4 ms·

This is how I mainly take it. A lot of comments about how this will make it "bias free!" and "nondiscriminatory" when really what it will do is give advantaged

This is how I mainly take it. A lot of comments about how this will make it "bias free!" and "nondiscriminatory" when really what it will do is give advantaged people even more advantage. Those who were not able to go to the better school and get more life experiences and obtain connections are going to be even further behind. There seems to be this implied belief that there's a conspiracy in the West to hire white males above all. This simply isn't true. By having access to race and gender and even age in some cases it allows us to select for a diverse set of candidates. So although we may not (or we may!) end up with an outcome that is as diverse as the set we started with, we at least made the effort to give different people an equal opportunity. If I'm only allowed to recruit based on the best credentials then those with a socioeconomic advantage will continue to.

manigandham 8y ago
You have no idea what someone's advantage in life is, and you're turning "diversity" into "diversity of race and gender" which is about nothing but immutable physical characteristics. Life is not constant. People move through various conditions all the time. Are you going to deny someone who grew up poor and then got a scholarship to Harvard? Putting people into permanent "social classes" is far worse than letting people use their abilities and become competent independently.
- nemo44x 8y ago
  > Are you going to deny someone who grew up poor and then got a scholarship to Harvard? This is the exception to the rule and not really relevant to anything I said I think? What about the kid who grew up poor and could have gotten into Harvard but didn't go because their parent was sick and couldn't afford care and they attended a local college to be home with them? This is more likely. > Putting people into permanent "social classes" is far worse than letting people use their abilities and become competent independently. I agree - letting people use their abilities to advance themselves is best. If anything, I support blind screening of applicants. But I think the approach here has different intentions than what will very possibly occur - those with access continue to compound that.
  - manigandham 8y ago
    What about it? Life isn't fair. There are trillions of decisions and situations in your life that accumulate, and there is absolutely no way you or anyone else can judge that to engineer some kind of fair outcome. It is good intentioned but not realistic, and it ends up causing far more bias because you think you're doing the right thing, while basing it on a faulty perception.
    - nemo44x 8y ago
      > What about it? Life isn't fair. Right, which means we shouldn't cry when it turns out to be unfair as you are here. > There are trillions of decisions and situations in your life that accumulate, and there is absolutely no way you or anyone else can judge that to engineer some kind of fair outcome. When have I even once said there should be "fair outcomes"? I don't believe in equal outcomes. I do believe in equal opportunities. > It is good intentioned but not realistic, and it ends up causing far more bias because you think you're doing the right thing, while basing it on a faulty perception What is the "faulty perception"? I'm simply stating that if the goal is to have a diverse workforce then removing the heuristics we are told make us diverse from the recruiting process makes it difficult to achieve this goal. If I want to fill a position and my company has given us a goal of eventually having the ideal diverse workplace without sacrificing the quality of our people then I need tools to do this. I will use the, possibly arbitrary and political, heuristics they give me (age, gender, race, etc) and ask my recruiting staff to give me a group of 12 candidate for in-person interviews. From these 12 there must be at least 1 attribute from each heuristic across the group. So maybe we say there are 3 races we optimize for, 3 age bands and 2 genders. This means that my set of 12 could have a black woman who is 41, for instance, and a white male who is 25, and an Asian male who is 55. This has all of these covered and the remaining 9 candidates can be any combination. But at least I have committed to creating an equal opportunity in the way the company and a large part of society see as "diverse". Even if I don't agree with it 100%. Does this create far more bias when the goal is to create the ideal, diverse workforce? By systematically including certain biological features of people in the candidate pool are we at least ensuring we gave a diverse group of individuals an equal opportunity?
tomrod 8y ago
> really what it will do is give advantaged people even more advantage. Small quibble: it will persist the existing advantage through the offer stage. Then income differentials could/would apply. The blind approach is not a guaranteed proximate cause towards increasing bias, but rather an entrenchment of existing bias. But, agree that amplification begins shortly after point of offer.

manigandham 8y ago

You have no idea what someone's advantage in life is, and you're turning "diversity" into "diversity of race and gender" which is about nothing but immutable physical characteristics. Life is not constant. People move through various conditions all the time. Are you going to deny someone who grew up poor and then got a scholarship to Harvard? Putting people into permanent "social classes" is far worse than letting people use their abilities and become competent independently.

nemo44x 8y ago
> Are you going to deny someone who grew up poor and then got a scholarship to Harvard? This is the exception to the rule and not really relevant to anything I said I think? What about the kid who grew up poor and could have gotten into Harvard but didn't go because their parent was sick and couldn't afford care and they attended a local college to be home with them? This is more likely. > Putting people into permanent "social classes" is far worse than letting people use their abilities and become competent independently. I agree - letting people use their abilities to advance themselves is best. If anything, I support blind screening of applicants. But I think the approach here has different intentions than what will very possibly occur - those with access continue to compound that.
- manigandham 8y ago
  What about it? Life isn't fair. There are trillions of decisions and situations in your life that accumulate, and there is absolutely no way you or anyone else can judge that to engineer some kind of fair outcome. It is good intentioned but not realistic, and it ends up causing far more bias because you think you're doing the right thing, while basing it on a faulty perception.
  - nemo44x 8y ago
    > What about it? Life isn't fair. Right, which means we shouldn't cry when it turns out to be unfair as you are here. > There are trillions of decisions and situations in your life that accumulate, and there is absolutely no way you or anyone else can judge that to engineer some kind of fair outcome. When have I even once said there should be "fair outcomes"? I don't believe in equal outcomes. I do believe in equal opportunities. > It is good intentioned but not realistic, and it ends up causing far more bias because you think you're doing the right thing, while basing it on a faulty perception What is the "faulty perception"? I'm simply stating that if the goal is to have a diverse workforce then removing the heuristics we are told make us diverse from the recruiting process makes it difficult to achieve this goal. If I want to fill a position and my company has given us a goal of eventually having the ideal diverse workplace without sacrificing the quality of our people then I need tools to do this. I will use the, possibly arbitrary and political, heuristics they give me (age, gender, race, etc) and ask my recruiting staff to give me a group of 12 candidate for in-person interviews. From these 12 there must be at least 1 attribute from each heuristic across the group. So maybe we say there are 3 races we optimize for, 3 age bands and 2 genders. This means that my set of 12 could have a black woman who is 41, for instance, and a white male who is 25, and an Asian male who is 55. This has all of these covered and the remaining 9 candidates can be any combination. But at least I have committed to creating an equal opportunity in the way the company and a large part of society see as "diverse". Even if I don't agree with it 100%. Does this create far more bias when the goal is to create the ideal, diverse workforce? By systematically including certain biological features of people in the candidate pool are we at least ensuring we gave a diverse group of individuals an equal opportunity?

tomrod 8y ago

> really what it will do is give advantaged people even more advantage. Small quibble: it will persist the existing advantage through the offer stage. Then income differentials could/would apply. The blind approach is not a guaranteed proximate cause towards increasing bias, but rather an entrenchment of existing bias. But, agree that amplification begins shortly after point of offer.