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

Forum Index » Political Discussion

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]

Your response indicates that you really, [i]truly[/i] 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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

No, it really is you. They are unequivocally not making that conclusion. This paper says [b]nothing, and makes no effort to say [i]anything at all[/i] about gender-based preferences leading to inequality,[/b] 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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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? [/quote]

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 [i]may lead to a condition[/i] in which characteristics and attitudes differ by gender which [i]may lead to a condition[/i] 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 [i]that[/i], 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 [i]that[/i], by choice, men self-select into jobs like airline pilots and software engineers, and women self-select into jobs like nurses and teachers.

[b]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[/b].[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics