UPenn Law Professor Amy Wax: US "better off with fewer Asians and less Asian immigration"

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, again, it's not me drawing conclusions, it's plain English written as the conclusion of the article, which is that gender equality in terms of resources and opportunities leads to an increase in differences in preferences, which in turn explains increased social/economic outcome inequalities. If your challenge to the article is with the language, I did find the full research paper which is quite a bit more technical:

https://ftp.iza.org/dp12059.pdf

The types of societies that you mentioned in your scenario 1 are actually covered in the study. They show up in figure 1 diagram D: Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc. These countries have low gender equality but also larger differences in gender preference. However, in the grand scheme of things, they are outliers and do not detract from the general correlation "best fit" line that indicates a clear inverse correlation between gender equality and gender preferences.

As to why this study came up, someone suggested John Rawls as a luminary who could square the conflict between classical liberalism and social/economic outcome equality. I referenced this study to point out that John Rawls was wrong in one of his core beliefs, which is that providing equality in opportunity creates more equality in outcome. In this regard, the critical theory folks are actually more correct, which is that while there are many paths to inequality, the only way to get equality of outcome is inequality of opportunity. Therefore if you want equality in outcome, then rampant government-sanctioned discrimination and injustice is the only way to get there.

How this relates to affirmative action, I guess the use of affirmative action does add to the pile of evidence that the critical theorists are right and John Rawls was wrong. There certainly is more social equality with affirmative action, even if society as a whole is worse off for it even if some individuals do benefit.

I don't have the time or energy to go through that study line by line, but I am confident that either their methodology was flawed, their data was inadequate, or their conclusions are wrong. The idea that greater equality between genders results in worse economic outcomes for women is simply not supported by what I see with my own eyes. But, I have to ask, based on your attitude towards this study's conclusion, do you support greater inequality between genders?

As I understand your position, you support a sort of laissez-faire approach in which there are no benefits or restrictions based on gender, race, or anything else? You believe that this provides equal opportunity for all, right? I would argue that this is a naive view that ignores many structural and historical advantages held by certain groups.[b]The history of the US, and indeed much of the rest of the world, has resulted in an uneven playing field. It is akin to a baseball game in which the bases are loaded and the batter has hit the ball. In theory, all three runners on base have an equal opportunity to get home. In reality, the player on third has a significant advantage over the player on first. Because of these unequal starting positions, I support efforts to establish an even playing field. Affirmative action is one method of decreasing historical disadvantages.

I can understand why someone like yourself who either started from a disadvantaged position or at least thinks you did would resent others getting a boost up that you didn't receive. Everyone has advantages and disadvantages to some degree and it is generally hard to evaluate who has it worse. [b]But, it is unarguable that race-based discrimination in the US was unequaled and contributed greatly to creating an unequal playing field. I don't believe that a laissez-faire approach based on unequal starting positions truly results equal opportunity. Rather, I would call what you support "unequal opportunity".

I dont think this person is American, as their argument consistently ignores this fact of US history. It seems to be from the pov of someone who came into a system and doesn’t think they are getting a “fair” shake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Your response indicates that you really, truly have no idea what you're talking about, you have a flippant disregard for logic and intellectual rigor, or are discussing this in bad faith (or perhaps all three!). You are indeed the one making the extrapolation that more egalitarian societies are more unequal.

To be more concrete, here is an example that is supported by the article:

In a poor country in which both educational opportunities and material resources are limited, there is less gender-based differentiation in preferences. That is, both men and women are similarly risk-averse, patient, altruistic, etc.
In a richer country in which both educational opportunities and material resources are more widely available and evenly distributed, there is more gender-based differentiation in preferences. That is, men may be systematically more risk-seeking, less patient, less altruistic, etc, than women.

You are trying to take this specific and narrow evidence and take it as proof of your thesis that egalitarianism leads to inequality. You cannot do that. I cannot emphasize enough that this paper does not make that generalizable argument.

Again, it's not me. It's the authors of the study making the conclusion. I can't help it if you won't acknowledge plain English. I just hope others can read and find the information interesting as I did. Good evening.

No, it really is you. They are unequivocally not making that conclusion. This paper says nothing, and makes no effort to say anything at all about gender-based preferences leading to inequality, nevertheless about differences in preferences by race, ethnicity, social class, religion, or any other demographic or socioeconomic division. You are taking a narrow finding about the development of gender-based preferences and trying to apply it to a broader thesis that egalitarianism leads to inequality.

After several back-and-forths on this, it's safe to narrow down the source of our disagreement to two possibilities: you don't actually understand this paper or how it relates to your thesis of egalitarianism and inequality, or you are just lying and hoping that nobody calls you out on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Your response indicates that you really, truly have no idea what you're talking about, you have a flippant disregard for logic and intellectual rigor, or are discussing this in bad faith (or perhaps all three!). You are indeed the one making the extrapolation that more egalitarian societies are more unequal.

To be more concrete, here is an example that is supported by the article:

In a poor country in which both educational opportunities and material resources are limited, there is less gender-based differentiation in preferences. That is, both men and women are similarly risk-averse, patient, altruistic, etc.
In a richer country in which both educational opportunities and material resources are more widely available and evenly distributed, there is more gender-based differentiation in preferences. That is, men may be systematically more risk-seeking, less patient, less altruistic, etc, than women.

You are trying to take this specific and narrow evidence and take it as proof of your thesis that egalitarianism leads to inequality. You cannot do that. I cannot emphasize enough that this paper does not make that generalizable argument.

Again, it's not me. It's the authors of the study making the conclusion. I can't help it if you won't acknowledge plain English. I just hope others can read and find the information interesting as I did. Good evening.

No, it really is you. They are unequivocally not making that conclusion. This paper says nothing, and makes no effort to say anything at all about gender-based preferences leading to inequality, nevertheless about differences in preferences by race, ethnicity, social class, religion, or any other demographic or socioeconomic division. You are taking a narrow finding about the development of gender-based preferences and trying to apply it to a broader thesis that egalitarianism leads to inequality.

After several back-and-forths on this, it's safe to narrow down the source of our disagreement to two possibilities: you don't actually understand this paper or how it relates to your thesis of egalitarianism and inequality, or you are just lying and hoping that nobody calls you out on it.

Direct quote from the article "Previous research has shown that gender differences in fundamental economic preferences are important in explaining gender differences in economic outcomes, such as for occupational choice, financial investment, or educational decisions, among many others."

Learn to read.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Your response indicates that you really, truly have no idea what you're talking about, you have a flippant disregard for logic and intellectual rigor, or are discussing this in bad faith (or perhaps all three!). You are indeed the one making the extrapolation that more egalitarian societies are more unequal.

To be more concrete, here is an example that is supported by the article:

In a poor country in which both educational opportunities and material resources are limited, there is less gender-based differentiation in preferences. That is, both men and women are similarly risk-averse, patient, altruistic, etc.
In a richer country in which both educational opportunities and material resources are more widely available and evenly distributed, there is more gender-based differentiation in preferences. That is, men may be systematically more risk-seeking, less patient, less altruistic, etc, than women.

You are trying to take this specific and narrow evidence and take it as proof of your thesis that egalitarianism leads to inequality. You cannot do that. I cannot emphasize enough that this paper does not make that generalizable argument.

Again, it's not me. It's the authors of the study making the conclusion. I can't help it if you won't acknowledge plain English. I just hope others can read and find the information interesting as I did. Good evening.

No, it really is you. They are unequivocally not making that conclusion. This paper says nothing, and makes no effort to say anything at all about gender-based preferences leading to inequality, nevertheless about differences in preferences by race, ethnicity, social class, religion, or any other demographic or socioeconomic division. You are taking a narrow finding about the development of gender-based preferences and trying to apply it to a broader thesis that egalitarianism leads to inequality.

After several back-and-forths on this, it's safe to narrow down the source of our disagreement to two possibilities: you don't actually understand this paper or how it relates to your thesis of egalitarianism and inequality, or you are just lying and hoping that nobody calls you out on it.

Direct quote from the article "Previous research has shown that gender differences in fundamental economic preferences are important in explaining gender differences in economic outcomes, such as for occupational choice, financial investment, or educational decisions, among many others."

Learn to read.

I would encourage you to do the same! Perhaps you're not lying after all; you're just profoundly ignorant. Nowhere in that quote, or in the paper, do the authors make a causal connection between egalitarianism and inequality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Your response indicates that you really, truly have no idea what you're talking about, you have a flippant disregard for logic and intellectual rigor, or are discussing this in bad faith (or perhaps all three!). You are indeed the one making the extrapolation that more egalitarian societies are more unequal.

To be more concrete, here is an example that is supported by the article:

In a poor country in which both educational opportunities and material resources are limited, there is less gender-based differentiation in preferences. That is, both men and women are similarly risk-averse, patient, altruistic, etc.
In a richer country in which both educational opportunities and material resources are more widely available and evenly distributed, there is more gender-based differentiation in preferences. That is, men may be systematically more risk-seeking, less patient, less altruistic, etc, than women.

You are trying to take this specific and narrow evidence and take it as proof of your thesis that egalitarianism leads to inequality. You cannot do that. I cannot emphasize enough that this paper does not make that generalizable argument.

Again, it's not me. It's the authors of the study making the conclusion. I can't help it if you won't acknowledge plain English. I just hope others can read and find the information interesting as I did. Good evening.

No, it really is you. They are unequivocally not making that conclusion. This paper says nothing, and makes no effort to say anything at all about gender-based preferences leading to inequality, nevertheless about differences in preferences by race, ethnicity, social class, religion, or any other demographic or socioeconomic division. You are taking a narrow finding about the development of gender-based preferences and trying to apply it to a broader thesis that egalitarianism leads to inequality.

After several back-and-forths on this, it's safe to narrow down the source of our disagreement to two possibilities: you don't actually understand this paper or how it relates to your thesis of egalitarianism and inequality, or you are just lying and hoping that nobody calls you out on it.

Direct quote from the article "Previous research has shown that gender differences in fundamental economic preferences are important in explaining gender differences in economic outcomes, such as for occupational choice, financial investment, or educational decisions, among many others."

Learn to read.

I would encourage you to do the same! Perhaps you're not lying after all; you're just profoundly ignorant. Nowhere in that quote, or in the paper, do the authors make a causal connection between egalitarianism and inequality.

I bolded the part I was replying to. You think you are being clever, but the language is very plain. The paper clearly indicates the relationship between gender preferences and outcome inequalities, contrary to your claim that it doesn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Your response indicates that you really, truly have no idea what you're talking about, you have a flippant disregard for logic and intellectual rigor, or are discussing this in bad faith (or perhaps all three!). You are indeed the one making the extrapolation that more egalitarian societies are more unequal.

To be more concrete, here is an example that is supported by the article:

In a poor country in which both educational opportunities and material resources are limited, there is less gender-based differentiation in preferences. That is, both men and women are similarly risk-averse, patient, altruistic, etc.
In a richer country in which both educational opportunities and material resources are more widely available and evenly distributed, there is more gender-based differentiation in preferences. That is, men may be systematically more risk-seeking, less patient, less altruistic, etc, than women.

You are trying to take this specific and narrow evidence and take it as proof of your thesis that egalitarianism leads to inequality. You cannot do that. I cannot emphasize enough that this paper does not make that generalizable argument.

Again, it's not me. It's the authors of the study making the conclusion. I can't help it if you won't acknowledge plain English. I just hope others can read and find the information interesting as I did. Good evening.

No, it really is you. They are unequivocally not making that conclusion. This paper says nothing, and makes no effort to say anything at all about gender-based preferences leading to inequality, nevertheless about differences in preferences by race, ethnicity, social class, religion, or any other demographic or socioeconomic division. You are taking a narrow finding about the development of gender-based preferences and trying to apply it to a broader thesis that egalitarianism leads to inequality.

After several back-and-forths on this, it's safe to narrow down the source of our disagreement to two possibilities: you don't actually understand this paper or how it relates to your thesis of egalitarianism and inequality, or you are just lying and hoping that nobody calls you out on it.

Direct quote from the article "Previous research has shown that gender differences in fundamental economic preferences are important in explaining gender differences in economic outcomes, such as for occupational choice, financial investment, or educational decisions, among many others."

Learn to read.

I would encourage you to do the same! Perhaps you're not lying after all; you're just profoundly ignorant. Nowhere in that quote, or in the paper, do the authors make a causal connection between egalitarianism and inequality.

I bolded the part I was replying to. You think you are being clever, but the language is very plain. The paper clearly indicates the relationship between gender preferences and outcome inequalities, contrary to your claim that it doesn't.

You may as well be saying that the paper indicates in plain English that the sky is green. It doesn't. And it doesn't attempt to draw a causal connection between egalitarianism and inequalities by gender, much less by race, social class, etc, no matter how much you insist that it does. Anyone can read the paper and plainly see that it does not. Even the excerpt you keep quoting as definitive proof doesn't show that.

I'm honestly at a loss for words here. Just take the loss and move on, dude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You are so dense and keep blathering about ‘A boost to one person should not be based on racist discrimination against another person.” even though that’s not what’s happening with Affirmative Action all the while REPEATEDLY ignoring the historical antecedents of the US. Which makes me question whether you are American? Your argument smacks of entitlement and ignorance

Of course, that's exactly what's going on with Affirmative Action. The whole point of Affirmative Action is to give preferential treatment to some people in the allocation of limited resources. The benefit provided by Affirmative Action comes at the expense of the person(s) who was displaced because of it.

I'm not sure what exact historical "antecedents" you are referring to. I am certainly not ignoring the racism that was in America's past. I am also not ignoring the fact that Affirmative Action existed before and even survived court challenges. However, just because we used to do something, doesn't mean we should keep doing it, especially since I believe Affirmative Action to be evil, as with all cases of racist discrimination.

I'm a first-generation Asian-American immigrant. I am not arguing that I'm entitled to anything, I am just asking not to be discriminated against based on the color of my skin. That's all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Your response indicates that you really, truly have no idea what you're talking about, you have a flippant disregard for logic and intellectual rigor, or are discussing this in bad faith (or perhaps all three!). You are indeed the one making the extrapolation that more egalitarian societies are more unequal.

To be more concrete, here is an example that is supported by the article:

In a poor country in which both educational opportunities and material resources are limited, there is less gender-based differentiation in preferences. That is, both men and women are similarly risk-averse, patient, altruistic, etc.
In a richer country in which both educational opportunities and material resources are more widely available and evenly distributed, there is more gender-based differentiation in preferences. That is, men may be systematically more risk-seeking, less patient, less altruistic, etc, than women.

You are trying to take this specific and narrow evidence and take it as proof of your thesis that egalitarianism leads to inequality. You cannot do that. I cannot emphasize enough that this paper does not make that generalizable argument.

Again, it's not me. It's the authors of the study making the conclusion. I can't help it if you won't acknowledge plain English. I just hope others can read and find the information interesting as I did. Good evening.

No, it really is you. They are unequivocally not making that conclusion. This paper says nothing, and makes no effort to say anything at all about gender-based preferences leading to inequality, nevertheless about differences in preferences by race, ethnicity, social class, religion, or any other demographic or socioeconomic division. You are taking a narrow finding about the development of gender-based preferences and trying to apply it to a broader thesis that egalitarianism leads to inequality.

After several back-and-forths on this, it's safe to narrow down the source of our disagreement to two possibilities: you don't actually understand this paper or how it relates to your thesis of egalitarianism and inequality, or you are just lying and hoping that nobody calls you out on it.

Direct quote from the article "Previous research has shown that gender differences in fundamental economic preferences are important in explaining gender differences in economic outcomes, such as for occupational choice, financial investment, or educational decisions, among many others."

Learn to read.

I would encourage you to do the same! Perhaps you're not lying after all; you're just profoundly ignorant. Nowhere in that quote, or in the paper, do the authors make a causal connection between egalitarianism and inequality.

I bolded the part I was replying to. You think you are being clever, but the language is very plain. The paper clearly indicates the relationship between gender preferences and outcome inequalities, contrary to your claim that it doesn't.

You may as well be saying that the paper indicates in plain English that the sky is green. It doesn't. And it doesn't attempt to draw a causal connection between egalitarianism and inequalities by gender, much less by race, social class, etc, no matter how much you insist that it does. Anyone can read the paper and plainly see that it does not. Even the excerpt you keep quoting as definitive proof doesn't show that.

I'm honestly at a loss for words here. Just take the loss and move on, dude.

So if someone says "the lack of rain is important in explaining the current drought in California" your understanding is that this is not a reference to a causal relationship? If not, what do you think "important in explaining" means in the context as used in the paper tying together gender preferences and inequality in outcomes? What does that sentence from the paper mean to you? Are you Bill Clinton by any chance?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Your response indicates that you really, truly have no idea what you're talking about, you have a flippant disregard for logic and intellectual rigor, or are discussing this in bad faith (or perhaps all three!). You are indeed the one making the extrapolation that more egalitarian societies are more unequal.

To be more concrete, here is an example that is supported by the article:

In a poor country in which both educational opportunities and material resources are limited, there is less gender-based differentiation in preferences. That is, both men and women are similarly risk-averse, patient, altruistic, etc.
In a richer country in which both educational opportunities and material resources are more widely available and evenly distributed, there is more gender-based differentiation in preferences. That is, men may be systematically more risk-seeking, less patient, less altruistic, etc, than women.

You are trying to take this specific and narrow evidence and take it as proof of your thesis that egalitarianism leads to inequality. You cannot do that. I cannot emphasize enough that this paper does not make that generalizable argument.

Again, it's not me. It's the authors of the study making the conclusion. I can't help it if you won't acknowledge plain English. I just hope others can read and find the information interesting as I did. Good evening.

No, it really is you. They are unequivocally not making that conclusion. This paper says nothing, and makes no effort to say anything at all about gender-based preferences leading to inequality, nevertheless about differences in preferences by race, ethnicity, social class, religion, or any other demographic or socioeconomic division. You are taking a narrow finding about the development of gender-based preferences and trying to apply it to a broader thesis that egalitarianism leads to inequality.

After several back-and-forths on this, it's safe to narrow down the source of our disagreement to two possibilities: you don't actually understand this paper or how it relates to your thesis of egalitarianism and inequality, or you are just lying and hoping that nobody calls you out on it.

Direct quote from the article "Previous research has shown that gender differences in fundamental economic preferences are important in explaining gender differences in economic outcomes, such as for occupational choice, financial investment, or educational decisions, among many others."

Learn to read.

I would encourage you to do the same! Perhaps you're not lying after all; you're just profoundly ignorant. Nowhere in that quote, or in the paper, do the authors make a causal connection between egalitarianism and inequality.

I bolded the part I was replying to. You think you are being clever, but the language is very plain. The paper clearly indicates the relationship between gender preferences and outcome inequalities, contrary to your claim that it doesn't.

You may as well be saying that the paper indicates in plain English that the sky is green. It doesn't. And it doesn't attempt to draw a causal connection between egalitarianism and inequalities by gender, much less by race, social class, etc, no matter how much you insist that it does. Anyone can read the paper and plainly see that it does not. Even the excerpt you keep quoting as definitive proof doesn't show that.

I'm honestly at a loss for words here. Just take the loss and move on, dude.

So if someone says "the lack of rain is important in explaining the current drought in California" your understanding is that this is not a reference to a causal relationship? If not, what do you think "important in explaining" means in the context as used in the paper tying together gender preferences and inequality in outcomes? What does that sentence from the paper mean to you? Are you Bill Clinton by any chance?

That's not conclusive evidence of a causal relationship because droughts are the result of a complicated system. It's no different than saying "race is important in explaining income disparities." While it is true that Black people earn less on average than White people, nobody would make the case that there is a causal connection between race and income - well, maybe you would, because by all evidence of your posts in this thread, you are an unserious thinker.

For the millionth time, this paper makes the case that a more equal distribution of resources and opportunities may lead to a condition in which characteristics and attitudes differ by gender which may lead to a condition in which women and men self-select into different jobs. That is a far, far cry away from your thesis that egalitarianism causes inequality. Seriously, how do you not see this?

Here's a concrete application of this paper's findings.
In society A, resources and opportunities are unevenly distributed. As a result of this, women and men have similar characteristics and attitudes. As a result of that, by necessity, both men and women are subsistence farmers or work in grueling sweatshops or assembly line jobs.
In society B, resources and opportunities are more evenly distributed. As a result of this, women and men have divergent characteristics and attitudes. As a result of that, by choice, men self-select into jobs like airline pilots and software engineers, and women self-select into jobs like nurses and teachers.

Your posts have revealed that you have a preference to live in society A, because a lack of egalitarianism has resulted in a more equal society. Have a blast in Bangladesh, I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You are so dense and keep blathering about ‘A boost to one person should not be based on racist discrimination against another person.” even though that’s not what’s happening with Affirmative Action all the while REPEATEDLY ignoring the historical antecedents of the US. Which makes me question whether you are American? Your argument smacks of entitlement and ignorance

Of course, that's exactly what's going on with Affirmative Action. The whole point of Affirmative Action is to give preferential treatment to some people in the allocation of limited resources. The benefit provided by Affirmative Action comes at the expense of the person(s) who was displaced because of it.

I'm not sure what exact historical "antecedents" you are referring to. I am certainly not ignoring the racism that was in America's past. I am also not ignoring the fact that Affirmative Action existed before and even survived court challenges. However, just because we used to do something, doesn't mean we should keep doing it, especially since I believe Affirmative Action to be evil, as with all cases of racist discrimination.

I'm a first-generation Asian-American immigrant. I am not arguing that I'm entitled to anything, I am just asking not to be discriminated against based on the color of my skin. That's all.

Tell that to the Upenn professor who wants to discriminate against people exactly like you (and me) -- Asian immigrant. That is the point of this thread, not about affirmative action, which not all liberals support, and despite your repeated attempts to state the opposite, universities don't have outright affirmative action policies. They don't have race quotas.

Trump and this professor, oth, do want to limit immigration from sh1thole countries (namely nonwhite countries), and instead import more white people from like Finland, or was it Norway, which is super ironic given that most Finns and Norwegians support progressive policies like high taxes and universal healthcare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Your response indicates that you really, truly have no idea what you're talking about, you have a flippant disregard for logic and intellectual rigor, or are discussing this in bad faith (or perhaps all three!). You are indeed the one making the extrapolation that more egalitarian societies are more unequal.

To be more concrete, here is an example that is supported by the article:

In a poor country in which both educational opportunities and material resources are limited, there is less gender-based differentiation in preferences. That is, both men and women are similarly risk-averse, patient, altruistic, etc.
In a richer country in which both educational opportunities and material resources are more widely available and evenly distributed, there is more gender-based differentiation in preferences. That is, men may be systematically more risk-seeking, less patient, less altruistic, etc, than women.

You are trying to take this specific and narrow evidence and take it as proof of your thesis that egalitarianism leads to inequality. You cannot do that. I cannot emphasize enough that this paper does not make that generalizable argument.

Again, it's not me. It's the authors of the study making the conclusion. I can't help it if you won't acknowledge plain English. I just hope others can read and find the information interesting as I did. Good evening.

No, it really is you. They are unequivocally not making that conclusion. This paper says nothing, and makes no effort to say anything at all about gender-based preferences leading to inequality, nevertheless about differences in preferences by race, ethnicity, social class, religion, or any other demographic or socioeconomic division. You are taking a narrow finding about the development of gender-based preferences and trying to apply it to a broader thesis that egalitarianism leads to inequality.

After several back-and-forths on this, it's safe to narrow down the source of our disagreement to two possibilities: you don't actually understand this paper or how it relates to your thesis of egalitarianism and inequality, or you are just lying and hoping that nobody calls you out on it.

Direct quote from the article "Previous research has shown that gender differences in fundamental economic preferences are important in explaining gender differences in economic outcomes, such as for occupational choice, financial investment, or educational decisions, among many others."

Learn to read.

I would encourage you to do the same! Perhaps you're not lying after all; you're just profoundly ignorant. Nowhere in that quote, or in the paper, do the authors make a causal connection between egalitarianism and inequality.

I bolded the part I was replying to. You think you are being clever, but the language is very plain. The paper clearly indicates the relationship between gender preferences and outcome inequalities, contrary to your claim that it doesn't.

You may as well be saying that the paper indicates in plain English that the sky is green. It doesn't. And it doesn't attempt to draw a causal connection between egalitarianism and inequalities by gender, much less by race, social class, etc, no matter how much you insist that it does. Anyone can read the paper and plainly see that it does not. Even the excerpt you keep quoting as definitive proof doesn't show that.

I'm honestly at a loss for words here. Just take the loss and move on, dude.

So if someone says "the lack of rain is important in explaining the current drought in California" your understanding is that this is not a reference to a causal relationship? If not, what do you think "important in explaining" means in the context as used in the paper tying together gender preferences and inequality in outcomes? What does that sentence from the paper mean to you? Are you Bill Clinton by any chance?

That's not conclusive evidence of a causal relationship because droughts are the result of a complicated system. It's no different than saying "race is important in explaining income disparities." While it is true that Black people earn less on average than White people, nobody would make the case that there is a causal connection between race and income - well, maybe you would, because by all evidence of your posts in this thread, you are an unserious thinker.

For the millionth time, this paper makes the case that a more equal distribution of resources and opportunities may lead to a condition in which characteristics and attitudes differ by gender which may lead to a condition in which women and men self-select into different jobs. That is a far, far cry away from your thesis that egalitarianism causes inequality. Seriously, how do you not see this?

Here's a concrete application of this paper's findings.
In society A, resources and opportunities are unevenly distributed. As a result of this, women and men have similar characteristics and attitudes. As a result of that, by necessity, both men and women are subsistence farmers or work in grueling sweatshops or assembly line jobs.
In society B, resources and opportunities are more evenly distributed. As a result of this, women and men have divergent characteristics and attitudes. As a result of that, by choice, men self-select into jobs like airline pilots and software engineers, and women self-select into jobs like nurses and teachers.

Your posts have revealed that you have a preference to live in society A, because a lack of egalitarianism has resulted in a more equal society. Have a blast in Bangladesh, I guess.

I have never said anything remotely like this. Having a useful discussion requires both sides to be reasonable. One of us is not. This is useless. I won't respond anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an Asian American neither partly particularly appeals to me.

I'm not a fan of the frequent denial of science on the Republican side, and what happened on 1/6 was abhorrent.
But at least they believe in the concept of a meritocracy, as imperfect as it may be.

Democrats seem more rational overall, but Ds repeatedly treat Asians like second class citizens. I feel like I've heard more racism and stereotyping coming from Democrats which is quite ironic. The whole concept of Asians being white adjacent or white supremacists is like wtf.

Yet, Democrats seem more baffled when Asians don't show them loyalty. Well, when's the last time you really celebrated Asian American success? Should it be a surprise many Asians are having second thoughts?

When the majority of Asian women are married to white men, of course you’re going to be seen as white adjacent.

Waitttt the person above said republicans believe in meritocracy?!

Good god. If there is merit in knowing reality, you have no merit. None at all. That’s why you didn’t get into Harvard fool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You are so dense and keep blathering about ‘A boost to one person should not be based on racist discrimination against another person.” even though that’s not what’s happening with Affirmative Action all the while REPEATEDLY ignoring the historical antecedents of the US. Which makes me question whether you are American? Your argument smacks of entitlement and ignorance

Of course, that's exactly what's going on with Affirmative Action. The whole point of Affirmative Action is to give preferential treatment to some people in the allocation of limited resources. The benefit provided by Affirmative Action comes at the expense of the person(s) who was displaced because of it.

I'm not sure what exact historical "antecedents" you are referring to. I am certainly not ignoring the racism that was in America's past. I am also not ignoring the fact that Affirmative Action existed before and even survived court challenges. However, just because we used to do something, doesn't mean we should keep doing it, especially since I believe Affirmative Action to be evil, as with all cases of racist discrimination.

I'm a first-generation Asian-American immigrant. I am not arguing that I'm entitled to anything, I am just asking not to be discriminated against based on the color of my skin. That's all.

Tell that to the Upenn professor who wants to discriminate against people exactly like you (and me) -- Asian immigrant. That is the point of this thread, not about affirmative action, which not all liberals support, and despite your repeated attempts to state the opposite, universities don't have outright affirmative action policies. They don't have race quotas.

Trump and this professor, oth, do want to limit immigration from sh1thole countries (namely nonwhite countries), and instead import more white people from like Finland, or was it Norway, which is super ironic given that most Finns and Norwegians support progressive policies like high taxes and universal healthcare.

Give it a rest. Trump is no longer the president and his immigration proposal was for a merit based sysfem, which will benefit Asians. Your refusal to acknowledge even this basic fact means you are being irrational.

Amy Wax is one person, she and her ilk is in a small minority. Her views does not represent broad Republican views.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You are so dense and keep blathering about ‘A boost to one person should not be based on racist discrimination against another person.” even though that’s not what’s happening with Affirmative Action all the while REPEATEDLY ignoring the historical antecedents of the US. Which makes me question whether you are American? Your argument smacks of entitlement and ignorance

Of course, that's exactly what's going on with Affirmative Action. The whole point of Affirmative Action is to give preferential treatment to some people in the allocation of limited resources. The benefit provided by Affirmative Action comes at the expense of the person(s) who was displaced because of it.

I'm not sure what exact historical "antecedents" you are referring to. I am certainly not ignoring the racism that was in America's past. I am also not ignoring the fact that Affirmative Action existed before and even survived court challenges. However, just because we used to do something, doesn't mean we should keep doing it, especially since I believe Affirmative Action to be evil, as with all cases of racist discrimination.

I'm a first-generation Asian-American immigrant. I am not arguing that I'm entitled to anything, I am just asking not to be discriminated against based on the color of my skin. That's all.

Tell that to the Upenn professor who wants to discriminate against people exactly like you (and me) -- Asian immigrant. That is the point of this thread, not about affirmative action, which not all liberals support, and despite your repeated attempts to state the opposite, universities don't have outright affirmative action policies. They don't have race quotas.

Trump and this professor, oth, do want to limit immigration from sh1thole countries (namely nonwhite countries), and instead import more white people from like Finland, or was it Norway, which is super ironic given that most Finns and Norwegians support progressive policies like high taxes and universal healthcare.

Give it a rest. Trump is no longer the president and his immigration proposal was for a merit based sysfem, which will benefit Asians. Your refusal to acknowledge even this basic fact means you are being irrational.

Amy Wax is one person, she and her ilk is in a small minority. Her views does not represent broad Republican views.

Right. And the sky isn't blue. But enjoy kissing the ring of the man who holds the Republican party by the balls. I'm sure he wouldn't want you anywhere near his estates - too much of a possibility of spreading something.

[Anonymous]

Asians crack me up.

Guy shoots up three separate Asian-owned and run massage parlors: "That wasn't racist, he just hated masseuses!"

Law professor says all Asians need to be deported: "That wasn't racist either, she's just having a bad day."

Nothing is racist and everyone walks all over you.