6 ms·

> The problem is you think you can judge who is repressed, usually based on group identity, but that never ends well. https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/

> The problem is you think you can judge who is repressed, usually based on group identity, but that never ends well. https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2017/20171114_Demographics.pdf https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-pu... "Black male offenders received sentences on average 19.1 percent longer than similarly situated White male offenders during the Post-Report period (fiscal years 2012-2016), as they had for the prior four periods studied." The concept of legacy admissions to Ivy League schools alone. https://www.economist.com/special-report/2004/12/29/ever-higher-society-ever-harder-to-ascend?story_id=3518560 https://www.economist.com/special-report/2004/12/29/ever-hig... It turns out that we can, in fact, make general statements about large populations. > Judging by capabilities means that anyone can learn to do the job well, even if they have to work harder to overcome their circumstances, and it'll always be down to the individual. Prove to me that free will exists and that generally humans are capable of exercising free will.

manigandham 8y ago
It seems you just proved my point. Wouldn't it be great if we could finally remove demographic physical characteristics from judgement so these biases from race and legacy are gone? >> Prove to me that free will exists and that generally humans are capable of exercising free will. ...What?
- ianleeclark 8y ago
  > Wouldn't it be great if we could finally remove demographic physical characteristics from judgement so these biases from race and legacy are gone? Why do you think that the biases from both race and legacy aren't still there whenever an applicant is effectively just a number tied to a varying skill set?
  - manigandham 8y ago
    Because anyone can learn a skill set from anywhere. By judging competence for the job, we remove all the various "how" and "why" they got there.
    - ianleeclark 8y ago
      I don't think you're equipped to have this conversation. Good luck in life
      - manigandham 8y ago
        It's rather disappointing and yet enlightening that you choose to attack character instead of engaging in the discussion. It's certainly not evidence that you are somehow more "equipped" to have this conversation.
      - dang 8y ago
        Personal attacks will get you banned on HN. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, refrain from flamewars, and don't do this again, regardless of how wrong someone else is.
- tomrod 8y ago
  The blind vetting process removes it in the conditional. In that: conditional on having requisite experience and education, you pass a bar. It does nothing to the joint distribution, in that the conditional distribution ignores that systemic bias has already been applied, this full independence at that point perpetuates the accumulated, extant bias.
  - manigandham 8y ago
    As first stated, it's not about solving the entirety of your life but about removing that obstacle in that certain situation. You mention an iterative process and yet are seemingly against even the 1st step. Bias is not a one-time thing. It's not just applied and then you live with it forever. Life is a constant stream of dynamic decisions and improving opportunity in one scenario is a positive step forward to improving it elsewhere, and perhaps even countering any earlier biased treatments.
    - tomrod 8y ago
      So, "social correction" items mentioned earlier could include autarky, where no change gets implemented. This is the system you've argued for across multiple comments. If society agrees, why not. I am for a bit of redistribution, myself, but the positive claim made about perpetuation of bias is simply a systemic fact. Blinding means that, conditional on prior experience and work, your likelihood of landing the job should be constant. That means prior bias gets perpetuated (is built into the factors that generate prior experience and work).
      - manigandham 8y ago
        I never said "autarky" and I'm not sure where you came to that interpretation across comments. I'm for making hiring practices blind, and making similar progress for equality of opportunity across society.
        tomrod 8y ago
        Autarky in this is referring to using the blind hiring practices with the "intergenerational correction" policy of do nothing else.

manigandham 8y ago

It seems you just proved my point. Wouldn't it be great if we could finally remove demographic physical characteristics from judgement so these biases from race and legacy are gone? >> Prove to me that free will exists and that generally humans are capable of exercising free will. ...What?

ianleeclark 8y ago
> Wouldn't it be great if we could finally remove demographic physical characteristics from judgement so these biases from race and legacy are gone? Why do you think that the biases from both race and legacy aren't still there whenever an applicant is effectively just a number tied to a varying skill set?
- manigandham 8y ago
  Because anyone can learn a skill set from anywhere. By judging competence for the job, we remove all the various "how" and "why" they got there.
  - ianleeclark 8y ago
    I don't think you're equipped to have this conversation. Good luck in life
    - manigandham 8y ago
      It's rather disappointing and yet enlightening that you choose to attack character instead of engaging in the discussion. It's certainly not evidence that you are somehow more "equipped" to have this conversation.
    - dang 8y ago
      Personal attacks will get you banned on HN. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, refrain from flamewars, and don't do this again, regardless of how wrong someone else is.
tomrod 8y ago
The blind vetting process removes it in the conditional. In that: conditional on having requisite experience and education, you pass a bar. It does nothing to the joint distribution, in that the conditional distribution ignores that systemic bias has already been applied, this full independence at that point perpetuates the accumulated, extant bias.
- manigandham 8y ago
  As first stated, it's not about solving the entirety of your life but about removing that obstacle in that certain situation. You mention an iterative process and yet are seemingly against even the 1st step. Bias is not a one-time thing. It's not just applied and then you live with it forever. Life is a constant stream of dynamic decisions and improving opportunity in one scenario is a positive step forward to improving it elsewhere, and perhaps even countering any earlier biased treatments.
  - tomrod 8y ago
    So, "social correction" items mentioned earlier could include autarky, where no change gets implemented. This is the system you've argued for across multiple comments. If society agrees, why not. I am for a bit of redistribution, myself, but the positive claim made about perpetuation of bias is simply a systemic fact. Blinding means that, conditional on prior experience and work, your likelihood of landing the job should be constant. That means prior bias gets perpetuated (is built into the factors that generate prior experience and work).
    - manigandham 8y ago
      I never said "autarky" and I'm not sure where you came to that interpretation across comments. I'm for making hiring practices blind, and making similar progress for equality of opportunity across society.
      - tomrod 8y ago
        Autarky in this is referring to using the blind hiring practices with the "intergenerational correction" policy of do nothing else.