5 ms·

Indeed. The problem is that people frequently infer unfair rules from unequal outcomes, without taking into account the possibility of systematic group differen

Indeed. The problem is that people frequently infer unfair rules from unequal outcomes, without taking into account the possibility of systematic group differences. Alan: I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Bob: How do you know there isn't equality of opportunity? Alan: Well, just look at how unequal the outcomes are! At this point, Bob would be wise to change the subject, because if he pressed on, he might get this: Bob: Can you give me an example? Alan: Group X is underrepresented in Field Y. Bob: Maybe Group X isn't as good at Field Y. Alan: What? That's racist and/or sexist! And if Bob were to make a comment to this effect on Hacker News, he's probably get downvoted. This is because most people agree with Alan, and many of them abuse their downvote privileges to punish ideas they disagree with rather than those that don't further the discussion. This degrades the quality of discourse, but at least it helps reassure the downvoters that they aren't racist and/or sexist.

rewqfdsa 11y ago
Right, and unwillingness to consider the possibility of group differences comes from a quasi-religious devotion to the blank slate model of human nature. The way radical egalitarians see it, we're not only equal in dignity, but in potential. That's a pretty view, but it's inconsistent with reality, and radical egalitarians need to come up with increasingly implausible explanations to explain everyday circumstances that make perfect sense once you drop the blank slate model.
- baddox 11y ago
  There is a simple explanation for differences in abilities between groups that has nothing to do with their genetics are so-called natural ability: the fact that groups often grow up around other members of their group. Both nature and nurture are largely in common for many groups, so it could easily be either that causes the observed differences in ability.
  - lexcorvus 11y ago
    could easily be either Or both. They're not mutually exclusive. Do Jamaican sprinters excel because they grow up around other sprinters or because they are blessed with natural ability? Yes. Simply put, or != xor.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
- lexcorvus 11y ago
  Hey rewqfdsa, maybe shoot me an email some time. Address is in profile.
superuser2 11y ago
Apply Occam's Razor to these supposed group differences. Which do you think is a more plausible reality? A. Interviewers prefer candidates who are like themselves, interviewers are mostly white men, therefore most hires are white men. B. The uterus and melanin both inhibit programming ability, interviewers are perfect judges of programming ability, therefore most hires are white men. To look at the present (incomplete) evidence and decide that B is the more likely story, is racism/sexism.
- rewqfdsa 11y ago
  Which is more plausible? a) the action of natural selection, sexual selection, and the hormone environment magically stop at the blood-brain barrier, or b) there are real group differences between human populations? We've already eliminated all overt discrimination. If you continue to cry discrimination, you're essentially postulating a giant unconscious conspiracy. I find the idea wildly implausible. It's much simple to just accept that not everyone is equal in aptitude and ability.
  - drumdance 11y ago
    Women musicians started getting orchestra positions in much greater numbers after auditions were made blind. If biases affect how a professional musician hears music, is it so shocking to think unconscious bias might affect someone's judgment a candidate based on multiple fuzzy factors like ability, culture, and personality? And that's just for job applications. You really think the criminal justice system has removed unconscious bias?
    - WildUtah 11y ago
      Criminal justice and orchestra employment are non-market phenomena. The people in charge do not benefit if the orchestra is great and are not accountable if innocents go to jail and murders spree freely and the tubas clank. So of course the bosses pick out their friends and cronies. And a decent polity should restrain their corruption with blind auditions and accountable audits of prosecutions. But investors should be looking for a good return on their money. They should be looking for the best investments they can find. If they're not, that is the source of bias right there. Of course, the Wall Street industry is located in New York because you can use big city lights, strippers, and steaks to scam small town municipal pension fund managers who aren't investing their own money. Sand Hill Road is supposed to operate on different principles.
nl 11y ago
Bob: Can you give me an example? nl: Sure. To overcome possible biases in hiring, most orchestras revised their audition policies in the 1970s and 1980s. A major change involved the use of blind' auditions with a screen' to conceal the identity of the candidate from the jury. Female musicians in the top five symphony orchestras in the United States were less than 5% of all players in 1970 but are 25% today. We ask whether women were more likely to be advanced and/or hired with the use of blind' auditions. Using data from actual auditions in an individual fixed-effects framework, we find that the screen increases by 50% the probability a woman will be advanced out of certain preliminary rounds.[1] Bob: What? But that doesn't count because... [1] http://gap.hks.harvard.edu/orchestrating-impartiality-impact-%E2%80%9Cblind%E2%80%9D-auditions-female-musicians http://gap.hks.harvard.edu/orchestrating-impartiality-impact...
- lexcorvus 11y ago
  I didn't say there are no valid examples of bias, just that many people assume unequal outcomes must result from unequal opportunity, ignoring the possibility of real group differences. Surely you know many real-life Alans who see bias every time a particular Group X is underrepresented in Field Y. Moreover, the values of X aren't random; you'll almost never hear complaints of bias regarding, say, trash haulers, or NFL cornerbacks. (But NFL quarterbacks—ah, plenty of bias there!)
  - mannykannot 11y ago
    Speculative explanations - i.e. assumptions - are not uncommonly offered in support of the proposition that there is no underlying bias. Nl provides a rare example of the assumptions being systematically investigated.

rewqfdsa 11y ago

Right, and unwillingness to consider the possibility of group differences comes from a quasi-religious devotion to the blank slate model of human nature. The way radical egalitarians see it, we're not only equal in dignity, but in potential. That's a pretty view, but it's inconsistent with reality, and radical egalitarians need to come up with increasingly implausible explanations to explain everyday circumstances that make perfect sense once you drop the blank slate model.

baddox 11y ago
There is a simple explanation for differences in abilities between groups that has nothing to do with their genetics are so-called natural ability: the fact that groups often grow up around other members of their group. Both nature and nurture are largely in common for many groups, so it could easily be either that causes the observed differences in ability.
- lexcorvus 11y ago
  could easily be either Or both. They're not mutually exclusive. Do Jamaican sprinters excel because they grow up around other sprinters or because they are blessed with natural ability? Yes. Simply put, or != xor.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
lexcorvus 11y ago
Hey rewqfdsa, maybe shoot me an email some time. Address is in profile.

superuser2 11y ago

Apply Occam's Razor to these supposed group differences. Which do you think is a more plausible reality? A. Interviewers prefer candidates who are like themselves, interviewers are mostly white men, therefore most hires are white men. B. The uterus and melanin both inhibit programming ability, interviewers are perfect judges of programming ability, therefore most hires are white men. To look at the present (incomplete) evidence and decide that B is the more likely story, is racism/sexism.

rewqfdsa 11y ago
Which is more plausible? a) the action of natural selection, sexual selection, and the hormone environment magically stop at the blood-brain barrier, or b) there are real group differences between human populations? We've already eliminated all overt discrimination. If you continue to cry discrimination, you're essentially postulating a giant unconscious conspiracy. I find the idea wildly implausible. It's much simple to just accept that not everyone is equal in aptitude and ability.
- drumdance 11y ago
  Women musicians started getting orchestra positions in much greater numbers after auditions were made blind. If biases affect how a professional musician hears music, is it so shocking to think unconscious bias might affect someone's judgment a candidate based on multiple fuzzy factors like ability, culture, and personality? And that's just for job applications. You really think the criminal justice system has removed unconscious bias?
  - WildUtah 11y ago
    Criminal justice and orchestra employment are non-market phenomena. The people in charge do not benefit if the orchestra is great and are not accountable if innocents go to jail and murders spree freely and the tubas clank. So of course the bosses pick out their friends and cronies. And a decent polity should restrain their corruption with blind auditions and accountable audits of prosecutions. But investors should be looking for a good return on their money. They should be looking for the best investments they can find. If they're not, that is the source of bias right there. Of course, the Wall Street industry is located in New York because you can use big city lights, strippers, and steaks to scam small town municipal pension fund managers who aren't investing their own money. Sand Hill Road is supposed to operate on different principles.

nl 11y ago

Bob: Can you give me an example? nl: Sure. To overcome possible biases in hiring, most orchestras revised their audition policies in the 1970s and 1980s. A major change involved the use of blind' auditions with a screen' to conceal the identity of the candidate from the jury. Female musicians in the top five symphony orchestras in the United States were less than 5% of all players in 1970 but are 25% today. We ask whether women were more likely to be advanced and/or hired with the use of blind' auditions. Using data from actual auditions in an individual fixed-effects framework, we find that the screen increases by 50% the probability a woman will be advanced out of certain preliminary rounds.[1] Bob: What? But that doesn't count because... [1] http://gap.hks.harvard.edu/orchestrating-impartiality-impact-%E2%80%9Cblind%E2%80%9D-auditions-female-musicians http://gap.hks.harvard.edu/orchestrating-impartiality-impact...

lexcorvus 11y ago
I didn't say there are no valid examples of bias, just that many people assume unequal outcomes must result from unequal opportunity, ignoring the possibility of real group differences. Surely you know many real-life Alans who see bias every time a particular Group X is underrepresented in Field Y. Moreover, the values of X aren't random; you'll almost never hear complaints of bias regarding, say, trash haulers, or NFL cornerbacks. (But NFL quarterbacks—ah, plenty of bias there!)
- mannykannot 11y ago
  Speculative explanations - i.e. assumptions - are not uncommonly offered in support of the proposition that there is no underlying bias. Nl provides a rare example of the assumptions being systematically investigated.