2 ms·
When say you chose people solely on relevance and quality, but you only have men as speakers.. Then it's laughable that your system for choosing speakers isn't
by rootedbox 11y ago
When say you chose people solely on relevance and quality, but you only have men as speakers.. Then it's laughable that your system for choosing speakers isn't biased.
Percentages shouldn't be the reason why you hire or don't hire someone but they should be a measure of how much bias is in your system for choosing persons of varying classes. If your percent of xyz participants in the majority class is way higher than the distribution in the possible applicants then there is some sort of class bias(economic, race, socio) in either how you choose applicants, or in how you get applicants.
- tothepixel 11y agoWouldn't this only be true if there was a perfect 50/50 split of qualified speakers based on gender? Percentages can be positioned to show that bias exists only when the input doesn't match the result. It is unknown whether the field of applicants had an "acceptable" amount of diversity to begin with.
- rootedbox 11y agoThe percent ratio based on class of participants should be in range of the percent ratio of possible people qualified by class. And as I stated.. The failure of not being near this percent is either because how you chose your participants from applicants or how you chose to get people to be applicants.
- greenmarantz 11y ago> how you chose to get people to be applicants Applicants are self-selecting. Your argument attempts to shift responsibility (and agency) away from speakers and practitioners.
- rootedbox 11y agoI'm not shifting anything. How can one have agency if they don't know that there is an opportunity? i.e. If an opportunity is open to all; but is only presented to one class then you are in general only going to get applicants from the class that you presented the opportunity too.