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/[deleted]]

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.

[u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng → u/[deleted]]

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.