4 ms·

I agree that unintended consequences (a subset of which are the Cobra effect) are bad. Can you explain further what type of unintended consequences you are thin

I agree that unintended consequences (a subset of which are the Cobra effect) are bad. Can you explain further what type of unintended consequences you are thinking of in the AA context? The main one that springs to mind is that some people will assume that employees were hired/promoted based on race/gender/etc. Are there other unintended consequences in this context?

endtime 4y ago
I don't know what's actually happening, but my interpretation of the cobra effect reference is that people are inventing new identities/affinities in order to be able to benefit from the systems which reward them.
- pseudalopex 4y ago
  What identities/affinities were invented in order to be able to benefit from the systems which reward them?
  - endtime 4y ago
    Again, I said I don't know what's actually happening. I'm just providing my interpretation of what I thought the grandparent comment was trying to say.
- psyfi 4y ago
  No, it's about trying to make a policy to reach some goal but this policy cause an opposite effect i.e trying to diversify to discourage racism so you end up prefering minorities who are less fit for a job than just to be "diversified"
bumby 4y ago
Not the OP, but one example is that it may benefit the well-connected minorities rather than those with less opportunities. If the goal is to raise opportunity for a historically disenfranchised group, this may not meet the end goal. For example, imagine a hiring goal is to increase the number of minority X. This may give additional leverage to someone of that group who already comes from a well-connected family and already has the opportunity to obtain the necessary credentials. It does nothing to give the opportunity to those in a less privileged group obtain those credentials in the first place. It doesn't mean it's wholly bad policy, but it can lead to the pattern of pointing to those successful outcomes as evidence that we're in a post-racial era. And so even less focus is paid to those who actually need more opportunity.
psyfi 4y ago
Basically, hiring someone because they're from minority/vulnerable race/gender/etc.. to diversify instead of hiring the one that has the best skillset for the job If we put the idea of Cobra effect aside, these companies are also trying to bargain because vulnerables and minorities would prefer to work for them than for other companies that don't express their preference of minorities, so eventually many of them will accept less pay to feel more welcomed, which is - in my opinion - pure emotional exploitation, they claim they have ethical reasons but actual many of them has only unethical reasons

endtime 4y ago

I don't know what's actually happening, but my interpretation of the cobra effect reference is that people are inventing new identities/affinities in order to be able to benefit from the systems which reward them.

pseudalopex 4y ago
What identities/affinities were invented in order to be able to benefit from the systems which reward them?
- endtime 4y ago
  Again, I said I don't know what's actually happening. I'm just providing my interpretation of what I thought the grandparent comment was trying to say.
psyfi 4y ago
No, it's about trying to make a policy to reach some goal but this policy cause an opposite effect i.e trying to diversify to discourage racism so you end up prefering minorities who are less fit for a job than just to be "diversified"

bumby 4y ago

Not the OP, but one example is that it may benefit the well-connected minorities rather than those with less opportunities. If the goal is to raise opportunity for a historically disenfranchised group, this may not meet the end goal. For example, imagine a hiring goal is to increase the number of minority X. This may give additional leverage to someone of that group who already comes from a well-connected family and already has the opportunity to obtain the necessary credentials. It does nothing to give the opportunity to those in a less privileged group obtain those credentials in the first place. It doesn't mean it's wholly bad policy, but it can lead to the pattern of pointing to those successful outcomes as evidence that we're in a post-racial era. And so even less focus is paid to those who actually need more opportunity.

psyfi 4y ago

Basically, hiring someone because they're from minority/vulnerable race/gender/etc.. to diversify instead of hiring the one that has the best skillset for the job If we put the idea of Cobra effect aside, these companies are also trying to bargain because vulnerables and minorities would prefer to work for them than for other companies that don't express their preference of minorities, so eventually many of them will accept less pay to feel more welcomed, which is - in my opinion - pure emotional exploitation, they claim they have ethical reasons but actual many of them has only unethical reasons