The problem with your analogy is the assumption of that [unprivliged group]'s bridge was worse. In fact the problem is that [privleged group] was getting shitty bridges built for decades while good bridges from [unpriveleged group] were being ignored.
Assume all demographics produce the same distribution of bridge quality. Under the historical discrimination regime, we've been taking all the majority-designed bridges simply because they were majority-designed, including the bad ones. Obviously this is bad, and should be rectified.
Parent and I argue that automatically taking a minority-designed bridge is equally bad, because it's equally likely to lead to a faulty bridge. Bridges should be evaluated according to their quality/safety independent of who designed them.
I agree with part of your statement. The point of this scenario is that it stipulates a flaw in the initial logic. I can guarantee that given N number of groups, the chances of the best bridge being build by group 1...N are 100%/N.
I don't however think that good ideas have been 'ignored'. Even if so, the way the initial argument was presented seems to imply that the bridges cannot stand on it's own and needs others to help it.
If I was a [unprivileged group] and a writer, bridge builder, or a general do-er I would be offended by that insinuation. It implies that [unprivileged group] people cannot succeed on their own ideas.
The reality is, we live in a market of ideas and the best ones are usually chosen.
If you think that is not the case, then I would like you to name at least 2 fields without a prominent [unprivileged group] person with leading theories and ideas. The thing is you cannot.
For instance, my love of literature not only centered around Poe but also Douglass, my life is filled with carbon-filament light-bulbs, and some of my long distance relatives had their lives saved by soy-based fire prevention systems in the navy during WWII.
> I can guarantee that given N number of groups, the chances of the best bridge being build by group 1...N are 100%/N.
Is that a joke? What's important to this conversation is that drawing from the the group ∪{N(x), ∀x} will unquestionably give you the best bridge designs and limiting yourself to some N(i) will tend to give you a worse subset of designs.
> I don't however think that good ideas have been 'ignored'.
Think what you like, you are simply wrong here as a historical fact and basic logic. The most obvious counterexamples are productive people who, due to discrimination, had their careers ended (e.g. Alan Turing, Jewish scientists killed in the holocaust) but it should be equally obvious that after given access, people from previously excluded groups had valuable contributions that would otherwise have taken longer to discover. I can't believe I have to spell this out...
> Even if so, the way the initial argument was presented seems to imply that the bridges cannot stand on it's own and needs others to help it... It implies that [unprivileged group] people cannot succeed on their own ideas.
You can keep writing that word salad as much as you like, it's not true. The fact is good bridge builders from [unprivileged group] were being excluded. Despite your fantasies to the contrary, you were not living in a meritocracy where [privleged group] earned all the bridge contracts. You were living in a degenerate system where [group 1] rigged the system so that [group 2] and [group 3] were unable to win contracts even if their bridges were better.
> If you think that is not the case, then I would like you to name at least 2 fields without a prominent [unprivileged group] person with leading theories and ideas. The thing is you cannot.
Lol, a ridiculous standard you pulled out of thin air. Discrimination exists, is widespread and has substantial negative effects on our society. Those are real facts that matter.
> Is that a joke? What's important to this conversation is that drawing from the the group ∪{N(x), ∀x} will unquestionably give you the best bridge designs and limiting yourself to some N(i) will tend to give you a worse subset of designs.
That is the entire point of my statement. The initial problem you are attempting to address is willful ignorance based on arbitrary groups. Recreating theses groups in an attempt to 'even out the playing field' makes no sense.
> Think what you like, you are simply wrong here as a historical fact and basic logic. The most obvious counterexamples are productive people who, due to discrimination, had their careers ended (e.g. Alan Turing, Jewish scientists killed in the holocaust) but it should be equally obvious that after given access, people from previously excluded groups had valuable contributions that would otherwise have taken longer to discover. I can't believe I have to spell this out...
And yet Alan Turing had a successful carrier helping the British government, Albert Einstein is heralded as one of the forefathers of modern day physics, and Hooper is considered to be the grandmother of CS.
> You can keep writing that word salad as much as you like, it's not true. The fact is good bridge builders from [unprivileged group] were being excluded. Despite your fantasies to the contrary, you were not living in a meritocracy where [privleged group] earned all the bridge contracts. You were living in a degenerate system where [group 1] rigged the system so that [group 2] and [group 3] were unable to win contracts even if their bridges were better.
I'd pay to see proof of this. Please if you would present some information to contradict my statement. You have, up to this point, only used conjecture. I have presented (at this point) six different people who have succeeded from minority groups you say need help.
> Lol, a ridiculous standard you pulled out of thin air. Discrimination exists, is widespread and has substantial negative effects on our society. Those are real facts that matter.
Well if it is so prevalent surely you would not have a difficult time providing factual evidence of it? Wouldn't it be easy for you to comply with my request?
I do agree that there is discrimination, but the evidence I have seen to date has pointed to the fact that people who have determination and the mind to back up their statements always win.
