#but with them it's more that they are themselves morally neutral entities and don't judge good and bad the same way as most people

[nellasbookplanet]

I think my favorite aspect of Imogen as a character is how she consistently chooses to empathize with and seeks to understand the outsider, even if - or perhaps even especially if - they are viewed as scary or dangerous. The most obvious example thereof is of course her relationship with Laudna. Not only did she choose to befriend and travel with someone who's strange, undead, scary, and the vessel of an evil necromancer, she chose to step up and defend Laudna against her home village despite never having met her before and knowing nothing about her, simply because she saw someone being targeted due to scared people making a snap judgement based on assumptions of the undead. It isn't that Imogen decided Laudna was harmless and innocent (again, she didn't know her at the time), but rather that she saw no one else would as much as slow down to give her a chance.

We see this aspect of her many times in the campaign. She lets the strange little mushroom people of Ruidus take her by the hand and lead her into their scary tunnels. She meets the all minds burn, a scary hive mind entity, not with fear or apprehension but with a willingness to understand. She's one of the strongest proponents in arguing that FCG, an automaton not viewed as a person by the general populace, has personhood and a soul. When facing Predathos, she does so with empathy, and when she releases it at the end she doesn't tell it to fuck off but kindly and even mournfully lets it know there's nothing left for it here. Part of her epilogue is working with emigrating Ruidians, who've lived under oppression and are viewed with suspicion by Exandrians, to help them find a home and belonging.

This aspect of her is also one of her greatest flaws. While it makes her empathetic toward the outsider, it often leaves her suspicious of or judgmental towards the "normal" and accepted, because for much of her life those who are normal never made an effort to reach out to or understand her due to their fear of something not under her control. She will reach out to the strange and scary, but will also turn around and say she isn't sure she wants to save the gods because they don't love her. She will extend understanding to Laudna to the point that Laudna runs straight into the arms of Delilah's temptations of power thinking Imogen will accept this regardless of the harm. She repeatedly questions if the Ruby Vanguard, which is seeking something which will drive an entire people extinct and put the entire world in jeopardy, is right, because many of them are misunderstood and mistreated outsiders like her.

In the end, she makes great strides in extending this empathy even to those who aren’t outsiders, who aren't like her. She's the one to suggest the gods go mortal in an attempt to save both them and the people of Exandria. She sees the gods' actions in Aeor yet views it with understanding. She reaches out to her father before the final battle, and tells her mother he deserves better. Imogen is a balancing act of snap judgements based on past harm and the choice of empathy, and it was at once heart-warming and terrifying to see her grapple with this.

[michaelbranch]

A Brief Summary of Ideas: Discrimination and Disparities

I've recently realized that while I enjoy my leisurely reading, I don't absorb as much of the material as I'd like. When I left college I stopped highlighting text for the most part, and this (along with review) helped me to retain more. In an effort to get more retention I've decided that along with highlights/notes I'm going to try and do a brief summary of ideas blog post on each book. This will be for me to distill the primary ideas I took from the book, and will allow me to come back in the future to get somewhat of a refresher and maybe decide if I'd like to re-read. Of course it may also allow other readers to get a small glance into the material, and decide if they'd like to read it in full.

*These summaries are kept intentionally very brief, just hitting what I consider some of the important/interesting takeaways, most word-for-word or paraphrased. I strive to be objective as possible and not include any review/opinions on the material. My goal is also to stick to ideas/principals, not specific examples.

Discrimination and Disparities

Author: Thomas Sowell

Success in many types of endeavors requires a multitude of prerequisites (some in individual control, some not) particular to that endeavor. A difference, even small, in meeting these may cause large differences in outcomes of success. Chances of having all prerequisites met can be slim depending on the type and amount needed.

Therefore we shouldn't expect outcomes to be evenly or randomly distributed among individuals, groups, or institutions. There is a flawed perception of probabilities.

Basic types of discrimination. Type 1: discern differences in qualities of people/things, choose accordingly. Judging people independently. Type 1a: basing decisions on evidence (ideal). Type 1b: basing individual decisions on group evidence (less than ideal). Type 2: treating people negatively based on arbitrary assumptions/aversions.

Differences between applicability of Types are cost. May depend on how high and who bears them. Discriminators too pay a cost, and it can determine how much/long the discrimination can persist. Feedback, like from a competitive market, is key (aka. skin in the game).

Information cost, so people prefer to substitute less expensive forms for more as a proxy.

We should determine decision making processes so their implications and consequences can be analyzed. Misdiagnosing can produce decisions/policies less likely to achieve stated goals (and unintended consequences).

Don't automatically equate statistical disparities in outcomes with Type 2 discrimination. It (Type 2) shouldn't automatically be excluded, but it has be accompanied by evidence.

Understanding decisions requires understanding incentives and constraints of the decision maker.

When people sort themselves the results are rarely even or random. When individuals sort they receive both the benefits and costs (skin in the game).

Statistics can be misleading when distorted by errors of omission or commission.

Pursuit of a social cause can affect how causation is perceived or presented.

Morally neutral factors are the reasons economic/social outcomes often fail to fit preconception of comparable results.

Luck is a real factor, and it extends to the individual level and has a major influence on your life.

Might consider giving some leeway in standards to those less fortunate, but don't ignore the standards. Being "understanding" or "non-judgmental" may seem nice but it can ruin a learning opportunity and have negative consequences on the individuals future.

Cultures exist to serve human beings, we don't exist to preserve them.

Government (or large entity) solutions can be problematic because they are categorical (either are or are not, allow or don't, etc.). Incremental adjustments are better suited to those with more intimate knowledge, involvement, and feedback (costs/rewards); i.e. individuals.

The only time we can influence is the present and future. We can only hope to learn from the past.

The past must be understood in its own context.

Admitting we can't change the past isn't giving up working towards improvement. We should concentrate our efforts towards the present/future.