&gt; You seem to be asserting those individuals behave in a manner that protects their group power rather than helping individuals.<p>No, I don&#x27;t. First, there is the general notion of collective behavior. I can tell you almost exactly the result of a thousand coin tosses, but I can&#x27;t tell you the result of one. Second, you see a tradeoff where there isn&#x27;t any. Thirdly, power is something that is best achieved in a group (e.g. unions). Finally, you assume individuals behave in a rational behavior to maximize their expected utility over a long term, while it&#x27;s been shown that people don&#x27;t behave this way even in the short term. Most people would often lose 1$ to gain absolutely nothing other than some internal psychological reward.<p>I must say, though, that responding to this kind of statements is hard. It&#x27;s like you&#x27;re saying, &quot;a photon is either a particle or a wave; it can&#x27;t be both; please make up your mind&quot;. Where do I even begin? Your premises about human behavior -- both as individuals and in groups -- are false, and then you argue about the conclusions. Just to give you a little bit of the basics, people make choices, but those choices are in large part influenced (and by that I don&#x27;t mean 100% determined) by social influences.<p>&gt; Can you make it explicit? If an individual can gain $1 in personal benefit, but transfer $X from his group to an out group, what value of X must be chosen so that the average person will be indifferent? I.e., how much money do you believe I&#x27;m willing to turn down for the cause of white power?<p>Sure. You will turn down exactly the amount you think you&#x27;re expected to gain if the cause of white power wins. I mean, this isn&#x27;t some theory. Black people in power means that more collective resources are used to advance black concerns. Black concerns (like white concerns) are unique, because, statistically, their experience is different.<p>&gt; Do you believe (1) is feasible? It&#x27;s a simple yes or no question. Assuming it&#x27;s not feasible, which of (2) and (3) do you favor? Let me guess - more wordplay that ignores the simple arithmetic and uncomfortable question?<p>I&#x27;m not ignoring your math, but you&#x27;re applying kindergarten math to graduate physics. It&#x27;s like me saying, well, the speed of light is C, and you&#x27;re going this way and she&#x27;s going that way so C + C = 2C!<p>In a social system there are feedback mechanisms. If you&#x27;re increasing the number of educated blacks, who knows what&#x27;s going to happen specifically in tech? Maybe the tech sector will grow. Maybe bio-med will grow, and black people will go there. But yes -- to answer your question directly -- if, say, Asians have a disproportionately large portion of power (as a whole; it doesn&#x27;t matter how its divided among sectors), then a desired result is that they&#x27;ll have relatively less of it. I really don&#x27;t see the problem. To me it sounds like you&#x27;re saying, but if we&#x27;ll let blacks vote then you&#x27;re kicking whites out of the decision process.<p>Also, I don&#x27;t understand your implied horror at &quot;kicking Asians out&quot; while you&#x27;re seemingly fine with kicking blacks out, because that&#x27;s what&#x27;s really happening. If someone must be kicked out, I&#x27;d rather all groups would get a share of the kicks.