8 ms·

Equality of opportunity is what is important, not equality of outcome, which is what some people try to conflate it with.

by kul 9y ago

satya71 9y ago
Equality of opportunity is not measurable. Equality of outcome is. Given that we know some variables such as race, sex, and sexual preferences shouldn't affect outcome, we should look for equality of outcome without correlation with these variables.
- alacombe 9y ago
  oh, so "being a nurse" should not correlate with "being a female", or "working in STEM" should not correlate with "being good at math and having with poor verbal/social skills". Am I correct ?
  - dang 9y ago
    This breaks the HN guidelines, which say: "Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them." So would you please not take threads in that direction, whence they never return?
    - alacombe 9y ago
      I do believe there is something directly related to this thread. My intention was to point out the fact that the concept of "equality of outcome" is an erroneous metric. I specifically amended the second part of my comment to omit orientation of gender and focus on the personality traits. That is, two grade A student may end up in totally different outcome, skewing statistics which would limit themselves to phenotypical attributes.
      - dang 9y ago
        The topic is education in Canada, not equality of outcome vs. equality of opportunity. Off-topic tangents can be fine when they're concrete, but generic tangents inevitably head off in a worse direction, and generic ideological tangents are the worst. More on this point at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14912821 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14912821 if anyone's interested.
- kul 9y ago
  It might not be strictly measurable, but giving everyone access to free, high quality education and healthcare get you a long way there.
- logicchains 9y ago
  >Equality of opportunity is not measurable. Equality of outcome is. Given that we know some variables such as race, sex, and sexual preferences shouldn't affect outcome, we should look for equality of outcome without correlation with these variables. Why shouldn't these variables affect outcomes? To assert that any two groups should have identical economic outcomes, one first has to prove that those two groups are identical with regard to all preferences and genetic factors that can affect economic outcomes. For example, sex may correlate with career choice, and career choice correlates with economic outcomes. Race has been found in some studies to correlate with results on IQ tests, which have been found to correlate with economic outcomes. To assert that such factors shouldn't affect economic outcomes, one hence first has to rule out all such potential correlations.
  - logicchains 9y ago
    To anyone who downvoted, I'd be happy to see arguments refuting any of the following: * A correlation between career choice and economic outcomes. * A correlation between sex and career preferences. * A correlation between race and IQ test results. * A correlation between IQ test results and economic outcomes.
coliveira 9y ago
This is the kind of ideology that leads to trouble. If there is equality of opportunity, there will be equality of outcomes, at least on average. When you see inequality rising it is a serious clue that opportunities are not the same for everyone.
- rumcajz 9y ago
  What about focusing on social mobility instead of equality?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - quadrangle 9y ago
    How about equity instead of equality? Anyway, "social mobility" generally just means there's no caste system or effective caste system. If the inequity in the system means that a small percent of people hold most of the wealth and power, what difference does it make if anyone has a chance to join that elite? In a zero-sum game, social mobility is better to exist than not but it isn't going to actually change anything fundamental.
- alacombe 9y ago
  This is nonsense. If you give 100 people the same starting point, you'll very likely end up with 100 different outcome. Also, even if you have an "average" equality of outcome, you'll still find a small fraction of those left out screaming about inequality and how unfair the system has been to them.
  - quadrangle 9y ago
    The best framing is the headwind/tailwind issue. We feel the headwinds (obstacles in our way) and take our tailwinds for granted (the privileges and luck we enjoy). There's lots of evidence that the successful in our society are largely deluded in how much they downplay the significance of their privileges and luck. The worse-off people aren't any smarter, but when everyone is mainly aware only of headwinds and not tailwinds, those who happen to have less tailwinds inherently are aware of a greater percentage of their context.

Equality of opportunity is what is important, not equality of outcome, which is what some people try to conflate it with.

by kul 9y ago

Equality of opportunity is what is important, not equality of outcome, which is what some people try to conflate it with.

satya71 9y ago

Equality of opportunity is not measurable. Equality of outcome is. Given that we know some variables such as race, sex, and sexual preferences shouldn't affect outcome, we should look for equality of outcome without correlation with these variables.

alacombe 9y ago
oh, so "being a nurse" should not correlate with "being a female", or "working in STEM" should not correlate with "being good at math and having with poor verbal/social skills". Am I correct ?
- dang 9y ago
  This breaks the HN guidelines, which say: "Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them." So would you please not take threads in that direction, whence they never return?
  - alacombe 9y ago
    I do believe there is something directly related to this thread. My intention was to point out the fact that the concept of "equality of outcome" is an erroneous metric. I specifically amended the second part of my comment to omit orientation of gender and focus on the personality traits. That is, two grade A student may end up in totally different outcome, skewing statistics which would limit themselves to phenotypical attributes.
    - dang 9y ago
      The topic is education in Canada, not equality of outcome vs. equality of opportunity. Off-topic tangents can be fine when they're concrete, but generic tangents inevitably head off in a worse direction, and generic ideological tangents are the worst. More on this point at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14912821 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14912821 if anyone's interested.
kul 9y ago
It might not be strictly measurable, but giving everyone access to free, high quality education and healthcare get you a long way there.
logicchains 9y ago
>Equality of opportunity is not measurable. Equality of outcome is. Given that we know some variables such as race, sex, and sexual preferences shouldn't affect outcome, we should look for equality of outcome without correlation with these variables. Why shouldn't these variables affect outcomes? To assert that any two groups should have identical economic outcomes, one first has to prove that those two groups are identical with regard to all preferences and genetic factors that can affect economic outcomes. For example, sex may correlate with career choice, and career choice correlates with economic outcomes. Race has been found in some studies to correlate with results on IQ tests, which have been found to correlate with economic outcomes. To assert that such factors shouldn't affect economic outcomes, one hence first has to rule out all such potential correlations.
- logicchains 9y ago
  To anyone who downvoted, I'd be happy to see arguments refuting any of the following: * A correlation between career choice and economic outcomes. * A correlation between sex and career preferences. * A correlation between race and IQ test results. * A correlation between IQ test results and economic outcomes.

coliveira 9y ago

This is the kind of ideology that leads to trouble. If there is equality of opportunity, there will be equality of outcomes, at least on average. When you see inequality rising it is a serious clue that opportunities are not the same for everyone.

rumcajz 9y ago
What about focusing on social mobility instead of equality?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- quadrangle 9y ago
  How about equity instead of equality? Anyway, "social mobility" generally just means there's no caste system or effective caste system. If the inequity in the system means that a small percent of people hold most of the wealth and power, what difference does it make if anyone has a chance to join that elite? In a zero-sum game, social mobility is better to exist than not but it isn't going to actually change anything fundamental.
alacombe 9y ago
This is nonsense. If you give 100 people the same starting point, you'll very likely end up with 100 different outcome. Also, even if you have an "average" equality of outcome, you'll still find a small fraction of those left out screaming about inequality and how unfair the system has been to them.
- quadrangle 9y ago
  The best framing is the headwind/tailwind issue. We feel the headwinds (obstacles in our way) and take our tailwinds for granted (the privileges and luck we enjoy). There's lots of evidence that the successful in our society are largely deluded in how much they downplay the significance of their privileges and luck. The worse-off people aren't any smarter, but when everyone is mainly aware only of headwinds and not tailwinds, those who happen to have less tailwinds inherently are aware of a greater percentage of their context.