The fallacy of non-identical outcomes
The fallacy of (non-)identical outcomes
Any two non-identical groups of human beings will, by virtue of the very fact that they are identifiably non-identical groups, have non-identical characteristics, and will therefore be reasonably expected to experience non-identical outcomes.
Relevant characteristics to any given outcome can be incorporated into two categories, one covering all relevant involuntary characteristics, the other covering all relevant voluntary characteristics. We might call these two categories potentiality and choices.
If two groups are identifiably non-identical, it is very likely that they will firstly, proceed with non-identical potentiality, for example differing averaged-out innate abilities, or inheritance, and secondly make non-identical choices, on average, on all sorts of levels. The end outcome (or actuality, if you like) cannot, therefore, be reasonably expected to be the identical.
The fallacy of non-identical outcomes is the fallacy that if any two non-identical groups of human beings experience non-identical outcomes, this can be taken to constitute evidence of acts of injustice.
In practice, the normal language used is that non-identical outcomes are "inequality" showing evidence of "discrimination". Unfortunately, this fallacy dominates analysis of both ethnicity and gender in the modern West.
Any two non-identical groups of human beings will, by virtue of the very fact that they are identifiably non-identical groups, have non-identical characteristics, and will therefore be reasonably expected to experience non-identical outcomes.
Relevant characteristics to any given outcome can be incorporated into two categories, one covering all relevant involuntary characteristics, the other covering all relevant voluntary characteristics. We might call these two categories potentiality and choices.
If two groups are identifiably non-identical, it is very likely that they will firstly, proceed with non-identical potentiality, for example differing averaged-out innate abilities, or inheritance, and secondly make non-identical choices, on average, on all sorts of levels. The end outcome (or actuality, if you like) cannot, therefore, be reasonably expected to be the identical.
The fallacy of non-identical outcomes is the fallacy that if any two non-identical groups of human beings experience non-identical outcomes, this can be taken to constitute evidence of acts of injustice.
In practice, the normal language used is that non-identical outcomes are "inequality" showing evidence of "discrimination". Unfortunately, this fallacy dominates analysis of both ethnicity and gender in the modern West.
Note that identifying this fallacy does not exclude the possibility that non-identical outcomes could be influenced by acts of injustice - that would be a fallacious use of the non-identical outcomes fallacy. The fallacy is that non-identical outcomes are evidence of acts of injustice.
Further discussion
We could look at the percentage of people aged 16 to 64 years in employment within each ethnic group in the UK in 2017.
These data would be found here:
https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/work-pay-and-benefits/employment/employment/latest
The data show us that 77% of whites and 67% of blacks were employed. The fallacy would be to assume that this constitutes evidence of acts of injustice. The normal phrasing would be that the figures show inequality, and discrimination against blacks.
(Remember, the fallacious use of the fallacy would be to assume that, as this does not constitute evidence of acts of injustice, we can exclude the possibility of acts of injustice.)
If we look further at the figures, we see some interesting numbers. Indians had an employment rate of 74%, while "other Asians" (i.e. not India, Pakistan, or Bangladesh) had an employment rate of 64%. White British had an employment rate of 76%, while white non-British had an employment rate of 81%. If we were to take lower employment figures to indicate discrimination, we might or might not feel obliged to explain:
(1) ...why Indians appear only 2 percentage points discriminated against (compared to white non-British) in contrast to blacks at 9 points, and "other Asians" at 12 points... Is there any evidence of this quite specific trend in discrimination?
(2) ...why the white British appear to suffer discrimination, of 5 points, to the benefit of the white non-British.
Further discussion
We could look at the percentage of people aged 16 to 64 years in employment within each ethnic group in the UK in 2017.
These data would be found here:
https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/work-pay-and-benefits/employment/employment/latest
The data show us that 77% of whites and 67% of blacks were employed. The fallacy would be to assume that this constitutes evidence of acts of injustice. The normal phrasing would be that the figures show inequality, and discrimination against blacks.
(Remember, the fallacious use of the fallacy would be to assume that, as this does not constitute evidence of acts of injustice, we can exclude the possibility of acts of injustice.)
If we look further at the figures, we see some interesting numbers. Indians had an employment rate of 74%, while "other Asians" (i.e. not India, Pakistan, or Bangladesh) had an employment rate of 64%. White British had an employment rate of 76%, while white non-British had an employment rate of 81%. If we were to take lower employment figures to indicate discrimination, we might or might not feel obliged to explain:
(1) ...why Indians appear only 2 percentage points discriminated against (compared to white non-British) in contrast to blacks at 9 points, and "other Asians" at 12 points... Is there any evidence of this quite specific trend in discrimination?
(2) ...why the white British appear to suffer discrimination, of 5 points, to the benefit of the white non-British.
Comments
Post a Comment