6 ms·

Cognitive roadblocks to reconciling merit and diversity

33 points by wallflower 10y ago

hyperion2010 10y ago
Gotta say, I love how not once was age mentioned. If you want a different perspective, get it from someone who has been around for awhile. It would be interesting if someone tried to calculate how much suboptimal hiring costs the economy, I have this suspicion that failure to utilize people with real experience will top the list.
- HarryHirsch 10y ago
  how much suboptimal hiring costs the economy But it's not about the economy, it's to preserve the status quo for management, a small subset of the company.
yummyfajitas 10y ago
I used to be really concerned and generally opposed to such biases. But after careful thought, I'm now very uncertain. I really want to know how much of this "bias" is actually just an informative and useful prior. As an example, suppose you have two candidates from Princeton. One is black, the other is asian. With high probability, the asian candidate is smarter - he had to pass through a much more rigorous college admissions filter than the black person. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11904256 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11904256 Now given equal evaluations, it probably makes sense to hire the Asian person over the black person. (Similar reasoning suggests you should prefer an Asian to a white person.) The reason is simply that base rates matter. Bayes rule says that P(good candidate|evidence) = P(evidence|good candidate) P(good candidate)/P(evidence). The term P(good candidate) is known as the base rate - as simple arithmetic demonstrates it's important information. So assuming the base rate for various groups differs, these "biases" might actually not be biases at all - they might be informative. If we eliminate these biases from our process, we might actually make worse decisions [1]. Unfortunately this article doesn't address that question at all. See also this body of research, which suggests that many racial/sexual stereotypes are actually useful priors and improve human decisionmaking: http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jussim/unbearable%20accuracy%20of%20stereotypes.pdf http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jussim/unbearable%20accuracy%20o... I'm also curious to hear arguments about the ethics of using such information in decision making, assuming they are in fact informative. [1] For those unfamiliar with statistics, I've got a simple article here illustrating the arithmetic of base rates. Clickbait title: A gay person donates blood which tests negative for HIV. A straight person donates untested blood. Which is safer? The answer will SHOCK you. https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2016/why_gays_cant_donate_blood.html https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2016/why_gays_cant_donate...
- eevilspock 10y ago
  To get at the ethics of it, even if what you say is true, one must understand the Matthew Effect and self-fulfilling prophesy. These are just as much a force of nature as natural selection and the invisible hand. Einstein called compounding growth one of the most powerful forces in the universe. The Matthew Effect is compounding inequality over generations.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    Inequality isn't compounding though (at least this century). It's shrinking rapidly. http://www.maxroser.com/economic-world-history-in-one-chart/ http://www.maxroser.com/economic-world-history-in-one-chart/ https://twitter.com/MaxCRoser/status/745602914123603968 https://twitter.com/MaxCRoser/status/745602914123603968 But I'm curious though - by what mechanism will such decisions actually cause the Matthew effect? For examples in that article, it's somewhat clear - e.g., the famous mathematician becomes more famous because people notice his papers. But now, in employment, suppose I will make better decisions by favoring an equally qualified Tamil over a Bihari. How will that cause Tamil-Bihari inequality to increase at an exponential rate? Also, even if some groups do get a higher growth rate than others, why is that relevant? Concretely, what ethical or moral reason do we have for choosing these arbitrary groups to care about?
    - eevilspock 10y ago
      Neither of those links/graphs show that inequality had decreased. His argument is based on the false assumption that one-hump is more equal than two. Here are some graphs that argue the other way: http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/pikettys-inequality-story-in-six-charts http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/pikettys-inequali.... Note that the decrease in inequality after WW2 is due to the New Deal and other massive social welfare programs that redistributed wealth. The moment we stopped doing that inequality started growing again. The only way to counter the Matthew Effect is to change the feedback loop. The post-WW2 programs and post-civil rights movement Affirmative Action programs (coincidentally affirmed by SCOTUS today) are examples of doing just that. I'll not make an argument for the merits of desegregating society here, but the Parable of the Polygons (http://ncase.me/polygons http://ncase.me/polygons) is another example of how deliberate counteractions are the only way to change the "natural" course of things. Human culture (including evolving social mores, laws and science) is a prime example of changing the natural course of things. Laissez-faire doesn't always work. How do such decisions cause the Matthew Effect? In so many ways! But here's one to get you started: Black Americans are clearly less advantaged than white Americans. That translates to white Americans growing up in a safer environment, being better educated, having more connections to other advantaged people, not being constantly violated (I highly recommend you read Ta-Nehisi Coates's Between the World and Me) the way blacks are -- I could go on and on. So of course whites will more often be "better hires" from a pure business perspective. So more whites get hired for better jobs. So guess whose children get to live in better neighborhoods, get to go to better schools, and all the other advantages I listed earlier? That is the Matthew Effect.
eevilspock 10y ago
While these cognitive roadblocks affect everyone, I wish the tech community and others who believe in "meritocracy" would take greater hede of this article and other criticisms of it.
NetTechM 10y ago
Seems like a really small sample pool, 73 candidates.
this2shallPass 10y ago
Notice the framing. Much of this is framed well from the author's point of view- you agree, or you are wrong. "Tost’s research shows, may help individuals recognize the privileges they enjoy as part of a dominant group, as long as they also believe they’ve experienced disadvantages as members of other, subordinate groups (and thus can identify with people who feel disadvantaged in comparison with them). White women overall, for instance, are more likely than white men to view themselves as beneficiaries of racial privilege; they get it because they, too, have had to deal with discrimination." White men can't be part of a group that experiences discrimination? What if they're old or young? Have a disability? Are part of the certain ethnic or religious groups, e.g. Jews? Are gay, bisexual or have some other sexual orientation? Who's discriminated against isn't a competition. But all people are judged and get treated how they do in part because of superficial factors (and the prejudices associated with them). At least sometimes. As referenced by another comment, this article was enlightening: research which suggests that many stereotypes e.g. around race or gender are actually useful priors and improve human decision making when you don't have other, better information: http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jussim/unbearable%20accuracy%20of%20stereotypes.pdf http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jussim/unbearable%20accuracy%20o...
- Mendenhall 10y ago
  I noticed that right away. Things like "We believe we know good talent when we see it, yet we usually don’t—we’re terrible at evaluating people objectively" Some are really good at evaluating talent/people. Author seems to want to lump everyone together in a mass of "we" to make some grand point. Missing the trees because of the forest.
Mendenhall 10y ago
I am bias on every decisions I make. I dont want to hire lazy people or people who stink or people who talk too much or busy bodies or on and on and on. Being a single entity among many makes you bias, just learn to be bias on the correct things.
- oh_sigh 10y ago
  If you read the article, it points out that people alter their bias threshold depending on who they are interviewing. Black guy is a little quiet? He's shy, a bad culture fit. White guy a little quiet? He's modest, a great culture fit.
  - Mendenhall 10y ago
    Yes I read it, and your example I covered when I said be biased on the correct things. Not all people alter their bias but part of the problem with this article is its generalities that dont apply to everyone but are written about like they do.
    - oh_sigh 10y ago
      That's like saying "If you're drowning, just start swimming".

33 points by wallflower 10y ago

hyperion2010 10y ago

Gotta say, I love how not once was age mentioned. If you want a different perspective, get it from someone who has been around for awhile. It would be interesting if someone tried to calculate how much suboptimal hiring costs the economy, I have this suspicion that failure to utilize people with real experience will top the list.

HarryHirsch 10y ago
how much suboptimal hiring costs the economy But it's not about the economy, it's to preserve the status quo for management, a small subset of the company.

yummyfajitas 10y ago

I used to be really concerned and generally opposed to such biases. But after careful thought, I'm now very uncertain. I really want to know how much of this "bias" is actually just an informative and useful prior. As an example, suppose you have two candidates from Princeton. One is black, the other is asian. With high probability, the asian candidate is smarter - he had to pass through a much more rigorous college admissions filter than the black person. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11904256 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11904256 Now given equal evaluations, it probably makes sense to hire the Asian person over the black person. (Similar reasoning suggests you should prefer an Asian to a white person.) The reason is simply that base rates matter. Bayes rule says that P(good candidate|evidence) = P(evidence|good candidate) P(good candidate)/P(evidence). The term P(good candidate) is known as the base rate - as simple arithmetic demonstrates it's important information. So assuming the base rate for various groups differs, these "biases" might actually not be biases at all - they might be informative. If we eliminate these biases from our process, we might actually make worse decisions [1]. Unfortunately this article doesn't address that question at all. See also this body of research, which suggests that many racial/sexual stereotypes are actually useful priors and improve human decisionmaking: http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jussim/unbearable%20accuracy%20of%20stereotypes.pdf http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jussim/unbearable%20accuracy%20o... I'm also curious to hear arguments about the ethics of using such information in decision making, assuming they are in fact informative. [1] For those unfamiliar with statistics, I've got a simple article here illustrating the arithmetic of base rates. Clickbait title: A gay person donates blood which tests negative for HIV. A straight person donates untested blood. Which is safer? The answer will SHOCK you. https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2016/why_gays_cant_donate_blood.html https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2016/why_gays_cant_donate...

eevilspock 10y ago
To get at the ethics of it, even if what you say is true, one must understand the Matthew Effect and self-fulfilling prophesy. These are just as much a force of nature as natural selection and the invisible hand. Einstein called compounding growth one of the most powerful forces in the universe. The Matthew Effect is compounding inequality over generations.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Inequality isn't compounding though (at least this century). It's shrinking rapidly. http://www.maxroser.com/economic-world-history-in-one-chart/ http://www.maxroser.com/economic-world-history-in-one-chart/ https://twitter.com/MaxCRoser/status/745602914123603968 https://twitter.com/MaxCRoser/status/745602914123603968 But I'm curious though - by what mechanism will such decisions actually cause the Matthew effect? For examples in that article, it's somewhat clear - e.g., the famous mathematician becomes more famous because people notice his papers. But now, in employment, suppose I will make better decisions by favoring an equally qualified Tamil over a Bihari. How will that cause Tamil-Bihari inequality to increase at an exponential rate? Also, even if some groups do get a higher growth rate than others, why is that relevant? Concretely, what ethical or moral reason do we have for choosing these arbitrary groups to care about?
  - eevilspock 10y ago
    Neither of those links/graphs show that inequality had decreased. His argument is based on the false assumption that one-hump is more equal than two. Here are some graphs that argue the other way: http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/pikettys-inequality-story-in-six-charts http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/pikettys-inequali.... Note that the decrease in inequality after WW2 is due to the New Deal and other massive social welfare programs that redistributed wealth. The moment we stopped doing that inequality started growing again. The only way to counter the Matthew Effect is to change the feedback loop. The post-WW2 programs and post-civil rights movement Affirmative Action programs (coincidentally affirmed by SCOTUS today) are examples of doing just that. I'll not make an argument for the merits of desegregating society here, but the Parable of the Polygons (http://ncase.me/polygons http://ncase.me/polygons) is another example of how deliberate counteractions are the only way to change the "natural" course of things. Human culture (including evolving social mores, laws and science) is a prime example of changing the natural course of things. Laissez-faire doesn't always work. How do such decisions cause the Matthew Effect? In so many ways! But here's one to get you started: Black Americans are clearly less advantaged than white Americans. That translates to white Americans growing up in a safer environment, being better educated, having more connections to other advantaged people, not being constantly violated (I highly recommend you read Ta-Nehisi Coates's Between the World and Me) the way blacks are -- I could go on and on. So of course whites will more often be "better hires" from a pure business perspective. So more whites get hired for better jobs. So guess whose children get to live in better neighborhoods, get to go to better schools, and all the other advantages I listed earlier? That is the Matthew Effect.

eevilspock 10y ago

While these cognitive roadblocks affect everyone, I wish the tech community and others who believe in "meritocracy" would take greater hede of this article and other criticisms of it.

NetTechM 10y ago

Seems like a really small sample pool, 73 candidates.

this2shallPass 10y ago

Notice the framing. Much of this is framed well from the author's point of view- you agree, or you are wrong. "Tost’s research shows, may help individuals recognize the privileges they enjoy as part of a dominant group, as long as they also believe they’ve experienced disadvantages as members of other, subordinate groups (and thus can identify with people who feel disadvantaged in comparison with them). White women overall, for instance, are more likely than white men to view themselves as beneficiaries of racial privilege; they get it because they, too, have had to deal with discrimination." White men can't be part of a group that experiences discrimination? What if they're old or young? Have a disability? Are part of the certain ethnic or religious groups, e.g. Jews? Are gay, bisexual or have some other sexual orientation? Who's discriminated against isn't a competition. But all people are judged and get treated how they do in part because of superficial factors (and the prejudices associated with them). At least sometimes. As referenced by another comment, this article was enlightening: research which suggests that many stereotypes e.g. around race or gender are actually useful priors and improve human decision making when you don't have other, better information: http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jussim/unbearable%20accuracy%20of%20stereotypes.pdf http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jussim/unbearable%20accuracy%20o...

Mendenhall 10y ago
I noticed that right away. Things like "We believe we know good talent when we see it, yet we usually don’t—we’re terrible at evaluating people objectively" Some are really good at evaluating talent/people. Author seems to want to lump everyone together in a mass of "we" to make some grand point. Missing the trees because of the forest.

Mendenhall 10y ago

I am bias on every decisions I make. I dont want to hire lazy people or people who stink or people who talk too much or busy bodies or on and on and on. Being a single entity among many makes you bias, just learn to be bias on the correct things.

oh_sigh 10y ago
If you read the article, it points out that people alter their bias threshold depending on who they are interviewing. Black guy is a little quiet? He's shy, a bad culture fit. White guy a little quiet? He's modest, a great culture fit.
- Mendenhall 10y ago
  Yes I read it, and your example I covered when I said be biased on the correct things. Not all people alter their bias but part of the problem with this article is its generalities that dont apply to everyone but are written about like they do.
  - oh_sigh 10y ago
    That's like saying "If you're drowning, just start swimming".