Check your privilege... using machine learning

[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.

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.

Way I see it you'll be explaining either way. But instead of starting from a faulty premise, that privilege has it's origin in race, gender or sexuality, you can start off at the basics.

And, as my previous posts show, I completely disagree on it explaining the source of said privilege, it expressly does not. The source of privilege is not being white, it's societal attitudes. It makes the word much less understood because it leads to exactly the reasoning you're making. That it somehow explains the source of the privilege, it does not.

If you must use an adjective call it societal privilege because that is actually the source of the privilege.

That's not because there's exceptions. It's because the privilege is not something inherent to being white, yet the adjective does imply as such.

 

[Lieju]

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.

Except that there are also a lot of people who belittle the arguments of others because they don't see the problems because of their background.

I have, for example heard the argument that there's no need for gender-neutral marriage law because 'gays already have the same rights straight people do since they can marry someone of the opposite sex' way too many times.

I don't throw accusations of priviledge around unless the person is just obviously not seeing the argument from the point of view of anyone else. And even then I shy away from using the word because of how easily people are offended by it.

Even if you have an argument, fine. But way too often all I hear is 'There's no problem because I haven't noticed a problem' (Despite not being in the best position to notice the problem.)

(Also who is saying the concept of priviledge must be used as an argument?)

 

[EternallyBored]

Way I see it you'll be explaining either way. But instead of starting from a faulty premise, that privilege has it's origin in race, gender or sexuality, you can start off at the basics.

Your proposal creates far more confusion than the added adjectives. The sociological interpretation is laid out in the very concept of the term privilege, when it is used, the base word privilege informs the describing adjective, so the only way people make the misunderstanding as you propose is if they already are misunderstanding the concept of privilege. That misunderstanding will not go away if you remove the adjective, because once you explain where an individual gets their privilege from, people who misunderstand the concept of privilege are still capable of jumping to the conclusion that the privilege is innate rather than societal. So you still have to explain everything from the ground up, whilst the adjectives merely require the clarification that privilege is a sociological concept that informs the adjectives describing them.

Academia is not going to drop the adjectives for the benefit of laymen too lazy to even read the first paragraph on the concept they are trying to talk about, the adjectives are too valuable as descriptors, especially when examining cultural intersectionality. Trying to describe privilege without such adjectives in cases where it is being examined from multiple angles would be a nightmare. I can't imagine trying to write papers on how male privilege and White privilege in 1950's U.S. society interacted if I had to specify every time where that privilege was coming from.

And, as my previous posts show, I completely disagree on it explaining the source of said privilege, it expressly does not. The source of privilege is not being white, it's societal attitudes. It makes the word much less understood because it leads to exactly the reasoning you're making. That it somehow explains the source of the privilege, it does not.

You can disagree all you want, the only thing you've shown is that you don't understand that the sociological aspects of the concept are inherent in the term, this isn't some new internet buzzword, it is something used by researchers to talk about a specific concept, and has been used for years. A concept where one of the first aspects listed is that we are talking about cultural and societal traits, not genetic and chromosomal traits. To even talk about privilege accurately, that is pretty much the first thing you have to know, a laymen does not get to come in and demand the term be made vague and imprecise simply because they misunderstood the very base concept of how "privilege" was being used from the beginning.

People do not think we are talking about white people when we mention wishing for a white Christmas. Because the word Christmas informs the preceding word and lets us know that we are talking about the color white, and more abstractly, using the word white as a shorthand for snow. In the same way White privilege is informed by the second word, privilege. The first conceit we make is that privilege in this case is talking about a sociological concept, not the dictionary definition of the word. From there, the very use of the word privilege now lets us know exactly what form of the word "white" we are talking about.

If you must use an adjective call it societal privilege because that is actually the source of the privilege.

This is like saying ATM machine, or PIN number, societal is implicit to the concept of privilege. Even if you are going to eliminate the descriptive adjectives, adding societal only differentiates the concept of privilege from its dictionary definition, it's entirely redundant as the difference between "privilege" the word, and "privilege" the academic concept is already implied in its usage in the rest of the discussion.

That's not because there's exceptions. It's because the privilege is not something inherent to being white, yet the adjective does imply as such.

No, it only implies such if you misunderstand what the concept of privilege is. Nobody is going to drop the adjectives just because laymen entirely outside the discussion can't differentiate the concept of privilege from its dictionary definition.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

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).

Except that what you're describing is done in the social sciences all the time, especially sociology. And it is a fucking science. It applies the scientific method to studying social phenomena. That is literally the only standard by which we judge whether or not something is a science. I have no idea how you came to your thoroughly misguided conclusion. I'm not even saying this as an angry social sciences student either, I am a proud member of the STEM master race.

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?

That's why you take multiple metrics and either weight them differently or point out general trends over many kinds of data. Which is also a rather common thing in sociology, because being able to consider an idea in relation to many different kinds of numerical data is important when you are dealing with something as varied as human social interaction on a large scale.

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.

Something that is always taken into consideration by sociologists, so they tend to update their studies and data every few years.

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.

It actually is a rather useful idea as it relates to conflict theory.

 

[Zontar]

@Revnak (dame it, still can't quote), If social science is an actual science, why are almost all social science programs put in the Literature and Art department's jurisdiction in universities, and classified as part of the humanities?

Social science has no predicting power formed from its models, from its theories. THAT is the core of what science is. As philosopher Paul Feyerabend once said: ?Prayer may not be very efficient when compared to celestial mechanics, but it surely holds its own vis-à-vis some parts of economics.?

Social Science is a misnomer when you get right down to what it is, a more appropriate title would be Social Engineering, though unlike what THAT title implies it would be trying to find solutions that people want to use instead of ones people are forced to. Not fully accurate based on the use of the term, but a much closer title to what it really is then the current one.

 

[Pogilrup]

I still can't figure out any practical applications for such a program if it was possible to create one that can predict results to a fairly accurate degree.

I mean a digital wine connoisseur is certainly more handy than this hypothetical program.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

@Revnak (dame it, still can't quote), If social science is an actual science, why are almost all social science programs put in the Literature and Art department's jurisdiction in universities, and classified as part of the humanities?

My school says math is a science and computer science is engineering. What fits into which college at a University is based solely on convenience for the people putting things together and who should get what funding. It has nothing to do with what actual scientists do in relation to their actual sciences and whether or not they qualify as such.

Social science has no predicting power formed from its models, from its theories. THAT is the core of what science is. As philosopher Paul Feyerabend once said: ?Prayer may not be very efficient when compared to celestial mechanics, but it surely holds its own vis-à-vis some parts of economics.?

Bullshit. Science is defined by the scientific method, and social sciences do follow that method. Also, sociology does have a variety of models which do predict behavior, especially at the smaller scale but also at a larger scale. Economics, not so much, but that is because a significant portion of macroeconomic experiments or studies cannot be carried out ethically or realistically.

Social Science is a misnomer when you get right down to what it is, a more appropriate title would be Social Engineering, though unlike what THAT title implies it would be trying to find solutions that people want to use instead of ones people are forced to. Not fully accurate based on the use of the term, but a much closer title to what it really is then the current one.

Maybe it would fit under some definitions of engineering (given that many kinds of social science do tend to focus on improving current forms or solving problems rather than simply accruing data and coming up with explanations, though most do that far more often), but ultimately it fits better under science (especially many kinds of psychology) as it is literally the application of the scientific method to social phenomena. I just don't understand how you can actually argue against that. All that science is is it's methodology, nothing more.

Now, some definitions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
This page explicitly includes social sciences, but even disregarding that, the definition is broad enough to include anything that follows the scientific method (testable observations).

Spoiler: google

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

social sciences are definitely practical, systemic, and deal with the natural world through observation and experiment.

I could get more if you want.

 

[ultratog1028]

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?

ALL THE WAY. Yes, I too appreciate the irony of this.

 

[Hagi]

Then now might be a good time to take a deep breath and consider this little thing called context.

You did read the OP right?

We're not talking about academia, we're talking about an internet quiz. A quiz that will be taken by laymen, some of them lazy, some of them already misunderstanding the concept, some of them both.

And in that context academia do indeed get to adjust the language they use to the primary audience in said context.

In that context, dropping said adjectives will create a decidedly less confrontational atmosphere, a decidedly more accurate impression and decidedly less possible confusion as to the source of said privilege.

Then again, an Escapist thread wouldn't be quite the same without a few strawmen and a good amount of disdain those filthy laymen.