3 ms·
Thank you, I've been looking for a word to describe myself - turns out its "delusional". I thought we were using the comparison of societal demographics to com
by sophacles 6y ago
Thank you, I've been looking for a word to describe myself - turns out its "delusional".
I thought we were using the comparison of societal demographics to company demographics to measure how true the "equal opportunity" statement was. You know, like trying to find biases in die rolls - if 6 comes up more than 1, you might have a bias. Having looked at those numbers and found them to show bias, I delusionally thought that maybe we had looked at causes and effects, and found feedback loops like are present in so many complex systems.
Get this though - in the grandeur of my delusion, I thought that studies of these feedback loops we had found:
* people who see others in the same category as them doing a thing, will be more likely to do the thing themselves
* people who exist in a status quo will tend to make decisions preserving the status quo
* complex feedback systems sometimes need sub-optimal input to eventually converge optimally
And that these hiring practices were part of a bigger attempt to use the third bullet to address the other two.
But what do I know, I'm just a delusional fool who gets paid to work on complex systems. I should probably go resign. Anyone reading this - likely another person who works on complex systems - I encourage you to not apply your systems thinking to systems, you might end up delusional too!
- bArray 6y ago> You know, like trying to find biases in die rolls - if 6 comes up more than 1, you might have a bias. This is a false analogy, it robs people of their agency. Humans do not act with some uniform distribution. It could be cultural, social, environmental, class - any number of factors. People are different and these differences should be celebrated, not squashed and ironed out. > people who see others in the same category as them doing a thing, will be more likely to do the thing themselves > people who exist in a status quo will tend to make decisions preserving the status quo > complex feedback systems sometimes need sub-optimal input to eventually converge optimally Sure, but at what point have we biased the input enough? At what point do we except the result? Bare in mind for example, women were among the first programmers (computers). If we achieve equal numbers of men and women in programming roles, what makes you believe the situation won't once again become biased? What concerns me is that equal outcome is a goal without any real measurement of success or plan to revert back to equal opportunity once the input has been 'corrected'.