I really enjoyed learning about your work at the conference!
I spoke to some of the other conference attendees about the peculiar mix of approaches at the Heterodox conference too - we were amused that it seemed to be an uneasy alliance between classical liberals and those who aim to get back to Enlightenment values/principles, paternalistic conservatives and some of the nativist / identitarian right (who don’t like term “ethnonationalists” in a way that reminds me of “woke” people not liking that label, at least in terms of the level of defensiveness). The only thing that unites all these viewpoints is that they’ve been firmly rejected by the “woke orthodoxy” that you describe and that can turn into a kind of grievance identity in and of itself.
On your specific criticism of the speaker who wouldn’t allow gender surgery for adults though, I am curious what you think of the comparison between gender affirming surgery and other analogous situations such as extreme body modification or treatment that involves cutting off healthy limbs as a remedy for able bodied people who identify as disabled or things like extreme cannibalism. I do think gender affirming surgery goes further than something like breast augmentation surgery so it’s more analogous to those other situations - in those realms, there has also been a fierce medical debate over whether doctors should cut off the healthy limbs or not (usually coming out in favour of not doing so). Given this, I’m not as certain as you are that the debate about adult surgery is only due to how the trans issue has played out. It’s also a very common complaint amongst adult women who identify as “childfree” that many doctors will not give them sterilisation surgery even if they desperately want it and are sure they will never change their minds. So, permanent infertility is already something that doctors feel very hesitant about even for consenting adults.
Even if we grant that it is exactly the same as cosmetic surgery though, it also worth noting that even in the realm of cosmetic surgery, the UK doesn’t actually allow many forms of “extreme” cosmetic surgery even if people say they consent to it - many people go abroad or to other less regulated countries for those kinds of treatments.
I wonder if there is a difference at all between the UK and America overall in terms of how it deals with these scenarios and how paternalistic it is?
I was going to pass a similar comment. You have covered my concerns very well.
The adult population on cross sex hormones we understand will have shortened lives from metabolic disease and hormone related cancers, the bottom surgery group persisting surgical complucations and the associated psych issues persist. The previously unacknowlegded risks are starting to become more evident, which gives strong grounds for caution.
“How much is the optimal amount of affirmative action? The answer seems to me to be nonzero.”
You should be focusing on merit but with the kind of gaps you’d expect from a poorer education. Maybe lower scores on the vocabulary section of the SAT and higher scores on areas that demonstrate comprehension.
Bottom line is that you are looking for untapped ability not actuated performance. IQ tests are designed for measuring such things.
“What about cases where the observed merit is lower but the latent factor is probably higher? For example, a 1450 SAT from a poor public school kid is probably more impressive than a 1500 from a rich private school kid.”
At this level you don’t have much of a statistical gap between the two results (however, 50 points is larger than the margin of error). Both students fall within the top 2-5 percent of all students.
Your case would be better if you were looking at 1300 and 1250. Here 50 has a greater statistical significance, but the case for taking the student who comes from a worse school has more plausibility.
Really excellent articulation about the merits of using the easy way to measure merit vs the missing merits that are less easy to measure. Before you mentioned it, I was wondering about SAT scores. 1450 for a poor guy might be more impressive than a rich kid’s (disability assisted? 40% at Stanford) 1500, but what about 1400, or 1300?
Looking at Civil Service, which gives specific points for prior military service, I’d say the poor kid’s SAT / academic potential should able to be raised by up to 100 points, taking all SES factors into account. That’s a limited amount of subjective points combined with a majority of objective points.
The law inevitably is limited to categories easy to measure.
Glad CATO agrees federal funds are not a right for colleges to receive, I assume also not tax exemptions. A requirement for tax benefits is to be non-partisan, but all the elite colleges are both partisan & dishonest about it.
You are right that Diversity & Inclusion are good, but in our 2 party democracy, plus many other fringe parties like Libertarians & Greens & Reform (‘92 HR Perot, anti-globalist), the professors should be more like Congress, for less unbalanced partisanship. Each major party is a coalition of various factions, with a significant but limited diversity. (Sadly, both now favor bigger govt.)
We don’t get heterodox thru rebranding non-woke folk, we get there by having more Republican professors. Non-partisan should be objectively defined as at least 30% D & 30% R professors, with an office of non-partisanship, kinda D&I ( not Equity) to achieve, and enforce with measurement, that non-partisan requirement.
With it legal for edu orgs to ignore, but ends tax benefits for any such partisan college.
Enforcement of the current law is enough, but regulations require a clear boundary, so it can be enforced.
I really enjoyed learning about your work at the conference!
I spoke to some of the other conference attendees about the peculiar mix of approaches at the Heterodox conference too - we were amused that it seemed to be an uneasy alliance between classical liberals and those who aim to get back to Enlightenment values/principles, paternalistic conservatives and some of the nativist / identitarian right (who don’t like term “ethnonationalists” in a way that reminds me of “woke” people not liking that label, at least in terms of the level of defensiveness). The only thing that unites all these viewpoints is that they’ve been firmly rejected by the “woke orthodoxy” that you describe and that can turn into a kind of grievance identity in and of itself.
On your specific criticism of the speaker who wouldn’t allow gender surgery for adults though, I am curious what you think of the comparison between gender affirming surgery and other analogous situations such as extreme body modification or treatment that involves cutting off healthy limbs as a remedy for able bodied people who identify as disabled or things like extreme cannibalism. I do think gender affirming surgery goes further than something like breast augmentation surgery so it’s more analogous to those other situations - in those realms, there has also been a fierce medical debate over whether doctors should cut off the healthy limbs or not (usually coming out in favour of not doing so). Given this, I’m not as certain as you are that the debate about adult surgery is only due to how the trans issue has played out. It’s also a very common complaint amongst adult women who identify as “childfree” that many doctors will not give them sterilisation surgery even if they desperately want it and are sure they will never change their minds. So, permanent infertility is already something that doctors feel very hesitant about even for consenting adults.
Even if we grant that it is exactly the same as cosmetic surgery though, it also worth noting that even in the realm of cosmetic surgery, the UK doesn’t actually allow many forms of “extreme” cosmetic surgery even if people say they consent to it - many people go abroad or to other less regulated countries for those kinds of treatments.
I wonder if there is a difference at all between the UK and America overall in terms of how it deals with these scenarios and how paternalistic it is?
I was going to pass a similar comment. You have covered my concerns very well.
The adult population on cross sex hormones we understand will have shortened lives from metabolic disease and hormone related cancers, the bottom surgery group persisting surgical complucations and the associated psych issues persist. The previously unacknowlegded risks are starting to become more evident, which gives strong grounds for caution.
“How much is the optimal amount of affirmative action? The answer seems to me to be nonzero.”
You should be focusing on merit but with the kind of gaps you’d expect from a poorer education. Maybe lower scores on the vocabulary section of the SAT and higher scores on areas that demonstrate comprehension.
Bottom line is that you are looking for untapped ability not actuated performance. IQ tests are designed for measuring such things.
“What about cases where the observed merit is lower but the latent factor is probably higher? For example, a 1450 SAT from a poor public school kid is probably more impressive than a 1500 from a rich private school kid.”
At this level you don’t have much of a statistical gap between the two results (however, 50 points is larger than the margin of error). Both students fall within the top 2-5 percent of all students.
Your case would be better if you were looking at 1300 and 1250. Here 50 has a greater statistical significance, but the case for taking the student who comes from a worse school has more plausibility.
Really excellent articulation about the merits of using the easy way to measure merit vs the missing merits that are less easy to measure. Before you mentioned it, I was wondering about SAT scores. 1450 for a poor guy might be more impressive than a rich kid’s (disability assisted? 40% at Stanford) 1500, but what about 1400, or 1300?
Looking at Civil Service, which gives specific points for prior military service, I’d say the poor kid’s SAT / academic potential should able to be raised by up to 100 points, taking all SES factors into account. That’s a limited amount of subjective points combined with a majority of objective points.
The law inevitably is limited to categories easy to measure.
Glad CATO agrees federal funds are not a right for colleges to receive, I assume also not tax exemptions. A requirement for tax benefits is to be non-partisan, but all the elite colleges are both partisan & dishonest about it.
You are right that Diversity & Inclusion are good, but in our 2 party democracy, plus many other fringe parties like Libertarians & Greens & Reform (‘92 HR Perot, anti-globalist), the professors should be more like Congress, for less unbalanced partisanship. Each major party is a coalition of various factions, with a significant but limited diversity. (Sadly, both now favor bigger govt.)
We don’t get heterodox thru rebranding non-woke folk, we get there by having more Republican professors. Non-partisan should be objectively defined as at least 30% D & 30% R professors, with an office of non-partisanship, kinda D&I ( not Equity) to achieve, and enforce with measurement, that non-partisan requirement.
With it legal for edu orgs to ignore, but ends tax benefits for any such partisan college.
Enforcement of the current law is enough, but regulations require a clear boundary, so it can be enforced.