I have a question about how this would work that is related to the both the values and representative sampling issues you raise. Would I or would I not adjust my gender (female) in placing my bets? Would I assume that I would be a woman of around median status and income when compared to other women of the era, or when compared to the overall population? It practically goes without saying that in many of these eras, most women had low status compared to men. Even if the more important factor in determining your position would be income, many women in many of these eras would only have income/property as a member of a household and in relation to men.
Somewhat relatedly, would someone of African descent assume he or she would be of the same ethnicity if rating, for example, the antebellum South of the United States (or many other eras/locales in the U.S.?)
It seems to me that in many cases the values problem you identify isn’t just about what one would find morally repulsive even if one’s physical welfare was not so bad. In many eras and locales, a women or some particular ethnic minority would have a very different lot in life in a way that directly affects his or her welfare (e.g., as a woman, not having any property rights and thus lacking security and independence; as an ethnic minority, being oppressed or even a slave).
Should everyone making these ratings take that sort of thing into account (that is, the possibility of ending up being a woman or an oppressed ethnic minority in the new era), or only raters who are female or of an ethnic minority? Did you take this into account in making your own ratings? It seems like that sort of thing could greatly affect how one rated different eras.
I did the standard historical thing and looked at median adult males. Average is usually worse than median.
This is fair, because I’m comparing only Western Europe for the last few centuries, and divisions now are mostly geographical—situation of different people in the same country tends to be similar; but situation of different people in different countries varies drastically. It used to be the other way—and correctly only one way would be rather unfair.
As for women, I’m definitely not going to compare that, as situation of large-family stay-at-home housewife (a model which goes back at least to Ancient Greece) is simply completely different way of life than what 20th century women do. This kind of separation of gender roles is incompatible with modern economy, and modern separation of gender roles is incompatible with most historical economies. I don’t think that assigning low value to such life is based on much more than prejudice, but for this discussion look at clusterfuck which spread out of Bryan Caplan’s article about 19th century women’s freedoms to half of the blogosphere by now.
I have a question about how this would work that is related to the both the values and representative sampling issues you raise. Would I or would I not adjust my gender (female) in placing my bets? Would I assume that I would be a woman of around median status and income when compared to other women of the era, or when compared to the overall population? It practically goes without saying that in many of these eras, most women had low status compared to men. Even if the more important factor in determining your position would be income, many women in many of these eras would only have income/property as a member of a household and in relation to men.
Somewhat relatedly, would someone of African descent assume he or she would be of the same ethnicity if rating, for example, the antebellum South of the United States (or many other eras/locales in the U.S.?)
It seems to me that in many cases the values problem you identify isn’t just about what one would find morally repulsive even if one’s physical welfare was not so bad. In many eras and locales, a women or some particular ethnic minority would have a very different lot in life in a way that directly affects his or her welfare (e.g., as a woman, not having any property rights and thus lacking security and independence; as an ethnic minority, being oppressed or even a slave).
Should everyone making these ratings take that sort of thing into account (that is, the possibility of ending up being a woman or an oppressed ethnic minority in the new era), or only raters who are female or of an ethnic minority? Did you take this into account in making your own ratings? It seems like that sort of thing could greatly affect how one rated different eras.
I did the standard historical thing and looked at median adult males. Average is usually worse than median.
This is fair, because I’m comparing only Western Europe for the last few centuries, and divisions now are mostly geographical—situation of different people in the same country tends to be similar; but situation of different people in different countries varies drastically. It used to be the other way—and correctly only one way would be rather unfair.
As for women, I’m definitely not going to compare that, as situation of large-family stay-at-home housewife (a model which goes back at least to Ancient Greece) is simply completely different way of life than what 20th century women do. This kind of separation of gender roles is incompatible with modern economy, and modern separation of gender roles is incompatible with most historical economies. I don’t think that assigning low value to such life is based on much more than prejudice, but for this discussion look at clusterfuck which spread out of Bryan Caplan’s article about 19th century women’s freedoms to half of the blogosphere by now.