4 ms·
A process that corrects for biases against autistics - such as lack of eye contact - would be more accurate only for assessing autistics.
by ThrustVectoring 8y ago
A process that corrects for biases against autistics - such as lack of eye contact - would be more accurate only for assessing autistics.
- gweinberg 8y agoUnless you're diagnosing everyone who avoids eye contact as autistic, this is not true.
- Sniffnoy 8y agoWhile I admit I don't know the details, it seems unlikely to me that this process works the way you seem to be supposing it works, by somehow measuring bias and then correcting that out, such that it would yield incorrect results when applied to the wrong population. My suspicion is that it's more likely that it works by using processes that don't generate as much potentially biasing -- which is to say, irrelevant information -- in the first place. In which case it's just a better, less biased process in general.
- ThrustVectoring 8y agoInformation can be irrelevant for evaluating autistics and relevant for allistics, too. Especially if you give autistic employees roles or support that obviates some of their common weaknesses - you'd still care about whether non-autistic applicants have those weaknesses.
- Sniffnoy 8y agoIf you're assigning them different roles, then that's actually a matter of what information is relevant for the role, not whether the applicant is autistic or not. If it's your support hypothesis, then the apparent relevance is due purely to the discontinuity in your "support function", so to speak. (Where some people need the support more than others, but only some are judged properly autistic and so receive it.) If it's a case where you can make the support available to everyone, with people just using less of it as needed, or if you can otherwise remove the discontinuity, then the problem goes away.