Thank you for formalising this, I get your point and I see what you're signalling, but I disagree with the solution you're proposing. Let me explain why. Firstl

Thank you for formalising this, I get your point and I see what you're signalling, but I disagree with the solution you're proposing. Let me explain why. Firstly, I never said Helsinki's approach will completely solve the problem of inequality and you're right about that, nonetheless I perceive it as an improvement over the standard recruitment process. Your math makes sense, although I think the initial conditions are incorrect, because if I understand correctly your assumption is that the attributes hidden by the blinding factors would have had a positive impact on the "land a job interview or not" decision. On the other hand, I believe the opposite is far more likely, and this is precisely where we disagree. Also, I completely condemn the notion of attempting to fix the problem with affirmative action, primarily because it attempts to solve inequality(evil) with deliberate and explicit discrimination(greater evil). Don't forget that discrimination and prejudice is where it all started. Edit: I should have been more precise when referring to blind hiring. I meant completely blind hiring, including the "on-site" interview stage(making it "blind" could be difficult). Obviously you're also correct about the earlier life experiences which could have been impacted by numerous factors, but my perception on that is the same as with law, it shouldn't be retroactive because you can't change people's past. Besides, each case is different and applying counter-biases here is like blind shooting.