Statistical Disparities and Isms

DwnWthVwls · 07-13-2017, 06:01 AM

I was watching a "debate" on youtube recently and the moderator asked a question I found very interesting.

"When does statistical disparity not indicate an ism? For example, men overwhelmingly commit crimes more than women, but we do not say the justice department is sexist."

Thoughts?

The discussion around this question begins at ~52:40 for anyone interested.

Edit: Please fix my spelling error in the title!

Edit 2: Thanks Jansz.

**Janszoon** · 07-13-2017, 06:05 AM

Title fixed.

Pet_Sounds · 07-13-2017, 03:38 PM

I was talking about this sort of thing with a friend the other day. As a young male, I have to pay much more for auto insurance than she does as a female the same age. The reason is obvious: boys cause more car accidents than girls.

Is that sexist? I don't think so, since it's based on hard facts. It does raise two interesting "slippery slope" questions, however.

1. What about someone who identifies as non-binary? Which rate do they pay? If it's the gender with which they identify, I might have to tell the Ministry of Transportation I identify as female and save some cash.

2. What if statistics showed that, say, blacks were more likely to cause car accidents than whites? Would insurance companies be allowed to charge a "black rate"? Obviously not. So where is the line drawn?

**Goofle** · 07-13-2017, 06:45 PM

Bit unfair having these dim fucks debating Shapiro on the issues.

For me, it seems as though statistical disparities are only sexism/racism when the "minority" isn't doing so well comparatively. So it's sexism to have fewer women in STEM fields, but not to see male models making far less money. Or it's racism to see black men given longer prison sentences than any other group, but how often is the disparity between men and women, regardless of race, discussed?

riseagainstrocks · 07-14-2017, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pet_Sounds

1. What about someone who identifies as non-binary? Which rate do they pay? If it's the gender with which they identify, I might have to tell the Ministry of Transportation I identify as female and save some cash.

2. What if statistics showed that, say, blacks were more likely to cause car accidents than whites? Would insurance companies be allowed to charge a "black rate"? Obviously not. So where is the line drawn?

Caveat, haven't watched the video yet. Might get around to it, but Ben Shapiro has always been rather insufferable (I must admit to experiencing some rather pleasant schadenfreude seeing the alt-right treat him as an enemy). If he hasn't experienced it, it can't exist for another person. It's a rather... myopic world-view.

1. Interesting point. Self-image is a big 'driver' of behavior, so perhaps male-to-female transgender people would adopt more of a, in the aggregate, female driving style. Although if enough men took your tack before long women's rates would be up there with men's!

2. There are no substantive physiological differences between the races, unlike the sexes, and even then, men and women aren't really sexually dimorphous. Charging a higher insurance rate against black drivers would be akin to a 'culture tax' and therefore intrinsically biased. You would have to show that black people, independent of socioeconomic status, health, and education, consistently under-perform other ethnic groups when it comes to driving.

DwnWthVwls · 07-15-2017, 12:18 AM

Gender does not take into account the biological differences of men and women, and should not be a consideration for things like differences in insurance pricing. However, as PS pointed out, how would you even begin to take into account genderfluid and other gender types that go beyond the traditional binary roles? Its just not practical.

To address your second point, ive heard ben shapiro cite a case study that reported, statistically, black drivers speed more often than other races in NJ. Ive yet to read it or look into its validity, but its worth mentioning. Also im not a fan and agree with your criticisms of him.

Lucem Ferre · 07-15-2017, 12:39 AM

I've seen this video before and completely debunked what Shapiro said in it. Let me see if I could pull this up.

Quote:

The problem with this video is that he left statistics out of the equations. Now a critical thinker, like myself, when I hear that twice as many white people have been killed by cops than black people I realize that there are much more than twice as many white people than black in this country. There are 5X the amount of white people than black people in this country so he lied in this video. Black people are being killed at 3X the rate that white people are. Those are the facts and statistics. Then there is the statistic on how likely you are to be suspected of criminal activity based on skin color, which conveniently isn't considered a factor in that video when it should be. You're much more likely to be convicted if you are already thought of as a criminal. I don't think that statistic exists, though. Oh, and he forgot that black people are statistically getting harsher sentences for the same crimes. That in it's self shows that there is racism in this country.

I was much more passionate about things back then, I don't know what happened.

But as for the question, it's a huge slippery slope. I get the idea but at the end of the day it usually ends up being discrimination. Whether police are told to investigate certain races over others because of a statistic or when some races get better scholarships over others to try and balance out statistics. It's going to be unfair. In business, I can get a little more though. The example you gave was kind of ****ty but I think if certain products sell better with certain groups I understand why they advertise to them.

07-13-2017, 06:05 AM	#2 (permalink)
Janszoon Mate, Spawn & Die Join Date: May 2007 Location: The Rapping Community Posts: 24,593	Title fixed. __________________ A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man Time & Place 25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die last.fm

07-13-2017, 03:38 PM	#3 (permalink)
Pet_Sounds Remember the underscore Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: The other side Posts: 2,488	I was talking about this sort of thing with a friend the other day. As a young male, I have to pay much more for auto insurance than she does as a female the same age. The reason is obvious: boys cause more car accidents than girls. Is that sexist? I don't think so, since it's based on hard facts. It does raise two interesting "slippery slope" questions, however. 1. What about someone who identifies as non-binary? Which rate do they pay? If it's the gender with which they identify, I might have to tell the Ministry of Transportation I identify as female and save some cash. 2. What if statistics showed that, say, blacks were more likely to cause car accidents than whites? Would insurance companies be allowed to charge a "black rate"? Obviously not. So where is the line drawn? __________________ Everybody's dying just to get the disease