The Ethics of Discrimination

[Philosophy Now]

Frederik Kaufman asks what is and is not discrimination.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/135/The_Ethics_of_Discrimination

[Richard Walker]

The author says that it is psychologically unrealistic to expect us not to categorize and generalize. Of course categorizing and judging is just lazy thinking. How unable are humans to treat specifics as specifics? Most judge, as Carl Jung said, because thinking is hard. So in the world of neurotypicals, maybe this statement of difficulty is true generally. But this statement in itself is lazy thinking since many think in trees and specifics rather in categories and forests.

[henry quirk]

The author says that it is psychologically unrealistic to expect us not to categorize and generalize. Of course categorizing and judging is just lazy thinking. How unable are humans to treat specifics as specifics? Most judge, as Carl Jung said, because thinking is hard. So in the world of neurotypicals, maybe this statement of difficulty is true generally. But this statement in itself is lazy thinking since many think in trees and specifics rather in categories and forests.

A Pine and an Oak are both trees, but, obviously, are not the same kind of tree.

Discerning difference allows a man to pet a cat and avoid a lion, and to pick a safe mushroom and avoid the poisonous one.

It ain't lazy: it's natural, normal, and a survival trait.

And: no, I didn't read the article.

And: it's irritating to read 'neurotypicals' (like somehow bein' neurotypical is a disadvantage). Bein' neuro-atypical is a disadvantage, a disability, Autistics are not advanced man; they're just damaged man.

[Immanuel Can]

Of course categorizing and judging is just lazy thinking.

I've got to agree with Henry on this one. "Categorizing" and "judging" are normal functions of the human brain, normal necessities of society, and absolutely essential to survival of the fittest as well. If you don't judge the difference between a morel mushroom and an angel-of-death, you're not going to do any better than the guy who fails to categorize between a tiger and a pussycat, or the guy who can't differentiate between a footpath and a freeway.

It's lazy thinking NOT to stop to judge or categorize...and likely fatal, in many cases.

"Discrimination" is actually a non-judgmental word. It means to "know the difference" between things. A wine connoisseur can discriminate between Chateauneuf and grape plonk. An art connoisseur can tell an original from a fake. The problem is never "discrimination" per se -- it's only when the basis upon which the judgment is made is not apt. And that's the contentious matter.

As the article points out, race is an irrelevant criterion for a driver. But age is not. Or consider a delivery driver. His race would be irrelevant, but his linguistic skills might be relevant, if you need him to do customer service or negotiate deliveries and pickups. His height might be irrelevant, unless he cannot get to the top shelves you need him to reach with any safety, and so will injure himself and sue you...So it gets quite complicated.

More contentious is a question like this: does an employer have a duty to hire an employee who will likely leave for six months to a year, while the employer must still bear costs, over an employee who likely will not leave at all? Is that good or bad discrimination?

The upshot: discrimination on a sound basis is an indicator of intelligence, discernment and adaptability. Discrimination on a bad basis is an indicator of prejudice and unfairness. The difficulty is discerning the one from the other, especially in liminal cases.

[Nick_A]

The author says that it is psychologically unrealistic to expect us not to categorize and generalize. Of course categorizing and judging is just lazy thinking. How unable are humans to treat specifics as specifics? Most judge, as Carl Jung said, because thinking is hard. So in the world of neurotypicals, maybe this statement of difficulty is true generally. But this statement in itself is lazy thinking since many think in trees and specifics rather in categories and forests.

Hello Richard

You seem to have an open mind as to the value of discrimination. It can either be a sign of intelligence or madness. What is worse is that experts without any knowledge of the value of discrimination are promoted to judge what has value.

But anyhow, I've tried to approach this question by comparing the goals of the collective and the individual who can either be mad or beginning to open to "awakening" to the objective potential for human "being".

I'd like to get your opinion on the opening post to my thread on the collective and the individual. Does the question seem important to you?

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=26931

As an aside:

In "Sketch of Contemporary Social Life" (1934), Simone Weil develops the theme of collectivism as the trajectory of modern culture.

Never has the individual been so completely delivered up to a blind collectivity, and never have men been so less capable, not only of subordinating their actions to their thoughts, but even of thinking.

If she is right and we are losing the power of objective discrimination, our species has a serious problem.

[Impenitent]

categorizing and judging is what is done in language itself...

speaking "objectively" demands hubris...

-Imp

[Scott Mayers]

The author of this article only seems to presume, as most, that the derogatory forms of discrimination are due to false negative stereotypes as he ignores that the problems created in society begin first by the positive stereoptypes. The negative forms of discrimination are due to missing the point that the miscategorical problems of stereotying begin when some propose solutions ABOUT what some negative statistical relationship is caused by of those who are derogatorily affected.

If I propose a law that favors a class of people using enforced "positive stereotyping" as a means to overthrow the negative, the actual negative stereotypes become justified where those left out of the favoritism are penalized for presuming they 'own' the membership of the class they belong to when they do not. Today's increasing 'cultural laws' that are predominating in the West are contributing to this problem. When countries favor laws regarding the genetic "Aboriginal" (labeled sometimes as, "Indigenous" to prevent others from declaring their associative aboriginal claims to their present birthplaces), these governments are utilizing powers TO discriminate by permitting the prior 'victim-class' to define what and who is at fault of EACH member of their counter-ememy class.

The U.S. First Amendment was designed by those who recognized the problem of allowing governments the power to make laws for or against religion because the bias of people's particular background will tend to force fautly laws to be made that segregate people based upon treating a physiological distinction from an artistic preference. One's choice of art is not due to one's ancestor's preference of art. Yet today, many are demanding that one's genetic physiological natures are intrinsically tied to their ancestral artificial behaviors (their contemporary 'culture').

Today the mostly binary division of conservative/progressive party governments are both unwilling to look at this issue logically because they both want some means to define laws regarding such faulty cultural associations of one's roots. For conservative or right-wing variety, the 'roots' link one's right to inherit literal economic benefits they want to be able to pass on to their offspring directely. To permit noticing the actual causal issue would threaten their own preference to 'favor their own' (as inherent wealth implies). To the left wing, recognition that they are discriminating using faulty classifications would threaten their belief in making laws, such as 'hate speech' limitations against certain groups. They also want justication to favor the 'positive' cultural stereotypes they believe is intrinsic to overthrowing negative ones. Thus, we are not able to address the real issues.

We need to therefore address the 'positive' stereotypes that are presumed non-harmful just as much as the overt forms of directly violent forms. We need to prevent governmnents from having laws that embrace religious and/or other cultural beliefs. It is unlikely to occur though because many use their 'cultural' links to justify real claims. I think our hands are tied unless we can overthrow culture laws of any variety from all governments. It doesn't help that the present paradigm of the U.N. defines those who don't respect 'culture' as a right of lawmaking as "inhumane".

[Immanuel Can]

The author... ignores that the problems created in society begin first by the positive stereoptypes. The negative forms of discrimination are due to missing the point that the miscategorical problems of stereotying begin when some propose solutions ABOUT what some negative statistical relationship is caused by of those who are derogatorily affected.

Excellent point. Very perceptive.

If I propose a law that favors a class of people using enforced "positive stereotyping" as a means to overthrow the negative, the actual negative stereotypes become justified where those left out of the favoritism are penalized for presuming they 'own' the membership of the class they belong to when they do not. Today's increasing 'cultural laws' that are predominating in the West are contributing to this problem. When countries favor laws regarding the genetic "Aboriginal" (labeled sometimes as, "Indigenous" to prevent others from declaring their associative aboriginal claims to their present birthplaces), these governments are utilizing powers TO discriminate by permitting the prior 'victim-class' to define what and who is at fault of EACH member of their counter-ememy class.

There's also a very insidious bad effect for the "favoured" Aboriginals: the "noble savage" myth, which in some forms could also called the "pet native" myth.

In this myth, it is prejudicially assumed that the Aboriginals are automatically "closer to nature," or "more authentic," or "original land owners," or otherwise morally above their modern counterparts or "oppressor class," but also that they are unadaptable and incapable of adjusting to modern, civilized patterns of life -- though every other culture on earth does this routinely. Because they are uniquely fragile and historically disadvantaged, they must be preserved indefinitely in some antique ideal form. This becomes patronizing and partakes of a prejudice-by-low assumption. The mythologizers, in this case, believe that Aboriginals simply "cannot cope" with being modern people, and so must be "culturally protected" through the patronage of those more modern than they, who would like to keep their charges in a state of permanent infantile dependency, so long as it feeds the myth to do so.

Moreover, the restitution the progressivist "liberator group" proposes to impose upon everybody else in modern society is of unspecified duration and quantity. There is no specified limit to how long historical guilt is to be perpetuated, and no spending limit on how much restitution is to be paid; but at the same time, neither is there a point at which the mythologizers ever aim to integrate their "pet" population into the general population as full citizens. Nor will these limits ever be specified, since that would destroy the myth and end the special treatment the mythologizers are delighted to impose on society, and there is no point at which the mythologizers foresee wanting to allow Aboriginals to heal, to reconcile with those they have harmed and those they have been harmed by, and to grow into their own power. The advocacy group will also never give up their own custody of what they enjoy having as their Aboriginal "charges."

Progressives tend to see themselves as entirely lily white in this situation. They're "advocating for the historically oppressed," they insist. But really, what they are doing is signalling their own virtue at the expense of perpetuating a harmful myth and actually forestalling the day when native populations are really able to take their rightful place in the modern world, standing on their own feet.

There's something deeply unethical about an "advocacy" that condemns its "oppressed group" to permanent, infantilized, dependent, non-integrated status relative to the modern world. It looks very much like a new form of oppression, even when it swans around in the robes of compassion.

Yet today, many are demanding that one's genetic physiological natures are intrinsically tied to their ancestral artificial behaviors (their contemporary 'culture').

This is the point. And it's why modern Progressives and Social Justice Warriors are the real racists -- only they, plus the very few left on the eugenics Right -- are interested in perpetuating the practice of categorizing people by race, and stereotyping by genetics. The rest of us just want to get on with our lives, and with being decent to folks.

Thus, we are not able to address the real issues.

Absolutely. Plain speech has gone out the window, in favour of PC speech.

We need to therefore address the 'positive' stereotypes that are presumed non-harmful just as much as the overt forms of directly violent forms. We need to prevent governmnents from having laws that embrace religious and/or other cultural beliefs.

It's going to be more complicated than that, I'm afraid. After all, it's not like there's any religiously / culturally / ideologically neutral beliefs around which governance can organize itself. Any society needs clear values, based on suppositions it can believe are true, which can provide appropriate direction to society's projects in the economic, social, educational, medical, and other spheres. But which set of values will we select? For any one we choose, there are objectors -- but it's now absolutely clear that we cannot please everyone. Sociologists refer to this as "the fact of incommensurable pluralism."

It doesn't help that the present paradigm of the U.N. defines those who don't respect 'culture' as a right of lawmaking as "inhumane".

The UN is, itself, the most egregious example of the impossibility of reconciling pluralism. Conceived as a way of bringing diverse nations into common projects and maximizing peace, it's actually turned out to be an endlessly troubled body, often dominated by its worst factions, and continually paralyzed by it's own impotence.

The UN isn't a solution to the problem of incommensurable pluralism -- it's a showcase of that disease.

[Scott Mayers]

There's also a very insidious bad effect for the "favoured" Aboriginals: the "noble savage" myth, which in some forms could also called the "pet native" myth.

In this myth, it is prejudicially assumed that the Aboriginals are automatically "closer to nature," or "more authentic," or "original land owners," or otherwise morally above their modern counterparts or "oppressor class," but also that they are unadaptable and incapable of adjusting to modern, civilized patterns of life -- though every other culture on earth does this routinely. Because they are uniquely fragile and historically disadvantaged, they must be preserved indefinitely in some antique ideal form. This becomes patronizing and partakes of a prejudice-by-low assumption. The mythologizers, in this case, believe that Aboriginals simply "cannot cope" with being modern people, and so must be "culturally protected" through the patronage of those more modern than they, who would like to keep their charges in a state of permanent infantile dependency, so long as it feeds the myth to do so.

Yes, this is what I thought too. And I know that even many Native kids would not agree to this contrary to their Elders Councels. There are Natives stuck up north here in Canada isolated from everything. They are already aware of what the rest of society is and want what all other non-Native kids want. Yet they are suffering from isolations to the point many commit suicide and, where many move to the cities, they are so far from having the same background standards that others have that they still tend to be isolated by the very people claiming to support their issues.

Here we are seeing more and more division of the rest of society while also becoming more Nationalistic about their own. While in some senses, this is presently helping many by creating an ecomomy for them, it is at the expense of a future generation that WILL likely turn on the rest of non-Natives should they get to the point of having sufficient power. What many don't realize is that Germany's National Socialist was precisely a type of "Indigenous" uprising. That we support it here as though it is a 'good' thing is odd to me.

Moreover, the restitution the progressivist "liberator group" proposes to impose upon everybody else in modern society is of unspecified duration and quantity. There is no specified limit to how long historical guilt is to be perpetuated, and no spending limit on how much restitution is to be paid; but at the same time, neither is there a point at which the mythologizers ever aim to integrate their "pet" population into the general population as full citizens. Nor will these limits ever be specified, since that would destroy the myth and end the special treatment the mythologizers are delighted to impose on society, and there is no point at which the mythologizers foresee wanting to allow Aboriginals to heal, to reconcile with those they have harmed and those they have been harmed by, and to grow into their own power. The advocacy group will also never give up their own custody of what they enjoy having as their Aboriginal "charges."

Progressives tend to see themselves as entirely lily white in this situation. They're "advocating for the historically oppressed," they insist. But really, what they are doing is signalling their own virtue at the expense of perpetuating a harmful myth and actually forestalling the day when native populations are really able to take their rightful place in the modern world, standing on their own feet.

There's something deeply unethical about an "advocacy" that condemns its "oppressed group" to permanent, infantilized, dependent, non-integrated status relative to the modern world. It looks very much like a new form of oppression, even when it swans around in the robes of compassion.

I think that there are other unspoken agendas at issue as well. Namely, the establishment of those who have gains based upon their own ancestral guilt, need a way to quickly make some amends by admitting guilt but at the general taxpayers' expense. The 'reconciliation' is more about these non-Aboriginal benefactors wanting to 'befriend' their family's prior abuses by asserting that some "we" are all responsible for the them so that the debt gets transferred from the particular guilty parties to the general population instead. Here, the Churches (of the affliated establishment)were granted the charge to deal with the Natives in the past too. Yet, all the particular abuses were successfully muzzled by our courts as they forced a caveat upon an agreed admission of guilt and to the followup general 'compensation' to each and every Native. [The courts have not charged any particular teachers nor religious organs of the supposed 'assimilation' abuses at the schools they ran that they just openly agree were universally abusive of each and every Native in a conspiratorial way. This was part of the settlement plan. The bribe to simply pay each and every Native compensation with the incentive of all Natives to jump in on the deal....especially when many of them are so desperate for money.]

Note that this is a 'conservative' concept (as opposed to a left-wing democratic and progressive idea): it SAVES the particular wealthy and powerful organs and their religions here who have literally gained from the prior treaties their own ancestors have created in deception. Our 'British' heritage is also more theocratic and most particularly here, the Catholic and Anglican Churches are Constitutionally locked in perpetuity special unique rights of language, religious separate schools, and any special favor to related 'friends' in league with them.

Yet today, many are demanding that one's genetic physiological natures are intrinsically tied to their ancestral artificial behaviors (their contemporary 'culture').

This is the point. And it's why modern Progressives and Social Justice Warriors are the real racists -- only they, plus the very few left on the eugenics Right -- are interested in perpetuating the practice of categorizing people by race, and stereotyping by genetics. The rest of us just want to get on with our lives, and with being decent to folks.

Thus, we are not able to address the real issues.

Absolutely. Plain speech has gone out the window, in favour of PC speech.

Yes, I consider it racist too. Note though that this is not simply 'progressives'. Many within the 'progressive left' are actually just collective conservatives who lack the direct power OR to those wanting to utilize 'progressive' ideas as a disguise of some supposed 'compassion'. I am more left leaning but can no longer support any political party here now because they are all agenda-driven by DIFFERENT subsets of the wealthier establishments. "Diversity" is sold as "Multiculturalism", both misleading trademarked terms with very specifically intended utility: to SAVE the established wealth classes, their own preferential segregation, and transfer their debts to the rest of society. It uses "Red Herrings" to throw off the scent of their suspect behavior with powerful effectiveness and then provides closure in a way that CONSERVES their power into perpetuity. That is, it isn't the Natives at fault of this con. They are just being successfully manipulated as are the rest of society in a cleverly composed scheme.

We need to therefore address the 'positive' stereotypes that are presumed non-harmful just as much as the overt forms of directly violent forms. We need to prevent governmnents from having laws that embrace religious and/or other cultural beliefs.

It's going to be more complicated than that, I'm afraid. After all, it's not like there's any religiously / culturally / ideologically neutral beliefs around which governance can organize itself. Any society needs clear values, based on suppositions it can believe are true, which can provide appropriate direction to society's projects in the economic, social, educational, medical, and other spheres. But which set of values will we select? For any one we choose, there are objectors -- but it's now absolutely clear that we cannot please everyone. Sociologists refer to this as "the fact of incommensurable pluralism."

Of course. I just mentioned some more of it above. But governments should be 'secular' even while they also define the common standards of our moral conduct based upon people's personal beliefs. Do you at least agree to the separation of church and state? ["Culture/Multiculturalism" are intentional words used to disguise their means to permit governments to create laws regarding religion. It has the added bonus of being more broad by permitting laws that dictate 'good art' from 'bad art']

It doesn't help that the present paradigm of the U.N. defines those who don't respect 'culture' as a right of lawmaking as "inhumane".

The UN is, itself, the most egregious example of the impossibility of reconciling pluralism. Conceived as a way of bringing diverse nations into common projects and maximizing peace, it's actually turned out to be an endlessly troubled body, often dominated by its worst factions, and continually paralyzed by it's own impotence.

The UN isn't a solution to the problem of incommensurable pluralism -- it's a showcase of that disease.

In the way the human rights are asserted, I agree. But we WILL need some international organs of a governmental nature in order to control certain problems that require ALL countries to agree: like climate change issues, communication and privacy rights, and the tech used to deal with these issues.

[Immanuel Can]

While in some senses, this is presently helping many by creating an ecomomy for them, it is at the expense of a future generation that WILL likely turn on the rest of non-Natives should they get to the point of having sufficient power. What many don't realize is that Germany's National Socialist was precisely a type of "Indigenous" uprising. That we support it here as though it is a 'good' thing is odd to me.

Yes, that's ironic...though I think North American aboriginals are unlikely ever to be given the power to rise up and do anything. More likely, their Leftist, Progressivist patrons will continue to kill them with (phony) "kindness," while their children continue to die of suicide, huffing, disease, cold, neglect, and so on.

Nobody really seems compassionate enough to do anything. The conservatives don't dare, for fear of being labeled as acting as "colonists" or "racists," and the Left only cares about signalling its virtue thought the misery of the aboriginal people. That being so, who's going to act?

I think that there are other unspoken agendas at issue as well. Namely, the establishment of those who have gains based upon their own ancestral guilt, need a way to quickly make some amends by admitting guilt but at the general taxpayers' expense.

That's very on-point. You're right -- the Progressivists have no interest in taking personal responsibility. They want the "guilt" diffused among a vague construct like "society" or "European colonists" or "privileged whiteness," rather than focused on themselves. And they want to take no responsibility at all to do anything about the suffering and dying of native people. Long-term solutions are out; short-term, patronizing "advocacy" is in, with them.

Note that this is a 'conservative' concept (as opposed to a left-wing democratic and progressive idea): it SAVES the particular wealthy and powerful organs and their religions here who have literally gained from the prior treaties their own ancestors have created in deception.

That's the irony of Progressivism. It's actually very conservative of the problems of the present, because it doesn't represent a real change or real solution to the problems of the present moment. It conserves them by treating them as permanent injustices, rather than looking at them as deplorable historical faults that ought to be corrected practically in the present moment, without all this self-flagellation nonsense. The people who are alive today had nothing whatsoever to do with generating the problem. Like the aboriginals, they inherited it: and if we recognized that, and stopped blaming people or assuming the situation was a problem of historical guilt, we could get on to joint solutions. But we lack the maturity to do that.

Note though that this is not simply 'progressives'. Many within the 'progressive left' are actually just collective conservatives who lack the direct power OR to those wanting to utilize 'progressive' ideas as a disguise of some supposed 'compassion'.

That's exactly right.

That is, it isn't the Natives at fault of this con. They are just being successfully manipulated as are the rest of society in a cleverly composed scheme.

Well, that's largely right. However, there are chieftains and some other traditional leaders who are exploiting their own people as well, making good money off the guilty avails of restitution from the rest of the world. And when this is questioned, they scream "Interference!" "Colonialism!" and retreat into their corrupt cabals.

The truly non-racist assumption has to be this: that with good, basic bridging strategies, natives are quite capable of doing what every other culture has shown themselves capable of doing: of making their own way in modern society.

But governments should be 'secular' even while they also define the common standards of our moral conduct based upon people's personal beliefs. Do you at least agree to the separation of church and state? ["Culture/Multiculturalism" are intentional words used to disguise their means to permit governments to create laws regarding religion. It has the added bonus of being more broad by permitting laws that dictate 'good art' from 'bad art']

Absolutely.

I'm not personally "secular," nor do I believe that Atheism or agnosticism are good ways for an individual to address reality. But secularism is the best public arrangement to allow people freedom of conscience, which is something I believe in very deeply. In my world, people have a right to be wrong, just as they have a right to be right -- because that's what free conscience entails.

...we WILL need some international organs of a governmental nature in order to control certain problems that require ALL countries to agree: like climate change issues, communication and privacy rights, and the tech used to deal with these issues.

What we want and what we can have may turn out to be different things, though.

There's no guarantee that just because a global solution seems obviously efficient that we can compel one without creating a lot of violence. To ask the whole world to agree about anything is, I think, naive and doomed. And to try to force the world to agree is likely to get a bunch of people killed.

[Sculptor]

The author says that it is psychologically unrealistic to expect us not to categorize and generalize. Of course categorizing and judging is just lazy thinking. How unable are humans to treat specifics as specifics? Most judge, as Carl Jung said, because thinking is hard. So in the world of neurotypicals, maybe this statement of difficulty is true generally. But this statement in itself is lazy thinking since many think in trees and specifics rather in categories and forests.

A Pine and an Oak are both trees, but, obviously, are not the same kind of tree.

Discerning difference allows a man to pet a cat and avoid a lion, and to pick a safe mushroom and avoid the poisonous one.

It ain't lazy: it's natural, normal, and a survival trait.

And: no, I didn't read the article.

And: it's irritating to read 'neurotypicals' (like somehow bein' neurotypical is a disadvantage). Bein' neuro-atypical is a disadvantage, a disability, Autistics are not advanced man; they're just damaged man.

No - you are a damaged man.

[henry quirk]

The author says that it is psychologically unrealistic to expect us not to categorize and generalize. Of course categorizing and judging is just lazy thinking. How unable are humans to treat specifics as specifics? Most judge, as Carl Jung said, because thinking is hard. So in the world of neurotypicals, maybe this statement of difficulty is true generally. But this statement in itself is lazy thinking since many think in trees and specifics rather in categories and forests.

A Pine and an Oak are both trees, but, obviously, are not the same kind of tree.

Discerning difference allows a man to pet a cat and avoid a lion, and to pick a safe mushroom and avoid the poisonous one.

It ain't lazy: it's natural, normal, and a survival trait.

And: no, I didn't read the article.

And: it's irritating to read 'neurotypicals' (like somehow bein' neurotypical is a disadvantage). Bein' neuro-atypical is a disadvantage, a disability, Autistics are not advanced man; they're just damaged man.

No - you are a damaged man.

( ‿|‿ )

[Sculptor]

A Pine and an Oak are both trees, but, obviously, are not the same kind of tree.

Discerning difference allows a man to pet a cat and avoid a lion, and to pick a safe mushroom and avoid the poisonous one.

It ain't lazy: it's natural, normal, and a survival trait.

And: no, I didn't read the article.

And: it's irritating to read 'neurotypicals' (like somehow bein' neurotypical is a disadvantage). Bein' neuro-atypical is a disadvantage, a disability, Autistics are not advanced man; they're just damaged man.

No - you are a damaged man.

( ‿|‿ )

QED

[henry quirk]

No - you are a damaged man.

( ‿|‿ )

QED

Yeah, you, sharin' an intimate moment with your mum's decaying keister, has been demonstrated.

PS: your pop is jealous...he's all lubed up and waitin' for ya

[Sculptor]

( ‿|‿ )

QED

Yeah, you, sharin' an intimate moment with your mum's decaying keister, has been demonstrated.

PS: your pop is jealous...he's all lubed up and waitin' for ya

In your dreams.