2 ms·
> The argument here is that if we evaluate by a metric that benefits the in-group more then the out-group you end up with doing discrimination. Yes. That's the
by waheoo 5y ago
> The argument here is that if we evaluate by a metric that benefits the in-group more then the out-group you end up with doing discrimination.
Yes. That's the point. The in group in this case has invested more time. They get more reward. What you're suggesting is rewarding those who have done less more than those who have done more.
Talk about a fucked up sense of equality.
- runarberg 5y agoYou are either misunderstanding or operating under false assumptions. a) Misunderstanding: I’m not suggesting that people get rewarded that have done less. That conclusion does not follow from: don’t engage in reward system that disproportionately benefits your ingroup. I see how you would arrive at that conclusion, but it is false. Not engaging in policies that disproportionately reward your in-group does not necessitate rewarding an out-group by a different metric. These are not two sides of the same coin. b) False assumptions: Staying longer at a company does not equate having done more. It is entirely possible (and even quite common) that a new hire will contribute a lot more then established workers. A new hire brings with them a new perspective. They might not contribute directly, but they might be asking the right questions which gives more senior workers a better perspective etc.