What's the difference between "outcome by merit" and "equal outcome"? "Merit" is not the name of a physical law or constant. — Echarmion

The difference is that “outcome by merit” means the most qualified person gets the job (for example), based upon n the merits of their qualifications. “Equal outcome” is not concerned with merit or qualification in this context, but with making sure their is a diverse range of race/gender etc regardless of qualifications/merit.
The point being made I think is that equality of outcome is more problematic because it doesn’t filter out incompetence or any other undesirable traits, where equality of opportunity does while at the same time is an explicit effort to make sure no one is left out do to race/gender etc.
Think of selecting a panel of doctors to save a loved ones life. You want the panel to have the best doctors right? If you gathered the best and it turns out it’s majority black, white, straight, gay or whatever then equality of outcome demands that some of the best doctors be swapped out so that the panel is diverse.

The difference is that “outcome by merit” means the most qualified person gets the job (for example), based upon n the merits of their qualifications. “Equal outcome” is not concerned with merit or qualification in this context, but with making sure their is a diverse range of race/gender etc regardless of qualifications/merit. — DingoJones

How do we know that "equal outcome" isn't concerned with merit or qualification? Equality is a value judgement. It can and usually does include considerations for qualifications and experience. Is there any mainstream view which espouses a strict quota system based on some form of identity without consideration of merit?

And on the flip side, what is considered "merit" is also a value judgement which, in principle, isn't different from equality.

The point being made I think is that equality of outcome is more problematic because it doesn’t filter out incompetence or any other undesirable traits, where equality of opportunity does while at the same time is an explicit effort to make sure no one is left out do to race/gender etc. — DingoJones

I'm very sceptical regarding this claim, as I don't see how it would be possible a priori to know whether a given system actually filters out only "undesirable traits". In my view, the only way to check is by looking at the output and comparing it with other metrics to figure out whether or not the process works. "Equality of opportunity" a judgement of an outcome, the term does not describe any specific method.

Think of selecting a panel of doctors to save a loved ones life. You want the panel to have the best doctors right? If you gathered the best and it turns out it’s majority black, white, straight, gay or whatever then equality of outcome demands that some of the best doctors be swapped out so that the panel is diverse. — DingoJones

I think you're ascribing a specific goal to equality, based on a political usage of the word, which is not inherent in the term. If you want a panel of the best doctors, then the only reasonable application of the term equality is that people on the panel should have the highest qualification possible, regardless of other factors. In other words all factors except qualification should be considered equal (you don't care about their marital status etc).

That's how equality always operates - you select one or more dimensions of relevance, such as qualification, income, etc. and then the "equal" outcome is the one where those - and only those - dimensions are expressed in the outcome.

Merit purports to do something similar, but merit tends to come with an existing list of which circumstances imply merit and which do not, and that list is politically and ideologically motivated (usually to favour existing elites).

Regarding meritocracy, how do we account for heirs? We want to honor the will of the dead, but they are, after all, dead, right? So, if their spawn didn't earn or otherwise rate on the basis of merit, then why not tax the beegesus out of inheritance? Doing so would provide incentives for the living to hire their spawn or otherwise pay them while alive, so they can be taxed like everyone else. I could go on with other angles on this.

The idea of compounding capital has little, if anything, to do with merit. Especially when the genesis of that capital can be tied to theft or immoral acts (slavery, etc.). All that compounded afterwards is the fruit of a poisonous tree. Food for thought.

In short, when the "right" picks the welfare queen as their undeserving parasite on society, the "left" can always pick the silver spoon slug as another undeserving parasite on society. They, after all, benefit from capital that did not pay in to society.

Conversely, for every so-called hard-working bootstrapper picked by the "right" as the paragon of our ethic, the "left" can pick a million harder-working po folk as not getting out what they put in.

I think efforts toward equality are simply trying to level a playing field that has been tilted to favor some and not others. But bringing it back to level requires a little tilt in the opposite direction from level. You can't fuck a man forever and then expect gratitude when you stop. You gots to pay a little. You say it wasn't your fault? Faults got nothing to do with it. It's a strict liability issue.

How do we know that "equal outcome" isn't concerned with merit or qualification? Equality is a value judgement. It can and usually does include considerations for qualifications and experience. Is there any mainstream view which espouses a strict quota system based on some form of identity without consideration of merit? — Echarmion

Well in the context of race/gender etc I think the idea for some is that the proper metric for a fair group selection is diversity. That idea is about “equality of outcome”, the goal is for the group to have a proper amount of of diversity. A mainstream example would be affirmative action.

I'm very sceptical regarding this claim, as I don't see how it would be possible a priori to know whether a given system actually filters out only "undesirable traits". In my view, the only way to check is by looking at the output and comparing it with other metrics to figure out whether or not the process works. "Equality of opportunity" a judgement of an outcome, the term does not describe any specific method. — Echarmion

The specific method of “equality of opportunity” is usually about creating a system where everyone has a fair shot, an equal playing field.
I agree with your view and on looking at the output, that’s a good way to check what a systems actually doing but I was more talking about system design. Specifically, whether the idea of “equality of outcome” is better than “equality of opportunity”.

I think you're ascribing a specific goal to equality, based on a political usage of the word, which is not inherent in the term. — Echarmion

Well yes, that was what I was making a point about. The political usuals. That’s what the discussion had been about.

If you want a panel of the best doctors, then the only reasonable application of the term equality is that people on the panel should have the highest qualification possible, regardless of other factors. In other words all factors except qualification should be considered equal (you don't care about their marital status etc). — Echarmion

Yes, that was the point I was making. I think we are using terms a bit differently, I’m not sure we are in disagreement about the concepts.

The Left is constantly pushing their "inclusion" meme which I take as meaning that each GROUP needs to be represented according to their percentage in the population. Merit is of secondary importance.
— synthesis

What's the difference between "outcome by merit" and "equal outcome"? "Merit" is not the name of a physical law or constant. — Echarmion

The difference is that in the former, you earn your success, in the later you are given success regardless of what you do.

Capitalism is the only economic system there is.
— synthesis

Err, what? — Echarmion

Are you aware of another functioning economic system? Is feudalism still in operation? How about slavery?

Socialism is simply a transfer mechanism, and Communism is state capitalism, and communism, a pipe-dream.

That's how equality always operates - you select one or more dimensions of relevance, such as qualification, income, etc. and then the "equal" outcome is the one where those - and only those - dimensions are expressed in the outcome.

Merit purports to do something similar, but merit tends to come with an existing list of which circumstances imply merit and which do not, and that list is politically and ideologically motivated (usually to favour existing elites). — Echarmion

Is that why the most successful groups in the U.S. are people of color...Asians. They are successful because they work their asses off.

I think efforts toward equality are simply trying to level a playing field that has been tilted to favor some and not others. But bringing it back to level requires a little tilt in the opposite direction from level. You can't fuck a man forever and then expect gratitude when you stop. You gots to pay a little. You say it wasn't your fault? Faults got nothing to do with it. It's a strict liability issue. — James Riley

The unintended consequences of of such thinking is that you may be under the knife one day when your surgeon doesn't quite make the correct decision and your procedure goes poorly, or, your airline pilot doesn't have it together enough to make it through the storm, or a millions other examples.

Consider how this policy has failed is many AA students have been admitted to very high academic standard schools (e.g., Ivy League schools) and failed horribly because they were not qualified whereas they would have done really well at other schools where the rest of us go.

What the left is trying to do now is get rid of the better schools (in LA they want to discontinue all advanced classes). This is crazy. People need to achieve their potential, whatever it is, and whomever they are...black, white, brown, yellow, purple or blue!

Is that why the most successful groups in the U.S. are people of color...Asians. They are successful because they work their asses off. — synthesis

Probably shouldn't rely on racial stereotypes.

Probably shouldn't rely on racial stereotypes. — praxis

It's inequality of effort. I live in a area with a lot of Asians and these people work harder than anybody I've ever known.

Why do you think these people are so successful? Luck?

People need to achieve their potential, whatever it is, and whomever they are...black, white, brown, yellow, purple or blue! — synthesis

But think of all the liars who succeed! You never know who you can trust when they've lost credibility. Like you. Did you misquote me, or not? I mean, how can I pretend to trash your silly arguments on the merits when, at any time, you might say I said something I did not say? Isn't that the hall mark of a society that isn't based on merit?

Why do you think these people are so successful? Luck? — synthesis

Asian income inequality in the US has many factors. The bottom line is that the average Asian American is behind the average non-Asian American. If your racial stereotype were accurate they'd be above the average.

Err, what? — Echarmion

True enough. Capitalism (really just pretense) is simply a free market tool used by socialism to achieve some of it's goals.

Self-identified "capitalists" have their lips indelibly stuck on the socialist government's tit, and would not last a nano-second alone in the wild.

Socialist just know how to treat people. Unlike the self-identified capitalist who would ride a horse to death, get off, eat it and take off on foot in search of another meal.

Well in the context of race/gender etc I think the idea for some is that the proper metric for a fair group selection is diversity. That idea is about “equality of outcome”, the goal is for the group to have a proper amount of of diversity. A mainstream example would be affirmative action. — DingoJones

For a first approximation, that is probably a good strategy though. If, for a given field, you don't think there are any significant biological differences between the groups involved and the sample size is large enough, results should correspond to the makeup of the population in general. If they don't, something else is going on. Now something else is almost always going on, not necessarily something bad. But it's a legitimate cause for concern if the ratio is way off from what it should be given the makeup of the population.

The specific method of “equality of opportunity” is usually about creating a system where everyone has a fair shot, an equal playing field.
I agree with your view and on looking at the output, that’s a good way to check what a systems actually doing but I was more talking about system design. Specifically, whether the idea of “equality of outcome” is better than “equality of opportunity”. — DingoJones

But what is the actual system design like? My point is exactly that there is no way to design a system for equality of opportunity in the abstract, because you first need to decide what specific outcomes actually represent equality of opportunity, and then you design your system so it gives you the outcomes you want. There is no algorithm you can turn to to avoid having to make the value judgement about what you actually want the system to account for, and what you want it to equalize.

Yes, that was the point I was making. I think we are using terms a bit differently, I’m not sure we are in disagreement about the concepts. — DingoJones

I consider the dichotomy between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity to be a false one. The terms imply two distinct methods, when in reality it's not a question of method, but of goals.

The difference is that in the former, you earn your success, in the later you are given success regardless of what you do. — synthesis

* citation needed

Are you aware of another functioning economic system? Is feudalism still in operation? How about slavery?

Socialism is simply a transfer mechanism, and Communism is state capitalism, and communism, a pipe-dream. — synthesis

Neofeudalism arguably exists. But regardless past economic systems did function. The fact that they're no longer operational doesn't change that.

For a first approximation, that is probably a good strategy though. If, for a given field, you don't think there are any significant biological differences between the groups involved and the sample size is large enough, results should correspond to the makeup of the population in general. If they don't, something else is going on. Now something else is almost always going on, not necessarily something bad. But it's a legitimate cause for concern if the ratio is way off from what it should be given the makeup of the population. — Echarmion

I don’t think the groups will naturally corespondent to the demographics. Certain professions for example attract certain kinds of people. These professions will naturally have more people of that certain kind. Some fields or areas will not have diversity because the interest in that field or area isn’t all that diverse.

I consider the dichotomy between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity to be a false one. The terms imply two distinct methods, when in reality it's not a question of method, but of goals. — Echarmion

I think you are using those terms idiosyncratically, and that’s why you think it a false dichotomy. Those two things are indeed two methods and they are mutually exclusive.

The fact that they're no longer operational doesn't change that. — Echarmion

I think socialism is alive and well in the United States. The problem is, people get hung up on the idea of "pure." However, socialism, like "capitalism" (cough cough) comes in many different shades and colors.

There is no more socialist institution on the planet than the United States Military. It is one of the primary drivers of production (foreign oil) and the protector of the petro-dollar upon which the world engages in exchange; effectively making us the bank that can print money and allow us to run deficits carte blanche without taxation to cover expenses.

And when people back up to taxation of "capitalists" (cough cough) as the funders of the military, their profits come largely from Big Government protection of shareholders from strict, joint and several liability. Without those skirts to hide behind, investors would not venture out from under the fridge to invest. They are only "risk takers" when it comes to what they are willing to venture, and not to the extent of the damages they inflict or the externalized costs.

We could go on to highways, airwaves, rights of way, and the simple fact that the sovereign is, well, sovereign. "We the people" could do a lot that we don't do because we know how to take care of people. The only chink in that armor is when the so-called "capitalists" (cough cough) use their profits to purchase government to protect them, their profits and their foreign adventures in emerging markets or with our "freedom loving democratic" allies in developing countries. When you lose the distinction between the corporation and the state, you have fascism (socialism for the few, rugged individualism for every one else).

I like Smedley Darlington Butler's "War is a Racket" essay. Nothing much has changed in a hundred years. Side note: How many refuges at our border are from our allied countries in Central and South America, vice those from our socialist "enemies" down there? And regarding all the alleged failures of socialist experiments down there, how much of that failure is due to the failure of socialism vice the monkey wrenches that are thrown in by our alphabet agencies?

But think of all the liars who succeed! You never know who you can trust when they've lost credibility. Like you. Did you misquote me, or not? I mean, how can I pretend to trash your silly arguments on the merits when, at any time, you might say I said something I did not say? Isn't that the hall mark of a society that isn't based on merit? — James Riley

Again, I am not really sure what you are talking about, but let's talk about lying.

Have you never lied? Are you somewhere above the rest of humanity?

The difference is that in the former, you earn your success, in the later you are given success regardless of what you do.
— synthesis

* citation needed — Echarmion

This isn't school.

Are you aware of another functioning economic system? Is feudalism still in operation? How about slavery?

Socialism is simply a transfer mechanism, and Communism is state capitalism, and communism, a pipe-dream.
— synthesis

Neofeudalism arguably exists. But regardless past economic systems did function. The fact that they're no longer operational doesn't change that. — Echarmion

Doesn't change what?

We should be happy to live in age where material is abundant. The economic system is what it is. You make it the best you can and move forward (the way you do everything else).

Everybody understands what your complaining about but its like yelling at the moon for keeping you awake at night. Some things are what they are.

I think socialism is alive and well in the United States. — James Riley

On this matter, my friend, we can agree.

There is WAY TOO MUCH socialism in the U.S. ... to the point where it has created grotesque economic distortions via massive systemic corruption, just like in every other socialist paradise.

Asian income inequality in the US has many factors. The bottom line is that the average Asian American is behind the average non-Asian American. If your racial stereotype were accurate they'd be above the average. — praxis

Japanese, Chinese, Korean,and Indian Americans are all doing very, very well. Do you have statistics that suggest otherwise?

Would you like everybody to be in the top 10%?

Have you never lied? Are you somewhere above the rest of humanity? — synthesis

You got called out on it at the time, when it was fresh. Rather than admitting you put something I allegedly said, in quotes over my name, or showing me where I said it, you just tried the typical conservative dodge of hoping time would make it go away.

While you did admit Trump lost (that was like pulling teeth, and you still won't acknowledge he's a loser and a sore loser), I was going to get back to spanking you on the merits. But then you pulled that quotation thing.

Now you are pulling another conservative card called "whataboutism." Yeah, I've lied, but not to you (so you don't have standing) and when I have lied, I admitted it and expressed regret to those who had standing.

I suspect your next move will be something like "Well, if I lied, I'm sorry, now can we move on?" BS. There is an element of knowing involved here. Confess your sins, my son. It will be cathartic! Then we can move on. It's hard to earn credibility, easy to lose it, and even harder to get it back. When you are in a hole, first stop digging.

Do you have statistics that suggest otherwise? — synthesis

Having trouble reading the graph I posted?

Here’s a tutorial that might be useful to you.

I don’t think the groups will naturally corespondent to the demographics. Certain professions for example attract certain kinds of people. These professions will naturally have more people of that certain kind. Some fields or areas will not have diversity because the interest in that field or area isn’t all that diverse. — DingoJones

Based on what though? Why would interests just happen to line up with some unrelated demographic grouping? That'd imply precisely that the demographic grouping and the interest are not independent.

I think you are using those terms idiosyncratically, and that’s why you think it a false dichotomy. Those two things are indeed two methods and they are mutually exclusive. — DingoJones

Can you tell me what the methods are, then?

We should be happy to live in age where material is abundant. The economic system is what it is. You make it the best you can and move forward (the way you do everything else).

Everybody understands what your complaining about but its like yelling at the moon for keeping you awake at night. Some things are what they are. — synthesis

Yeah, sure, economic systems can never be changed (except when they are).

We should be happy to live in age where material is abundant. The economic system is what it is. You make it the best you can and move forward (the way you do everything else).

Everybody understands what your complaining about but its like yelling at the moon for keeping you awake at night. Some things are what they are.
— synthesis

Yeah, sure, economic systems can never be changed (except when they are). — Echarmion

When a better system is possible, people will use it. Why wouldn't they?

The problem with the present system is mostly corruption and this is problem with all systems. The simpler and more transparent systems are, the less chances there are for corruption, so this is why many believe that simplification (decreasing size and complexity) is the way to go.

The larger organizations become, the more inefficient they become (although Amazon seems to be an outlier). Governments are particularly prone to this syndrome as accountability is minimal.

Although capitalism certainly has its issues, there are ways to deal with them so you can end up with as much fairness as is possible (checks and balances combined with a solid legal system). Outside of that, there will be those who achieve a great more than do others for all kinds of reasons that have nothing to do with the system.

People need to be given the opportunity to live whatever kind of life they choose, but they must take responsibility for those choices. In a healthy society, opportunity is plentiful so even if you fail, you can get back up on your horse and try again. If you immediately come to the aid of somebody that has not succeeded, there's a good chance you will be supporting such failure for their entire lives.

I suspect your next move will be something like "Well, if I lied, I'm sorry, now can we move on?" BS. There is an element of knowing involved here. Confess your sins, my son. It will be cathartic! Then we can move on. It's hard to earn credibility, easy to lose it, and even harder to get it back. When you are in a hole, first stop digging. — James Riley

It must be quite the burden being the only person in the world who, "gets it."

I will leave you to wallow in your genius while I shall try to make due in my world of not knowing anything at all.

Have a nice day!

You need to move beyond putting other people down.

I shall try to make due in my world of not knowing anything at all. — synthesis

Ah, Padawan, the first step in learning is to admit you don't know anything. So, you admitted Trump lost. Now you admit you don't know anything at all. We are making progress. Now, admit you lied (if you did, I'm still willing to acknowledge I may have said what you said I said, but you haven't shown me), admit Trump is a loser, and a sore loser, and then you will be on a path to regaining credibility.

Here would be a good start on the Trump thing: "Liz Cheney has bigger balls, more courage, more wisdom, more honor, more integrity, and is a truer conservative relative to Trump. Trump could not carry the corn in her shit. She should lead the Republican Party and bring it back to it's conservative roots."

Yeah, if you could say that, that's the ticket!

Imagine if I said you said that! I would have no credibility.

Based on what though? Why would interests just happen to line up with some unrelated demographic grouping? That'd imply precisely that the demographic grouping and the interest are not independent. — Echarmion

Based on the traits of each demographic. There are general trends within demographics. (Cultural, biological etc)

Can you tell me what the methods are, then? — Echarmion

It would be specific to each case. It’s a question of what you are building the system to do (equality of outcome or equality of opportunity) and which way is better. The exact method used would be whatever is best suited to equality of opportunity

Ah, Padawan, the first step in learning is to admit you don't know anything. — James Riley

I've already told you that it is impossible to know anything. You are the one who believes he knows.

As I have told you before, Trump is who he is, but you think he is a loser? Well, let's compare your resume to his. What have you accomplished in this life?

What have you accomplished in this life? — synthesis

There you go again, trying to change the subject. And lying again. I thought you were going to leave me to wallow in my genius?

When a better system is possible, people will use it. Why wouldn't they? — synthesis

Because implementing a better system is a question of political power, among other things. According to you, the economic system should always have been the best possible one from the start, but that clearly isn't the case.

The problem with the present system is mostly corruption and this is problem with all systems. The simpler and more transparent systems are, the less chances there are for corruption, so this is why many believe that simplification (decreasing size and complexity) is the way to go.

The larger organizations become, the more inefficient they become (although Amazon seems to be an outlier). Governments are particularly prone to this syndrome as accountability is minimal. — synthesis

The accountability of democratic governments is strictly higher than that of non-democratic coroporations.

Based on the traits of each demographic. There are general trends within demographics. (Cultural, biological etc) — DingoJones

I specifically stated "if you believe there are no biological differences". Cultural differences cannot justify different outcomes as every difference can be framed as "cultural" and consequently no comparison would be possible.

It would be specific to each case. It’s a question of what you are building the system to do (equality of outcome or equality of opportunity) and which way is better. The exact method used would be whatever is best suited to equality of opportunity — DingoJones

That's exactly the answer I expected to get. Ok then, give me one specific case and sketch the different methods.