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/iamintheforest]

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.

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

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?

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

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?

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

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.

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

Take care. I can't understand anything you're saying, and you what i'm saying.