4 ms·

This article would have been irritating if it had proposed Yet Another Solution. But that might just be my bias -- I don't think there is a solution here, which

This article would have been irritating if it had proposed Yet Another Solution. But that might just be my bias -- I don't think there is a solution here, which makes me think there's not really a problem, either. It may just be that no matter how hard we try, discrimination is so deeply part of how our brains work that we'll never be free of it. Heck, even wanting to be completely indiscriminate is a sort of bias when you look at it sideways. One thing I would like to see is income distribution across people in the same profession. Obviously, it is difficult to control for things like skills sets and where they overlap. But then you have too small of a sample population...

andrewcooke 15y ago
Yeah, I'm so glad, too, that I don't have to do anything and can continue in my position of privilege (which of course, isn't! woot!)
- orangecat 15y ago
  Um, check the GP profile.
  - andrewcooke 15y ago
    yes, i assumed the person i was replying to was male, and i am sorry (not just sorry i look dumb, or because i am being downvoted, but sorry because it was stupid of me, might cause offence, and weakens my case, which i believe in). but there clearly is a problem. you could take that article and substitute "woman" for "decent person" and "man" for "over-competitive arsehole" and it would make as much sense. the problem is that the system favours over-competitive arseholes and those are, predominantly, men. that's not ok. and just because it's "natural" and i don't have a solution does not mean it's not a problem.
    - dkokelley 15y ago
      Do you think it could be disparate risk aversions between men and women (or decent people and over-competitive arseholes)? The system only appears to favor them. The system also punishes them severely at the opposite end. Risk takers make the most money. They also go bankrupt (or to prison. See: Enron). "Decent people", on the other hand, play it safe, and the system neither rewards or punishes them. lkozma makes an excellent point here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2524031 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2524031 Assuming risk profiles are the cause, then the problem is by nature the fact that men are historically the bigger risk takers.
    - elptacek 15y ago
      So that's kinda what I had in mind. From general appearances, it does seem that squeaky wheels get oiled, regardless of how much they actually contribute to an enterprise. Slapping an adjective on bias is something of a false dilemma. I am philosophically opposed to labeling bias in a way that politically polarizes arbitrarily delineated groups. It's the ship with no captain problem.
    - elptacek 15y ago
      PS: I've been in situations where it's hard to ignore the fact that I was passed over for something because of my gender. I have bouts of existential angst over it -- why do I persist in growing my skills set only to be passed over for something I cannot (reasonably) control? The answer is always the same: because it feels good. And that's worth more than money to me.

andrewcooke 15y ago

Yeah, I'm so glad, too, that I don't have to do anything and can continue in my position of privilege (which of course, isn't! woot!)

orangecat 15y ago
Um, check the GP profile.
- andrewcooke 15y ago
  yes, i assumed the person i was replying to was male, and i am sorry (not just sorry i look dumb, or because i am being downvoted, but sorry because it was stupid of me, might cause offence, and weakens my case, which i believe in). but there clearly is a problem. you could take that article and substitute "woman" for "decent person" and "man" for "over-competitive arsehole" and it would make as much sense. the problem is that the system favours over-competitive arseholes and those are, predominantly, men. that's not ok. and just because it's "natural" and i don't have a solution does not mean it's not a problem.
  - dkokelley 15y ago
    Do you think it could be disparate risk aversions between men and women (or decent people and over-competitive arseholes)? The system only appears to favor them. The system also punishes them severely at the opposite end. Risk takers make the most money. They also go bankrupt (or to prison. See: Enron). "Decent people", on the other hand, play it safe, and the system neither rewards or punishes them. lkozma makes an excellent point here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2524031 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2524031 Assuming risk profiles are the cause, then the problem is by nature the fact that men are historically the bigger risk takers.
  - elptacek 15y ago
    So that's kinda what I had in mind. From general appearances, it does seem that squeaky wheels get oiled, regardless of how much they actually contribute to an enterprise. Slapping an adjective on bias is something of a false dilemma. I am philosophically opposed to labeling bias in a way that politically polarizes arbitrarily delineated groups. It's the ship with no captain problem.
  - elptacek 15y ago
    PS: I've been in situations where it's hard to ignore the fact that I was passed over for something because of my gender. I have bouts of existential angst over it -- why do I persist in growing my skills set only to be passed over for something I cannot (reasonably) control? The answer is always the same: because it feels good. And that's worth more than money to me.