5 ms·

>He says some people misunderstand the aim of his research; he doesn’t suggest that African Americans undergo plastic surgery to look more baby-faced, or wear g

by sandov 8y ago

>He says some people misunderstand the aim of his research; he doesn’t suggest that African Americans undergo plastic surgery to look more baby-faced, or wear glasses if they have 20/20 vision, or make an effort to speak softly. He’s not warning mature-looking black men away from C-suite roles. “I think we should focus on dismantling the hierarchical structures and systems that keep people out and produce phenomena like the Teddy Bear Effect,” he explains. “I want people to realize that we don’t live in a meritocracy, that we are judged by different standards. A quality that could be an asset in one group could be a liability in another.” And because people make many choices and decisions “outside of awareness, intent, or control,” prompted by cues they often don’t notice consciously, Livingston says it might be helpful to change hiring and promotion practices to avoid such blind spots involving physical appearance. And how did he come to the conclusion that these effects and psychological biases are undesirable and we should find mechanisms to avoid them? The journalist either skipped it, or Livingston jumped to state his opinion without explaining himself. I could also interpret the data presented in the completely opposite way: these psychological biases have helped us choose people more apt for these positions and we should create an AI that chooses people based on these facial characteristics, but well, as long as I don't provide a rationale, I'm just spewing bullshit, as the second part of this article does. I'm sorry for the diatribe, but I'm a little tired of these articles trying to push their political agenda.

praptak 8y ago
> I could also interpret the data presented in the completely opposite way: these psychological biases have helped us choose people more apt for these positions. You mean that baby-like facial features do actually make black men more competent in decision-making roles?
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  sandov is saying that the data presented in the article could be interpreted that way. I don't think sandov is actually advocating for that interpretation.
- ve55 8y ago
  I'm not voicing agreement with your parent comment, but for a better understanding more data is needed than just broad correlations. Without additional information you cannot accurately pinpoint where causalities begin and end as well as why and how they exist to begin with. As long as people perceive a stimulus in a certain way (even if they have no rational reason to), it will have an effect that cannot easily be removed. The decisions that a CEO makes are important, but how others perceive them are also important to the very end, not just in the hiring or promotions processes.
  - praptak 8y ago
    > As long as people perceive a stimulus in a certain way (even if they have no rational reason to), it will have an effect that cannot easily be removed. The decisions that a CEO makes are important, but how others perceive them are also important to the very end, not just in the hiring or promotions processes. Yup, this is plausible. It's also compatible with what the author says: “I want people to realize that we don’t live in a meritocracy, that we are judged by different standards. A quality that could be an asset in one group could be a liability in another.” Unless of course you define meritocracy to include being on the right side of people's biases. The problem with this definition is that it is close to making every promotion decision meritocratic by definition.
    - starbeast 8y ago
      >The problem with this definition is that it is close to making every promotion decision meritocratic by definition. This is pretty close to what Michael Young was warning about when he coined the term in his 1958 satire, 'The Rise of the Meritocracy'. Here's an article by him on the subject - https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment
- sandov 8y ago
  I'm not saying that, because I can't provide a rationale or an argument based on actual data. But the article doesn't provide a rationale or data to back up its thesis either. So, both claims are equally ridiculous.
  - Apocryphon 8y ago
    I think it's pretty uncontroversial, especially within STEM, to assert that we should not judge people by their visual appearance.
    - semi-extrinsic 8y ago
      I guess this is true only to a point; perhaps there was an implicit "we should not judge people by the appearance they were born with"? E.g. if someone shows up to work in dirty clothes and unkempt hair, everyone judges them by that, and their boss might even say explicitly "this is not acceptable". I think we mostly agree that this is OK? Another confounder is that we all have subconscious drivers. E.g. I really enjoy Jason Statham in bad action movies, and I cut him more slack simply because of his visual appearance (his style). We all do exactly the same with a leader which our subconscious approves of, and we are more inclined to do a good job under such a leader. If a certain trait of a certain subgroup is something that's frequently featured in people's subconscious idea of a good leader, those traits will neccessarily correlate with better leaders.
      - Apocryphon 8y ago
        Okay sure, but the article is about biological appearance mostly, with some more social-driven (or interpreted as such) factors like glasses.
    - austhrow743 8y ago
      Who is "we"? As a random citizen walking around the streets I shouldn't decide people are more or less likely to attack me or whatever based on appearance. If I'm a casting director for a movie, I should definitely take it in to consideration. The author though doesn't address their recommendations to random citizens or casting directors though. Rather to the board that are hiring CEO's. The article doesn't cover whether their appearance findings are causal or not in any way, or the importance of social justice over profit. Just straight "found a thing people seem to care about so they should immediately stop caring about it". I dunno if this is what the original poster meant by "not providing rationale" but I felt like the conclusion to the article sort of came out of nowhere.
- austhrow743 8y ago
  Did you choose the specific term "decision-making roles" with intent? Decision making is one aspect of being an executive not the whole thing.
klyrs 8y ago
> these psychological biases have helped us choose people more apt for these positions {citation needed} There's a ton of data out there about diversity's impact on businesses, actually. First google hit: [1]. Your AI will choose white men 95% of the time, on account of them being white men. Numerous studies have looked at discriminatory hiring practices, and observe that more-qualified candidates are often overlooked due to racial and gender bias. We agree that hiring less-qualified candidates is less desirable, don't we? > I'm sorry for the diatribe, but I'm a little tired of these articles trying to push their political agenda. Really? What's political about this? Gotta say, you sound like a climate denier whining about the political agenda of climate scientists. The common "agenda" here is to make the world a more survivable place for more people. [1] https://medium.com/awaken-blog/compilation-of-diversity-inclusion-business-case-research-data-62a471fc4a42 https://medium.com/awaken-blog/compilation-of-diversity-incl...
- dang 8y ago
  > you sound like a climate denier whining Please don't respond to a bad comment with another one, e.g. by going into personal attack or introducing an extraneous flamewar topic. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
starbeast 8y ago
>how did he come to the conclusion that these effects and psychological biases are undesirable and we should find mechanisms to avoid them Given your desire that others provide you with strong evidence for visual biases in hiring being at all damaging, otherwise you will dismiss them as pushing a political agenda, perhaps you might be a perfect volunteer for the following proposal. In this spirit of hard nosed logical inquiry, are you at all interested in helping the British Medical Journal with their double blind parachute study? https://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459 https://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459
rdiddly 8y ago
You're right that there are a lot of suppositions being made in the interpretation of the data. But which seems more likely: that all the best leadership skills among black men are concentrated among those who look the most infantile, or that things are run by white people and there's racism and stuff?
- whatshisface 8y ago
  There's absolutely no doubt that between the two options of "facial features are assigned at absolute random, but white male racists control the world" and "facial features are determined by developmental processes that also impact behavior," the former is closer to what is typically believed. However what distinguishes science (ideally) from online comments is that every reasonable hypotheses is supposed to be addressed, including the ones we all agree are pretty far from the present consensus. The accusation that hypothesis are pre-selected based on what is already believed is presently the most dangerous weapon used against the social relevance of the soft sciences, so in today's climate it is especially important to not actually do it.
c3534l 8y ago
Are you advocating for phrenology-based hiring practices?
mromanuk 8y ago
... and 95% are white men, definitely the square jaws and gray hair, make good leaders. Or is a case of perpetuating the status quo.

by sandov 8y ago

praptak 8y ago

> I could also interpret the data presented in the completely opposite way: these psychological biases have helped us choose people more apt for these positions. You mean that baby-like facial features do actually make black men more competent in decision-making roles?

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
sandov is saying that the data presented in the article could be interpreted that way. I don't think sandov is actually advocating for that interpretation.
ve55 8y ago
I'm not voicing agreement with your parent comment, but for a better understanding more data is needed than just broad correlations. Without additional information you cannot accurately pinpoint where causalities begin and end as well as why and how they exist to begin with. As long as people perceive a stimulus in a certain way (even if they have no rational reason to), it will have an effect that cannot easily be removed. The decisions that a CEO makes are important, but how others perceive them are also important to the very end, not just in the hiring or promotions processes.
- praptak 8y ago
  > As long as people perceive a stimulus in a certain way (even if they have no rational reason to), it will have an effect that cannot easily be removed. The decisions that a CEO makes are important, but how others perceive them are also important to the very end, not just in the hiring or promotions processes. Yup, this is plausible. It's also compatible with what the author says: “I want people to realize that we don’t live in a meritocracy, that we are judged by different standards. A quality that could be an asset in one group could be a liability in another.” Unless of course you define meritocracy to include being on the right side of people's biases. The problem with this definition is that it is close to making every promotion decision meritocratic by definition.
  - starbeast 8y ago
    >The problem with this definition is that it is close to making every promotion decision meritocratic by definition. This is pretty close to what Michael Young was warning about when he coined the term in his 1958 satire, 'The Rise of the Meritocracy'. Here's an article by him on the subject - https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment
sandov 8y ago
I'm not saying that, because I can't provide a rationale or an argument based on actual data. But the article doesn't provide a rationale or data to back up its thesis either. So, both claims are equally ridiculous.
- Apocryphon 8y ago
  I think it's pretty uncontroversial, especially within STEM, to assert that we should not judge people by their visual appearance.
  - semi-extrinsic 8y ago
    I guess this is true only to a point; perhaps there was an implicit "we should not judge people by the appearance they were born with"? E.g. if someone shows up to work in dirty clothes and unkempt hair, everyone judges them by that, and their boss might even say explicitly "this is not acceptable". I think we mostly agree that this is OK? Another confounder is that we all have subconscious drivers. E.g. I really enjoy Jason Statham in bad action movies, and I cut him more slack simply because of his visual appearance (his style). We all do exactly the same with a leader which our subconscious approves of, and we are more inclined to do a good job under such a leader. If a certain trait of a certain subgroup is something that's frequently featured in people's subconscious idea of a good leader, those traits will neccessarily correlate with better leaders.
    - Apocryphon 8y ago
      Okay sure, but the article is about biological appearance mostly, with some more social-driven (or interpreted as such) factors like glasses.
  - austhrow743 8y ago
    Who is "we"? As a random citizen walking around the streets I shouldn't decide people are more or less likely to attack me or whatever based on appearance. If I'm a casting director for a movie, I should definitely take it in to consideration. The author though doesn't address their recommendations to random citizens or casting directors though. Rather to the board that are hiring CEO's. The article doesn't cover whether their appearance findings are causal or not in any way, or the importance of social justice over profit. Just straight "found a thing people seem to care about so they should immediately stop caring about it". I dunno if this is what the original poster meant by "not providing rationale" but I felt like the conclusion to the article sort of came out of nowhere.
austhrow743 8y ago
Did you choose the specific term "decision-making roles" with intent? Decision making is one aspect of being an executive not the whole thing.

klyrs 8y ago

> these psychological biases have helped us choose people more apt for these positions {citation needed} There's a ton of data out there about diversity's impact on businesses, actually. First google hit: [1]. Your AI will choose white men 95% of the time, on account of them being white men. Numerous studies have looked at discriminatory hiring practices, and observe that more-qualified candidates are often overlooked due to racial and gender bias. We agree that hiring less-qualified candidates is less desirable, don't we? > I'm sorry for the diatribe, but I'm a little tired of these articles trying to push their political agenda. Really? What's political about this? Gotta say, you sound like a climate denier whining about the political agenda of climate scientists. The common "agenda" here is to make the world a more survivable place for more people. [1] https://medium.com/awaken-blog/compilation-of-diversity-inclusion-business-case-research-data-62a471fc4a42 https://medium.com/awaken-blog/compilation-of-diversity-incl...

dang 8y ago
> you sound like a climate denier whining Please don't respond to a bad comment with another one, e.g. by going into personal attack or introducing an extraneous flamewar topic. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

starbeast 8y ago

>how did he come to the conclusion that these effects and psychological biases are undesirable and we should find mechanisms to avoid them Given your desire that others provide you with strong evidence for visual biases in hiring being at all damaging, otherwise you will dismiss them as pushing a political agenda, perhaps you might be a perfect volunteer for the following proposal. In this spirit of hard nosed logical inquiry, are you at all interested in helping the British Medical Journal with their double blind parachute study? https://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459 https://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459

rdiddly 8y ago

You're right that there are a lot of suppositions being made in the interpretation of the data. But which seems more likely: that all the best leadership skills among black men are concentrated among those who look the most infantile, or that things are run by white people and there's racism and stuff?

whatshisface 8y ago
There's absolutely no doubt that between the two options of "facial features are assigned at absolute random, but white male racists control the world" and "facial features are determined by developmental processes that also impact behavior," the former is closer to what is typically believed. However what distinguishes science (ideally) from online comments is that every reasonable hypotheses is supposed to be addressed, including the ones we all agree are pretty far from the present consensus. The accusation that hypothesis are pre-selected based on what is already believed is presently the most dangerous weapon used against the social relevance of the soft sciences, so in today's climate it is especially important to not actually do it.

c3534l 8y ago

Are you advocating for phrenology-based hiring practices?

mromanuk 8y ago

... and 95% are white men, definitely the square jaws and gray hair, make good leaders. Or is a case of perpetuating the status quo.