4 ms·

In a world where qualified diverse candidates still regularly get rejected at greater rates than qualified non-diverse candidates, is this bad? I mean, as soon

In a world where qualified diverse candidates still regularly get rejected at greater rates than qualified non-diverse candidates, is this bad? I mean, as soon as the needle even flirts with going past perfectly fair in the other direction, that's when some of these people get up in arms?

manfredo 9y ago
This is besides the point. The point is, the author did not say that unqualified diverse candidates are accepted at a higher rate than unqualified non-diverse candidates. Many people are using this statement (often excluding the last couple words specifically referring to the false-negative rate) to claim that the author calling his women and racially underrepresented co-workers under qualified. For what it's worth, I do think that taking steps to decrease the false negative rate for diverse candidates is an okay system and I explain my company's process of doing this in another comment in this page. That said, pointing out that this system is increasing the false-negative rate for non-diverse candidates is 1) factually correct, and 2) not at all the same thing as calling my underrepresented co-workers unqualified. If somebody claimed that our interview process increased the false positive rate for underrepresented groups I would object to such a statement - but that is not what is said in this document.
- evolve2017 9y ago
  I replied elsewhere but in case you didn't see it: It looks like the author is talking about setting a threshold, as in the context of creating a test. Please have a look at [1]. In this setting, it is not possible to decrease the false-negative rate without increasing the false-positive rate. I think the author is phrasing things this way simply as a matter of rhetoric, but his argument clearly suggests that less qualified 'diversity' candidates are being hired. 1. http://www.prolekare.cz/dbpic/jp_5403_f_21-x1000_1600 http://www.prolekare.cz/dbpic/jp_5403_f_21-x1000_1600
  - manfredo 9y ago
    First off, this isn't a pharmaceutical trial this is a hiring process. Second, even if there is a fundamental principle of probability that assures this is the case it's still possible to have a change that vastly reduces to false-negative rate as compared to the increase false positive rate - so much to the extent that the latter is negligible. On a broader note, the way you're injecting a completely different message into the author's text is exactly the kind of behavior that makes these discussions toxic. I realize that might sound accusatory, but if people can't make a statement without people stuffing contradictory or unrelated words into their mouths there's no possibility of civil discussion.
    - evolve2017 9y ago
      Thanks for your response! This isn't a pharmaceutical trial but there's no reason why we can't follow along with the author's analogy of 'false negatives'. Here are his words from 'The Harm of Google's Biases': I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices: He goes on to list his examples, which include the following: Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate I think you may have misread his position earlier; I noted that you misspoke when talking about this particular statement (i.e., whether the false-negative rate applied to 'diversity' vs 'non-diversity' candidates) EDIT: Didn't see your statistical comment. Unfortunately, I can't think of a case where 'adjusting a bar' to decrease the false-negative rate does not neceessarily increase the false-positive rate. The fact that the author uses the phrase 'lowering the bar' suggests that he is also thinking of this statistical requirement.
      - manfredo 9y ago
        > Unfortunately, I can't think of a case where 'adjusting a bar' to decrease the false-negative rate does not neceessarily increase the false-positive rate. Here's one: * Phone screens have a 50% false negative rate, and a 0% false positive rate. * On-site interviews have a 0% false negative rate, and a 0% false positive rate. Non-diverse candidates do one phone screen, and if passed, do an onsite. Diverse candidates do two phone screens, and if either passes, they go on to the onsite. For all candidates, if the onsite is passed, the candidate gets an offer. * Unqualified candidates, regardless of diversity, never get an offer. * Qualified, non-diverse candidates get an offer 50% of the time (the other 50% are erroneously eliminated at the phone interview stage). * Qualified, diverse candidates get an offer 75% of the time (25% eliminated at the phone interview stage due to false negatives). It seems to me that the author is advocating either doing two phone interviews for all candidates, or one phone interview for all candidates. Neither change would alter false positive rates, since false positive rates are 0% at all times. If you're inclined to point out that all tests have a false positive rate >0%, substitute 0% for 0.00000001% and note that I stated the change in false positive rates could be trivially small to the point of omission in the comment above.
- peak_body_yo 9y ago
  > increased the false positive rate for underrepresented groups I would object to such a statement Does your recruitment process have a 0% false positive rate? If not, giving more opportunities will yield more false positives unless it's proven that the extra opportunities have a 0% false positive rate.
- princeb 9y ago
  well, if the women google are hiring are not underqualified, then there is no issue and there's nothing wrong with google's diversity programs.
throw_away_777 9y ago
I'd like to see your data supporting the assertion that qualified diverse candidates are rejected at greater rates. The thing is he wouldn't of been fired for arguing the opposite claim, this is clearly discrimination.
- smt88 9y ago
  The data is incredibly easy to find and has been demonstrated for decades. It's an easy experiment: two identical candidates, one of them with an ethnic name (or actor) and one of them is white. It also consistently shows that white candidates do better than black candidates, despite having identical resumes. This has been shown across society, including applications for housing, police stops, punishments in school, etc. I don't know why employment would be the one exception.
  - throw_away_777 9y ago
    Show me the data that this is true at google, which is the company we are talking about. I would be very interested to see this data.
    - smt88 9y ago
      That's just absurd. The only people who have that data would be violating a contract by disclosing it, and I'm not even one of them.
    - deong 9y ago
      The burden of proof is on the side arguing there's something "special" about Google. The effect is present everywhere we've looked. Lacking any specific evidence to the contrary, it's present in Google hiring too.
      - throw_away_777 9y ago
        I don't usually like to ask for citations, but he said the data was easily found which is clearly false in this case. And there are good reasons to believe google, a company which hires a "VP of Diversity" might be different from the companies previously studied in entirely different industries with entirely different hiring practices and requirements. I know in academia, female applicants are favored in the hard sciences: http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/10/new-study-explores-gender-bias-academic-hiring http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/10/new-study-explores-g...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

manfredo 9y ago

This is besides the point. The point is, the author did not say that unqualified diverse candidates are accepted at a higher rate than unqualified non-diverse candidates. Many people are using this statement (often excluding the last couple words specifically referring to the false-negative rate) to claim that the author calling his women and racially underrepresented co-workers under qualified. For what it's worth, I do think that taking steps to decrease the false negative rate for diverse candidates is an okay system and I explain my company's process of doing this in another comment in this page. That said, pointing out that this system is increasing the false-negative rate for non-diverse candidates is 1) factually correct, and 2) not at all the same thing as calling my underrepresented co-workers unqualified. If somebody claimed that our interview process increased the false positive rate for underrepresented groups I would object to such a statement - but that is not what is said in this document.

evolve2017 9y ago
I replied elsewhere but in case you didn't see it: It looks like the author is talking about setting a threshold, as in the context of creating a test. Please have a look at [1]. In this setting, it is not possible to decrease the false-negative rate without increasing the false-positive rate. I think the author is phrasing things this way simply as a matter of rhetoric, but his argument clearly suggests that less qualified 'diversity' candidates are being hired. 1. http://www.prolekare.cz/dbpic/jp_5403_f_21-x1000_1600 http://www.prolekare.cz/dbpic/jp_5403_f_21-x1000_1600
- manfredo 9y ago
  First off, this isn't a pharmaceutical trial this is a hiring process. Second, even if there is a fundamental principle of probability that assures this is the case it's still possible to have a change that vastly reduces to false-negative rate as compared to the increase false positive rate - so much to the extent that the latter is negligible. On a broader note, the way you're injecting a completely different message into the author's text is exactly the kind of behavior that makes these discussions toxic. I realize that might sound accusatory, but if people can't make a statement without people stuffing contradictory or unrelated words into their mouths there's no possibility of civil discussion.
  - evolve2017 9y ago
    Thanks for your response! This isn't a pharmaceutical trial but there's no reason why we can't follow along with the author's analogy of 'false negatives'. Here are his words from 'The Harm of Google's Biases': I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices: He goes on to list his examples, which include the following: Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate I think you may have misread his position earlier; I noted that you misspoke when talking about this particular statement (i.e., whether the false-negative rate applied to 'diversity' vs 'non-diversity' candidates) EDIT: Didn't see your statistical comment. Unfortunately, I can't think of a case where 'adjusting a bar' to decrease the false-negative rate does not neceessarily increase the false-positive rate. The fact that the author uses the phrase 'lowering the bar' suggests that he is also thinking of this statistical requirement.
    - manfredo 9y ago
      > Unfortunately, I can't think of a case where 'adjusting a bar' to decrease the false-negative rate does not neceessarily increase the false-positive rate. Here's one: * Phone screens have a 50% false negative rate, and a 0% false positive rate. * On-site interviews have a 0% false negative rate, and a 0% false positive rate. Non-diverse candidates do one phone screen, and if passed, do an onsite. Diverse candidates do two phone screens, and if either passes, they go on to the onsite. For all candidates, if the onsite is passed, the candidate gets an offer. * Unqualified candidates, regardless of diversity, never get an offer. * Qualified, non-diverse candidates get an offer 50% of the time (the other 50% are erroneously eliminated at the phone interview stage). * Qualified, diverse candidates get an offer 75% of the time (25% eliminated at the phone interview stage due to false negatives). It seems to me that the author is advocating either doing two phone interviews for all candidates, or one phone interview for all candidates. Neither change would alter false positive rates, since false positive rates are 0% at all times. If you're inclined to point out that all tests have a false positive rate >0%, substitute 0% for 0.00000001% and note that I stated the change in false positive rates could be trivially small to the point of omission in the comment above.
peak_body_yo 9y ago
> increased the false positive rate for underrepresented groups I would object to such a statement Does your recruitment process have a 0% false positive rate? If not, giving more opportunities will yield more false positives unless it's proven that the extra opportunities have a 0% false positive rate.
princeb 9y ago
well, if the women google are hiring are not underqualified, then there is no issue and there's nothing wrong with google's diversity programs.

throw_away_777 9y ago

I'd like to see your data supporting the assertion that qualified diverse candidates are rejected at greater rates. The thing is he wouldn't of been fired for arguing the opposite claim, this is clearly discrimination.

smt88 9y ago
The data is incredibly easy to find and has been demonstrated for decades. It's an easy experiment: two identical candidates, one of them with an ethnic name (or actor) and one of them is white. It also consistently shows that white candidates do better than black candidates, despite having identical resumes. This has been shown across society, including applications for housing, police stops, punishments in school, etc. I don't know why employment would be the one exception.
- throw_away_777 9y ago
  Show me the data that this is true at google, which is the company we are talking about. I would be very interested to see this data.
  - smt88 9y ago
    That's just absurd. The only people who have that data would be violating a contract by disclosing it, and I'm not even one of them.
  - deong 9y ago
    The burden of proof is on the side arguing there's something "special" about Google. The effect is present everywhere we've looked. Lacking any specific evidence to the contrary, it's present in Google hiring too.
    - throw_away_777 9y ago
      I don't usually like to ask for citations, but he said the data was easily found which is clearly false in this case. And there are good reasons to believe google, a company which hires a "VP of Diversity" might be different from the companies previously studied in entirely different industries with entirely different hiring practices and requirements. I know in academia, female applicants are favored in the hard sciences: http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/10/new-study-explores-gender-bias-academic-hiring http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/10/new-study-explores-g...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]