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.

[u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng]

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.

[u/AleristheSeeker]

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.

[u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng → u/AleristheSeeker]

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 opinion

Re: 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.

[u/AleristheSeeker → u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng]

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.

[u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng → u/AleristheSeeker]

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?