Inequality — animals, humans, interviews
Tags: Equality, Data Science, Inequality

While strolling around a temple at Yogyakarta, I saw animals:

Elephants — stuck on a tiny island caked with their refuse. Also chained, but makes me wonder if it would stop them at all when push came to shove.

Cassowarries — locked in a little cage with not much to do — just by reclining they already occupy more than half the width of their prison.

Cats — wandering around the temple park, with the occasional human feeding it.

This makes me think — isn’t inequality prevalent in animals? If you were born an elephant or a cassowary, that’s your lot. If you’re a dog or cat, you have a chance of being taken care of and ‘living the good life’.

You might say that dogs and cats could also be eaten or treated poorly (like strays). Then we draw a distinction between intra-animal inequality (like stray dog versus princess dog) and inter-animal inequality (like wandering cat versus inmate elephant).

I wonder, if the proponents of equality ever had pets or visited the zoo. How did they feel then? Would they have fought for the animals’ equality as fervently as they fought for humans’?

Probably not (at least based on the SJWs I see), so here are some possibilities of why not:

One step at a time, Jose. Fight for humans first, then bother about animals later. I suppose there is inequality even in the fight for inequality, namely who should be pushed toward equality first. The irony.

Humans > animals. We can think of inequality and be outraged, but animals can’t. Another way to put this is, because you complain (humans can complain, animals can’t) so we have to pander to you. Else, it’s open season. So he who complains loudest gets special attention.

Another possibility is we can be empathetic to humans, if we see inequality administered (What is inequality, anyway?) we can imagine ourselves in the receiving end and work against it. On the other hand, we can’t imagine the same with animals.

Oh, you can’t? Can you imagine sitting in a cage like a chicken all day, reared for its eggs?

I suppose not, but can you imagine bending your head over and picking food off the ground? A human mind in an animal body will surely lead to unhappiness.

Another possibility is we can be empathetic to humans, if we see inequality administered (What is inequality, anyway?) we can imagine ourselves in the receiving end and work against it. On the other hand, we can’t imagine the same with animals. Oh, you can’t? Can you imagine sitting in a cage like a chicken all day, reared for its eggs? I suppose not, but can you imagine bending your head over and picking food off the ground? A human mind in an animal body will surely lead to unhappiness. Inequality only when it benefits me! The criterion for these on any movement is — what’s in it for me? One should always beware of people who claim psychic harm — when asked to put money where their mouth is, it quickly vanishes.

I knew someone who was strongly against animal cruelty. So much so that apparently by being indifferent to a purring stray cat, I got told off as a cruel person. I asked her why she wasn’t a vegetarian and the response was something along the lines of ‘I can’t do it, but I truly admire the people who can’. Then I asked her why she only cared for cats but not say, elephants and cassowaries. The response — ‘Oh I do care for them and I feel enraged when I see them locked up’. That’s not productive, isn’t it? Did the animals benefit from your rage? At least professing your love for animals while doing diddly about it makes you feel good.

The thing about inequality is, the concept of equal is hard to pin down — everyone has their own ideas of it and what it stands for. However, it is a yahoo word — a word that when said, automatically makes sunshine come out of you (other examples are just, fair, love etc) so it’s used liberally by people to sell their cause, or make themselves feel good.

What is inequality?

When it’s talked about, generally people have two ideas in mind — equality of outcome and equality of opportunity. We’ll take a look at the more naive one first:

Equality of outcome — you’ve seen this very often. There aren’t enough females/blacks/<insert group of interest> in X, therefore something must be wrong! We must restore parity! What’s wrong with this?

Firstly — why do we even think parity is the natural state? Here’s a thought experiment. Jack and Jill are both singers, but Jack is far better than Jill at singing. So Jack sells more records than Jill and the result is not 50–50. In reality how many outcomes are even at parity? Someone has to lose the basketball game.

Secondly — if you would insist that some kind of measure be introduced to siphon Jack’s earnings to Jill’s, Jack may be okay with it because one can’t be good at everything. For example, maybe Jill is better at baking, and Jack is happy to provide a cash transfer in anticipation of some intervention when it comes to baking. Obviously we can’t have too much transfers, or Jack might be discouraged from singing completely and we all don’t get to enjoy his singing anymore. What should be the optimal transfer? We can rely on governments, the most vocal lynch mob, or ask God.

This is a close parallel to taxes, but the point I’m trying to illustrate here is people are diverse, and diverse people naturally lead to unequal outcomes. Diversity or equality — you can’t have both.

Now that we’ve gone through equality of outcome, let’s go for the next interpretation of equality — equality of opportunity. I doubt anyone would be against this in principle — everyone who would like to should have a fair go, yes?

Of course it doesn’t work that way in the real world. How do you know if you didn’t have a fair go? It’s easy to measure inequality if we demand equality of outcome. Equality of opportunity is grey. My thoughts are — stop thinking about it because it’s unproductive.

Adversity (Inequality?) and responses

For the uninitiated — there are broadly two kinds of data scientists — the ones whose background are more mathematical/statistical, and the ones whose background are more CS/Software Engineering. In recent times being good at both is the gold standard but for now just accept there are these two groups, which sets the context for my experience below.

I’ve been rejected from a firm because I couldn’t pass the technical test — the technical test was ostensibly ‘Data science’, but it actually came out as Algorithms (More like CS). So for myself, which is more mathematically/statistically leaning, that tripped me up and I didn’t do well.

The test does suggest that the hiring side has a CS lean for their Data Scientists — perhaps they expect that their Data Scientists should know something about Algorithms. I’m sure I could have set a similar mathematical test and trip up CS-leaning Data Scientists, or bring value to the table by communicating more easily with business (as was the case with my past engagements — mathematical/statistical leans tend to be better at convincing business that the model works).

So did I have equal opportunity? You could say yes, since everyone has to pass through the same technical test. You could say no, since it’s a test that mathematically inclined DSes (let’s just use that term to describe profiles similar to mine) are likelier to fail. The point is, for as long as I harp on it, nothing productive happens.

Knowing that this is my weakness, I can work on it. Complaining that it should have been a more mathematical test does nothing (if anything, it moves all the responsibility away from me — I don’t have to do diddly, it’s them who has to change!) Of course, if I did somehow join that firm in the future, I would do something about the test (which becomes a case of me introducing more diversity or put more politically incorrectly, a case of imposing my own biases), but I would do it only if I joined.

Don’t hate the player, hate the game

I’d rather effect change only after going through the gauntlet. What do you think would happen if I kicked up a fuss and under pressure, the firm let me join? How would everyone else in the firm feel? What about those mathematical DSes that worked on Algorithms until they could pass the test?

If you want to see change, implement it when you’ve reached the top. Don’t be one of those morally outraged people, who flaunt their collective outrage as if that were good enough reason to take their demands seriously. How many can consistently apply their beliefs — to animals, to other humans and groups that they are not member to?

They’re just out for themselves.