3 ms·

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 i

by 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.
  - afuchs 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. Unless you have a deep knowledge of the neighborhood you are walking in, this fits the dictionary definition of prejudice. > If I'm a casting director for a movie, I should definitely take it in to consideration. If you haven't been paying attention, casting directors have been accused of discriminating against marginalized groups with casting decisions they made based on actors' appearances. > 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. Well, the root of this thread is accusing the posted article of proselytizing a "political agenda" by using a study's data to surmise that racial minorities are being discriminated against because of how they look. The post you are replying to is using some type of rhetorical device to argue that it is generally ridiculous to discriminate against people based on their looks. Given this context, I doubt you will find the recommendations you are looking for here.

by sandov 8y ago

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.
- afuchs 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. Unless you have a deep knowledge of the neighborhood you are walking in, this fits the dictionary definition of prejudice. > If I'm a casting director for a movie, I should definitely take it in to consideration. If you haven't been paying attention, casting directors have been accused of discriminating against marginalized groups with casting decisions they made based on actors' appearances. > 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. Well, the root of this thread is accusing the posted article of proselytizing a "political agenda" by using a study's data to surmise that racial minorities are being discriminated against because of how they look. The post you are replying to is using some type of rhetorical device to argue that it is generally ridiculous to discriminate against people based on their looks. Given this context, I doubt you will find the recommendations you are looking for here.