I think it’s useful to construct simplified models to show how changing just one thing works without getting lost in the mire of other effects, counter-effects, and opportunities to twist the answer. Even if it’s unrealistic until you add those effects back in.
After thinking about it some, I was surprised how much “magic” was required to get something reasonably like equality of opportunity. Equal schools, yes, but also food, maybe clothes, neighborhood pacification, and trying to find an answer to the runaway loop of rational prejudice. In a more complex example, I’d have to deal with green kids growing up in worse conditions and anti-green prejudice opening a bigger gap between collective green success and collective purple success.
My math went like so: assume that purple people average 100 IQ (because the test was made for purple people), green people average 90 IQ on the purple scale, distribution is normal, and the standard deviation is 15 (like a real IQ test). Adjusting the mean and making the averages 105/95 doesn’t seem to affect the math. However, if there’s a combined IQ test in this world, the standard deviation is probably larger than the 15 that real IQ tests aim for and that would wreck my math.
I think it’s useful to construct simplified models to show how changing just one thing works without getting lost in the mire of other effects, counter-effects, and opportunities to twist the answer. Even if it’s unrealistic until you add those effects back in.
Well, I wouldn’t say something rude like “your post is useless” even if I believed it (which I don’t) but at the same time I’m kind of struggling to see how to apply your point seeing as it was made in the ideal hypothetical scenario. After we do add those effects back in like:
There isn’t actually a race that’s just inherently X% dumber and everything else equal.
Intelligence is a multifaceted thing. You can measure and average those facets and come up with a single number, but it doesn’t really tell you much about how a person can practically apply “intelligence” or what they can accomplish with their “intelligence”.
Tests like the IQ test have significant flaws and culture/education level can have a non-trivial effect on the result. So someone that was deprived of access to education might score lower even though they have the exact same intrinsic potential for intelligence as someone else that scored higher.
How do we relate the real situation to what you said?
trying to find an answer to the runaway loop of rational prejudice.
That’s kind of the problem: Prejudice can seem rational in the simplified example that doesn’t have any nuance. In reality though, there are too many factors to account for, too much missing data. So when someone introduces “Greens have 10% lower IQ scores” to the conversation it’s virtually never going to be constructive. That’s the point I was making originally.
In a more complex example, I’d have to deal with green kids growing up in worse conditions and anti-green prejudice opening a bigger gap between collective green success and collective purple success.
Indeed. Even a small discrepancy that wouldn’t really have much practical effect could absolutely be magnified by bigotry. Again, I feel like this is kind of reinforcing my original point.
My math went like so:
My statistics knowledge isn’t good enough to call you out (or confirm that you’re correct). The 60-65 number you came up with sounded reasonable to me, so I don’t really have a reason to argue about that.
However, if there’s a combined IQ test in this world, the standard deviation is probably larger than the 15 that real IQ tests aim for and that would wreck my math.
You mean a test that includes both the greens and purples? I’m not sure how that would be relevant in this specific scenario since we’re talking about comparing greens and purples.
The thought exercise was good to show that if there were a race that is inherently 10% dumber, everything else would not stay equal for more than a few years.
I’m a bit confused by how you seem to think I’d be surprised to find that an unbalanced situation that is set to some configuration will tend to return to its equilibrium. The real situation is so complex that we can’t even definitely say exactly where the equilibrium is though. Real people aren’t one dimensional, so one person maybe less intelligent but more dedicated.
It’s also possible to go too far trying to make things balanced. Kurt Vonnegut wrote a story called Harrison Bergeron that you might enjoy: https://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html
We can at least try to make sure people meet their basic needs like food, water, health care and have access to education and information.
I think it’s useful to construct simplified models to show how changing just one thing works without getting lost in the mire of other effects, counter-effects, and opportunities to twist the answer. Even if it’s unrealistic until you add those effects back in.
After thinking about it some, I was surprised how much “magic” was required to get something reasonably like equality of opportunity. Equal schools, yes, but also food, maybe clothes, neighborhood pacification, and trying to find an answer to the runaway loop of rational prejudice. In a more complex example, I’d have to deal with green kids growing up in worse conditions and anti-green prejudice opening a bigger gap between collective green success and collective purple success.
My math went like so: assume that purple people average 100 IQ (because the test was made for purple people), green people average 90 IQ on the purple scale, distribution is normal, and the standard deviation is 15 (like a real IQ test). Adjusting the mean and making the averages 105/95 doesn’t seem to affect the math. However, if there’s a combined IQ test in this world, the standard deviation is probably larger than the 15 that real IQ tests aim for and that would wreck my math.
Well, I wouldn’t say something rude like “your post is useless” even if I believed it (which I don’t) but at the same time I’m kind of struggling to see how to apply your point seeing as it was made in the ideal hypothetical scenario. After we do add those effects back in like:
How do we relate the real situation to what you said?
That’s kind of the problem: Prejudice can seem rational in the simplified example that doesn’t have any nuance. In reality though, there are too many factors to account for, too much missing data. So when someone introduces “Greens have 10% lower IQ scores” to the conversation it’s virtually never going to be constructive. That’s the point I was making originally.
Indeed. Even a small discrepancy that wouldn’t really have much practical effect could absolutely be magnified by bigotry. Again, I feel like this is kind of reinforcing my original point.
My statistics knowledge isn’t good enough to call you out (or confirm that you’re correct). The 60-65 number you came up with sounded reasonable to me, so I don’t really have a reason to argue about that.
You mean a test that includes both the greens and purples? I’m not sure how that would be relevant in this specific scenario since we’re talking about comparing greens and purples.
The thought exercise was good to show that if there were a race that is inherently 10% dumber, everything else would not stay equal for more than a few years.
I’m a bit confused by how you seem to think I’d be surprised to find that an unbalanced situation that is set to some configuration will tend to return to its equilibrium. The real situation is so complex that we can’t even definitely say exactly where the equilibrium is though. Real people aren’t one dimensional, so one person maybe less intelligent but more dedicated.
It’s also possible to go too far trying to make things balanced. Kurt Vonnegut wrote a story called Harrison Bergeron that you might enjoy: https://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html
We can at least try to make sure people meet their basic needs like food, water, health care and have access to education and information.
I read Harrison Bergeron in school. That’s what would be needed for full equality of opportunity, if you think about it.
I agree that we (if we’re in similar countries) can do a much better job than we do on meeting basic needs.