3 ms·
I remember a thread here from when I was just skulking years ago, where the importance for anonymity of candidates was weighed. Like, applicants would be masked
by nilskidoo 8y ago
I remember a thread here from when I was just skulking years ago, where the importance for anonymity of candidates was weighed. Like, applicants would be masked so that there'd be no idea who was male or female or black or white, with the only variables observed being what they have accomplished and what they aim to get accomplished- and how they intend on going about it. Imagine if we did that in regards to politics.
- sokoloff 8y agoThe anonymous CEO of Trump real estate running in 2016, the anonymous Senator from Illinois running in 2008, the anonymous head of Bain Capital... At some level, someone’s accomplishments uniquely identify them.
- rexpop 8y agoYou've not done a very good job of pseudonymizing. It's clear where you stand, but try in earnest to imagine how we might limit the scope of the candidates' presentation to, e.g. a 60-plank, 3-dimensional platform (ie pro/con/neutral). Not saying this exact implementation is ideal, only that it's a more accurate representation of a pseudonymizing solution.
- sokoloff 8y agoIf I want to evaluate a candidate’s record (say as governor of a state), I can’t see how to make that pseudonymous and productive. If you tell me the state and the time, so I can judge whatever criteria I find relevant (job growth, infant mortality, population happiness, housing affordability, or 500 other things), you’ve told me who it is, of course. I’m trying to be charitable; I’m just not able to be creative enough to find how to expansively evaluate track record of relevant experience.