3 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.