I dislike discrimination to the extent that it interferes with people getting what they deserve.

If people do good things for society (save puppies? build bridges? develop new technology?), they deserve rewards, so as to motivate such behavior. If they do bad things (kill puppies? pollute rivers? mislead consumers?), they deserve punishment. To produce the best incentive for society, these rewards and punishments should ideally depend *only* on how much society would be better off if we encouraged or discouraged particular behaviors. We might call such an ideal system of rewards and punishments "well-calibrated" to benefit society.

Discrimination interferes with reward calibration. If the best engineer for the job is punished for having a certain skin color, or having a certain religion, or a certain political affiliation, or not being friends with an insider, then that's going to lead to worse engineering work and worse outcomes for society. Because then you have worse engineers getting more status and responsibility than better ones. Ideally, an engineer should be evaluated and rewarded only based on the quality of his work, in such a way that it motivates him to produce the best possible work.

Expand full comment

Yep 100%

This is what ive noticed from talking with leftists and progressevists about the topic of discrimination, and whether people should have the same playground rules or not

And i also used to hold those opinions, and my conclusion then was that discriminating against a privileged group was fine morally as they could either afford the penalty, and that it was important for people to be equal

Equality is generally a very strong moral node in a lot of people minds, that often require very strong education or training to resist the “equality good over everything else” framework. (or if your leftist, brainwashing from neoliberal economists that make you diverge from whats obviously right in your opinion)

My discussions with some people very much highligt that they see equality as an obvious moral principle that is blatantly disrespected by society frequently, and thus makes a lot of society and rich people low status and undeserving of the status/power/wealth they do have

The rich having that money is only acceptable if those rich people are sufficiently taxed or if they are very high status pr virtuous, either by being better than everyone else, or by bein humble and taxing themself by giving to low members of society

Expand full comment

What does it mean to not think sex is an evolved basis for discrimination. It would make sense to include questions like that as controls in order to remove the poll submissions from those who give the wrong answer.

As is, I suspect the poll questions were too difficult for the typical responder to interpret.

Expand full comment

It's notable that only three of the biases have a plurality of support for legal mitigation ("banning"), and those do not include factors like age, gender, religion, disability for which we have had strong legal protections in place in the US for decades. This reads like a very libertarian-leaning poll group.

Expand full comment

Does Egalitarianism partake of the sacred, in your sense of the word "sacred"?

Expand full comment

Are you able to share the data for this model?

Expand full comment