Yes, a 'random' condition can lead to an inequitable outcome. But is a random condition like this analogous to how our society operates, or how we should want it to?
I don't think that this means inequity is inevitable (although to some extent I would say it is). I'd say this is a good example of how we should be careful in how we set our policies, not whether or not we should have policies at all.
The real question is how much inequity is bad for a society, and how much control of policies comes from that inequity. I think we can agree that the options of a) give all the money to the government and let them distribute it equally among the populace and b) Give all the money to Islander and let him distribute it as he sees fit are probably both too extreme to be good solutions. So somewhere in the middle we have to agree on a level of regulation and field leveling that keeps us from armed revolution. How are we doing with that today?
Yes, but that's all social science which is way outside my area of expertise. No matter how well you jack a thread there's always someone trying to pull it back on topic.
Yes, a 'random' condition can lead to an inequitable outcome. But is a random condition like this analogous to how our society operates, or how we should want it to?
I don't think that this means inequity is inevitable (although to some extent I would say it is). I'd say this is a good example of how we should be careful in how we set our policies, not whether or not we should have policies at all.
The real question is how much inequity is bad for a society, and how much control of policies comes from that inequity. I think we can agree that the options of a) give all the money to the government and let them distribute it equally among the populace and b) Give all the money to Islander and let him distribute it as he sees fit are probably both too extreme to be good solutions. So somewhere in the middle we have to agree on a level of regulation and field leveling that keeps us from armed revolution. How are we doing with that today?
Coming up with a precise mathematical definition of "perfectly random" is in itself a tricky proposition. That being said a good random number generating algorithm will produce numbers with a uniform distribution and give you the same bell curves you get measuring real random processes. In some sense they are too good to be really random. As for why we use them you might just as well ask why try to build a house if you can't measure with perfect precision.
True dat. Point taken. Except that I am living perfectly comfortable in a house measured with imperfect precision.
Interesting discussion. What drew me here was the coin flip. I recall hearing that a coin will come up heads more often because of it's overall shape. Can't remember if they were talking about a specific coin, like the one they use in football, or just any coin in general. The point is, the flip coin example is flawed.
Next you have the random function in computer language. I haven't programmed in years (so correct me if I am wrong in what I am about to say) but I recall using Random(seed number) and always thought that the necessity of the seed number proved that no matter how random it is, it's still not perfect. So i don't know why we would base real life problems on imperfect models.
Still, I do find it fascinating. But Gunsmoke is calling.
Coming up with a precise mathematical definition of "perfectly random" is in itself a tricky proposition. That being said a good random number generating algorithm will produce numbers with a uniform distribution and give you the same bell curves you get measuring real random processes. In some sense they are too good to be really random. As for why we use them you might just as well ask why try to build a house if you can't measure with perfect precision.
Interesting discussion. What drew me here was the coin flip. I recall hearing that a coin will come up heads more often because of it's overall shape. Can't remember if they were talking about a specific coin, like the one they use in football, or just any coin in general. The point is, the flip coin example is flawed.
Next you have the random function in computer language. I haven't programmed in years (so correct me if I am wrong in what I am about to say) but I recall using Random(seed number) and always thought that the necessity of the seed number proved that no matter how random it is, it's still not perfect. So i don't know why we would base real life problems on imperfect models.
Still, I do find it fascinating. But Gunsmoke is calling.
I don't know if it is exactly true, perhaps someone could wrote a computer simulation of it to check, but it goes like this....
If you put a hundred or three hundred or fourty-six people in a room, and gave them each the exact same amount of money, say a hundred bucks in one buck coins, and had them toss the coins with each other heads or tails...and whoever won the toss would get to keep the coin, you'd think it would go on forever and everything would stay pretty much as it started out.
It's a 50/50 thing, right?
Apparently not.
In the end, one person would end up with all the money, and everyone else would end up empty handed.
Hence, Inequality is something we don't know how to fix because we actually can't permanently and properly fix it, and it will always be with us. It's a part of life as much as birth and death.
Hence, equality of opportunity is a good thing that must happen, but equality of outcome is unattainable and cannot even be legislated for.
I found it an interesting thought....
The key here is what ends it. If you're only going to play for an hour then obviously it's not very likely. If you start making real world assumptions (anathema to most mathematicians) like it takes 5 seconds to flip a coin and nobody is going to live longer than 100 years then maybe not either. If on the other hand you give them immortality and make them keep playing as long as at least two of them have coins then this is the only way it can end. Even though the odds are 50 50 on each individual toss if you do it long enough eventually it will come up heads 100 times in a row. Once a player loses his stake he is out of the game for all eternity. This is akin to the monkeys typing the works of Shakespeare. Even though your computer simulation could toss coins much faster it might not even get there before the sun burns out. Aleph null though is a very very big "number".
I don't know if it is exactly true, perhaps someone could wrote a computer simulation of it to check, but it goes like this....
If you put a hundred or three hundred or fourty-six people in a room, and gave them each the exact same amount of money, say a hundred bucks in one buck coins, and had them toss the coins with each other heads or tails...and whoever won the toss would get to keep the coin, you'd think it would go on forever and everything would stay pretty much as it started out.
It's a 50/50 thing, right?
Apparently not.
In the end, one person would end up with all the money, and everyone else would end up empty handed.
Hence, Inequality is something we don't know how to fix because we actually can't permanently and properly fix it, and it will always be with us. It's a part of life as much as birth and death.
Hence, equality of opportunity is a good thing that must happen, but equality of outcome is unattainable and cannot even be legislated for.
I don't know if it is exactly true, perhaps someone could wrote a computer simulation of it to check, but it goes like this....
If you put a hundred or three hundred or fourty-six people in a room, and gave them each the exact same amount of money, say a hundred bucks in one buck coins, and had them toss the coins with each other heads or tails...and whoever won the toss would get to keep the coin, you'd think it would go on forever and everything would stay pretty much as it started out.
It's a 50/50 thing, right?
Apparently not.
In the end, one person would end up with all the money, and everyone else would end up empty handed.
Hence, Inequality is something we don't know how to fix because we actually can't permanently and properly fix it, and it will always be with us. It's a part of life as much as birth and death.
Hence, equality of opportunity is a good thing that must happen, but equality of outcome is unattainable and cannot even be legislated for.
Can we create a third wave of poverty reduction and get close to eradicating extreme poverty? Bill Gates gave a talk at the foundation’s annual Goalkeepers event where he told the story of progress so far, the challenges that remain, and how we can solve them.
with all due respect to jodie, initiating an attack on someone who has legitimately produced or created wealth simply because of their wealth is poor logic
I didn't get that from what she said. I interpreted what she said differently. I feel most who legitimately produced or created their status did so with some basics things in place that were once available to all. Now things like a decent education, a safe place to live with plenty to eat and good healthcare are reserved for those that can afford it or at least whose parent's can afford it.Granted there has always been a rich/poor gap in this country but I do believe that is getting wider. If the wealthy paid their fair share, more would benefit. By skipping out on paying their fair share, the wealthy are perpetuating and growing the gap while securing their place in the future.
with all due respect to jodie/buddhuu , initiating an attack on someone who has legitimately produced or created wealth simply because of their wealth is poor logic
Few will deny 2017 was a rough year. But believe it or not, we’re still living in the best time ever to be alive, and the world as a whole is better off than it has been at any other time in human history.
People are living longer. They’re living healthier, more educated, and freer from religious and political constraints.
But perhaps most crucially, the percentage of humans living in extreme poverty—defined by the World Bank as subsisting on less than $1.90 per day—has plummeted in the past 30 years.
In 1990 the UN set a goal to cut the world’s poverty rate in half by 2015, and we reached it five years early, in 2010; over a billion people escaped extreme poverty in just 20 years. That’s a remarkable and unprecedented shift.
But more than ten percent of the world’s population is still extremely poor. How do we get that down to zero? And is it even possible to do so? Examining the factors that helped cut poverty in the past few decades, signs point to more development roadblocks than superhighways in the years to come.
Jodie nailed it.