So... I guess you don't know how much you don't know 🤷🏻. Why would you count yourself in *we*. There are scientists and us who pay attention. We know a lot.

woah... just the fact you have to put "Individual" in there (that's how you spell it by the way) means you're purposely trying to ignore the problems and the statement that is meant when using the term "privilege". As well as WHAT SOMEONE MEANS ABOUT IT. PRIVILEGE being called out is not supposed to make you feel good darling. Its supposed to make you see the world through a different person's eyes via inter-sectional relationships in society. But of course... you're to focus on being butt hurt that someone said you're privileged.

@@HaseoOkami grow up kid

Hahahaha...I see ALOT of hurt feelings over a talk that is supposedly meaningless. Fragility is real.

But... we do have statistics shoeing that these categories do. affect individuals. What are you even trying to say, OP?

You sure can! (finally a smart comment!) The real honest answer comes down to this. boiling down to the facts and mentality and the explanations and the evidence and blah blah blah. your "preconceived narrative" is a matter of what your are predisposed to believe. If you believe X and someone has proof that it is not X but Y you are more than likely NOT going to change your mind on X. The more attached you are to X, the less likely Y will appeal to you as an alternative or even just an option.

@@HaseoOkami On top of that people are wired to be biased and drawn to definitive answers, even if they are inconclusive or flat out wrong. We don't like being left with 'maybe's and 'depends on's. Ironically, this type of 'abstract math' leads exactly to the type of statistics that progressivists like her often complain about categorizing people without the consideration of the many variables that factor into it. That top comment describes the problem with this presentation all too perfectly.

A white male working 12 hour shifts at minimum wage _clearly_ has more privilege than a rich Asian woman! _She proved it with MATHS!_

Did we watch the same thing? That's not what she is saying at all. It sounds like you are dismissing privilege and she is not at all.

Yah this isn't so much math as it is a diagram explaining her opinion.

Best to just leave them to their own communities. Gets a bit sticky when a dogma dictates that all of the communities combine with each other and is promoted by a tyrannical state.

I agree that dogma is one of the worst traits of humanity, but part of the problem with dogma is its mindless adherents. I think we all need to think for ourselves, which is ultimately the only defense we have against dogma.

1. White and Male are both measurable factors. Both visually and extensively (through further genetic tests...let's skip this part looks a bit fascy). 2. The factor is also measurable by the systemic issues that exist through that society I.E. a simple systemic issue that SHOULD NOT BE CONTROVERSIAL, is that Black Americans how less in inheritance than White Americans. Which has causes themselves... (if your answer is anything other slavery or Jim Crowe/ Fascist American in the 20th century and onward you're wrong). 3. Finally... this factor is also measurable, and also equatable. That means... omg! You can make an equation for it. She dumbs it down very well honestly. You can go even further than what she said mathematically. I mean, when your society encourages you to have hierarchies based off of a religious, monetary, and elitist mentality of course you're going to have many unjust (considering each of them have their own fallacies for having power).

@@HaseoOkami I don't dispute the fact that you can measure whether someone is male or white. That part is obvious as you stated. What I do take issue with is how do you measure the importance of someone being being male to their societal standings. This is why people use the word privilege. If being male or any other categorization makes your societal standing higher by default then this is privilege. But how do you measure any aspect of this? You used inheritance as the measure. Okay, but what if I decide that I want to use college admittance numbers. What if someone else says I think a person standing in society is based on twitter followers or maybe how small they can reduce their carbon footprint? What if someone says they want to measure it based on the number of children? Which should you chose and which should you not chose? Should everyone be involved in deciding this? Who should be involved and who shouldn't be? You state the factor is measurable and it definitely is, but the value of this measure changes depending on how you want to measure it. So if the value of the measure changes then so too does the final outcome of the equation. I don't doubt that you can put it into an equation (which honestly has no bearing on whether a factor should be included or not) but the outcome of whatever equation you decided to put this factor into changes depending on how you decide to measure the factor.

@Juliana Silva touche...I should have been more specific. Male is measurable. However, for that to a useful factor in her mathematical model that Male measurement would have to be measured in relation to some type of innequity let me explain...simply counting approximately 3 billion males on the planet doesnt help mathematically prove innequity. Counting males at 85 percent of the homeless population does begin to establish correlation. So if we were looking at specific innequity (say income disparity) then those factors could be measured by annual income and shown as statistical probabilities. Then you have the beginnings of a model. The bigger issue is basic scientific method. If we use the income inequality issue as an example then we have to ask if being Male makes me rich? In my case no. So point disproven. If we are asking if being Male gives a statistical probability of making more than the national average annual income then perhaps. My point being that the ability to determine Male, female, black, white, etc, does not actually measure any innequity or give us a value to work with. For that we have to define our mathematical model much more specifically and begin applying real values. Even then we will be able to produce mathematical probabilities that give us much more evidence of correlation rather than causation. That might be useful however if we can use that to identify more specific causes. Hope that helps.

@Juliana Silva How high on the moral spectrum would you place potatoes?

Good one. 🤣👍

well done. comment of the week. I concede graciously. see you next time x

Graham Jonathan Those that can’t do....teach.

Oh r u offfended hahahah sad

@@kaykay1570 r/whoosh and like... badly XD

Precisely. There is no direct link between factors of 30 and factors of privilege. Arranging numbers into a 3D cube shape doesn't create an abstract model that can be applied to any situation.

She's using basic set theory. Some people have privilege {a,b,c}, and some people have privilege {a,b}, which is less than {a,b,c}, but perhaps not directly comparable to having {b,c} and so on.

Perfect.

And she demonstrated a utility for that practice... What's your point?

@@GodsAutobiography My point being that she demonstrated the use of a list and this, in my opinion, did not warrant a TEDx talk. Regardless of ones opinion on the merits of this talk, she did not demonstrate anything new. All she demonstrated is that our basis for categorizing/listing things, in this case privilege, shows up in mathematics. This shouldn't be a surprise or even novel in any circle of thought. I find it disingenuous to say abstract mathematics can help us look at privilege differently, when the abstract mathematics she employs are lists. We have been categorizing things since humans have been on the planet.

@@tylerpoppy8095 I think you may be making an overestimating in favor of common intellect. This is seemingly common knowledge to you and I (and many others I'm sure) but there are many who may benefit from this. What she said is rather anti-left as far as current trends. She presented to them, in a way they might be willing to listen, that group identity can be broken down and that general casting is inneficiet.

@@GodsAutobiography I do agree that I am could be making an overestimate of common intellect. However, in my opinion equating this type of list making with abstract mathematics (which has the connotation of being an "intelligent field" of study) was done in attempts to give the actual point of her talk more credence that it deserves. I just feel the use of mathematics as a basis for her argument is disingenuous and was done to make it seem like her reasoning is completely objective. Nevertheless, I do agree that her method of presenting this topic in this way could encourage more discussion on this topic. Thank you for point this out :)

The logic was okay, but her axioms are debatable, I guess

Strength in unity!

Modus Tollens haha

David Durant in order to reach out and help you need to identify the problem first

@@AmandanumnumThat’s just it. At the beginning of her lecture, she puts rich, white, men, as the apex of privilege. As if that’s just common knowledge and without debate. Well geez, thanks Eugenia for clearing all that up for us. Everything after that is based upon that assumption. It’s social science masquerading as hard science….and it’s complete bollox.

Some persons can be alike but never equal.

Which country/society has its benchmark set in inequality? Israel?

This! Doesn't imply that privilege doesn't exist, as it certainly does. It's just that it typically doesn't matter, nor should it. Life is hard for everyone, as it should be.

What if it's not an increase in empathy that's needed. What if it's ethnic genocide?

@@alaskaoalaska that's a difficult solution to rationalize.

@@GodsAutobiography On the contrary, it's brutally simple.

@@alaskaoalaska please explain

The only way I'd be able to calculate how many times you've failed is if I didn't fail myself

if i had $1 for every maths test i failed, i'd now have 11.7 Japanese Yen, with half and 4 Apples in my basket

@@utubecomtw13 Hahaha

@@samspiano7070 Maths, the only place where you can buy 90 apples and not look weird

The fact that you will "never be convinced otherwise" is sad and betrays the idea of having debates. I respect your opinion and I like having fluidity in mine

@@gabri_cheesellamasneeze9006 Okay, then let's debate the merits of murdering an innocent child then. Maybe I can be convinced that is okay with the proper debate points as long as my mind is open to the possibility of both views being valid and possibly acceptable. Intersectionality is irrational, disgusting and only a few steps away from genocide

@@lk29392 I'm open to having a respectful debate but can you specify how the murder of children relates to intersectionality? Let's get definitions on the table first because I don't think we view this word in the same context.

Gabri_cheesellamasneeze they aren’t related in topic. My point is not every position that has two+ possible sides is reasonably up for debate. Much like there is overwhelming evidence that the earth is round and not flat, there is overwhelming evidence against intersectionality being based in factual basis relative to facts discrediting it. My strong belief is debate is meaningless in both instances due to overwhelming facts on one side. Feel free to hit me with all the facts you want that prove the theory of intersectionality though. Facts not feelings please.

Because people in bullshit grievance studies are leveraging "you're a bigot if you don't hire us!" to force themselves into positions of power.

i read all the serious comments above, some i agreed, some not, yours i just laughed x) nice one

She's frozen a messy puddle of water into a crystal clear icecube! 🧊

@Matt M guess some of you did get the *fact* that rich white male *is* identity ( identity politics - and when they are dominant in politics, like it's the situation _their needs/wishes_ get to be satisfied first/disproportionately) Kids are interested in social sciences, too. Why would this turn anyone away? That statment is baseless.

The idea that people need to understand others better offends you?

9:44 is just straight up racism btw. There's nothing to be gained from this talk except perpetuating stereotypes.

Me to. I'm out of here.

@@ForAnAngel Understand others better how? So when meeting a new person, I should go up to them and say, "You are in this category of people so your privilege level is ... calculating ... beneath mine but above ... calculating ... my friends. So, since you are in this privilege level I know - insert information you know (whether or not its stereotypical or correct) about whatever race or religion this person is - about you." How does this make me know the person better? I am now entering a conversation with someone I don’t know anything about with a bunch of preconceived notions about them simply because I know their categorization and hence their privilege level. What if I accidentally mis-categorize them? Do I have to completely reassess my opinion on this person? The crux of the situation here is should I go into a conversation with a complete stranger with an opinion already formed based on things they have no control over (like skin colour and wealth) or should I let my opinion be informed by things this person has control over instead?

I totally agree with your analysis. This talk seemed contrived on many levels to me, hence the loudness of in her voice (weak argument -> speak louder)

That was an excellent summary and I completely agree. It’s the perversion of a hard science to try and lend legitimacy to a largely contextual and perceptual problem better addressed by philosophy and other similar social sciences.

You need to be very careful when you talk about inequality, especially as being a good thing! Of course we're not all equal in every way, such as good looks, intelligence, fitness, and charisma, but I think every human deserves equal rights and equality under the law, and I will uphold these values as long as I'm alive!

Exactly

If you want to getter a better understanding of social issues then a far better way is to get out of the academic bubble and spend a bit more time in the "real" world, e.g. meeting and socialising with other people of different races, social classes, IQ levels, etc. and studying statistics about the real world. This takes time, but gives you a much better understanding than this rather naive, uninformative and frankly dangerous presentation by Eugenia. Why do I say dangerous? Because it seems to emphasize a very course grained, unmeasured and stereotypical viewpoint which doesn't reflect the nuances, complexities and variation among real people. Furthermore "priviledge" means different things to different people; she might think of herself as priviledged because of her education and the things that gives her access to, whereas others might see her life as boring and restricted.

@@joebloggsgogglebox I appreciate your opinions, but I think you're being too harsh on intellectuals such as Eugenia. Although I agree that we all need some "street smarts" as well as immersion in the "real world", I think a big part of the problem is that many of these "real world" people you're talking about, especially here in the good old USA, are highly ignorant and a huge part of the problem Eugenia is describing here! Perhaps I'm a bit of an intellectual snob, but as I see it, the quality of education here in the USA has dropped tremendously during the past 50 years or so, and its replacement with ignorance is a huge contributing factor to social issues.

@@dcterr1 I don't think many of the type of people you're talking about (ignorant people) will be watching this video.

@@joebloggsgogglebox I agree. I think it's sad that most educated people who have a lot of intelligent things to say about what's wrong with our society are preaching to the choir.

There are obviously many more that three important traits to humanity - in fact, possibly infinitely many, so Eugenia's cube is a vastly oversimplified picture of the reality of our society, but it's a start and I think it's a very good model!

Hahahaha...I see ALOT of hurt feelings over a talk that is supposedly meaningless. Fragility is real.

Valient Six there is inequality that exists through out all of society

@@Makiaveli01 you make your own net worth. Nobody is stopping you from formulating a company. You need to get smart and save money. That's not privilege. That's hard work. And you would rather cry than work.

@@omowhanre don't use your head scarf privilege over here. It has no effect on this space.

Everybody is laughing until they found out she was serious

thank you.

Speed x2 + subtitles works great too.

Yes, look in the mirror and repeat this affirmation. Hahahaha...I see ALOT of hurt feelings over a talk that is supposedly meaningless. Fragility is real.

@@omowhanre any evidence to support your claim?

Nobody ever really said it wasn't, or at least not at the same scale as this was said about other groups of people.

@@omowhanre did you look at his icon? Doesn't look white to me bruv... Ironically, you seem to be the fragile one here.

Fatima Muhammed #failedsohard

you must be one of the angry ones she was talking about.

Amen!

Gates

Tran Son where you start in life is by chance, where you end up in life is by choice!

Solving Politics good one

I feel like when you say "deal with it" what you really mean is "ignore that problem".

That's so groce.

Kendi? Is that you? Keep playing the victim. I’m sure it’s served you well. In spite of the white man doing everything to hinder you. 👍

Hahahaha...I see ALOT of hurt feelings over a talk that is supposedly meaningless. Fragility is real.

@@omowhanre You keep saying this, but it has no context. Who says this is meaningless? It's an example of the systemic creep of anti-white and anti-male racism & sexism, particularly in academia. It's a serious issue. Of course we're upset. You laughing at people of a certain race for being upset at being targeted simply makes you like the nazis -- you think certain racism is "righteous" because you consider the targets to be evil, so you laugh at the victims as they defend themselves.

Good luck with your information bubble!

err, concept of privilege is more about understanding how others are underprivileged, marginalised, just by some characteristics they didn't chose (race, gender, dis/abilities, how rich is family you're born into, etc)

Nothing wrong with being privileged, but the issues that privileged people face are laughable to those who do not have those privileges. For example, you might complain about traffic on your way to work, a black person might complain about not being able to get a good paying job. Just walking down the street, your biggest concern might be if someone will mug you, for a women it might be if someone might rape them, beat them, murder them and mug them.

@@aleka.. privilege is not defined by race. It is by circumstances. There are black rich people and their children will be rich. The number of those privilged only shows the true advantages associated with that particular races culture and reluctance to fight to the top. You only state obvious facts that prove one thing. Privilege and higher learning are associated with particular ethnicities. Asian women earn more than white women in American economic averages. This is a cultural advantage inherited. Not a racial bias based on systematic racism.

@@sivansharma5027 there are successful blacks in all industries. It is a personal achievement. Not a racial bias.

@@Valient6 George Soros funds ted, obvious.

Herein lies the fundamental problem with intersectionality. A person can be categorized into an infinite number of categories that define them and furthermore their "relative privilege" in each and the "relative importance of the privileges" would be seen as different by different people. The only logical conclusion is that a person is collectively made of these infinite number of categories and experiences and therefore MUST be held accountable/treated/categorized on their INDIVIDUAL merit alone. Any type of group identity defining/characterizing them is BS. I will NEVER be convinced otherwise of this.

She's not though. Holmes was an undergrad dropout, Dr. Eugenia Chang has a PhD from Cambridge and was a tenured professor. If you understood anything about the way universities work, you'd know that this is something you can't do without being recognized as one of the top experts in the world in your field. You're lucky she's chosen to leave a job where she had almost *permanent job security* to dedicate her enormous talents to educating the public. I'm sorry you don't understand basic set theory?

@@zhezheplays7620 Yes. Quite. We are all so lucky that she put forth an exceedingly simple theory, by utilizing mathematics, in lieu of simply throwing up a diagram of a tree and saying, “things are connected.” What about this is remotely new? How does it bring us any further along in curing societies ills? The answer is, it doesn’t. And that’s why it’s bollox.