Equality of OUTCOME vs. Equality of OPPORTUNITY | Purdue University
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 23 июл 2024
- Four students at Purdue University examined this claim: “Equality of outcome is more important than equality of opportunity.”
The participants quickly land on two lines: Disagree and Strongly Disagree. They tease out various ideas embedded in the claim, including social vestiges of oppression, creating a level playing field, merit, insincere outcomes, and opportunity creation. While these students are in general agreement regarding the importance of opportunity, their points of divergence reveal the complex relationship between opportunity and outcome.
This conversation was filmed at Purdue University on April 16, 2022.
⸺SUPPORT MY WORK⸺
Newsletter | boghossian.substack.com/
Donate | www.nationalprogressalliance....
⸺LINKS⸺
Website | peterboghossian.com/
National Progress Alliance | www.nationalprogressalliance....
Resignation Letter | peterboghossian.com/my-resign...
⸺BOOKS⸺
“How To Have Impossible Conversations” | www.amazon.com/dp/0738285323/...
“A Manual For Creating Atheists” | www.amazon.com/Manual-Creatin...
⸺SOCIAL MEDIA⸺
Twitter | / peterboghossian
Instagram | / peter.boghossian
TikTok | / peterboghossian
All Socials | linktr.ee/peterboghossian
__________
Chapters
0:00 Intro
1:10 Strongly Disagree w/claim
2:25 Disagree w/claim
4:28 What would it take for you to move over one line?
10:50 Individual agency & opportunity
12:00 Immigration & opportunity
14:25 Do you think opportunities are limited?
21:36 Final thoughts/wrap up
#peterboghossian #streetepistemology #equality #equity
Equality of outcome, you’re telling someone who is gifted at math, the arts, or athletics they need to hold back, in order for someone who is not can keep up. You’re expecting that person not to grow and work to their fullest potential.
Imagine telling Michael Jordan not to make as many slam dunks as he usually does because it’s not fair to the other players.
No. They are expecting people to hold those people back
Exactly. Equality of outcome can only be achieved through oppression. But what people don't see, is that equality of opportunity has the same problem. To let a poor person goto a school instead of a wealthy person for example, means taking their previous effort that made them or they family rich away. The only thing we can do without totalitarianism is to make sure noone is held back by things that cannot be changed (race gender etc). Because we cannot normalize across every possible circumstance the only thing we can do the only fair thing to do is to make sure there are no unnecessary barriers.
@@petenell5807 if a poor person achieved a higher SAT score than a rich person, equality of opportunity is to admit the poor person before the wealthy person because both people had the opportunity to prove their merit and the poor person won (or vice versa). Equality of outcome would be to ignore the SAT scores and admit everyone who applied. The outcome is admission into university.
I use a similar argument to debunk affirmative action. Imagine if basketball teams were required to have all players of different races. You would no longer get the best player but the best of a set demographic. Similarly what if each player had to be given an equal number of shot attempts per game. You know to guarantee everyone is being treated fairly. now have that team play a team not confined by those rules and which team will win?
@@colinjohnston9824 yes, that is what I was saying. No favoritism, if you met the standard, your in.
Plenty of universities reserve spots based on class, which is also stupid. Just like reserving them for races and genders.
2:30 eating pizza while others are having an excellent and productive discussion….that’s my man right there.
Hahaha... business end first😂😂😂
"The outcome is insincere."
That is a very very useful phrase. Those high in trait Agreeableness will be able to get behind the word 'sincere' whereas 'competition' is a word that such people find offensive.
Time stamp?
@@MyNameIsThe_Sun 8:39
@@harryhanks7825 thanks
Dude absolutely nailed it to the wall here ... He made a critical distinction that cannot be ignored @ 8:39
This is a term or phrase probably said more by English as a second language speakers, yet it’s more accurately said this way than any other.
I read a book comparing parenting strategies of Harvard student’s parents. One story that struck me was a black Harvard grad whose mother was homeless when he was growing up. His mom used flash cards for math and English on her kid in the homeless shelter and encouraged him to engage fully with school assignments and extra curriculars. Eventually his mom realized there was a glass ceiling in their neighborhood so she picked up and moved to a homeless shelter in a district with greater educational resources. She was homeless but devoted her energy to her son’s potential and education. The result afforded him with a scholarship to Harvard and he is a successful teacher in Chicago passing on what he learned to financially disadvantaged youth. Ultimately equality of opportunity must coincide with individual perseverance and responsibility. You can’t force someone to be responsible and make wise decisions.
This. Both are needed to work in harmony. Like many things we need a yin to aid the yang.
Exactly. Some have a tough road to hoe but hard work and some sacrifice makes almost anything possible in the US.
@@reddirtwalker8041 yes but is it (HARD WORK ) for the children of the rich to take their parents money and make more money ... No it's not ....
@@raymondparnell439 The OP is nothing about that. You made it about that.
TYPICALLY those put in positions where they NEED to EARN and BUILD and CHANGE their environment and evolve have come from severe hardship. Because when conquering hardship you gain success and from a “based” foundation of reality. We see millionaire inheritors turn into psychopaths, weaklings, addicts, evil abusers of themselves and others. They are MUCH more likley to be broke a month after they receive an inheritance or slowly drain the resources they were born with. I myself turned to heavy drug and alcohol abuse due to my own personal/mental issues and rejection of and from American western “democratically” “capitalist” society. From 16 to 25 I I CREATED a life of hardship and rejected the privilege I was born with and developed from my strong well off nuclear working class family. Because I COULD. Because at 16-22 I could AFFORD to be an addict and progressing only slightly in career and life. I had to DESTROY myself and now live with more mental and now physical issues due to my past lifestyle. Now at 26, with a decade of self induced stagnation procrastination and destruction with court/prison hanging over my head for a DUI I can now appreciate myself and others and things again. Now I’m making it, even though I’ve cut my potential and opportunity by at least HALF. Hell I was ran over by a motor cycle and developed opiate addictions on and off… I’m clean, I’m in INTOLERABLE pain and my physicality is now reduced, yet I’m lifting heavier things than I ever have, I’m getting up EVERYDAY now I’m doing more than I ever have while I have many limitations now, that I CREATED (some were forced on me and out of my control too)
I could have been way better off by now but that’s just how it is. I learned to appreciate and work hard and to SURVIVE by self inducing struggle. I don’t recommend it, but I will trust an addict over a hedge fund manager or politician and BELIEVE in their potential any day. I look at those born with the silver spoon not with disdain, but with sympathy. With pity.
The most important point about this topic is equality is a myth. Different people have different strengths and weaknesses you could give everyone in the world the exact same opportunity and you would get extremely different outcomes with each individual. Some are smarter than others, some are more athletic, some are better at science or medicine, some are more creative and artistic, some are funny some aren’t.
We aren’t even equal to ourselves throughout the day and our lives. As Thomas Sowell points out in Discrimination and Disparities.
Yes! Good point!
Such an obvious point it would seem. But there are some who apparently think unequal outcomes can result only when there is unfairness of some kind. Which means that if unfairness is eliminated everyone would be equal. Seems like the dumbest thing I can think of.
equality is a false god. Utopia was made as a comedy. The sooner people realize this, the better everything will be
That is bullshit. Truth some people r smarter and more talented than others- deal with it you snowflake.
Purdue University is a sane college. If I were their marketing department, I'd be showing this to everyone all over the world.
As someone who graduated from Purdue, ty for that.
This is primarily because they are a school centered around physics, engineering, mathematics and other hard science.
@@colinb8332 There's probably some truth to that. Their Analytical Chemistry graduate program, for example, is ranked #1 in the country. Ie, since what they have to be proud of is their hard science and engineering graduate programs, maybe it affects the rest of their campus culture.
Where in India is Purdue exactly?
@@77dris it’s in Indiana, the US state. City of Lafayette
This was the best street epistemology event so far! It would be amazing if students had this level of civility when speaking on some of your previous questions/subjects. There is an interesting sample bias when you look at students that are joining these from the different colleges as well. It says a lot about how our higher education are functioning. This is the type of productive conversation Americans desperately needs to have.
Absolutely Ron ... I really liked this event. I think you make a very important point about the nature of the discussion correlating to the cultural biases witnessed at other college events.
Passionate, yet civil and mature discussion ...
It was poorly executed on its fundamentals. The kids were obviously holding wrong ideas about those concepts. I don't think they all spoke the same language. It was actually a mess. For example, the guy in the "strongly disagree" line started advocating about representative racial quotas for every domain of society which points to "equality of outcome" (hence, I believe, the question from the lady with the microphone that possibly picked up the oxymoron). A tower of Babel.
The dude smashing pizza in the background is the best
He knows that pizza is always the answer.
It's striking that students at this "mid-tier" university have led one of the most thoughtful, informed, energetic discussions we've seen so far on this channel.
Mid-tier University? 😁👌
the darker one had really nice boba and a deece face.
Half of what was spoken was pure ignorance
Purdue is a world-renowned university, around top 50 in the USA and top 100 in the world. That puts it at about the top .3% of universities in the world.
@@m.davidmccormick7062 Let me guess, a graduate of Purdue? I meant within the US, smart ass.
The number of participants you get at these events is truly depressing. Kudos to you for persevering regardless.
Its growing.
Most college students are afraid of the consequences of disagreement with the woke mob.
You only need enough to make content to post online. That’s where the real audience is.
I'm okay with only 5-6 people max. it'd be hard to have a discussion with more people I'd think.
@@Umm62 great opportunity for discourse, you guys should have more students in the audience also
This was a great episode, love how the students started engaging with the other students and peter just kind of stood off to the side and let them discuss.
Ask this question in CA as opposed to IN and you'll get an entirely different set of views. Also, notable that a half of the participants appear to be born outside the US. They've come to the US to take advantage of the opportunities, make their own way and will accept the outcome that is based on their efforts.
Wow, who would have thought 2 areas about 1000 miles away would have different opinions...great observation. We're you granted the genius award by chance? The Us is too big of an area to have a cohesive set of view which is basically why we have states in the first place and it's broken down even more into counties, districts etc.
@@Fanuc_Operator1990 Actually, one shouldn't get different opinions on this subject. The answer that these people give is the only correct one. The inputs of people and the amount of effort that they will give toward an outcome will necessarily be different, ergo in a fair society the outcomes have to be different. Liberals always fail to see that and are more than willing to have government impose policies in an attempt to ensure equivalent outcomes totally disregarding that fact that this is unfair to many people in addition to being impossible to achieve. It's not the difference in distance, it's the liberal mindset.
Merit
In CA people don’t know what a woman or man is.
@@Fanuc_Operator1990 This is the weirdest comment. You're teasing Laza for mentioning what you know to be obvious about the US. But then you go on to explain additional obvious facts, about the US. lol
You mean the US has states because it's too big in size to have cohesive set of views? Great observation. No award for you! :)
The ending to this was beautiful, with them pointing out the vast difference between each line. Beautiful because they understood their own communication and where they stood and why. Really enjoyed this 'episode'.
I agree 100% and I’ll probably get bashed for this next comment. If they were 4 white students I don’t think this comment would have been written. These kids are impressive and are a bright beacon for our future.
@@-What-are-your-thoughts I was thinking about this also actually. For the past few events many of the students were Indian.. either they have a large college demographic or they're particularly willing to engage in this kind of event. Props to them.
Communists infiltrated your institutions from schools, government, media, NGOs since the late 1960s and you're wondering why your current nonwhite generations hate you "ypipo" and created self-hating "ypipo" (AAVE "language")
I think there are two things that make these Indian students more articulate and willing to engage in thoughtful dialogue than we have usually seen in these events. They are the product of middle/upper class families where such engagement is encouraged, and have had a much better secondary education than most Americans seem to be getting.
Is that a norm? My family was upper middle class and no discussion of anything even remotely outside of what we were allowed to believe was ever tolerated. It was a completely totalitarian christian zone
@@MrThankeesai I was thinking in terms of the Indian family, where the upper and middle classes of Hindu, Muslim and (I suppose) the minority Catholic Christians seem to be less dogmatic on religion, and more concerned with the economic benefits a rounded education can bring.
Simply overall higher IQ
@@juvenalsdad4175 I'd say Hinduism is inherently pluralistic. There is also Indian cultural ethos... which essentially is Hinduism. The Persians (preIslamic) called India Hindustan...they still do btw. Hindustan is a region east and south of the Indus river. The name India is related to Indus Hindu etc.. The Indus river is the Sindhu river... stan means country/land/place of... thus essentially Hindu and India is one and the same... Being Hindu is not just a religious type of identity... Though it is also cultural regional land connected Integrated etc ... It is the Indigenous identity of the region of India and south Asia and even to some extent up to and including Southeast Asia and beyond... Each place in the world has it's indigenous peoples. Even Europe had/has it's indigenous.
On that note it seems the Muslim and Christian population of India arent quite as pluralistic as those prodeletyzing ideologies are very strict and have historically not been tolerant about other ways of thinking etc... Christianity says "no one gets to the father except through Me" which the mainstream interpretation is very intolerant of any other way... I have my own take on things... maybe/probably Jesus was trying to mix Judaism and Hinduism etc into a syncretic tradition but ended up the people just looked at the Abrahamicness of it as they were themselves the audience of his message were "the family of Abraham" i.e. the Jewish peoples ... So as it goes a performer may consider the material audience and the performer and a good performer is able to taylor the material to the audience etc. There is also the Greek elements and even Persian too... The "New Testament" was primarily written in Greek I think... Kind of a Greek religion in a way... A half man half God such as Hera-kles aka Hercules etc... Makes sense why it spread through Europe which was dominated by (Greco)Rome... Which itself took Christianity on ...
I don't know if Christianity caused the Dark Ages, tho I heard it had it's role in the Dark Ages..... The "Dark Ages" is a term for the Early Middle Ages, or occasionally the entire Middle Ages, in Western Europe after the fall of the Western Roman Empire that characterises it as marked by economic, intellectual and cultural decline.
@@MrThankeesai There's an angry atheist in every comment section
I’m inclined to start seeing these videos as an excellent additional basis to make your college choice: you get a real sense of where you’ll find fellow students who think critically and where you’ll get some regurgitated ideologies
The guy eating the pizza taking it all in is the real MVP
I so wish I would've taken a course of Peter's when I was a PSU student. what a great conversation. Shows how we as a society need to be able to talk to each other openly and honestly about hard topics.
Best undergraduate class i ever had was "Homo-sapiens and the environment", taught by Ronald Reagan's former environmental advisor.
He only taught the first and last class of the semester. The rest of the classes were mostly structured debates between conservative and liberal.
I loved that class!
It really encouraged critical thinking and allowed us to see benefits and disadvantages on both sides.
I agree. Especially as we deal with ethical dilemmas such as reducing use of fossil fuels vs. cost of food and food supply being at risk.
Equality of outcome is taking the worst sports teams and making darn sure they all win half the time against every other team by any means necessary.
And subsequently taking the best and making them lose half of course.
Totally agree
But the "referees" are "more equal".
Ever played video games with "Skill based match making" or "MMR" xD
It literally trys to set everyone up to be 50/50 win/lose xD
Handicaps are done in many sports. It makes things interesting.
Wonderful to see the high level of sophistication in these students here. I'm very impressed and, indeed, I understand the issue with greater clarity as a result. And, as always, Peter Boghossian presents another masterclass in laying the groundwork for discussion.
This makes me so proud of being South Asian. How eloquent and thoughtful are these students. There wasn't yelling, yet there was passion in their points. Just to pleasant discussion on topic that's not always pleasant.
Try south Asian news television miss. You will know why we shirk that kind of behaviour.
I am sure they are nice people but they didn't truly have anyone to argue against.
They are Indian... Not South Asian. Lets stop this South Asian nonsense.
@@Dushthabuddhi India is in South Asia. 😆 🤣
@@amritashar9592 Soo why not just call it India?
Equality of outcome removes all incentives for achievement. If your grade on an exam is going to be averaged with everyone else's in your class and redistributed, why study? There is now an incentive for underachievement and punishment for over achievement. What are the repercussions for this on society at large?
I'm a retired middle school teacher. Far too many of my education class professors would assign group presentations by subject majors. My major was history. There were few... and sometime no other... history majors in many of my ed. classes. I was usually grouped with the P.E. majors. Always the most lazy... or thick headed... lunks in the room. I didn't mind having to be the take charge person, but too often I had to be the do all the work person as well. I put in all the effort and work, and they shared the grade. That's why I never had students work in groups during my teaching career. Group work is great for the slackers, and can be fun at times for the kids as a whole. But it wasn't for me as a student or as a teacher. My students' grade was a reflection of their own work, not by riding on the back of someone else.
@@ea42455 I think you make a great point. But I'll push back slightly. I think your teachers were smarter than you give them credit for. You learned what you did because you were put in those situations. We must expose young people to all ideas and challenge both sides so they can develop the critical thinking skills and learn what's best for themselves.
@@ea42455 The exact situation you described, and the leftward totalitarian drift I saw in education, is why I abandoned college one credit shy of getting my teaching degree to pursue a life of blue collar work, and this was back in 94. College is a complete waste of time and money at this point, seeing as how the teacher's unions have absolutely infiltrated education with Alinsky-style communist agitators and groomer pedophiles....
Communism.
THE repercussion is being conquered and the death of your society/culture.
The students didn't seem to have a real grasp of the difference between opportunity vs outcome. They often conflated the two, and were very often simply wishing for equal outcome. Opportunity = a chance to play. Outcome = a guarantee to win.
Exactly. How were they accepted as students?
@@davecopp9356 they dont test students anymore
I agree, but the students simply going at it without intervention didn't help either. There isn't much you can talk about without getting into specific scenarios and somewhat altering the whole content of the conversation.
I enjoy this format, but sometimes the students manage to confuse the whole room.
Outcome ≠ a guarantee to win. It guarantees there are no winners or losers. If there is a winner, there is a loser, which is not an equal outcome.
@@thisisone9529 WAT
Any mom with more than 1 child knows everyone is an individual with a variety of gifts. Some are better at some things than others. Some are good at a lot of things, but everyone has strengths. The great thing about our country is that we have the opportunity to use our individual giftings.
Not just mother’s. Father’s too. The trick is to be involved in the honest development of the children.
Yep, both of my kids are pretty smart (yep I'm bias) but only one of my kids is athletic and good at sports.
Opportunity is the goal.
I’m super impressed to see students engage and express their viewpoints respectfully. It feels like those days have been long gone, but this gives me some hope.
Go outside lol. I've found the emotionally explosive debater to be a rare occurrence
This was a great discussion. I love how the students engaged and challenged each other.
Attempting to raise the level of outcome, simply for the sake of outcome, thinking it will make everyone "equal", will surely raise the level of incompetence which will reveal how "unequal" in ABILITY each of us really are! Nothing beats opportunity to earn and improve ones competence through training and education, and then leaving it to that person to create their own outcome through hard work!
This definitely could be true in terms of the incompetence level.
Especially, if you accept one group with lower standards due to an equal outcome priority.
BUT... If you have one groups of people who are at a generational disadvantage when it comes to wealth and education, but give them "equal opportunity", except they live in the poor areas with high crime rates and poor schools. Is that equal opportunity since they have total freedom? If it is equal opportunity, but only 1% make it to the same success level that those who had a generational advantage.
What should you do? Just continue to allow it to play out naturally or try some other way to bring a balance?
I don't have a good answer myself, but I find the debate to be extremely fascinating.
The HomeStead Act of 1862 I believe.. is responsible for upwards of 20 BILLION dollars in wealth for whites TODAY. And only 6 million dollars for blacks today. BOTH had “opportunity” to claim their land (blacks really didn’t and plenty of evidence, documents, and research to prove this…) but the outcomes are DRASTICALLY different because it wasn’t REAL opportunity.
Point is outcome should be analyzed, tweaked, and manipulated as well.
Purdue is a public(?) engineering university inside of Indiana.
Massive respect to the people here for discussing the topic - it appears none there had considered it before.
This was a really smart discussion. A couple of these events Peter put on have been derailed by extremist activism but this turned out well ... Some great points were made.
Good job Purdue U!
The guy in the background had way more opportunities to eat pizza and the outcome is that there's none left for everybody else.
Great debate! This is definitely one of the best ones I've watched so far. What I've appreciated the most about this one is how they were able to discuss and debate the topic without getting overly emotional and without attacking Peter or one another. As for me, I think that the equality of opportunity is more important.
Equality of outcome is like giving everyone an Olympic Gold Medal. You're not actually lifting anyone up, your just devaluing the measure of success.
These kids are the most respectful of other's opinions and open to discussion than I have seen for quite a while
This is like when I read Teacher of the Year bios statements like, “He/She ensured student success.” I taught for 40 years and NEVER made such a foolish statement.
Than you’re a failure.
Pareto's Principle. These students had thoughtful answers, not always accurate but way better than most .
Yep. It really is crazy how things tend to follow that "sorting". I once compared the cities in America with over 100K population. Over 300 exist, but fewer than 15 have over 1M pop. We wouldn't claim that was by malicious design.
This is, in my view, one of the most important aspects separating the right and the left. We are not born financially, physically, culturally, or mentally the same. Because to most people it seems like equality of outcome is something which we should strive for, I can list so many examples of the left trying to guarantee an equal outcome. But in reality, we not only need to cater for differences, but recognise how important they can sometimes be for maintaining true progress in a society.
But they will never admit how poisonous equity is for progress. Until their mechanic completely destroys their car because they had no clue what they were doing. But even then most wouldn't realize why that happened.
Equality of outcome equates to diminished outcome.
Let's say people are given 10 000 dollars. Some will waste it in a fortnight whilst some will invest it. There's always a new outcome with differing results even if the playing field is cleared. Equality of any kind is a lie. Even under the law with enough power or money there is no equality.
@@harjad9546 but the lie of equality will work, until other people's money runs out. They don't think ahead. Karl Marx was a moron.
Equality of outcome is always imposed by government, and government always brings it about by hobbling the most capable, not by making the less capable better. Our quality of life is overwhelmingly owed to a very small proportion of us, and dragging those people down in the name of fairness only serves those in power.
Beautiful. Your comment reminded me of Harry Browne quote "The government is good at one thing. It knows how to break your legs, and then hand you a crutch and say, 'See if it weren't for the government, you wouldn't be able to walk."
*people and their agenda. Its not the institution of government that is to blame but individual actors exercising a position in it
it's not always imposed by government at all. it's imposed by corporations, universities and all kinds of private businesses and entities.
And I believe the reason for corporations (who absolutely love it, generally) push it are more cynical and self-interested than the government, generally.
I personally know of several latin american, and more precisely central americans that have build very successful businesses here in Houston.
Landscaping company, HVAC and a restauranteur with a few concepts. I have heard how they started and they all started at the bottom and now are fairly successful with resources. One common thread from these guys was that they never complained and just wanted to better their situation.
Interesting to see the participants were (presumably) 1st/2nd generation immigrants, but are statistically able to achieve great outcome like you mention.
I compare that to the many certain groups of Americans who have had centuries of generations built in America, but have statistically the worst outcome in income/crime/education/fatherlessness . Just an observation. (I personally think it's due to degenerate culture in certain groups of people)
That is an example of opportunity because if they had never taken the chance to come here they wouldn't have succeeded. In their countries those opportunities are not there no matter how hard you try the environment around them forces them to stay in poverty.
@@mecr19 on some level yes, but the interesting point here is the comparatively less opportunity you might assume a recent immigrant or family of immigrants might have here compared to generationally 'naturalized' Americans and why (some) immigrants seem to do better given the same or maybe even worse circumstances.
@@connorschaeffer4665 2nd/3rd and succeeding generations end up ungrateful of where their original ancestors (1st gen) came from, so they have no care nor basis of how GOOD they have it in a 1st world country, hence they become narcissistic and complacent, angry that they can't work as hard as those who actually came from poorer nations.
Among my 3rd world countrymen, we dislike the 2nd generation "halves" that return to our country for vacation or good, thinking they can speak over locals and know what our mindset is. They also can't speak a lick of the local language but come off as Holier-than-thou, spouting western and urbanite problems as if it's the most pressing issue that HAS to be fixed RIGHT NOW, while basic human rights for rural folk and women aren't even realized (and these 2nd gens don't care). We also have a lot of 1st gens who look down on their fellow countrymen, speaking in bad English but acting like kings around us. They also typically vote Democrat. They truly have the same patterns wherever they go.
@@connorschaeffer4665 Why bashing of naturalized Americans and degenerate culture? I'm an African American living in the UK, and I have many Hispanic friends here. The one thing we share in common is we all are more highly educated with more wealth than the average Brit. If you compare us to Africans or Polish in the UK, they tend to have less education and less degree holding jobs. It's the same story around the world. Foreigners that come from far away tend to be better educated because a country can be highly selective for that group coming into that country, because distance makes it unlikely those nationalities of poorer class background can come on their own.. Foreigners from countries close by tend not to have such high outcomes because it's comparatively easier for foreigners with less wealth and resources to move to a neighboring country.
We could say that us African Americans, along with Mexicans, and Brazilians in the UK are just hardworking people from good cultural backgrounds compared to Brits, various Africans nationalities and Polish people which is very simplistic observation that doesn't get to the heart of the issue. Or we could do something far more useful and ask how to give opportunities to the latter natives and foreigners in the UK so they can have the chance to succeed. Same with the US with it's different ethnic and foreigner makeup.
Man, this is def. one of the best discussion I've seen lately on your channel. They honestly had realllyyyy interesting points.
Because they’re not spoiled Americans with zero life experience
3:04 This girl is so beautiful! Also, what a refreshingly calm and reasonable discussion.
Girl in the glasses was my favorite. Most thoughtful. Dude in the glasses was a classic know-it-all who didn't know it all.
Equality of outcome is like printing money to give to all poor people to eliminate poverty. Backwards logic results in social backsliding and economic hardship. You will ultimately produce fewer/worse goods and services if you abandon meritocratic values.
This!
It's really simple. Everyone who wants equity, should never ever be allowed again to complain about the lack of quality of a product or service. See how quick they would learn.
Without competition, there is no innovation and no spark of intuition ... Competition dies in an equal outcome scenario. Equality of opportunity is the only logical approach to let a society succeed or fail on it's own Merit.
Not to mention certain mass starvation, murder and forced labour. This experiment has been tried many times in the 20th century.
Economic equity is great and works. Progressive taxation, the welfare state, a social safety net etc all increase social mobility and are what has made capitalism tolerable for most people, as opposed to exploitative. They're why western Europe is better than the US.
What we're talking about here is equality of outcome by "identity" group, race, sex etc. Money is an objective measure of a person's standing in society, "identity" isn't.
This particular university and group of students seem to have more critical thinking than most videos I’ve seen of this nature. I’m curious as to why this is, and simultaneously greatly impressed and highly interested in this institution itself for that reason.
If I were a father of a high school student, I would be highly interested in having them attend this university as it has demonstrated its openness through this small demographic of attendees. It is not substantive in that sense, but even the initial exposure has been powerful and promotes a sense optimism in myself regarding the future generations which has lost ground in my mind over the last decade.
Thank you, Peter, for your work, motivation, and honesty in challenging the ways in which recent generations have been taught to think, or not think for that matter. I would love to take part one of these one day if the opportunity (see what I did there) presents itself.
You have my support in your endeavours. All the best from Canada.
Geography is a major factor. Most of the time they do these exercises in california or oregon schools which are more likely to be extremely left wing. Purdue is in Indiana. And while its still probably liberal I believe it is maybe less so than a west coast school.
@@Knucklehead4400 the strongest case for why immigration itself is not an issue and is actually a net positive under certain conditions.
People should not move to a nation if they believe that the nation’s fundamental design or general practice is undesirable. People should move to places that best suit their ideals, which change over time (reflected in the consistent progression of young liberals to older conservatives that is widely studied and substantiated in western society). With further understanding of your societal structures comes new perspectives on said society.
I think that the allowance of easy immigration without the understanding on the part of the immigrant as to why their destination country is able to offer them the opportunity they seek is a vast oversight on both parties.
The vilification of the concept assimilation and it’s status as an inflammatory buzz word has been detrimental to this concept (along with the Borg for the Star Trek fans out there, although I don’t believe that there are many fans of the show that share said viewpoint). Language is nuanced and words have their own foundation not indicative of the slogans and buzz phrases that misuse them religiously.
Thank you for the reply!
Cheers!
@@claudeagle271 I came to the same hypothesis without research and am now inclined to doing said research due to the presence of this video. Thank you for the confirmation of that fact. I will look into it more.
Cheers!
They are Indian not white, black or Latino liberals who generally lack any sign of critical thinking, think with their hearts and not their brains and are completed indoctrinated by the corporate news machine.
Great discussion... Especially when Boghossian brings up the fact that there is such an intellectual divide in thinking. You cannot have both opportunity of outcome and equality of opportunity. If you create opportunity of outcome, you can only do so at the expense of opportunity for others.
I am so glad you are doing these little groups and that they are not in front of big groups. Some will boycott open discussion of subjects like this.
These were good hearted and intelligent students who sounded genuinely open to cogitate…
Saying “I agree” so quickly to the first guy’s position was a strange move. Keeping Peter’s position unclear seems preferable, at least initially.
Do you think common sense is also an opportunity or an outcome?
Been watching these for a couple of days now. This one is one of my favorites. Especially since the sidelined gentleman jumped in. I think it's a REALLY level-headed conversation from very different backgrounds from all the participants so far. And everyone is intellectually honest.
I really respect this form of discussion. That the main speaker allowed each individual to process through their answers themselves and not hurry up or change their thinking partern
These videos are so interesting! Love the genuine conversations
This is one of the best videos you have done. Peter, you are a teacher and facilitator I try to model in my own classroom. Thank you!
This is exactly what tutorials used to be like. You went to the lecture, then the tute was all sorts of ideas being thrown around, the tutor would even introduce a controversial idea or something not mentioned just to make sure it was covered and discussed.
They would also introduce non-sensical ideas to get to the bottom of exactly why they are non-sensical.
Even when the group mostly feels the same way about something, these exercises are always so freaking interesting.
I loved how they engaged each other in the Socratic method. Amazing.
I must admit I was surprised at the lines they went to. As well as what was said. Great question 👍 keep up the great work.
Forcing the percentage of a demographic to match the percentage of workers from the same demographic means that we would be capping the opportunities available to groups that already met their quota. Does that sound fair? Nevermind the other obv issues with that approach.
This is the first video I've seen where students are speaking respectively, logically, monitoring their emotions yet still passionate, bravo! #Thelegion
The fact that anyone could even agree that equality of outcome is a good thing in the first place is preposterous. Everyone is unique with different values, goals, and desires
The first thing you need to learn and understand is you cannot control outcomes.
Yeah sometimes billionaires get eaten. That's life.
@@Apjooz um what are you talking about?
This was an excellent conversation.
Such a great conversation. There is a such a great feeling for even watching a conversation like this. I hope the people that participated in it got twice that feeling. Civil, polite, yet still there are differences being discussed. I miss when there was this type of CIVIL discourse in our country.
I'm surprised at how no one would say the original strong disagree guys explanation was so compelling they moved as a result yet used his explanation word for word.
A very interesting conversation. I would add this: equality of opportunity and equality of outcome are diametrically opposed. If you believe in one, you cannot believe in the other. If I believe that everyone should have an equal opportunity, then I cannot realistically believe that everyone will have an equal outcome, because everyone is different. If I believe in equality of outcome, then I must adjust the opportunities based on the individual. I think that too many people equate "equal outcome" with "good outcome".
A parent with twins will try to give each twin as similar of opportunities as possible, with their children living under the same roof, eating the same food, and going to the same schools. Even in those situations, twins often find themselves obtaining wildly different outcomes. How much more would the government have to do to get more "equitable" results than that?
This was so insightful, dare I say it, but there's a clear difference of thought process between these students and the other groups he's interviewed.
I love watching the students try to decide where they're going to stand based on where everybody else is standing in 30 seconds
Equality of outcome is a literal hell, reminds of me playing youth basketball and after the league was done, everyone was given the same trophy. And we were undefeated, my father took me home after and threw away the trophy.
The only thing I believe for certain is that everyone should get an opportunity. Whether you succeed or fail, is on the person.
Everyone doesn’t get an opportunity bud and if we debated long enough you would change your view on that as well. Most people who hold your view don’t even think everyone really deserves an opp… they believe in dog eat dog.
@@notlookinforahug I actually partially agree. I do believe in dog eat dog, because the strong should thrive. Weakness isn't really needed and should be cast out.
I believe people deserve more opportunities and I'll never change that point.
Equality of opportunity isn't even possible.
The only thing we can do is attempt to ensure equal treatment under the rules. But we can never actually level the playing field. No two people are ever going to get the same opportunities. Opportunities vary in quality based on many, many factors.
I'm not even sure I like the idea of pursuing equality of opportunity as an ideal. Because at some level, it requires forcing equality of outcome. Because opportunities seldom fall out of the sky. Most opportunities - in fact, I'd argue *almost all* opportunities - are actually outcomes in and of themselves. Opportunities are created, not spontaneously granted. And they compound over time. You get some small, relatively low value opportunity and make the most of it. And that gets an outcome, which in turn opens up another opportunity that's a little better, and you capitalize on that, etc., etc. And pretty soon, you're opening up greater and greater opportunities for yourself, and if you keep taking advantage of them, you create more and more. And they rapidly turn into a fountain of wealth when you apply yourself consistently.
For me, the question should be: What fundamental value best facilitates the best outcomes in as many people as possible in as many circumstances as possible? I don't think "equality of outcome" or "equality of opportunity" qualify as answers to that question.
@@_VXI dude no one who doesn’t believe in equality of outcome believes in equality of opportunity… it’s oxymoronic
@@notlookinforahug I've already explained the hell of equal outcome. That literally means everyone's a winner and that is sickening. You win or you lose, all I want is for an opportunity for one of those. Same with life or death. Equal outcome is boring and nobody with an actual brain wants every one to get the same outcome.
Equality of outcome. Everybody’s gonna die!
So refreshing watching sane and intelligent students debating in a respectful and considered way. I have been watching a lot of Evergreen College and some things at Yale recently, so this video is a welcome return to sanity. Finally.
Don’t know how I stumbled on your channel but I love the level headed thought inducing content! Thank you!
So I was onboard with what the guy at the end was talking about until he said he wanted equal percentages of ethnicities in all jobs and opportunities. We would be preventing any group of ethnicity of those opportunities if a percentage is already met.
People still want to be racist. They just want to use antiracism to get there. If you treat people as individuals, then genetic differences in ability cause certain things to occur. And that looks racist. If you treat people based on race, then you force people into jobs without the talent for them, and end up with a trashed society.
@@neglectfulsausage7689 i agree with what you're saying. The politicians using racism and equality of outcome only care about how it will benefit them and make them look good.
Equality of outcomes is giving the entire class A+ regardless of ability. Equality of opportunity is every having the same chance to even take the class. The class isn't worth anything if the outcome is guaranteed even if you dont put in the work. When you dont have to work for something you wont appreciate it. You learn nothing and dont grow as a person. Also without the opportunity the outcome doesn't exist.
I wonder how they would feel if everyone in the class was given the same job at the same pay regardless of how much effort they put into the class, their attendance, or their knowledge/ability to perform the job? And if at that job they were all given the same pay raise regardless of job performance? It just seems like common sense needs to make a comeback. There are some videos of pro socialism students strongly supporting taking money from wealthy people and giving it to poor people but when asked if they would give their grades to students who were failing they wanted no part of that. They worked hard for their grades. They shouldn’t have to share with students who didn’t work hard and got bad grades. Lol that’s different though.
@@bidencrimefamilymottof-cky953 100% the socialist children are completely ignorant of the real world.
I am loving the variety of questions in this series! Thanks for a wonderful conversation.
I feel like I learn more from these discussions than I ever did in college.
There is affirmative action in almost every institution in India where people from "lower caste" get jobs or college seats at 80% of the score compared to others. That's a major reason many students go outside to study. There is as much as 70% reservation for (Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribes, Other Backward Caste, Disabled) in government jobs and colleges in some states. And I guess that's why they are disagreeing here because they have lived through that.
And I guess that's also why India is still a s-hole?
But that's the thing, history exists. Equality is easy if the past is equal, extremely hard in any other case.
In his book "Affirmative Action around the World" Thomas Sowell has a chapter on India where some minority groups are deemed to be too successful and needs to be penalized. This also happened in Sri Lanka where the Tamils were too successful. We know haw that destroyed a society. The same has happened in Malaysia with dire consequences to the economy. South Africa is not covered in the book but is making the same mistake.
@@Apjooz Equality does not exist - not in the past, not in the present and it will not exist in the future.
It's not a major reason students to outside to study. Don't go too far. It's not good but you can admit the major reasons people go outside are: 1) Very difficult to test into good colleges. 2) Colleges in the West have name and prestige and romantic allure. 3) Colleges abroad teach differently to the greatest Indian universities. 4) Outside of engineering no Indian universities hold a candle to Western university quality of study.
Affirmative action exists in the West as well. Caste quotas is a very minor reason Indians go abroad to study, if it is even considered at all
The closer people get to defining the question the more similar their perspectives seem to be. Sincerity of outcome matters because equality that is not earned will diminish the perceived value of merit and make merit less valuable. Without success being determined by merit it is never sustainable without outside intervention.
Plus it creates the division that it supposedly is intended to diminish
There is a reason why one of the major people pushing to remove race based hiring in CA was black, and that was because people were viewing him worse because they believed that he was only hired due to his race. Even though he was talented and intelligent.
The confusing thing about this entire discussion is that equality of opportunity and equality of outcome are not really defined. Getting a quality education (such as going to a private school) is both an opportunity for you and also the outcome of your parent's choices.
It's obviously impossible to give everyone the exact same (or even similar) upbringings and resources without resorting to communism or authoritarianism. It's a flawed question because opportunity of outcome overlaps with equality of opportunity. Should a student with an obvious disadvantage growing up be given the same opportunity to go to an Ivy League school that a trust fund baby was given? This whole discussion is kind of centered around affirmative action. In reality, equal opportunity could mean making it easier for someone who is disadvantaged to get into the school/get the job.
@@danielhalper8389 You are right, it is a flawed question. Almost all questions are because each person will use their own definitions of the nuances. That said, I think that is in part, the point here. The entire exercise seems to allow people to realize that they can't even answer the question until they have a consensus of their definitions first. Change the definition and you change peoples stances without even needing to argue over it.
What a great conversation. Good work to all of the participants! 👍
It is refreshing to see reasoned answers rather than political nonsense repeated back.
Thank you! ❤️
Getting an opportunity is actually an outcome in many situations, there are many barriers; prejudicial, financial, location, societal and linguistic. There is often no way to realistically overcome these barriers and create that equal opportunity without giving additional support to people facing barriers. It could be argued for example, ignoring student loans (because nobody wants to be in debt), anybody can go to college/ university. That opportunity is the same for rich or poor but the outcome would obviously be that the poor could not go to school. The issue is that forcing an equal outcome is rarely good, and merit should be the main factor considered. However many people don't have the opportunity the earn or prove their merit.
How do you measure merit in isolation/a vacuum?
That is by definition why efforts to obtain an equal opportunity for all must continue. No human system is perfect because the world isn't perfect. But it sure beats "equitable outcome". That's an even worse problem presented as a solution.
@@kra29228 merit isnt in a vaccuum and its easily measurable.
The whole notion of "equality" is just ridiculous. Yes, it should be strive for within the law, but no one is equal in this world due to the mere fact that no person is the same. So outside law, it is a pipe dream to think you can get equality, even opportunity. The root of unhappiness is based on the notion of believing you can achieve the unachievable.
I agree wholeheartedly. You do children a great disservice by telling them that they could be anything the wanted to be. That creates expectations that cannot be fulfilled - hence unhappiness.
You could be the best you you can be but no more. You could unfortunately be a lot worse than the best you you could be. Telling kids they are special guarantees this.
I think equality of opportunity is a wonderful goal that should be strived for. Of course equality of opportunity won't mean equality of outcome on an individual level.
@@commandershepard9920 Sorry, but at what level could equal outcomes be expected?
@@Brommear Firstly, I *think* they would argue that perfectly equal outcomes is not the goal.
Secondly, I think they mean in terms of groups.
Ie, "make the gap in outcomes smaller between lower economic class and higher economic class,"
or
"make the gap in outcomes smaller between people living in this district vs that district."
I'm just spitballing, but this would be my guess. Ie, financial incentives for lower economic class students to still be able attend college even if they can't afford it so they can still try (ie, given the opportunity) to succeed in academics and not be prohibited due to economic reasons (the fact that college is so insanely, stupid expensive is a whole 'nother bag of worms).
I'm not saying I agree with this position by the way, I guess you could say I'm steelmanning (or attempting to).
@@commandershepard9920 First, I agree with you that this is a class thing, not an identity thing. However,nobody is framing it like that.
Second, I'm all for economic assistance for poor people. That does not mean lowering entrance standards or discrimination against other groups like white males or Asian-American students. There should be some kind of means test for assistance.
This whole argument pivots on the belief that disparities in representation is due to less opportunity and not the individual’s agency to choose. I wouldn’t be surprised if this was attributed to Academia’s push for the importance of the group over the individual.
This is fantastic to watch ! People having a discussion in a rational politeful way ! bravo !
If outcome was top priority, referring to the male mechanical engineers the first guy mentioned, some of them would be fired to put some women in that position. The problem would be that some of those women would have less interest in teaching mech. engineering, and some might be less qualified, but displacing men and hiring more women only because of the gender would lower the standard of the students' education.
Hiring qualified women is great, but hiring only based on gender lowers the standard.
Similar for school teachers, grades 1-6 are hugely disproportionately women. Shall we fire some of them to hire men?
All people deserve is equality and fairness, what they do with that is there responsibility. Can’t guarantee everyone has the same opportunity because the affects are cumulative, if I work extremely hard and I’m successful my kids might have privileges afforded to them that others don’t. You can’t legislate that away, you just have to make sure people aren’t discriminated against for any reasons and corruption doesn’t influence decisions. Legally and from the governments point of view the major consideration is that all people are equal under the law, and then you can have minimum standards for social services that are provided for all people like a certain level of education and healthcare .
If results are extremely inequal how do you know there's no corruption.
@@Apjooz like if a well off kid had parents who got him tutors and encouraged him to study does better on his MCAT and gets chosen over a kid who didn’t have a tutor or a family that pushed him and the first person gets accepted it’s fine. If the first person doesn’t do better on the exam but his parents made a big donation so he gets accepted anyways that’s bad. There’s a lot of obvious corruption that can be weeded out
Finally. Thank you. This is beautiful, I almost cried when I saw Peter Boghossian's face. They're so close.
That was discourse at its finest! Great work, kids!
Notice the people for pushing equity have never actually done any work.
how do you know that?
Exactly
Why don't we see more Indian public school teachers? It doesn't pay enough.
Indians prefer to be engineers, doctors, lawyers, business...That's why the are the most sucessful group in US.
They were so willing to listen to ideas and reason. This was refreshing to watch. Some of the others were so stressful to watch because people were so brainwashed that no amount of logic would change their minds.
Amazing format Dr. B. Keep up the stellar work.
Here for the thumbnail 😍
If I were this professor, upon meeting the participants, I would have changed the question to, “Is there a point in the future when traditionally-Hindu holidays will become federal holidays in the United States, and if so, when might this happen?”
I LOVE the coffee house conversation. I have a say, you sip and think, you have a say , I have a think and a sip.
Good old days
Love the dude grinding down the pizza. He's relentless! I bet if you put free pizza on one end or another, all those college kids would "gravitate".
Opportunity of outcome: Given two people who were afforded the same opportunity to achieve something, the outcome of their opportunity, REGARDLESS OF EFFORT, shall be the same.
It is clear that, if opportunity of outcome was guaranteed, the overwhelming amount of people will do the minimum to achieve their goals (or no effort at all). And, if this is the case, where is the fairness towards those who do their very best? In the end, lack of effort will dominate and society will decay. There will be no incentive to innovate, to do good. That's a recipe for destruction.
Insincere outcomes. Brilliant.
The final point made was the one I was waiting to be said the entire video. It sums up affirmative action perfectly
It’s unbelievable how hard it is for young people to comprehend the value and importance of equality of opportunity over outcome.
I am 19, it seems to be pretty simple. Opportunity is about guaranteeing a fair game. Outcome is about guaranteeing who wins the game. You cant run an economy or society with predetermined winners and losers.
Affirmative action is injust.
Especially to the people it's "helping".
What's your critical thinking method? Here's mine. Its not perfect. I was taught the PROP method in high school. I combine that with the scientific method.
method:
I’m skeptical. I don't believe anything permanently or completely.
stage 1: Decide what facts to check.
1. Learn about the topic from many sources.
2. Hear lies and truth.
3. Hear opposing arguments.
4. Hear from sources I trust and don't trust.
5. Determine what I want to know, and how certain to be. Sometimes I accept a truth (with low confidence its true) because the consequence of being wrong is low.
stage 2: Check facts.
The quantity and quality of evidence I look for depends on the importance of the truth.
I like the PROP method for evaluating a source. I was taught it in high school.
Primary: Is it a primary source?
Reason: What's the reason to lie?
Other: Do other sources support this one?
Public: They say a private statement is more reliable. I don't usually use this one.
Censoring or tampering stops me from learning about an issue. It makes me distrust the censorers. I then remain undecided. I try to restore the free speech and help those being censored, so I can learn.
I also like the scientific method.
I consider a science study better if it has more of these features.
1. large sample size
2. Sources of error are low.
3. if clinical: randomized double blind placebo control
4. good statistics
@ David Smolinski, speaking as an educator who also vets information and reading materials as part of my job, I find your method and rationale to be excellent. Thank you for sharing.
@@DoReMeaCulpa Half my comments get deleted for this video. If it happens again, should I unsubscribe? Am I not allowed to talk about a likely medical genocide that the current president seems to promote?
This is real education! Love it. Masterly conclusion from the tutor.
Start everything with common sense, leave feeling aside , think then speak. The gentleman in the chair , good comment, good discussion