3 ms·

Sure! Except when left to our own devices to "look beyond the superficial traits of a person", we usually end up hiring people who remind us ourselves. There i

by majos 9y ago

Sure! Except when left to our own devices to "look beyond the superficial traits of a person", we usually end up hiring people who remind us ourselves. There is a place for consciously paying attention to race, ethnicity, and gender in that case. (Admittedly, the alleged situation in the headline is too far.)

adamnemecek 9y ago
> Except when left to our own devices to "look beyond the superficial traits of a person", we usually end up hiring people who remind us ourselves. Speak for yourself. Also, like similarity goes beyond skin color. I have more in common with a programmer of any race than with a non-programmer of my own race. That being said furries are weird.
- xkjkls 9y ago
  We're speaking to what a large body of research and hiring practices have borne out. It's a bad idea to assume you are immune from unconcious biases. https://hbr.org/2017/08/what-the-science-actually-says-about-gender-gaps-in-the-workplace https://hbr.org/2017/08/what-the-science-actually-says-about...
- mars4rp 9y ago
  Some biases are on the surface and you might be able to avoid them. Others are unconscious and without knowing it exist you can't avoid it. Problem is people think they are not bias when they actually are! Let's try something, for the next 10 person that you meet, try to come up with a reason of why you like or dislike them. And those reasons are just coming justification for your feelings, and it is coming from your unconscious!
- notacoward 9y ago
  > I have more in common with a programmer of any race than with a non-programmer of my own race. Is that unusual freedom from unconscious bias reflected in the history of what engineers you have chosen to interview, made offers to, or subsequently promoted? Everyone thinks they're free from bias, until the empirical results show that the majority of them mathematically must be wrong.
  - adamnemecek 9y ago
    I never made a hiring decision.
ghostcluster 9y ago
From what I've seen, the workforce closely mirrors the demographics of CS and Engineering students enrolled at top universities, i.e. the educated talent pool.
ignoramceisblis 9y ago
I believe what you describe. I believe there are plenty of people who have the problem you describe--to a significant extent. And of course it's not limited to who you hire, but also who you associate with, and how you treat people. Many people, of all walks of life, act based on their assumptions of others, to some degree. I'm a scientist. I believe in the power of observation, action, and assessment (further observation). If I perceive that a problem exists, then I: do my due diligence to determine the extent to which it exists (if at all), determine if and how I should solve it, and carry out that determination. I believe there are plenty of people that could use an adjustment, at least for the matter you describe. But I'm an even bigger believer in priorities. Of investing energy and time--of our one, limited life--towards the goals that I think matter the most. The health of our planet and power inequality, for two. There are just some people for whom any such "adjustment" would only serve to (at best) distract them from other endeavours, where they may be sorely needed. Good people, who do truly good things. At what point do you stop this (re)education? Can we hope for a complete disassociation from our biological tendency to observe and encode patterns? Do we even want that? At some point, the energy expended on a perceived problem may greatly outweigh the returns you get from the investment. Energy that could have been better spent. Right now, I see much energy--mostly talk--being devoted, in a "shotgun" approach, to this problem and other social problems. I see it talked about in mass-consumed venues, and I see others parroting talking points. But for me, my colleagues, and my friends, it just isn't a problem. I interact with individuals all over the world and we are able to work together toward common goals. And I think that's what matters most.

by majos 9y ago

adamnemecek 9y ago

> Except when left to our own devices to "look beyond the superficial traits of a person", we usually end up hiring people who remind us ourselves. Speak for yourself. Also, like similarity goes beyond skin color. I have more in common with a programmer of any race than with a non-programmer of my own race. That being said furries are weird.

xkjkls 9y ago
We're speaking to what a large body of research and hiring practices have borne out. It's a bad idea to assume you are immune from unconcious biases. https://hbr.org/2017/08/what-the-science-actually-says-about-gender-gaps-in-the-workplace https://hbr.org/2017/08/what-the-science-actually-says-about...
mars4rp 9y ago
Some biases are on the surface and you might be able to avoid them. Others are unconscious and without knowing it exist you can't avoid it. Problem is people think they are not bias when they actually are! Let's try something, for the next 10 person that you meet, try to come up with a reason of why you like or dislike them. And those reasons are just coming justification for your feelings, and it is coming from your unconscious!
notacoward 9y ago
> I have more in common with a programmer of any race than with a non-programmer of my own race. Is that unusual freedom from unconscious bias reflected in the history of what engineers you have chosen to interview, made offers to, or subsequently promoted? Everyone thinks they're free from bias, until the empirical results show that the majority of them mathematically must be wrong.
- adamnemecek 9y ago
  I never made a hiring decision.

ghostcluster 9y ago

From what I've seen, the workforce closely mirrors the demographics of CS and Engineering students enrolled at top universities, i.e. the educated talent pool.

ignoramceisblis 9y ago

I believe what you describe. I believe there are plenty of people who have the problem you describe--to a significant extent. And of course it's not limited to who you hire, but also who you associate with, and how you treat people. Many people, of all walks of life, act based on their assumptions of others, to some degree. I'm a scientist. I believe in the power of observation, action, and assessment (further observation). If I perceive that a problem exists, then I: do my due diligence to determine the extent to which it exists (if at all), determine if and how I should solve it, and carry out that determination. I believe there are plenty of people that could use an adjustment, at least for the matter you describe. But I'm an even bigger believer in priorities. Of investing energy and time--of our one, limited life--towards the goals that I think matter the most. The health of our planet and power inequality, for two. There are just some people for whom any such "adjustment" would only serve to (at best) distract them from other endeavours, where they may be sorely needed. Good people, who do truly good things. At what point do you stop this (re)education? Can we hope for a complete disassociation from our biological tendency to observe and encode patterns? Do we even want that? At some point, the energy expended on a perceived problem may greatly outweigh the returns you get from the investment. Energy that could have been better spent. Right now, I see much energy--mostly talk--being devoted, in a "shotgun" approach, to this problem and other social problems. I see it talked about in mass-consumed venues, and I see others parroting talking points. But for me, my colleagues, and my friends, it just isn't a problem. I interact with individuals all over the world and we are able to work together toward common goals. And I think that's what matters most.