[K0balt]

It’s not background, it’s donations.

While I hate the taste, it makes sense to combine smart with powerful if you want to produce industry.

The rich don’t need to be particularly competitive academically - they are hyper-advantaged socially.

Exposing them to intelligent thought keeps them from being powerful ignoramuses, and encouraging the academically gifted to rub shoulders with those that can help them to implement their ideas is also an advantage.

I hate it but it actually makes sense to me.

I’m not sure that was the motivation in this case though, easily could have been an accounting decision.

[michaelt]

> Exposing them to intelligent thought keeps them from being powerful ignoramuses

But would it not also, for the same reasons be good if the rich and powerful were exposed to Native Americans, military veterans, wheelchair users, religious minorities, minority sects of religious majorities, young parents, trans folk, mature students, reformed convicts, people with mental health problems, and so on?

[K0balt]

Probably not so useful, since they would not be forced to acknowledge that those people were at least in some ways superior to them? If they know they are surrounded by intellectually superior people, it is probably the first time they are confronted with that kind of contrast. (But that’s just a guess. I suspect that the answer would be highly variable by the individual case)

[BrenBarn]

> While I hate the taste, it makes sense to combine smart with powerful if you want to produce industry.

What if you want to produce equality?

[K0balt]

Equality of outcomes, or equality of opportunity? Because shooting for equality of outcomes has got a really, really bad track record. Essentially, it is only possible in an unfree society, and even then it has never been proven to work. Ever. Not even one time.

Nobody wants equality. People merely don’t want to be thwarted in their pursuit of a worthwhile life.

We should do what we can to ensure that special barriers aren’t erected for anyone and that everyone can succeed on their merits, but also we must balance that ideal with the fact that some people wield disproportionate power, either as a result of their merits or otherwise.

There is no easy solution, only less bad compromises

[BrenBarn]

We can start with equality of opportunity if you like. But there's no way to achieve equality of opportunity in generation N+1 unless you achieve approximate equality of outcomes in generation N, because one generation's outcomes are the next generation's opportunities.

[K0balt]

How do you expect to achieve equality of outcomes when some people are born with an IQ of 90, and others with 110? Some with 80, others with 120? And for every 130, there’s a 70 that can barely function in society, and for every 140 there’s a 60 that simply cannot?

People are not born with equal potential in athleticism or intellect. It’s inconvenient, but it’s true.

The only way to achieve equality is to severely attenuate potential to the lowest common occurrence. Pol Pot tried that.

[BrenBarn]

How do you expect to achieve even equality of opportunity when those differences exist?

First, you don't need to achieve exact equality, just approximate equality. That approximate equality can incorporate a range of levels of wealth and still be enormously more equal than what we have today. It is fine if someone with an IQ of 130 has 100x the wealth of someone with IQ 70. It's not fine if someone with an IQ of 130 has 10^9x the wealth of someone with IQ 70. It's also not fine if someone with IQ 130 has 10^9x the wealth of someone else with IQ 130. (It's questionable whether IQ is even a meaningful measure, but I'm just using it here as a proxy for whatever kind of "innate ability" we want to posit.)

Second, you don't need to achieve equality of all forms of outcomes, just economic means (and political rights, etc.). Not everyone can be a concert pianist or a venture capitalist, but that's okay as long as concert pianists and venture capitalists don't have 1000x the wealth of everyone else.

It's perfectly fine for people to have different aptitude and even different levels of aptitude in general. It's just not fine for those differences to translate into enormous differences in baseline well-being (e.g., food, shelter, time).

Ironically, of course, if we achieved this, it would then be much less objectionable for Stanford to do whatever it wants, because it would mean we've created a society where going to Stanford doesn't really matter so much. But the question is what does Stanford (and everybody else) need to do in the meantime to get to that point.

[K0balt]

Equality of opportunity is relatively easy: you provide people with the same opportunities, that they must meet at their own innate capacity and motivation.

I don’t defend that a doctor should make 20x what a nurse does, or that the c-suite should make 20000x what the janitor makes. But it’s also fine that some people don’t produce anything of value, at all, while others produce a lot of value for society. A meritocracy with a mechanism to limit suffering and harm to those who cannot participate seems a reasonable solution. We don’t need or want to incentivise parasitism at high or low levels.