User Tag List

First 567

Results 61 to 66 of 66

  1. #61
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    24,188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cloudpatrol View Post
    I would find that unfair. Likely. If denied because they are male? Yes. If denied because of past behaviour...I'd have to consider that.

    I am in whole-hearted agreement that policies need to be changed. Are you asking me if FAIRness would fail in proper implementation of the wider policies?

    So, are you saying that once something runs through the MACHINE and becomes politicized or legislated...FAIRness is too intangible to be applied because it depends on examination of specifically individual factors?
    I am mainly making a distinction between personal interactions with other individuals, and rules and guidelines meant to be applicable to everyone. When we encounter another person in our daily life, whether a coworker, stranger on the street, or someone we are trying to help like your homeless folks, it is much easier simply to take them as they come. We figure out what we need about who they are, and act accordingly.

    When you are dealing with large numbers of people and have a focus on a specific activity, e.g. as in school or at an employment agency, the same approach is usually impractical. We group people by age or skill, or focus on one need to the exclusion of others. This is akin to your choice to concentrate on homeless men, because the need is greater. Is that fair to homeless women? The answer depends in part on whether there are other people out there helping them. Fairness in this generalized sense involves balancing the needs of the one person you are dealing with, with the needs of other people (including yourself). This is best done by focusing on factors truly relevant to the situation. You agreed, for example, that homeless parents should not be denied visitation rights in divorce situations simply based on gender, and you pointed to behavior as an alternative. This is indeed a better yardstick, since it affects what is fair to the child.

    And that is my point. Practical considerations often require that we make rules or policies that apply broadly across large numbers of people. These broad standards will exhibit more fairness on an individual level when they select for factors that are actually relevant to the situation.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...
    Likes Cloudpatrol liked this post

  2. #62
    Senior(ita) Member Cloudpatrol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    2,213

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    I am mainly making a distinction between personal interactions with other individuals, and rules and guidelines meant to be applicable to everyone. When we encounter another person in our daily life, whether a coworker, stranger on the street, or someone we are trying to help like your homeless folks, it is much easier simply to take them as they come. We figure out what we need about who they are, and act accordingly
    After reading this reply and your thoughts in the related thread, I understand more clearly. Yes, this ^ is true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    When you are dealing with large numbers of people and have a focus on a specific activity, e.g. as in school or at an employment agency, the same approach is usually impractical. We group people by age or skill, or focus on one need to the exclusion of others. This is akin to your choice to concentrate on homeless men, because the need is greater. Is that fair to homeless women? The answer depends in part on whether there are other people out there helping them. Fairness in this generalized sense involves balancing the needs of the one person you are dealing with, with the needs of other people (including yourself). This is best done by focusing on factors truly relevant to the situation. You agreed, for example, that homeless parents should not be denied visitation rights in divorce situations simply based on gender, and you pointed to behavior as an alternative. This is indeed a better yardstick, since it affects what is fair to the child.
    Yeah, with the homeless it really was about allocating the budget more wisely. I decided that for the women I could do other things: give little computer tutoring lessons in a community garden near a shelter, offer used clothes for interviews or appointments, collect make-up samples...

    I liked your acknowledgement of the SELF when considering needs. It's taken me time to factor that in as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    And that is my point. Practical considerations often require that we make rules or policies that apply broadly across large numbers of people. These broad standards will exhibit more fairness on an individual level when they select for factors that are actually relevant to the situation.
    Yes. I suppose I have been dancing around this a bit because I feel I don't have the answers when it comes to practical application of this. It's why at this time, my focus is more on individuals than 'causes'.

    I do completely agree with your outlook and know that the world will never entirely be comprised of "IST's" and that it can't be. For now, I am content to keep trying to accomplish things at a grass-roots level. In time, I hope I can apply the experience to a broader platform.

  3. #63
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    24,188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cloudpatrol View Post
    Yes. I suppose I have been dancing around this a bit because I feel I don't have the answers when it comes to practical application of this. It's why at this time, my focus is more on individuals than 'causes'.

    I do completely agree with your outlook and know that the world will never entirely be comprised of "IST's" and that it can't be. For now, I am content to keep trying to accomplish things at a grass-roots level. In time, I hope I can apply the experience to a broader platform.
    For my part, I realize I have not been doing a good job of articulating exactly how and why I see it as unavoidable to address group-based distinctions in promoting fairness. Perhaps a better way to put it is that group-based distinctions get in the way of true fairness, so when we encounter them, we must remove them so we are free to respond to the individual for the totality of who they are. You may find such an adjustment unnecessary because you view people as individuals already. Not everyone else does, and much about society is not structured that way. This means that sooner or later, most of us will come up against one of these group-based restrictions, requirements, or assumptions, which will interfere in our getting or giving the fair treatment we value.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...
    Likes Cloudpatrol liked this post

  4. #64
    Senior(ita) Member Cloudpatrol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    2,213

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    For my part, I realize I have not been doing a good job of articulating exactly how and why I see it as unavoidable to address group-based distinctions in promoting fairness. Perhaps a better way to put it is that group-based distinctions get in the way of true fairness, so when we encounter them, we must remove them so we are free to respond to the individual for the totality of who they are. You may find such an adjustment unnecessary because you view people as individuals already. Not everyone else does, and much about society is not structured that way. This means that sooner or later, most of us will come up against one of these group-based restrictions, requirements, or assumptions, which will interfere in our getting or giving the fair treatment we value.
    Exactly.

    Actually our convo has reminded me of exactly why I so enjoy working on projects with INTJ's. I find we often share common values but have just slightly different ways of approaching things. This usually is very beneficial for covering all the bases and for the bottom line.

    I am now thinking that maybe this will provide further insight into what causes me frustration at times. In wanting to interface with the world on an individual basis but being stymied by (even necessary) policy or generalizations. Good food for thought. Thanks!

  5. #65
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    I am mainly making a distinction between personal interactions with other individuals, and rules and guidelines meant to be applicable to everyone. When we encounter another person in our daily life, whether a coworker, stranger on the street, or someone we are trying to help like your homeless folks, it is much easier simply to take them as they come. We figure out what we need about who they are, and act accordingly.

    When you are dealing with large numbers of people and have a focus on a specific activity, e.g. as in school or at an employment agency, the same approach is usually impractical. We group people by age or skill, or focus on one need to the exclusion of others. This is akin to your choice to concentrate on homeless men, because the need is greater. Is that fair to homeless women? The answer depends in part on whether there are other people out there helping them. Fairness in this generalized sense involves balancing the needs of the one person you are dealing with, with the needs of other people (including yourself). This is best done by focusing on factors truly relevant to the situation. You agreed, for example, that homeless parents should not be denied visitation rights in divorce situations simply based on gender, and you pointed to behavior as an alternative. This is indeed a better yardstick, since it affects what is fair to the child.

    And that is my point. Practical considerations often require that we make rules or policies that apply broadly across large numbers of people. These broad standards will exhibit more fairness on an individual level when they select for factors that are actually relevant to the situation.
    I like your reasoning, here, but I disagree, I think, with your conclusions.

    I think you are especially right in that when we interact personally, we each of us make slight adjustments as we take the other person in, as we learn to treat them in a personal way. I similarly agree that when dealing with large numbers of people that approach is impractical. I disagree with the conclusion that the remedy is that we should therefore come up with broad standards that are somehow more universally fair "by picking and choosing particular factors that are actually relevant" - i.e., by picking and choosing particular biases that YOU deem are relevant. I know that you are a very unbiased person, Coriolis, and I value that about you, but in that objective perspective, I don't think you quite see how personal biases can and will sneak in, that everything that someone deems as fair, someone else deems as unfair. And on a large scale, that usually becomes very favorable to a small group of people with political influence, and very unfair to everyone else.

    We have long had systems that handled things this way, especially in the US, focusing on local and regional issues, having a federated government in which each state and county can govern its own needs. But do-gooders always seem to feel a need to come in and address things on a national level, creating rules or policies that now have to apply so broadly across so many people that they have no chance of being fair. A simple example might be the minimum wage: people in New York or California would rightly think that the minimum wage in Mississippi is far too low, but it's very much in line with the living standards there (which are objectively higher than those of Sweden, believe it or not). Similarly, the Congress of the US thought it was about time we made Puerto Rico's minimum wage in line with the continental United States, and thereby impoverished that territory because few businesses there could afford to pay that much.

    In other words, the best approach isn't having a set of standards that apply broadly, but to have standards that apply specifically to as practical an extent as possible. What's as practical as possible? Well, it makes sense to have a national currency, just so everyone is counting with the same units, but it doesn't make sense to ordain that the price of labor in one part of the country should be worth the same amount in those units as elsewhere in the country.

    (I'm just using minimum wage as an simple example, especially because it's a number and is quantifiable. Other non-quantifiable standards are in even more need of being more local than national.)
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.
    Likes SD45T-2 liked this post

  6. #66
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    24,188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    I like your reasoning, here, but I disagree, I think, with your conclusions.

    I think you are especially right in that when we interact personally, we each of us make slight adjustments as we take the other person in, as we learn to treat them in a personal way. I similarly agree that when dealing with large numbers of people that approach is impractical. I disagree with the conclusion that the remedy is that we should therefore come up with broad standards that are somehow more universally fair "by picking and choosing particular factors that are actually relevant" - i.e., by picking and choosing particular biases that YOU deem are relevant. I know that you are a very unbiased person, Coriolis, and I value that about you, but in that objective perspective, I don't think you quite see how personal biases can and will sneak in, that everything that someone deems as fair, someone else deems as unfair. And on a large scale, that usually becomes very favorable to a small group of people with political influence, and very unfair to everyone else.

    We have long had systems that handled things this way, especially in the US, focusing on local and regional issues, having a federated government in which each state and county can govern its own needs. But do-gooders always seem to feel a need to come in and address things on a national level, creating rules or policies that now have to apply so broadly across so many people that they have no chance of being fair. A simple example might be the minimum wage: people in New York or California would rightly think that the minimum wage in Mississippi is far too low, but it's very much in line with the living standards there (which are objectively higher than those of Sweden, believe it or not). Similarly, the Congress of the US thought it was about time we made Puerto Rico's minimum wage in line with the continental United States, and thereby impoverished that territory because few businesses there could afford to pay that much.

    In other words, the best approach isn't having a set of standards that apply broadly, but to have standards that apply specifically to as practical an extent as possible. What's as practical as possible? Well, it makes sense to have a national currency, just so everyone is counting with the same units, but it doesn't make sense to ordain that the price of labor in one part of the country should be worth the same amount in those units as elsewhere in the country.
    I don't think we really are disagreeing, but rather coming at the issue from opposite ends of the spectrum. You seem to be starting at the individual level and seeing how best to scale that up when the one-on-one approach is no longer practical. I am starting at the level of broad policy, not necessarily national - even the hiring policy of a mid-sized business would do - and seeing how we can make it most accommodating of everyone's individuality. So, my comments are not meant to suggest that we need national policy vs. state and local policies. That is another issue, which I will not address here.

    What I am pointing out is that, even on the lowest "group" level (a company, a school, a town, a volunteer group), as soon as we start to generalize due to practical necessity, we need to include as few limitations as possible, and only those that are directly relevant to the matter at hand. However unbiased you may think me, I would never suggest that my notions of suitable criteria should be used. I am well aware of the tendency of personal bias to creep into such formulations. These things are best developed by a group, where the individual biases of each person can be balanced, or at least called out for examination, by others in the group. From what I can see, though, those "-isms" - racism, sexism, culture-ism, able-ism, etc. - have no place in a set of criteria intended to maximize the degree to which each person can be viewed and treated as an individual.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

Similar Threads

  1. non-binary gender (not trans)
    By prplchknz in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 114
    Last Post: 03-25-2015, 09:52 AM
  2. If objective value does not exist, then why become an atheist?
    By Studmuffin23 in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-10-2015, 01:16 AM
  3. gender neutralization in language
    By WALMART in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 02-16-2014, 02:15 AM
  4. Gender-neutral pronouns
    By Ardea in forum Politics, History, and Current Events (Temporarily Closed)
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 01-27-2009, 12:49 AM
  5. Not again...
    By Martoon in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-23-2007, 07:59 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO