Check your privilege... using machine learning

[Pogilrup]

I once joked about this in a class I took on machine learning.

Basically, there is that meme floating around "Check your privilege". Whether it was serious or sarcastic, it had some odd charts and infographics associated with it.

Personally, I found those charts to be rather arbitrary in how it measured social privilege. So I figure that a good machine learning problem would be to teach a machine learning program how to measure someone's level social privilege given the usual data consisting of sex, race, orientation, nationality, religion, etc.

Of course, it is rather hard to measure social privilege (but I've managed to define the metric as being a probability value) and thus it only remains an amusing thought.

So what do you guys think about the possibility of using machine learning to calculate one's probability of being discriminated?

 

[Keoul]

It's going to be more of a quiz than anything.
Also I think it's less of a meme... maybe because in my mind a meme is just a silly little thing for a laugh but some peeps on tumblr are taking this seriously enough to start harassing people over their "privilege".

 

[Pogilrup]

It's going to be more of a quiz than anything.
Also I think it's less of a meme... maybe because in my mind a meme is just a silly little thing for a laugh but some peeps on tumblr are taking this seriously enough to start harassing people over their "privilege".

I've seen some of the quizzes and I still find them lacking. I think a neural net can determine how social privilege one has better than some quiz constructed by someone who probably isn't even majored in sociology.

 

[Zontar]

I don't see how someone who major in sociology would be the best suited to making something which takes in information, then crunches it to give results. That's usually for the sciences, and sociology isn't a science. (seriously, we call it social science but it isn't a science. That's not to say it doesn't have uses, but it is both odd and annoying this misnomer is used for it).

Anyway it's basically impossible to quantify privilege. The amount that people have based on, well, everything, changes on a level so small it would be a genuine shock if a decently sized city has one single metric which could apply to it. And this is just taking into account the small differences in a municipal level, what about the radical differences at the national level, especially in a place like the US? Or the differences between different nations, where in many of them a whole catigory (white privilege) does not exist? (Basically all of Asia outside of Russia's territory and most of Africa) How does one take the "controller's privilege" into account there? Especially when those who are and are not privileged are groups which most who exist outside of them or those in the immediate vicinity can not even differentiate?

And that's all assuming static culture, which in this day and age is impossible, and it's laughable that the results for such a program would still be up to date between when it's started and when it's launched.

And this is all for something which, weather or not it started as such, has devolved into a joke. Next to no one who uses it, even on Tumblr, does so unironically. The rare example of someone who does is, well, just that.

 

[Pogilrup]

I don't see how someone who major in sociology would be the best suited to making something which takes in information, then crunches it to give results. That's usually for the sciences, and sociology isn't a science. (seriously, we call it social science but it isn't a science. That's not to say it doesn't have uses, but it is both odd and annoying this misnomer is used for it).

Anyway it's basically impossible to quantify privilege. The amount that people have based on, well, everything, changes on a level so small it would be a genuine shock if a decently sized city has one single metric which could apply to it. And this is just taking into account the small differences in a municipal level, what about the radical differences at the national level, especially in a place like the US? Or the differences between different nations, where in many of them a whole catigory (white privilege) does not exist? (Basically all of Asia outside of Russia's territory and most of Africa) How does one take the "controller's privilege" into account there? Especially when those who are and are not privileged are groups which most who exist outside of them or those in the immediate vicinity can not even differentiate?

And that's all assuming static culture, which in this day and age is impossible, and it's laughable that the results for such a program would still be up to date between when it's started and when it's launched.

And this is all for something which, weather or not it started as such, has devolved into a joke. Next to no one who uses it, even on Tumblr, does so unironically. The rare example of someone who does is, well, just that.

Well we have the inputs, we then just need an output. The algorithm does the hard work of finding out how much each input influences the output.

And I am aware that it is somewhat of a joke, but social privilege is something that does have papers written on it.

Although now that I think about it some more, is there any practical use for a probability value that determines one's likelihood of facing frequent subtle discrimination in their lives?

 

[Thaluikhain]

That's not how it works. It's really not a matter of how privileged someone is, it's what areas they are privileged in. A set of yes/no.

For example, if someone is straight, they have straight privilege, and don't have to deal with homophobia. If someone is gay, then they more or less certainly will be discriminated against because of this...the amount will vary depending on where they live and so on, of course.

That particular straight person might have to deal with racism, sexism etc, which that particular gay person does not.

 

[Majinash]

some peeps on tumblr are taking this seriously enough to start harassing people over their "privilege".

Which feels INCREDIBLY ironic to me. Maybe it is all a convoluted plan to subvert the whole issue. If everyone who has privilege gets harassed for it, then they too face prejudice based on their lot and thus it is no longer a privilege.

How far down the rabbit hole does this go?

 

[Lieju]

How do you even measure priviledge?

That's not how it works. It's really not a matter of how privileged someone is, it's what areas they are privileged in. A set of yes/no.

For example, if someone is straight, they have straight privilege, and don't have to deal with homophobia. If someone is gay, then they more or less certainly will be discriminated against because of this...the amount will vary depending on where they live and so on, of course.

That particular straight person might have to deal with racism, sexism etc, which that particular gay person does not.

Yeah, this.

Also there's a matter of 'passing' as something you're not.

Two people can be 'mixed race', for example, and live in the same city in the US, but if one of them looks white enough to pass as a white person they can have advantages the more 'black-looking' cannot.

 

[Hagi]

How do you even measure priviledge?

That's not how it works. It's really not a matter of how privileged someone is, it's what areas they are privileged in. A set of yes/no.

For example, if someone is straight, they have straight privilege, and don't have to deal with homophobia. If someone is gay, then they more or less certainly will be discriminated against because of this...the amount will vary depending on where they live and so on, of course.

That particular straight person might have to deal with racism, sexism etc, which that particular gay person does not.

Yeah, this.

Also there's a matter of 'passing' as something you're not.

Two people can be 'mixed race', for example, and live in the same city in the US, but if one of them looks white enough to pass as a white person they can have advantages the more 'black-looking' cannot.

It seems like approaching the matter from the entirely wrong direction.

It's positing one's gender, sexuality or race as the cause of privilege. It's not. Societal attitudes cause privilege.

As such I'd say privilege isn't really about who you are, as you say it's much more about how you're perceived. Even if you're not actually gay but have hobbies, looks or behaviors that cause others to mark you as such then you'll face discrimination based not on who you are but on how you're perceived.

It's not straight privilege. Not exactly. It's rather more complicated than that. It's much more about the privilege of happening to fit in and facing discrimination the more you don't.

 

[Lieju]

It seems like approaching the matter from the entirely wrong direction.

It's positing one's gender, sexuality or race as the cause of privilege. It's not. Societal attitudes cause privilege.

As such I'd say privilege isn't really about who you are, as you say it's much more about how you're perceived. Even if you're not actually gay but have hobbies, looks or behaviors that cause others to mark you as such then you'll face discrimination based not on who you are but on how you're perceived.

It's not straight privilege. Not exactly. It's rather more complicated than that. It's much more about the privilege of happening to fit in and facing discrimination the more you don't.

Priviledge isn't just about how you're perceived, though.

Let's say you're born to billionaire parents and inherit their fortune.
Even if everyone treats you the same since you for example don't tell anyone you're filthy rich, you're still priviledged and can do things and take risks other less fortunate people cannot.

The same if you don't have a medical condition that requires constant healthcare, or if you're able-bodied, etc.

And while a straight person might suffer from homophobia if they 'look gay', they still won't suffer from it to the same extent as someone who is actually gay.
Because they could still do things like kiss their significant other openly or get married while a homosexual person might not.

 

[NiPah]

Ask 1,000 people if they feel discriminated against.
Break those 1,000 people into race/sex/what ever.
Calculate probability of discrimination through those metrics.
And there you go, you have a working system that has a probability of calculating discrimination.

Or you could just arbitrarily calculate risk factors from your own bias, either or would probability have a .001% chance of being correct.

 

[Lieju]

Ask 1,000 people if they feel discriminated against.
Break those 1,000 people into race/sex/what ever.
Calculate probability of discrimination through those metrics.
And there you go, you have a working system that has a probability of calculating discrimination.

That would be about feeling discriminated against, not actual discrimination.
It's possibly to be so used to it, you don't even notice it yourself.

Similarly, if you have been in the position of priviledge, and it's taken away, you might feel discriminated against because you thought of the old way as 'fair'.

Think of the people who cry discrimination if they aren't allowed to discriminate against gays for example.

"I'm not allowed to have preferential treatment. Discrimination!"

 

[shootthebandit]

Or you could just take people on a case by case basis.

surely this isnt something you can punch into a computer and a little ticket prints out that says "you are X% privileged". You can show this ticket to your buddies and brag about whos least privileged

 

[Hagi]

It seems like approaching the matter from the entirely wrong direction.

It's positing one's gender, sexuality or race as the cause of privilege. It's not. Societal attitudes cause privilege.

As such I'd say privilege isn't really about who you are, as you say it's much more about how you're perceived. Even if you're not actually gay but have hobbies, looks or behaviors that cause others to mark you as such then you'll face discrimination based not on who you are but on how you're perceived.

It's not straight privilege. Not exactly. It's rather more complicated than that. It's much more about the privilege of happening to fit in and facing discrimination the more you don't.

Priviledge isn't just about how you're perceived, though.

Let's say you're born to billionaire parents and inherit their fortune.
Even if everyone treats you the same since you for example don't tell anyone you're filthy rich, you're still priviledged and can do things and take risks other less fortunate people cannot.

The same if you don't have a medical condition that requires constant healthcare, or if you're able-bodied, etc.

And while a straight person might suffer from homophobia if they 'look gay', they still won't suffer from it to the same extent as someone who is actually gay.
Because they could still do things like kiss their significant other openly or get married while a homosexual person might not.

Well yeah.

But that just underlines my point, because none of those are what people are. Those aren't genders, those aren't sexualities, those aren't races. They are very much about fitting in.

You're rich, or at the opposite end poor, because you have vastly more or less money than is expected in general and through that you have or lack privilege. The same for being gay and kissing your significant other in public or marrying them, they don't lack privilege because of them being what they are (or others not being like they are), they lack privilege because of society being what it is.

Even for medical conditions and disabilities, I think much of the privilege surrounding these matters is not inherent to those matters.

As such I think terms like straight privilege, white privilege, male privilege cast a wrong light on the subject because they imply the cause of said privilege lies in said people being who they are, which ties into how often the entire concept is rejected by many. Because privilege isn't a matter of race, gender or sexuality. It's a matter of society.

 

[Vigormortis]

some peeps on tumblr are taking this seriously enough to start harassing people over their "privilege".

Which feels INCREDIBLY ironic to me. Maybe it is all a convoluted plan to subvert the whole issue. If everyone who has privilege gets harassed for it, then they too face prejudice based on their lot and thus it is no longer a privilege.

How far down the rabbit hole does this go?

Ironic? Or hypocritical?

Either way, however deep it goes, it'll be a fun ride.

 

[EternallyBored]

As such I think terms like straight privilege, white privilege, male privilege cast a wrong light on the subject because they imply the cause of said privilege lies in said people being who they are, which ties into how often the entire concept is rejected by many. Because privilege isn't a matter of race, gender or sexuality. It's a matter of society.

It's both, it's called white privilege or straight privilege because the discrimination and advantage is based on society's views of those categories. The privilege stems from how closely you fit the societal accepted norm of what is White, and what is straight, or male.

In borderline cases: an effeminate straight man, a light-skinned Middle Easterner, or a woman that can dress and pass as a man, does not change the fact that the privilege stems from how society is judging your inborn traits, social judgement being fallible does not change the overall social stigma and treatment, nor its overall intention. It just means that privilege isn't a uniform concept that can be concretely calculated or numbered.


There really isn't another accurate term to call it, because the privilege is based on how society judges categories like race, sexuality, and gender.

 

[Hagi]

As such I think terms like straight privilege, white privilege, male privilege cast a wrong light on the subject because they imply the cause of said privilege lies in said people being who they are, which ties into how often the entire concept is rejected by many. Because privilege isn't a matter of race, gender or sexuality. It's a matter of society.

It's both, it's called white privilege or straight privilege because the discrimination and advantage is based on society's views of those categories. The privilege stems from how closely you fit the societal accepted norm of what is White, and what is straight, or male.

In borderline cases: an effeminate straight man, a light-skinned Middle Easterner, or a woman that can dress and pass as a man, does not change the fact that the privilege stems from how society is judging your inborn traits, social judgement being fallible does not change the overall social stigma and treatment, nor its overall intention. It just means that privilege isn't a uniform concept that can be concretely calculated or numbered.


There really isn't another accurate term to call it, because the privilege is based on how society judges categories like race, sexuality, and gender.

I'd just call it privilege.

I don't see reason to add adjectives unless said adjectives add better understanding to the word used. In this case, even if I agree they apply in a majority of situations, I don't think they better convey what's meant. Instead I think they open the door for that minority of situations to cause misunderstandings.

 

[EternallyBored]

As such I think terms like straight privilege, white privilege, male privilege cast a wrong light on the subject because they imply the cause of said privilege lies in said people being who they are, which ties into how often the entire concept is rejected by many. Because privilege isn't a matter of race, gender or sexuality. It's a matter of society.

It's both, it's called white privilege or straight privilege because the discrimination and advantage is based on society's views of those categories. The privilege stems from how closely you fit the societal accepted norm of what is White, and what is straight, or male.

In borderline cases: an effeminate straight man, a light-skinned Middle Easterner, or a woman that can dress and pass as a man, does not change the fact that the privilege stems from how society is judging your inborn traits, social judgement being fallible does not change the overall social stigma and treatment, nor its overall intention. It just means that privilege isn't a uniform concept that can be concretely calculated or numbered.


There really isn't another accurate term to call it, because the privilege is based on how society judges categories like race, sexuality, and gender.

I'd just call it privilege.

I don't see reason to add adjectives unless said adjectives add better understanding to the word used. In this case, even if I agree they apply in a majority of situations, I don't think they better convey what's meant. Instead I think they open the door for that minority of situations to cause misunderstandings.

Only if you are looking to nitpick the concept on a case-by-case basis, just calling it privilege makes it too vague a concept to be useful.

If you just call it that, then you will forever be in a case of explaining where the privilege comes from, is it privilege stemming from greater economic wealth? is it privilege stemming from being part of a dominant social racial group? it it privilege stemming from being in the more socially accepted sexual orientation?

Once you've qualified what social attitudes create that privilege, you're right back to it being White privilege, or straight privilege, just leaving off the descriptor out of a misguided sense that the concept must be comprehensive.

It makes the word better understood because it explains where the source of the privilege comes from, the potential to cause misunderstandings does not make the adjective less valuable, it just means that there are exceptions to the rules. The very concept of race and gender are built on using absolutes to describe a complex facet with many exceptions, language is not perfect, and boiling complex concepts down into a couple words is always going to leave gaps.

 

[epicdwarf]

So you want to create a program that is basically your average tumblr social justice warrior? Why even bother with the machine where you can just ask a SJW and get the same results?

 

[Lovely Mixture]

So what do you guys think about the possibility of using machine learning to calculate one's probability of being discriminated?

I think that's an interesting idea, but I think that the concept of privilege is a moot point overall.
Using privilege as an argument is like trying to belittle someone's argument because of their background.