4 ms·
Disadvantage is not solely based on wealth, though it does play a large part. If you presuppose that giving disadvantaged groups an extra chance is a positive
by sascha_sl 4y ago
Disadvantage is not solely based on wealth, though it does play a large part.
If you presuppose that giving disadvantaged groups an extra chance is a positive (your argument sort of does already) and only use wealth as a factor, isn't it still a net positive to uplift the typically poorer group? Doesn't that rightfully uplift more people than it does "wrongly"?
- Cyberdog 4y agoI notice that you only use the word “group” above and not “people” or some older word acknowledging that that’s what these groups are made of. Why judge people by the groups that were born into when we could be judging them as individuals instead?
- sascha_sl 4y agoHave you ever been involved with hiring? The first stage - reading CVs - is not exactly the greatest point in time to judge people as individuals, if they're even read beyond a short skim. It is the biggest opportunity for unconscious bias to reject a candidate.
- Cyberdog 4y agoI don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that we shouldn't consider people as individuals when reading their CV because that's when unconscious bias may lead to their rejection? If the latter is true, then shouldn't we do the former all the more?
- psd1 4y agoMaybe. But instead we're training AI.
- sascha_sl 4y agoI'm not saying we shouldn't. I'm saying that's the status quo, and changing people on this level is much harder than a policy that simply says "you must have an underrepresented person in this batch of interview invites". Maybe that'll even get them to read the CVs as a side effect.