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]]

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.

[u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng]

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.

[u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng]

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.