25 ms·

I do not know the details of this case and I can't speak to the subject's character. However I can't help but note that people who study the effects of race and

I do not know the details of this case and I can't speak to the subject's character. However I can't help but note that people who study the effects of race and gender tend to bring race/gender into anything and everything, because well, that's their job. If your response is that race and gender should be brought into only the areas where race and gender are relevant, I'd respond that the prevailing opinion among gender and race scholars is that gender/race is relevant everywhere.

sandpigeondrone 6y ago
"Google fired a black researcher". Does the word "black" belong there or is it used just as an attempt to tarnish Google?
hpoe 6y ago
I've thought about that filter through which we view the world a lot recently, and I think you may have identified part of where the conflict comes from. People viewing the world through fundamentally different filters. The problem is that if you focus on race, gender and/or sexual orientation as an important factor underlying interactions, if you're not careful you can soon come to see race and gender as the primary driving force that dictates the outcomes of all interactions, and soon all issues get reduced down to a matter or racial, sexual, or class struggle. The problem is the real world doesn't work that way, it is a complicated interacting network of events that are often only 2nd or 3rd order events from other completely different decisions made long ago. To try and reduce all interactions and societal problems to a matter of a 1 or 2 factors is like trying to make money on the stock market solely by looking at the Fed's monetary policy. Sure the Fed's monetary policy is an important overall factor, and in some cases the most important factor in certain changes in the stock market, but that doesn't mean that there aren't a thousand other moving parts to focus on. The problem is when we interpret every event through a single filter, or give one filter primacy in all interpretations of events that filter now colors everything we see. So for example if my primary filter for understanding the world is race relations and/or critical race theory, any time someone disagrees with me I really do feel as though it is a racially motivated attack. Why? Because I have chosen to interpret everything in my world through the filter of race, and every event that occurs will in my mind be race related. Note this applies just as well to any filter, christian extremists will interpret all events that happen as a sign of the times and the devil coming to power. If my filter is the class struggle than I will see every issue be between the haves and the have-nots. My point is not to discredit people that want to bring gender and race in to everything I think there are many discussions where examining the role these factors played is important. My point is to caution and warn against getting into a single filter mindset, that is the cause of much of the divisiveness we see, we have people that really are living in totally different worlds because the way they choose to view the world is totally different and they refuse to ever consider there might be other filters to view the world through.
- smallnamespace 6y ago
  “It is important to draw wisdom from many different places. If we take it from only one place, it becomes rigid and stale.”
- BlueTemplar 6y ago
  > The problem is when we interpret every event through a single filter, or give one filter primacy in all interpretations of events that filter now colors everything we see. Anyone noticing the irony of this seeming to be pretty much what the paper author seems to be blaming the machine learning systems for ?
wonnage 6y ago
Please share why you think a person who was hired to address race/gender bias in AI writing a paper about race/gender bias in AI is tending to "bring race/gender into anything and everything"? Or let's cut to the chase, you saw the headline, and your immediate conclusion was this was a raging SJW. Why did you jump to that conclusion?
- Hnrobert42 6y ago
  I am trying to get away from mind reading and assuming I know why others say and do things. Would you be interested in joining me in that?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
lawnchair_larry 6y ago
You’d probably find this fascinating: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6396/1465 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6396/1465
caconym_ 6y ago
There's a big difference between raising honest, thoughtful points about social justice issues (even forcefully), and using those same issues (superficially) as a cudgel to marginalize your enemies and increase your own social power (and note that those things don't have to be happening at the same time). These days I see a lot of both. I also have no idea what happened in this specific case, and at this time I wouldn't be willing to take a side.

sandpigeondrone 6y ago

"Google fired a black researcher". Does the word "black" belong there or is it used just as an attempt to tarnish Google?

hpoe 6y ago

I've thought about that filter through which we view the world a lot recently, and I think you may have identified part of where the conflict comes from. People viewing the world through fundamentally different filters. The problem is that if you focus on race, gender and/or sexual orientation as an important factor underlying interactions, if you're not careful you can soon come to see race and gender as the primary driving force that dictates the outcomes of all interactions, and soon all issues get reduced down to a matter or racial, sexual, or class struggle. The problem is the real world doesn't work that way, it is a complicated interacting network of events that are often only 2nd or 3rd order events from other completely different decisions made long ago. To try and reduce all interactions and societal problems to a matter of a 1 or 2 factors is like trying to make money on the stock market solely by looking at the Fed's monetary policy. Sure the Fed's monetary policy is an important overall factor, and in some cases the most important factor in certain changes in the stock market, but that doesn't mean that there aren't a thousand other moving parts to focus on. The problem is when we interpret every event through a single filter, or give one filter primacy in all interpretations of events that filter now colors everything we see. So for example if my primary filter for understanding the world is race relations and/or critical race theory, any time someone disagrees with me I really do feel as though it is a racially motivated attack. Why? Because I have chosen to interpret everything in my world through the filter of race, and every event that occurs will in my mind be race related. Note this applies just as well to any filter, christian extremists will interpret all events that happen as a sign of the times and the devil coming to power. If my filter is the class struggle than I will see every issue be between the haves and the have-nots. My point is not to discredit people that want to bring gender and race in to everything I think there are many discussions where examining the role these factors played is important. My point is to caution and warn against getting into a single filter mindset, that is the cause of much of the divisiveness we see, we have people that really are living in totally different worlds because the way they choose to view the world is totally different and they refuse to ever consider there might be other filters to view the world through.

smallnamespace 6y ago
“It is important to draw wisdom from many different places. If we take it from only one place, it becomes rigid and stale.”
BlueTemplar 6y ago
> The problem is when we interpret every event through a single filter, or give one filter primacy in all interpretations of events that filter now colors everything we see. Anyone noticing the irony of this seeming to be pretty much what the paper author seems to be blaming the machine learning systems for ?

wonnage 6y ago

Please share why you think a person who was hired to address race/gender bias in AI writing a paper about race/gender bias in AI is tending to "bring race/gender into anything and everything"? Or let's cut to the chase, you saw the headline, and your immediate conclusion was this was a raging SJW. Why did you jump to that conclusion?

Hnrobert42 6y ago
I am trying to get away from mind reading and assuming I know why others say and do things. Would you be interested in joining me in that?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

lawnchair_larry 6y ago

You’d probably find this fascinating: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6396/1465 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6396/1465

caconym_ 6y ago

There's a big difference between raising honest, thoughtful points about social justice issues (even forcefully), and using those same issues (superficially) as a cudgel to marginalize your enemies and increase your own social power (and note that those things don't have to be happening at the same time). These days I see a lot of both. I also have no idea what happened in this specific case, and at this time I wouldn't be willing to take a side.