4 ms·
Bob: Worked at Uber for 3 years Joe: Worked at LinkedIn for 3 years With only this information, which person is more likely to engage in backstabbing or sexua
by coryfklein 10y ago
Bob: Worked at Uber for 3 years
Joe: Worked at LinkedIn for 3 years
With only this information, which person is more likely to engage in backstabbing or sexual harassment?
With the information available to me, the answer seems clear: Bob
Can somebody explain the fault in my reasoning please?
- istorical 10y agoThere's nothing wrong with your reasoning, it's just called 'painting an entire group for the sins of some subset". Or in other words, it means you're prejudiced against Uber employees.
- coryfklein 10y agoAre you saying we shouldn't engage in this kind of reasoning because of the words used to describe it? Shouldn't reasoning be used based on its ability to model the world accurately? If the above reasoning is prejudice, does that make prejudice a good thing?
- techthroway443 10y agoReal question is, if it's true can you still call that prejudice?
- DenisM 10y agoThe fault is simple - when dealing with a person, treat them for what they are, not for what your own preconceived notions tell you. Even statistically justified prejudices are unfair. Statistically some ethnic groups are more likely to have a criminal record. Don't just assume - go ahead and check. Is it more effort? Yes. That's why we call it "the right thing to do" and not "the convenient thing to do".
- BeetleB 10y ago>With only this information, which person is more likely to engage in backstabbing or sexual harassment? >Can somebody explain the fault in my reasoning please? The fault is in insisting that you have to come up with an answer. I think the biggest lesson I learned in grad school was learning not to make decisions with inadequate data. And rooting out those who do.