DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
ComeAllWithin (Harlequins Rugby)
HTML https://comeallwithin.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: ComeAllWithin Board
*****************************************************
#Post#: 104318--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ethnicity in British Rugby
DIR By: Brown Bottle
Date: February 16, 2023, 2:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't know about rugby but I believe cricket has an issue in
that the (fairly large proportionally) number of Asian
cricketers playing top level league cricket is not matched by
the number of Asian cricketers playing county cricket.
In addition I believe (sorry to be so unassertive again but I
don't have the evidence to hand) that the majority of county
cricketers still come from public schools despite cricket being
a more egalitarian sport, supposedly.
Could be the coaching but that doesn't explain the lack of Asian
professionals.
#Post#: 104320--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ethnicity in British Rugby
DIR By: QuincyJones
Date: February 16, 2023, 4:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Yareet link ---
>
> Again I disagree. The "why" is to ensure that we have as wide
a talent pool as possible. In a results-based business, wouldn't
we want to attract the best of the best, regardless of their
background?
>
> Propotional representation is a measure that the paths are
known by and available to everyone; not the goal in and of
itself.
>
--- End Quote ---
Equality of outcome doesn't mean more talent though. Your third
sentence there is completely at odds with your second sentence.
Just because equality of outcome doesn't happen, it doesn't
necessarily mean equality of opportunity isn't there. Certain
types/groups of people are naturally predisposed to like (or not
like) or be good at (or not be good at) all sorts of things.
Aside from cultural preferences, it can be as simple as DNA.
The fact that 20% of all professional rugby players worldwide
are Pacific islanders supports this. And as mentioned earlier
with my IT company example, it's the same with men and women in
IT jobs. Men are more likely to gravitate towards IT careers
than women simply because of their DNA. It doesn't mean that
women can't do it but it does mean that no amount of
facilitation or coercion will alter that fact.
#Post#: 104321--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ethnicity in British Rugby
DIR By: QuincyJones
Date: February 16, 2023, 4:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Yareet link ---
>
> That depends. Yes, if you push for a quick fix of equality of
outcome by artificially changing the pool of talent. Not if you
get to the root causes of that imbalance and look to rectify
that situation.
>
--- End Quote ---
The problem here is your use of the word 'rectify'. Equality of
outcome (with zero barriers to participation for all) doesn't
give you more talent, it just gives you an equally diverse (but
likely poorer) end product. So you're not rectifying anything.
Your approach assumes that the top athletes from every ethnicity
are all as good as each other, which is never the case.
Aside from cultural preferences and opportunities etc., there
are also genetic reasons why certain groups are predisposed to
be attracted to/good at/like a certain thing.
#Post#: 104322--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ethnicity in British Rugby
DIR By: Brown Bottle
Date: February 16, 2023, 4:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Why are people getting so hung up on ‘equality of outcome’ when
even the people suggesting it’s important aren’t saying it’s an
end in itself; just that it’s a useful indicator of potential
issues?
#Post#: 104325--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ethnicity in British Rugby
DIR By: poorfour
Date: February 17, 2023, 1:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Brown Bottle link ---
>
> Why are people getting so hung up on ‘equality of outcome’
when even the people suggesting it’s important aren’t saying
it’s an end in itself; just that it’s a useful indicator of
potential issues?
>
--- End Quote ---
Because it’s easy to turn it into a strawman. I pretty much gave
up on this thread after repeated responses that were clearly
responding without actually looking at what I said, and that was
before anyone mentioned Jordan Peterson.
#Post#: 104343--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ethnicity in British Rugby
DIR By: Quinky
Date: February 17, 2023, 7:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Brown Bottle link ---
>
> Why are people getting so hung up on ‘equality of outcome’
when even the people suggesting it’s important aren’t saying
it’s an end in itself; just that it’s a useful indicator of
potential issues?
>
--- End Quote ---
Primarily because equality of outcome by it's natue is a forced
situation. In which case it doesn't indicate anything other than
the status quo is manufactured rather than evolved.
#Post#: 104344--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ethnicity in British Rugby
DIR By: Quinky
Date: February 17, 2023, 7:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: poorfour link ---
>
> Because it’s easy to turn it into a strawman. I pretty much
gave up on this thread after repeated responses that were
clearly responding without actually looking at what I said, and
that was before anyone mentioned Jordan Peterson.
>
--- End Quote ---
That would be the same Jordan Peterson who rather perfectly
explains the pitfalls of chasing equality of outcome?
#Post#: 104345--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ethnicity in British Rugby
DIR By: Brown Bottle
Date: February 17, 2023, 7:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Quinky link ---
>
> Primarily because equality of outcome by it's natue is a
forced situation. In which case it doesn't indicate anything
other than the status quo is manufactured rather than evolved.
>
--- End Quote ---
But that isn't what people were saying. That was my point.
Looking at the divergence from equality of outcome in order to
understand what factors are involved is not the same thing.
#Post#: 104351--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ethnicity in British Rugby
DIR By: poorfour
Date: February 17, 2023, 9:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Quinky link ---
>
> That would be the same Jordan Peterson who rather perfectly
explains the pitfalls of chasing equality of outcome?
>
--- End Quote ---
If it's also the same Jordan Peterson who claims we should have
enforced monogamy to prevent incels and that witches are more
real than anything, I'm not inclined to believe that his
argument has any merit. He writes stuff that sounds
superficially plausible but is usually a strawman and often
underpinned by some really bizarre thinking.
And, as several of us have repeatedly said, no-one is advocating
"chasing" equality of outcome - just that measuring it and
looking at how to improve it is more likely to drive actual
progress towards equality than other approaches.
Equality of opportunity is a valid goal, but it's not a valid
metric unless you've got a way to measure it that takes into
account all the context. And choice is not a legitimate thing to
hide behind.
To take an example from another field, is there equality of
opportunity in Oxbridge applications? From memory, the most
recent stats show that when it comes to offers and acceptances
applicants from state schools are not at a disadvantage compared
to privately schooled applicants - they receive similar offers
and acceptance post offer is similar. The much smaller private
sector supplies well over half the applicants, and as a result
dominates the intake.
Are state school applicants less capable than privately schooled
ones? The data say no. But lots of potential state school
applicants who would have a good chance of a place do not apply.
There's no technical reason why they couldn't apply. Shall we
mark it down as "choice" and say they have equality of
opportunity?
But in many cases they come from an environment where no-one
around them sees it as a realistic option or is able to support
them in their application. They don't have equal resources in
making their choice, and so Oxbridge continue to do more
outreach to try to make it more likely that bright state
schooled kids will apply. But they still get blasted in the
press for being private school dominated.
(As an aside, the issue is even worse in the rest of the Russell
Group universities - which are even more dominated by the
privately educated kids who didn't apply to or get into
Oxbridge).
#Post#: 104444--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ethnicity in British Rugby
DIR By: Quinky
Date: February 17, 2023, 3:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: poorfour link ---
>
> If it's also the same Jordan Peterson who claims we should
have enforced monogamy to prevent incels and that witches are
more real than anything, I'm not inclined to believe that his
argument has any merit. He writes stuff that sounds
superficially plausible but is usually a strawman and often
underpinned by some really bizarre thinking.
>
> And, as several of us have repeatedly said, no-one is
advocating "chasing" equality of outcome - just that measuring
it and looking at how to improve it is more likely to drive
actual progress towards equality than other approaches.
>
> Equality of opportunity is a valid goal, but it's not a valid
metric unless you've got a way to measure it that takes into
account all the context. And choice is not a legitimate thing to
hide behind.
>
> To take an example from another field, is there equality of
opportunity in Oxbridge applications? From memory, the most
recent stats show that when it comes to offers and acceptances
applicants from state schools are not at a disadvantage compared
to privately schooled applicants - they receive similar offers
and acceptance post offer is similar. The much smaller private
sector supplies well over half the applicants, and as a result
dominates the intake.
>
> Are state school applicants less capable than privately
schooled ones? The data say no. But lots of potential state
school applicants who would have a good chance of a place do not
apply. There's no technical reason why they couldn't apply.
Shall we mark it down as "choice" and say they have equality of
opportunity?
>
> But in many cases they come from an environment where no-one
around them sees it as a realistic option or is able to support
them in their application. They don't have equal resources in
making their choice, and so Oxbridge continue to do more
outreach to try to make it more likely that bright state
schooled kids will apply. But they still get blasted in the
press for being private school dominated.
>
> (As an aside, the issue is even worse in the rest of the
Russell Group universities - which are even more dominated by
the privately educated kids who didn't apply to or get into
Oxbridge).
>
--- End Quote ---
OK, kindly explain which metrics you think should be used to
measure "equality"? And how?
*****************************************************
Page 5 of 13
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page