3 ms·

> Yes, coming up with objective metrics is hard, but it's not something that's solved by DEI. Using that as an objection against getting rid of DEI doesn't make

> Yes, coming up with objective metrics is hard, but it's not something that's solved by DEI. Using that as an objection against getting rid of DEI doesn't make sense. It does though. The objection isn't simply "coming up with objective metrics is hard" but more honestly "there are not objective metrics". This is true for a variety of reasons. A sort of overarching one is that in a Goodhart's law sense, if a metric is public, people will game it. People with more resources ("power", "privilege", "class", whatever you want to call it) will be able to make themselves appear to look better according to the metric, all else equal. In that sense, a lot of DEI is akin to an abuse-prevention org: figuring out how particular ways of measuring can mislead or harm, and how we can improve or account for those in the absence of any single perfect measurement.

gruez 4y ago
>In that sense, a lot of DEI is akin to an abuse-prevention org: figuring out how particular ways of measuring can mislead or harm, and how we can improve or account for those in the absence of any single perfect measurement. But something tells me that if management decided to use some obviously flawed way of measuring performance (eg. # of commits), that DEI won't step in unless it turned out that black workers committed less code than whites or whatever. In that respect you don't really want DEI, you want an anti metrics abuse department.
- joshuamorton 4y ago
  > But something tells me that if management decided to use some obviously flawed way of measuring performance Then other people, including perhaps members of the DEI department can step in and point out that this is a bad idea. The DEI department doesn't have a monopoly on management's ear. You're doing the same thing, trying to invent a perfect department to solve all of the problems. Don't do that. Stop trying to invent perfect systems or perfect metrics, they don't exist. Focus on making incremental improvements in people's lives. I don't want a "metrics abuse department" because that's so vague and missionless as to be pointless. If management does something stupid that upsets everyone, they'll know. If they do something stupid that only upsets the 1% of black employees, they're not going to notice unless someone (the DEI department) is specifically looking.
  - gruez 4y ago
    I mean, if you put it that way (ie. a maximally benevolent interpretation of a DEI department), then it's hard to be against it, but that's not the type of conduct that causes people (like OP) to be pissed at DEI departments and for OP to want them to be gone. They're far more concerned about the negative effects that the DEI department does.

gruez 4y ago

>In that sense, a lot of DEI is akin to an abuse-prevention org: figuring out how particular ways of measuring can mislead or harm, and how we can improve or account for those in the absence of any single perfect measurement. But something tells me that if management decided to use some obviously flawed way of measuring performance (eg. # of commits), that DEI won't step in unless it turned out that black workers committed less code than whites or whatever. In that respect you don't really want DEI, you want an anti metrics abuse department.

joshuamorton 4y ago
> But something tells me that if management decided to use some obviously flawed way of measuring performance Then other people, including perhaps members of the DEI department can step in and point out that this is a bad idea. The DEI department doesn't have a monopoly on management's ear. You're doing the same thing, trying to invent a perfect department to solve all of the problems. Don't do that. Stop trying to invent perfect systems or perfect metrics, they don't exist. Focus on making incremental improvements in people's lives. I don't want a "metrics abuse department" because that's so vague and missionless as to be pointless. If management does something stupid that upsets everyone, they'll know. If they do something stupid that only upsets the 1% of black employees, they're not going to notice unless someone (the DEI department) is specifically looking.
- gruez 4y ago
  I mean, if you put it that way (ie. a maximally benevolent interpretation of a DEI department), then it's hard to be against it, but that's not the type of conduct that causes people (like OP) to be pissed at DEI departments and for OP to want them to be gone. They're far more concerned about the negative effects that the DEI department does.