There’s a quite powerful scene in To Kill a Mockingbird where Tom Robinson, a black man on trial for raping a poor, low-status white woman, is being cross-examined by the prosecutor. Tom admits that he was in the woman’s house, but says that he was only there to help her take care of some chores that she was having a hard time handling on her own. Here is the dialogue:
At a casual analysis, it seems to me that combating evil ideologies would prevent almost all war and some poverty, but overcoming bias generally would also do that as well as eliminating almost all or all remaining poverty, disease, environmental problems, and far more.
But then there's the question of which would be easier to accomplish... and which would offer the most intermediate progress along the way. I could be convinced that combating evil ideologies is an easier way to do good in the world, compared to overcoming bias...
David: Evil ideologies are, we can agree, very bad things, but I think that your casual assertion that combatting them is more important than overcoming bias seems to me to be unfounded. I would like you to try to defend it in a post, as it seems to me to suggest that you do not yet appreciate how deeply, nearly incomprehensibly pernicious human biases are.
At a casual analysis, it seems to me that combatting evil ideologies would prevent almost all war and some poverty, but overcoming bias generally would also do that as well as eliminating almost all or all remaining poverty, disease, environmental problems, and far more.
It's common to have political arguments where the terms thrown around don't mean much, but there's a lot of context required to understand what's going on, and almost as common to have the terms mean different things to different participants, so that there's no communications going on at all.
I think your example is more subtle, though. Maybe a good analogy would be a discussion about evolution, where the subtext involves the notion that to express a belief in evolution means you're not a Christian. The whole discussion might never directly bring religion into the picture, and yet that's the backdrop. Maybe another example is the whole nature/nurture debate, with all kinds of uncomfortable social questions riding unspoken in the background. (Though maybe I just read too much Steven Pinker.)
Sometimes free association produces very useful connections, other times it is utter rubbish, so it's up to you to see if this is of any use. Your story reminded me of my early days in investment banking 25 years ago. Women were rare in the industry, and clients weren't used to them either. Sometimes you'd have a client who hated investment bankers to begin with (the norm with commercial banks who still had to use investment banks for capital markets transactions). They would sometimes pick on the woman by calling undue attention to her gender, often by saying how pretty she looked or how nicely she was dressed. None of the men would defend her by stopping the conversation. It was almost as if they let a predator cut the weak member out of the herd.
the most intermediate progress along the way
That's obviously overcoming bias. Ideology is large scale. Overcoming bias is useful for the individual.
At a casual analysis, it seems to me that combating evil ideologies would prevent almost all war and some poverty, but overcoming bias generally would also do that as well as eliminating almost all or all remaining poverty, disease, environmental problems, and far more.
But then there's the question of which would be easier to accomplish... and which would offer the most intermediate progress along the way. I could be convinced that combating evil ideologies is an easier way to do good in the world, compared to overcoming bias...
David: Evil ideologies are, we can agree, very bad things, but I think that your casual assertion that combatting them is more important than overcoming bias seems to me to be unfounded. I would like you to try to defend it in a post, as it seems to me to suggest that you do not yet appreciate how deeply, nearly incomprehensibly pernicious human biases are.
At a casual analysis, it seems to me that combatting evil ideologies would prevent almost all war and some poverty, but overcoming bias generally would also do that as well as eliminating almost all or all remaining poverty, disease, environmental problems, and far more.
It's common to have political arguments where the terms thrown around don't mean much, but there's a lot of context required to understand what's going on, and almost as common to have the terms mean different things to different participants, so that there's no communications going on at all.
I think your example is more subtle, though. Maybe a good analogy would be a discussion about evolution, where the subtext involves the notion that to express a belief in evolution means you're not a Christian. The whole discussion might never directly bring religion into the picture, and yet that's the backdrop. Maybe another example is the whole nature/nurture debate, with all kinds of uncomfortable social questions riding unspoken in the background. (Though maybe I just read too much Steven Pinker.)
Sometimes free association produces very useful connections, other times it is utter rubbish, so it's up to you to see if this is of any use. Your story reminded me of my early days in investment banking 25 years ago. Women were rare in the industry, and clients weren't used to them either. Sometimes you'd have a client who hated investment bankers to begin with (the norm with commercial banks who still had to use investment banks for capital markets transactions). They would sometimes pick on the woman by calling undue attention to her gender, often by saying how pretty she looked or how nicely she was dressed. None of the men would defend her by stopping the conversation. It was almost as if they let a predator cut the weak member out of the herd.