From: johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall)
Subject: Re: Pardon me, whilst I get raw (was: "Reflections [...]")
Date: 15 Dec 92 19:18:59 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Followup-To: alt.discrimination

In article isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:
| This is a broad-based reply and has very little to do with John Hall.

Ok.  Before I reply let me state that Clarles has delievered
an excellent piece of work that was a joy to read.  I salute him.
If he every wants a letter of recommendation at Microsoft, I'll
give it to him.

| |Stigmatization is a rational response to the knowledge that
| |honors have been given away.  It is an inevitable result.
| |People (like yourself, I presume) who are qualified by any
| |standard either resent the stigmatization (Carter, Sowell, Steele)
| |or rationalize it by saying everyone is bigoted, anyway.
| 
| Sometimes you just have to get raw.

[I like your version of raw -- no yelling, clear concise prose, ...]

| 
| You confuse "knowledge" with "perception."  I know, for example, that
| promotions and jobs are doled out in ways that have very little to do
| with the best qualifications (most jobs are found by word-of-mouth,
| that is, to abuse notation, nepotism).  That people selectively "know"
| that Black people are given jobs while they also "know" that the
| internship they got with pop's company because he knew the people in
| charge was something they earned is an interesting example of the
| human ability to rationalize, but it does not make their perceptions
| any more reflective of reality.

Excellent points.  Certainly, things get much more confused once you
move away from the relatively well defined world of admissions (Hey, I 
said relatively, Ok?).

Perhaps the best explanation lies in a mixture of the two.  The person
who got the job because of pop isn't stigmitized on sight because
he is not a member of a group that has been politicized as recieving
unfair advantage -- although he definitely was the recipiant of such.
Further, the perception of someone who sees him is that few people
are the recipiant of such nepotism, and absent direct evidence it
isn't appropriate to assume such.

Bigotry would tend to magnify the perception of the percentage
of blacks who recieve special favors (although berkley data 
idicates that it is high, I don't think berkley is that common 
as a model).  Thus, your point that the people were bigoted
in the first place.

However, there has been some data that bigotry has increased in 
people not predisposed to it due to some AA programs.  'Some'
is key in two places there -- such things are notoriously hard
to measure and the implementation specifics of a particular
program at a particular place may aggrevate problems.

Moveing AA to an economic basis from race may
help alleviate this.  You can't identify prior poverty as well
as you can identify ethnic identity.  

So, I'll back off a bit.  I still think the stigmitazation is
real, but I think bigotry magnifies it and that different approaches
might do as much good while significantly reduceing such effects.

| It would not surprise me if many people in the lab think I was "given"
| my position in the MIT AI lab; however, I do not care.  You see, they	
| forget: I've seen them write--most in this field are horribly dry
| writers who couldn't explain their research to themselves--and I
| understand much of their work.  It is obvious to me that I am more
| than qualified to be here.

I've seen you write, too.  Based on nothing else you are definitely
qualified to be there.  On the other hand, I doubt if many people
who have worked with you think you have been 'given' anything.  In
my experience, bright people identify other bright people quickly
and rarely make a mistake unless they are doing the relationship
dance.

| The problem with most people, Black and White, is that they are too
| concerned with the rubber stamp of their so-called peers; they let the
| petty ignorance of others get to them.  They self-deprecate because it
| is social convention and the vie for the the adulation and envy of
| those around them thru various material possessions and social awards.
| And even while they're doing this, they're trying to tear down others,
| participating int he cycle of petty ignorance and envy.
| 
| I find this insane.  

Amen to all of that.

| The vast majority of the complainers would do well to take to their
| own "stop whining and blaming other folks for your own lazy,
| unqualifed failures" rhetoric and play it back to themselves.  Face
| it, you just weren't good enough and wherever you are you're probably
| in over your head.  You may take comfort in the fact that most of the
| people around you are as well.  With this in mind, be happy you've
| made it this far and try to do well.  Not all your failures are due to
| you and neither are all your successes.  But even so, each failure and
| each success *belong* to you.  Take them and learn something from them
| and stop wasting your time arguing over silly things.

I'll agree with this, too.  Personally, I don't feel 'victimized' by
AA at all.  I find it an interesting academic question, not a personal
one.

| My reading of the man is such
| that I do not think he has held himself back.  

Definitely not.  His advice on the AA question: Don't get mad, just
explain what you have *done* with the opportunities provided you.

| In fact, I wouldn't
| even do him the disservice of comparing him to Shelby Steele, who
| couldn't construct a cogent argument if ideas were made of lego blocks
| or Thomas Sowell, who has to have written the windiest and most
| ridiculous article I've ever seen in _Forbes_.

I've not read much Steele.  Sowell has an excellent reputation as
an economist and I found ``Preferential Policies'' very well done.
That doesn't mean he didn't have a windy, 
ridiculous article in _Forbes_.

| From the little I know, I respect Carter.  

So do I.

| If I am unapologetic about my circumstances and you find me conceited
| and arrogant, well that's too bad for you.  

I don't think you have anything to apologize for.  I do note
you are expecting a different reaction than you are getting.

I moved this to the bottom:

| And the fact that he *does* feel stigmatized does not say anything
| either.  Your argument works both ways I'm afraid.  

No, since absence of evidence proves nothing but presence proves
everything.  

-- 
-------------------------
My comments are my own.  They are independent and unrelated to the
views of my company , relatives or elected representatives.

Newsgroups: alt.discrimination