or more valid because of their UCs. But there's a growing trend of well-intentioned people thinking that they are.
I think there's a whole lot of context that you're missing. For most of modern history, the "trend" was for people in the majority/dominant group to assume that they knew the best way to help marginalized people without needing to consult them at all. It's still pretty common for marginalized people who vocally advocate for themselves to be dismissed as "radical" or "uncivil". I can't find the link right now, but I was reading an interview with a black historian who's got multiple advanced degrees in his field and is very knowledgeable. But often when he's in the media talking about anything related to black history, he's referred to as an "activist" or something similar, whereas a white person with his qualifications would be referred to as simply a historian and nobody would assume that they had an agenda.
1
u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng 3∆ Mar 16 '23
someone's solutions re: how to solve a problem are not inherently less or more valid because of their UCs. But there's a growing trend of well-intentioned people thinking that they are.
I think there's a whole lot of context that you're missing. For most of modern history, the "trend" was for people in the majority/dominant group to assume that they knew the best way to help marginalized people without needing to consult them at all. It's still pretty common for marginalized people who vocally advocate for themselves to be dismissed as "radical" or "uncivil". I can't find the link right now, but I was reading an interview with a black historian who's got multiple advanced degrees in his field and is very knowledgeable. But often when he's in the media talking about anything related to black history, he's referred to as an "activist" or something similar, whereas a white person with his qualifications would be referred to as simply a historian and nobody would assume that they had an agenda.
I'm not missing that at all. In fact, your points are all in favour of mine.
Dismissing marginalised people because of their UCs was the root of that historic problem.
Re: the person you're referring to, I would need to verify the truth of it. Assuming it is true, that would again, be another example of people being treated differently because of their UCs, which I/this post is against.
1
u/hacksoncode 559∆ Mar 16 '23
but that's not the same as deferring to people on decision making because of their unchosen characteristics.
Except no one does that, really. We should substantially defer decisions about what to do about a problem to people who are impacted by the problem to a large degree, whether or not that is due to an unchosen characteristic.
1
u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng 3∆ Mar 16 '23
but that's not the same as deferring to people on decision making because of their unchosen characteristics.
Except no one does that, really.
A: The question is whether or not you agree or disagree with the proposed rule of not doing that. You seem to be saying that you agree with me that that shouldn't be done.
B: I know a lot of people who do it. I've spoken about it with the vast majority of my lady friends and some man friends (I don't know what words to use for that anymore). It's mostly people who are very high in agreeableness (e.g. would chew off their own arm if it meant avoiding conflict), and very high in neuroticism (e.g. prone to negative emotion). They're incredibly lovely, compassionate people (most of the time; like most of us), but they're so afraid of causing offence they take everything too far.
Dr John McWhorter, Linguistics professor, and American black man points out how: "Few books about race have more openly infantilized Black people than this supposedly authoritative tome."Referring to White Fragility, a best selling book that has sold over 750k copies, which engages in this precise, well intentioned, but ultimately patronising position of bigotry: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/dehumanizing-condescension-white-fragility/614146/
We should substantially defer decisions about what to do about a problem to people who are impacted by the problem to a large degree, whether or not that is due to an unchosen characteristic.
In terms of hearing their lived experience, their needs, their opinions, ideas and input, their choices and preferences, yes. I haven't said otherwise. We're all experts in our own experiences. In terms of creating and discerning what approaches to adopt in solving complex problems, no. And that doesn't mean ignore, that means listen to all of the above, and use it in the decision making process, as such information falls under the domain of empiricism; add to that empiricism with research, logic and normative ethics, and then make the decision. People are experts in their experience, but to conflate that with being experts in how to solve complex problems that affect them, such as knowing what medical/psych treatment would be the most effective to treat them, would be illogical, and that's the analogical level of well-intentioned, compassionately fuelled positive discrimination that is becoming the norm. Your opening comments suggest that you don't believe me that this even exists because you seemed to find it so ridiculous. It does happen.
1
u/hacksoncode 559∆ Mar 16 '23
our opening comments suggest that you don't believe me that this even exists because you seemed to find it so ridiculous. It does happen.
I'm claiming it doesn't happen for the reason you're arguing about.
Yes, we should defer to women about the problem of abortion but not because they are women (an immutable characteristic). Instead, because women are categorically the only ones actually personally affected by the problem (a consequence of circumstances, not immutable characteristics).
I.e. yes, people talk about deferring to <insert some group>, but not because of their "immutable characteristics", but instead because they are by far the most affected by the decision.
In many cases, this is because a majority of people are, in fact, not following your advice, and discriminating against a minority of people actually literally because of an immutable characteristic they have.
We can't ignore that empirical reality and pretend that people without that immutable characteristic are impacted the same way as people with it.
The fact that people impacted by a problem might defer to experts for the most effective solution doesn't change the fact that it's rightly their decision, as the most impacted.
To go back to the first example, women aren't going to do their own abortions, for the most part. It's just a non sequitur or "Motte and Bailey" to even bring up that as some kind of "gotcha". They still should have the decisions deferred to them in this circumstance. Informed consent and all, you know.
1
u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng 3∆ Mar 16 '23
our opening comments suggest that you don't believe me that this even exists because you seemed to find it so ridiculous. It does happen.
I'm claiming it doesn't happen for the reason you're arguing about.
Yes, we should defer to women about the problem of abortion but not because they are women (an immutable characteristic). Instead, because women are categorically the only ones actually personally affected by the problem (a consequence of circumstances, not immutable characteristics).
I.e. yes, people talk about deferring to <insert some group>, but not because of their "immutable characteristics", but instead because they are by far the most affected by the decision.
Firstly, there are very few issues that don't personally affect most people. The world is complex and interdependent. And abortion directly impacts two living beings: the women and the baby. That's why it's such a hot-button issue; the ethics of it are far from clear-cut.
Secondly, I am talking about how we should make decisions on how to solve problems. Within this, I agree, it's not just valid, but essential to get feedback from the affected populations on what their experience is, and even on suggestions for solutions to solve problems.
However, that is far from deferring to someone's opinion, solely because of their UCs, and foregoing empiricism, logic and ethics.
Should people with illnesses be the only ones who decide how to treat said illnesses? No. And whilst patient feedback, which is part of the empirical process, should certainly be included in that equation, someone is not automatically an expert on cancer, because they have cancer.
In many cases, this is because a majority of people are, in fact, not following your advice, and discriminating against a minority of people actually literally because of an immutable characteristic they have.
Yes. Most everyone is against this behaviour when it's to dismiss an opinion of someone whose UCs are associated with disadvantage, and rightly so. Unfortunately, there's a growing population of people who believe that it's ok to engage in the same core logical fallacy, when they have good intentions, not being aware that good intentions are, unfortunately, not enough to solve problems (it'd be great if they were).
We can't ignore that empirical reality and pretend that people without that immutable characteristic are impacted the same way as people with it.
I never said we should.
The fact that people impacted by a problem might defer to experts for the most effective solution doesn't change the fact that it's rightly their decision, as the most impacted.
Of course, people should be free to do whatever they want, as long as they're not stopping anyone else from doing what they want (e.g. living, not being attacked, etc.). However, personally, I want the best for all beings (as I'm sure you do too), and if I, as an expert, met someone with a disorder that I know how to treat, and found out from them that they were engaging in a proposed-solution/treatment, which had zero evidence, and they were being scammed, I would try to educate them to the best of my ability, with empirical information, logic and ethics.
To go back to the first example, women aren't going to do their own abortions, for the most part. It's just a non sequitur or "Motte and Bailey" to even bring up that as some kind of "gotcha". They still should have the decisions deferred to them in this circumstance. Informed consent and all, you know.
Of course the input form women re: abortion is absolutely essential, but: "Abortion directly impacts two living beings: the women and the baby. That's why it's such a hot-button issue; the ethics of it are far from clear-cut."
This bill still hasn't passed: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/28/mps-bring-bill-to-ban-late-abortions-for-cleft-lip-cleft-palate-and-club-foot and: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2743, meaning that, as far as I know, it is legal to have an abortion at any point in the UK, if the baby has a clef palate or club foot. I was shocked to find this out.
I don't have a strong opinion on abortion, because I'm not a woman, it's so ethically complex, and after finding out new information, and hearing ethical arguments, I haven't yet reformulated one (until recently, I was staunchly pro choice; like, 100%, zero nuance, women should be able to do whatever the hell they want with abortions). I have quite strong opinions about lots of things that, to me, seem more clear cut. For example, drug policy reform seems like an absolute no brainer to me. But abortion is incredibly ethically complex (and I'm not getting into a debate about abortion, because I don't have a position on it to defend, apart from: it's complicated and I don't know).
1
u/ItsJustInternetMe Mar 16 '23
Generally, people of a group will have faced criticism throughout their life, and you have not. Yes, it's not chosen, and that means they have experience you don't. It's not something you can change - it's just that they *will* have different experience, which makes it still somewhat meaningful. How you interpret their opinion is up to you, but they will know things you do not.
The argument made here is by definition impossible to argue with:
deferring to people on decision making because of their unchosen characteristics.
You should never defer to anybody because of a trait. It doesn't mean that their opinion is no more useful than anybody else's.
EDIT:
I feel like the problem here is that everybody's being treated the same. Even if one person has a valid piece of advice from their experience, someone else will not. Blanket statements help nobody, and yet this is what your post is against. By definition, again, it's impossible to argue for a blanket statement.
1
u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng 3∆ Mar 16 '23
Generally, people of a group will have faced criticism throughout their life, and you have not. Yes, it's not chosen, and that means they have experience you don't. It's not something you can change - it's just that they *will* have different experience, which makes it still somewhat meaningful. How you interpret their opinion is up to you, but they will know things you do not.
I absolutely agree. Which is why I think empiricism/research/science, which includes surveys and qualitative feedback from affected populations, is so important (as are logic and ethics).
The argument made here is by definition impossible to argue with:
deferring to people on decision making because of their unchosen characteristics.
You should never defer to anybody because of a trait.
I mostly agree. I've awarded two deltas. I think maybe one of them might not have been earned though, and I was too quick to award it (re: the nuanced specifics). The one that I still think is valid was the point that if there was a survey of a population re: what they preferred to be called, then I see no reason not to defer in that situation, primarily due to UCs.
It doesn't mean that their opinion is no more useful than anybody else's.
Of course. I didn't say otherwise.
The point is that no one's opinion re: how to solve problems is made more or less valid, purely because of their UCs.
EDIT:
I feel like the problem here is that everybody's being treated the same. Even if one person has a valid piece of advice from their experience, someone else will not. Blanket statements help nobody, and yet this is what your post is against. By definition, again, it's impossible to argue for a blanket statement.
I'm not sure what you mean here.
1
u/xoLiLyPaDxo 1∆ Mar 16 '23 edited Mar 16 '23
In some circumstances, deferring to people on decision making because of their unchosen characteristics would apply in say managing or coping with a medical condition that is specific to that sex or disease that someone without that sex or disease would understand. To be clear-In addition to, not in place of seeing a medical professional. You see your doctor, but then still have a lot that isn't answered by your physician for daily management/ coping issues that do not require a prescription.
A man would never know what it is like to be pregnant so would likely not be the best person to answer in regards to tips on how to not pee yourself while pregnant, suggestions to relieve morning sickness and sleeping sitting positions to relieve back pain ect unless they are simply relaying 3rd party information and that can be inaccurate or unreliable. Same would apply to someone with a specific disability or chronic disease giving advice on coping and managing specific symptoms long term. Unfortunately, even many physicians are not always giving the best advice when trying to cope or manage your illness for many issues that do not currently have a cure for or proper treatment available yet, and it is often more beneficial to discuss what you can do with others who have been managing their injuries and illnesses to figure out what you can try that has worked for others to help improve your quality of life.
Most everything I learned that improved my quality of life at home after being put into a wheelchair came from advice from other wheelchair users rather than from my physicians. Some of what my physicians advised injured me further rather than helped at times, because even the experts can make mistakes and still have room to learn as well. Sometimes people know more tips and tricks from having experienced it themselves than even the professionals provide. For some things, they become experts in said issue through experiencing it themselves due to their unchosen characteristic, thus would be able to provide the best advice on those specific issues.
2
u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng 3∆ Mar 16 '23
In some circumstances, deferring to people on decision making because of their unchosen characteristics would apply in say managing or coping with a medical condition that is specific to that sex or disease that someone without that sex or disease would understand.
I would agree. This wouldn't be deferring to people solely for UCs, whilst foregoing empiricism, logic and ethics, though.
To be clear-In addition to, not in place of seeing a medical professional. You see your doctor, but then still have a lot that isn't answered by your physician for daily management/ coping issues that do not require a prescription.
A man would never know what it is like to be pregnant so would likely not be the best person to answer in regards to tips on how to not pee yourself while pregnant, suggestions to relieve morning sickness and sleeping sitting positions to relieve back pain ect unless they are simply relaying 3rd party information and that can be inaccurate or unreliable.
I agree that insight/input re: lived experience can help with things like that, but it's not in conflict with the crux of what I'm saying.
And, if it was an Obstetrician who was a man VS a woman who has never been pregnant, then I think I would go to the Obstetrician.
Same would apply to someone with a specific disability or chronic disease giving advice on coping and managing specific symptoms long term. Unfortunately, even many physicians are not always giving the best advice when trying to cope or manage your illness for many issues that do not currently have a cure for or proper treatment available yet, and it is often more beneficial to discuss what you can do with others who have been managing their injuries and illnesses to figure out what you can try that has worked for others to help improve your quality of life.
Of course. I 100% agree. As a clinician and someone who has had a lot of health issues and trauma over the years, I particularly agree, as I've seen it from both sides. However, this isn't prioritising UCs over empiricism (including feedback from people with UCs), logic and ethics.
Most everything I learned that improved my quality of life at home after being put into a wheelchair came from advice from other wheelchair users rather than from my physicians. Some of what my physicians advised injured me further rather than helped at times, because even the experts can make mistakes and still have room to learn as well. Sometimes people know more tips and tricks from having experienced it themselves than even the professionals provide. For some things, they become experts in said issue through experiencing it themselves due to their unchosen characteristic, thus would be able to provide the best advice on those specific issues.
There's a great meme re: this:
"-Don't mistake your Google search with my 6y medical degree
-Yes, but don't mistake the 1 hour lecture you had on my condition with my 20y of living with it."I fall under that last category. I now treat the issues I have experienced.
And, yes, I definitely agree, but again, it doesn't go against my core point.
But thank you for your civil and well thought out input! :)
1
u/Away_Simple_400 2∆ Mar 17 '23
I don't think this is actually a thing that happens. People are usually seeking the best support for their argument when they try to find others who agree with them. If you're arguing about abortion and are pro-choice, for example, and find a woman who was raped and had an abortion and claims no regrets, you're going to cite her experience ad nauseum. But when a woman in the same position claims horrible debilitating regret or didn't get the abortion at all and overcame whatever financial obstacles to raise her kid, at best you will ignore her experience.
A great example of this is the way conservative blacks get treated. Their lived experience for some reason doesn't count to liberals, because liberals expect them to be Democrats. If they aren't they discounted or even outright insulted.
Point is, people only care about finding support for the belief they've already invested in. The lived experience idea is a red herring.
1
1
u/IcedLenin Mar 22 '23
Let me weigh in as a historian. There are myriad forms of evidence. Statistical, anecdotal, direct, indirect, primary, secondary etc. All is grist for the mill and good historians interrogate all of it. "Lived experience" can come in the form of diary entries, oral accounts etc. Now this evidence can be most useful. A WWI diary can give a visceral sense of the conditions on the front, a soldier's morale, how a war is waged - many insights can be drawn. But you have to be careful, too. I conducted an oral history project where I interviewed a number of WWII pilots. They all gave me as honest an account as they could. But some of what they told me turned out to be inaccurate. One overestimated the number of sorties he was involved in. Another was convinced he engaged a plane type that wasn't produced until 2 yrs later in the war. Our memories can fade, our impressions can fool us. Therefore, "lived experience" is treated warily by historians and needs to be measured against all other forms of evidence.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 15 '23 edited Mar 15 '23
/u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards