5 ms·

Don't you think its a bit odd to try to compensate for implicit bias with explicit bias? To me it seems unlikely that bigotry, sexism and racism will be fixed b

Don't you think its a bit odd to try to compensate for implicit bias with explicit bias? To me it seems unlikely that bigotry, sexism and racism will be fixed by more of the same.

joshuamorton 9y ago
Not particularly. We do it all the time when the free market misses some context. I see no major difference between a carbon tax and an affirmative action policy. In both cases, the naively optimal action misses some important context, so the system is then tweaked to modify the outcome to take the external factors into account. Do you have any alternative that isn't isomorphic to affirmative action?
- asabjorn 9y ago
  > Do you have any alternative that isn't isomorphic to affirmative action? Possible alternative: We need to embrace that all decisions we make are emotional, even the rational ones [1], and create a process that facilitates the desired change. I believe this can be done by hiring competent minorities into teams [2], where although they are a minority in general they will not be on their team. These teams should not only be that minority as you in a truly inclusive system can't define people by a trait. Since its a minority you probably have to do some extra legway in facilitating matching these teams well to problems the the team members find interesting and that there are growth opportunities. However, that is an ongoing conversation you should be having at any rate. By these teams being competent they will through normal work-conversations and collaborations open minds on how successful people look like. Very suddenly it will be clear that both nerdy and pretty girls as well as anyone in between can code well, and that people that talk and walk in ways that make you uncomfortable might actually be competent and give you a unique perspective if you truly include them in your conversation. Yes, it is not flashy and won't make great campaign posters. However, it empowers individuals while helping those individuals deal with being a minority without it being a zero sum game. And then we can watch history unfold, like how asians went from being railroad grunt work to model immigrants. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Behave-Biology-Humans-Best-Worst-ebook/dp/B01IAUGC5S https://www.amazon.com/Behave-Biology-Humans-Best-Worst-eboo... [2] suggested action by feminists and researchers like Francis Frei, although I am not sure they support this full proposal
  - joshuamorton 9y ago
    So, as an alternative to affirmative action, your proposing we create teams that are essentially ghettos for minorities, and suggesting that this will improve their respect amongst their peers?
    - asabjorn 9y ago
      Read my comment again; in no way this is a ghetto for minorities as the teams are not entirely comprised of minorities and this team structure is supported by research that shows that it feels socially isolating to be the sole representative of your minority in your daily life. Maybe even a majority is not a minority on the team. To be honest this kind of comment that makes any alternative proposal into a cartoon while attacking points clearly not made is whats wrong with american discourse. I think we can do better.
      - joshuamorton 9y ago
        But I'm not making it into a cartoon. You're suggestion is to take minorities and segregate them into specific majority-minority teams. Here's a definition of "ghetto" from a Google search: > put in or restrict to an isolated or segregated area or group That is absolutely what your proposal entails. Consider the outcomes of this proposal: > I'm sorry, we don't have any $minority teams working on $area_of_expertise right now, so I don't see a good fit for you. Note that now your minority group is explicitly a marker of what you can or cannot work on. Whether or not you intended it, your proposal creates a racially defined hierarchy, much in the same way that we already have stereotypes about "women work in frontend/ui roles", you'll only support those stereotypes and make them systematically ingrained. Further, without minority advocates and voices at the level of people picking the "minority" teams, minorities will be less likely to access those projects that are considered more interesting/challenging/prestigious. And note that the more reasonable "make all teams minority majority" is not possible unless your population is also minority majority, and even then its artificial and perhaps too strict. Please don't object to my calling a spade a spade. I've provided a reason that your suggestion is flawed, and instead of defending it on its merits, you've objected to my word choice.
- yorwba 9y ago
  The better alternative would be to improve the situation where the original injustice occurs, not sometime later in the pipeline. E.g. affirmative action in university admissions assumes that members of traditionally underprivileged groups did not have the opportunity to display their full potential and will have higher peak performance than their current scores suggest. While this is true on average and affirmative action is the best you can do if you are limited to influencing this single funnel in the pipeline, it also ends up unfairly benefiting privileged members within unprivileged groups. If more wide-reaching changes are possible, e.g. ensuring that everyone has the same chance to actually learn something in school, affirmative action would soon become redundant, since the difference it aims to correct would not exist any more.
  - joshuamorton 9y ago
    >The better alternative would be to improve the situation where the original injustice occurs, not sometime later in the pipeline. Well...yes. No where did I say that affirmative action policies are the only or a permanent solution, and I'd be suspicious of anyone who did. But they are an immediate bandaid that at least in theory stops the feedback loop. In other words, I agree, but I'm asking in the context of "is there anything that can be done in that funnel that is superior to affirmative action", and it appears that you also agree that the answer is no. In which case, it comes down to whether or not the outsized[1] benefit to privileged minorities is worth it. [1]: And depending on your opinions of privilege, there's compelling arguments to be made that the benefit to otherwise privileged minorities isn't outsized, they'd just be even more successful. Also that often you don't care about the most privileged since they'd all "pass" anyway, but the marginal group. But that's a bigger discussion.
  - noobermin 9y ago
    It would be a better alternative, but we can't go back in time and stop the Dred-Scott v. Stanford or just generally stop the enslavement of Africans in America. Also, things like universal free college, more funding of public schools, end to segregation would do a lot to "fix things," and that's why I fight for such things. Affirmative action is one of the weakest things we can do, but it's what we have now and I support doing what you can. Btw, your point about AA helping privileged members in unprivileged groups rings true, which is part of why I think it's the weakest thing we could do.
- dcow 9y ago
  There is also general disagreement whether we build a system that dishes out equal opportunity regardless of outcome or wether we tweak inputs (opportunity) to achieve equal outcome. Relating AA to carbon tax misses some nuance. Namely, we agree discrimination against fossil fuel is okay because burning too much of it is bad for everyone. Presumably you'd be okay (logically) taxing schools and businesses that have too many whites. But the message is very different. You have to show too many whites is bad for everyone and not simply a product of a more successful culture (for example).
  - joshuamorton 9y ago
    >Presumably you'd be okay (logically) taxing schools and businesses that have too many whites. No, I think this is a slight misinterpretation. I personally don't support quotas. On the other hand, I might be in favor of a credit to schools that give a bonus to minority students who apply, but I think that that's a more palatable result in general. Note that under that equation, you're no longer enforcing equality of outcome, but instead controlling for unequal opportunity.
pjc50 9y ago
If you have a car that pulls to the right, you can compensate for this by steering to the left. If the car is in fact travelling straight down the road while you're doing this, and a backseat driver says "you're pulling to the left, that's not a safe way to drive", are they correct?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- dcow 9y ago
  Cars pull to the right by design, but assuming they didn't, shouldn't you get the tracking adjusted?
- imtringued 9y ago
  Yes, that is not a very safe way to drive.
- pathseeker 9y ago
  If you have a car that pulls to the right, do you keep chopping parts off of the right side to make up for it?

Don't you think its a bit odd to try to compensate for implicit bias with explicit bias? To me it seems unlikely that bigotry, sexism and racism will be fixed by more of the same.

joshuamorton 9y ago

Not particularly. We do it all the time when the free market misses some context. I see no major difference between a carbon tax and an affirmative action policy. In both cases, the naively optimal action misses some important context, so the system is then tweaked to modify the outcome to take the external factors into account. Do you have any alternative that isn't isomorphic to affirmative action?

asabjorn 9y ago
> Do you have any alternative that isn't isomorphic to affirmative action? Possible alternative: We need to embrace that all decisions we make are emotional, even the rational ones [1], and create a process that facilitates the desired change. I believe this can be done by hiring competent minorities into teams [2], where although they are a minority in general they will not be on their team. These teams should not only be that minority as you in a truly inclusive system can't define people by a trait. Since its a minority you probably have to do some extra legway in facilitating matching these teams well to problems the the team members find interesting and that there are growth opportunities. However, that is an ongoing conversation you should be having at any rate. By these teams being competent they will through normal work-conversations and collaborations open minds on how successful people look like. Very suddenly it will be clear that both nerdy and pretty girls as well as anyone in between can code well, and that people that talk and walk in ways that make you uncomfortable might actually be competent and give you a unique perspective if you truly include them in your conversation. Yes, it is not flashy and won't make great campaign posters. However, it empowers individuals while helping those individuals deal with being a minority without it being a zero sum game. And then we can watch history unfold, like how asians went from being railroad grunt work to model immigrants. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Behave-Biology-Humans-Best-Worst-ebook/dp/B01IAUGC5S https://www.amazon.com/Behave-Biology-Humans-Best-Worst-eboo... [2] suggested action by feminists and researchers like Francis Frei, although I am not sure they support this full proposal
- joshuamorton 9y ago
  So, as an alternative to affirmative action, your proposing we create teams that are essentially ghettos for minorities, and suggesting that this will improve their respect amongst their peers?
  - asabjorn 9y ago
    Read my comment again; in no way this is a ghetto for minorities as the teams are not entirely comprised of minorities and this team structure is supported by research that shows that it feels socially isolating to be the sole representative of your minority in your daily life. Maybe even a majority is not a minority on the team. To be honest this kind of comment that makes any alternative proposal into a cartoon while attacking points clearly not made is whats wrong with american discourse. I think we can do better.
    - joshuamorton 9y ago
      But I'm not making it into a cartoon. You're suggestion is to take minorities and segregate them into specific majority-minority teams. Here's a definition of "ghetto" from a Google search: > put in or restrict to an isolated or segregated area or group That is absolutely what your proposal entails. Consider the outcomes of this proposal: > I'm sorry, we don't have any $minority teams working on $area_of_expertise right now, so I don't see a good fit for you. Note that now your minority group is explicitly a marker of what you can or cannot work on. Whether or not you intended it, your proposal creates a racially defined hierarchy, much in the same way that we already have stereotypes about "women work in frontend/ui roles", you'll only support those stereotypes and make them systematically ingrained. Further, without minority advocates and voices at the level of people picking the "minority" teams, minorities will be less likely to access those projects that are considered more interesting/challenging/prestigious. And note that the more reasonable "make all teams minority majority" is not possible unless your population is also minority majority, and even then its artificial and perhaps too strict. Please don't object to my calling a spade a spade. I've provided a reason that your suggestion is flawed, and instead of defending it on its merits, you've objected to my word choice.
yorwba 9y ago
The better alternative would be to improve the situation where the original injustice occurs, not sometime later in the pipeline. E.g. affirmative action in university admissions assumes that members of traditionally underprivileged groups did not have the opportunity to display their full potential and will have higher peak performance than their current scores suggest. While this is true on average and affirmative action is the best you can do if you are limited to influencing this single funnel in the pipeline, it also ends up unfairly benefiting privileged members within unprivileged groups. If more wide-reaching changes are possible, e.g. ensuring that everyone has the same chance to actually learn something in school, affirmative action would soon become redundant, since the difference it aims to correct would not exist any more.
- joshuamorton 9y ago
  >The better alternative would be to improve the situation where the original injustice occurs, not sometime later in the pipeline. Well...yes. No where did I say that affirmative action policies are the only or a permanent solution, and I'd be suspicious of anyone who did. But they are an immediate bandaid that at least in theory stops the feedback loop. In other words, I agree, but I'm asking in the context of "is there anything that can be done in that funnel that is superior to affirmative action", and it appears that you also agree that the answer is no. In which case, it comes down to whether or not the outsized[1] benefit to privileged minorities is worth it. [1]: And depending on your opinions of privilege, there's compelling arguments to be made that the benefit to otherwise privileged minorities isn't outsized, they'd just be even more successful. Also that often you don't care about the most privileged since they'd all "pass" anyway, but the marginal group. But that's a bigger discussion.
- noobermin 9y ago
  It would be a better alternative, but we can't go back in time and stop the Dred-Scott v. Stanford or just generally stop the enslavement of Africans in America. Also, things like universal free college, more funding of public schools, end to segregation would do a lot to "fix things," and that's why I fight for such things. Affirmative action is one of the weakest things we can do, but it's what we have now and I support doing what you can. Btw, your point about AA helping privileged members in unprivileged groups rings true, which is part of why I think it's the weakest thing we could do.
dcow 9y ago
There is also general disagreement whether we build a system that dishes out equal opportunity regardless of outcome or wether we tweak inputs (opportunity) to achieve equal outcome. Relating AA to carbon tax misses some nuance. Namely, we agree discrimination against fossil fuel is okay because burning too much of it is bad for everyone. Presumably you'd be okay (logically) taxing schools and businesses that have too many whites. But the message is very different. You have to show too many whites is bad for everyone and not simply a product of a more successful culture (for example).
- joshuamorton 9y ago
  >Presumably you'd be okay (logically) taxing schools and businesses that have too many whites. No, I think this is a slight misinterpretation. I personally don't support quotas. On the other hand, I might be in favor of a credit to schools that give a bonus to minority students who apply, but I think that that's a more palatable result in general. Note that under that equation, you're no longer enforcing equality of outcome, but instead controlling for unequal opportunity.

pjc50 9y ago

If you have a car that pulls to the right, you can compensate for this by steering to the left. If the car is in fact travelling straight down the road while you're doing this, and a backseat driver says "you're pulling to the left, that's not a safe way to drive", are they correct?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
dcow 9y ago
Cars pull to the right by design, but assuming they didn't, shouldn't you get the tracking adjusted?
imtringued 9y ago
Yes, that is not a very safe way to drive.
pathseeker 9y ago
If you have a car that pulls to the right, do you keep chopping parts off of the right side to make up for it?