3 ms·

> Why is everyone talking about making the outcome more equal Because unconscious bias is a thing. So is systemic discrimination. Without recognizing that, rai

> Why is everyone talking about making the outcome more equal Because unconscious bias is a thing. So is systemic discrimination. Without recognizing that, railing about "equal outcomes" is no more than a dogwhistle. > We should be making these decisions entirely devoid of what your gender, ethnicity, or sexuality is. That would be true in a world where opportunity is already evenly distributed. I look forward to living in that world, but it's not the world any of us live in today. As long as that's the case, requiring "color blindness" (or similar) at each separate point in the process only perpetuates the results of previous discrimination.

nscalf 7y ago
> Without recognizing that, railing about "equal outcomes" is no more than a dogwhistle. This is entirely untrue. There is a push to make sure everyone is hired at the same rates in the same fields, regardless of the ratio of people in those fields, the ratio of people qualified to take certain roles, etc. This is absurd, and clearly cannot succeed. The easiest example is software engineering, where a massive majority of the people in the field are men. You can't hire people who are not qualified or interested in the role just because they're women. A real solution to these issues is to determine why the fields skew to certain demographics, look for and discrimination in that process, and make a change there. This is equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Equality of outcome is telling people what they have to do so that things are equal. Equality of opportunity is giving people the choice to follow whatever path they would like to. Equality of outcome is inherently racist/sexist/etc as you bias towards minorities in the sliver of whatever you're looking at.
- notacoward 7y ago
  > This is equality of opportunity It would be, but it's also an impossible standard. Who's going to fix inequity in health, education, and other factors that start at infancy? Certainly not a hiring company at the very distant other end of the pipeline. It's not only impossible, but it's not their job to such an extent that they'd get sued for devoting too many resources to the attempt. Systemic discrimination can not be fixed without the involvement of employers, providing good jobs to people from under-represented groups and letting those people bring the benefits back to their communities. Waiting until those problems are fixed "elsewhere" before employers are required to do anything but turn a blind eye means waiting forever ... but the people exaggerating concerns about "equal outcome" and tokenism usually know that. After all, they're usually the very same ones opposing any of those "elsewhere" efforts too. "Divide and conquer" is the name of the game.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    > Who's going to fix inequity in health, education, and other factors that start at infancy? Well, with health... Something like Equality of Opportunity would be provided by universal health care. But to get Equality of Outcome? All I can think of (as an actual 'solution') is randomly killing women (or systemically denying them health care) to make sure that the average lifespans of men and women match. (We don't have a way to extend the life expectancy of men by 5 years to match that of women - if we did, we'd already be using it, and it would probably work for women too - so the only way to make things 'equal' is to reduce women's life expectancy by that same amount)
thu2111 7y ago
Because unconscious bias is a thing That idea is a victim of the psychology replication crisis actually: https://www.thecut.com/2017/01/psychologys-racism-measuring-tool-isnt-up-to-the-job.html https://www.thecut.com/2017/01/psychologys-racism-measuring-... So not really a thing, no.
- notacoward 7y ago
  You're seriously over-interpreting that result. It means that one particular test has been proven flawed, not that the entire concept is invalid.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    What would you accept as proof that the entire concept was invalid? Is there any single experiment or study that would show this? If not, how many - and what would they need to cover?
  - thu2111 7y ago
    That test was the entire basis of the concept. If it can't be measured or proven in any way then it's just an idea, not an actual "thing". Unconscious bias doesn't have any supporting evidence but lives on because people don't get the message that it's based on junk science.
    - notacoward 7y ago
      > That test was the entire basis of the concept Simply untrue. Even Patrick Forscher, one of the authors of the IAT critique that has become such a popular anti-diversity talking point, doesn't deny that implicit bias is real. Questioning the accuracy of one measurement is not the same as "no supporting evidence" let alone "junk science" and your use of those phrases only betrays that you're trying to argue from a basis other than fact.

nscalf 7y ago

> Without recognizing that, railing about "equal outcomes" is no more than a dogwhistle. This is entirely untrue. There is a push to make sure everyone is hired at the same rates in the same fields, regardless of the ratio of people in those fields, the ratio of people qualified to take certain roles, etc. This is absurd, and clearly cannot succeed. The easiest example is software engineering, where a massive majority of the people in the field are men. You can't hire people who are not qualified or interested in the role just because they're women. A real solution to these issues is to determine why the fields skew to certain demographics, look for and discrimination in that process, and make a change there. This is equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Equality of outcome is telling people what they have to do so that things are equal. Equality of opportunity is giving people the choice to follow whatever path they would like to. Equality of outcome is inherently racist/sexist/etc as you bias towards minorities in the sliver of whatever you're looking at.

notacoward 7y ago
> This is equality of opportunity It would be, but it's also an impossible standard. Who's going to fix inequity in health, education, and other factors that start at infancy? Certainly not a hiring company at the very distant other end of the pipeline. It's not only impossible, but it's not their job to such an extent that they'd get sued for devoting too many resources to the attempt. Systemic discrimination can not be fixed without the involvement of employers, providing good jobs to people from under-represented groups and letting those people bring the benefits back to their communities. Waiting until those problems are fixed "elsewhere" before employers are required to do anything but turn a blind eye means waiting forever ... but the people exaggerating concerns about "equal outcome" and tokenism usually know that. After all, they're usually the very same ones opposing any of those "elsewhere" efforts too. "Divide and conquer" is the name of the game.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  > Who's going to fix inequity in health, education, and other factors that start at infancy? Well, with health... Something like Equality of Opportunity would be provided by universal health care. But to get Equality of Outcome? All I can think of (as an actual 'solution') is randomly killing women (or systemically denying them health care) to make sure that the average lifespans of men and women match. (We don't have a way to extend the life expectancy of men by 5 years to match that of women - if we did, we'd already be using it, and it would probably work for women too - so the only way to make things 'equal' is to reduce women's life expectancy by that same amount)

thu2111 7y ago

Because unconscious bias is a thing That idea is a victim of the psychology replication crisis actually: https://www.thecut.com/2017/01/psychologys-racism-measuring-tool-isnt-up-to-the-job.html https://www.thecut.com/2017/01/psychologys-racism-measuring-... So not really a thing, no.

notacoward 7y ago
You're seriously over-interpreting that result. It means that one particular test has been proven flawed, not that the entire concept is invalid.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  What would you accept as proof that the entire concept was invalid? Is there any single experiment or study that would show this? If not, how many - and what would they need to cover?
- thu2111 7y ago
  That test was the entire basis of the concept. If it can't be measured or proven in any way then it's just an idea, not an actual "thing". Unconscious bias doesn't have any supporting evidence but lives on because people don't get the message that it's based on junk science.
  - notacoward 7y ago
    > That test was the entire basis of the concept Simply untrue. Even Patrick Forscher, one of the authors of the IAT critique that has become such a popular anti-diversity talking point, doesn't deny that implicit bias is real. Questioning the accuracy of one measurement is not the same as "no supporting evidence" let alone "junk science" and your use of those phrases only betrays that you're trying to argue from a basis other than fact.