16 ms·

> "talk about race less" (as a way to treat people more equally, and reduce discrimination) seems like a reasonable hypothesis to test. This was the status quo

> "talk about race less" (as a way to treat people more equally, and reduce discrimination) seems like a reasonable hypothesis to test. This was the status quo for a very long time. Mentioning people's race was like mentioning people's weight. It didn't work. > I'm also not convinced that what we're doing now is working better than what was done in the 90s and 00s. The 2005 study "Are Greg and Emily More Employable Than Jamal and Lakisha" applied to jobs 5000 times with a stack of carefully crafted fake resumes that were randomly assigned names that were either stereotypically white (e.g. Greg, Emily) or black (e.g. Jamal, Lakisha.) The same resumes with white sounding names received 50% more callbacks. Over 5000 job applications. What we were doing in the 90s/2000s was not working and the fact that many white people find the polite approach more comfortable is not a good reason to stick to it. This isn't a social problem-- we're talking about people's basic chance of success in life. This idea that we can have equal opportunity by deliberately avoiding intervention is a proven fallacy. Pushing through the discomfort to find what actually works is a worthwhile undertaking. If another race with a far larger population was 50% more likely to get job callbacks than you were, I guarantee you'd agree. The increase in political tension our culture has seen in the past decade plus is vastly more complex than the most visible catalyst of any given moment. Blaming social progress for the increasing resistance to social progress doesn't make sense. You could just as easily blame fascism or any other activist end of a political blob. As flawed and overly bandwagoned as it may be, "wokeness" is addressing real problems that oppress people in measurable ways every day. "Anti-Wokeness" is just another value signalling position to have that highlights political fault lines far older than any living American.

ShredKazoo 4y ago
I'm not sure the 2005 study tells us much. Our question is which strategy works best for reducing discrimination. To answer that, we'd want to measure the level of discrimination over time to estimate the trend. Imagine we found an identical study from 1995 that showed that white people received 100% more callbacks at that time, and a study from 1985 that found that white people received 200% more callbacks at that time. And then imagine that when subgroup analysis was done on the 2005 study, it was determined that most of the effect was from older hiring managers who were about to age out of the population. In this hypothetical, the study would strongly validate the strategy being used in the 90s and the 00s. >This idea that we can have equal opportunity by deliberately avoiding intervention is a proven fallacy. I didn't claim that. I just want interventions that don't backfire. For example, how about removing the name from the resume? With modern technology, it would be easy to conduct interviews remotely over screenshare with a voice changer. 80/20 rule, 20% of the discrimination probably causes 80% of the harm. As you imply, hiring discrimination is one of the most harmful types of discrimination. So anonymized interviews could put a serious dent in racial inequality. As the technology matured, we could hit firms which didn't anonymize interviewees with a punitive tax. Would certainly be an interesting study, at least. Run it every few years to measure the trend in discrimination, as discussed previously. >The increase in political tension our culture has seen in the past decade plus is vastly more complex than the most visible catalyst of any given moment. If political tension is a complex phenomenon, isn't it possible that racial discrimination is also a complex phenomenon, which won't be solved effectively using the social equivalent of a sledgehammer? >Blaming social progress for the increasing resistance to social progress doesn't make sense. Imagine a cop responded to criticism by saying: "Blaming crime fighting for the increasing resistance to crime fighting doesn't make sense." Would you find that persuasive? It's possible to "solve" a problem in a way that superficially looks like progress, but actually makes the underlying issue worse. And if you can find a way to get paid money to do that, you'll never be out of a job. (Trump may not be good for America, but he's good for CBS. NY Times subscriptions exploded in the wake of Trump's election, IIRC.) >You could just as easily blame fascism or any other activist end of a political blob. I do in fact blame fascism. Historically speaking, it seems fairly normal for right-wing extremism and left-wing extremism to arise at the same time in the same society. The left-wing extremism is strengthened by the right-wing extremism, and vice versa.
- DrewADesign 4y ago
  That's a pretty glib dismissal of a peer-reviewed and heavily cited study with a ton of data. Calling any of these interventions a social sledgehammer is laughably hyperbolic. How does any of what I said really on racism being simple? The name on the resume is obviously a symptom of a larger problem and only one of many ways someone's race shows up in any number of consequential situations far more difficult to spot, like in neural network derived decisions. No I don't blame crime fighting for the increased resistance to crime fighting because the actions taken by cops that people are actually mad about are crimes and opposing them is crime fighting. That you consider interrogating our culture to highlight racism to be political extremism says a lot. I'm all done here.
  - ShredKazoo 4y ago
    >That's a pretty glib dismissal of a peer-reviewed and heavily cited study with a ton of data. I explained why regardless of study quality, the study can't support the point you want it to. You're not addressing my point, just making a vague appeal to authority. >Calling any of these interventions a social sledgehammer is laughably hyperbolic. What interventions are you referring to? You yourself referred to wokeness as "flawed and overly bandwagoned". >How does any of what I said really on racism being simple? You argued, without any supporting evidence, that it couldn't be the case that efforts to reduce racism could make it worse. If racism is complex then we shouldn't be surprised by counterintuitive results like that. >The name on the resume is obviously a symptom of a larger problem and only one of many ways someone's race shows up in any number of consequential situations far more difficult to spot, like in neural network derived decisions. I didn't claim that removing names from resumes was a complete solution, but it's suspicious that there seems to be so little interest in it, given that it could be very impactful. Additionally, reducing hiring discrimination should have positive downstream effects: As Black people get better jobs, they move up in social class and that reduces stereotyping. I think the fact that you aren't interested in an incremental solution should make you wonder if you're part of the flawed woke bandwagon you referred to. Remember, lots of incremental solutions can add up to a complete solution. >No I don't blame crime fighting for the increased resistance to crime fighting because the actions taken by cops that people are actually mad about are crimes and opposing them is crime fighting. By the same token, many people who claim to advance social progress may actually be advancing social regress. >That you consider interrogating our culture to highlight racism to be political extremism says a lot. I consider abolishing the police to be political extremism. See this article: "Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police" https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-defund-police.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abol... >I'm all done here. I don't mind, it's tiresome to debate people who argue in bad faith.
493579620678 4y ago
What makes you think talking more about race works any better or should be considered to be "social progress" rather than the opposite? Would that study have better results if done today? I'm not American, but I don't see why you are so sure today's America is not closer to the Jim Crow Era than 2005 was. I'm a black person who grew up in Sweden in the 00s and early 10s, and I'm very glad race was never relevant or talked about outside of social science class. Almost everyone at my school was white, and I never felt like I was different because of my skin color. The first person who ever told me that my race or skin color was relevant to anything was an American. The worst thing about American culture (and what keeps me from moving to the US even though I could make much more money there) is that so many Americans are insisting on considering race (and other arbitrary categorizations like ethnicity, sex and gender) to be such a large part of what makes a person, overshadowing that person's unique attributes and identity.
- whynaut 4y ago
  You didn't grow up in America, you grew up in Sweden. I don't think any further explanation is required.
- DrewADesign 4y ago
  You should read about the experiences of African Americans. Many cultural facets and political tensions held over from slavery are alive and well. Financially, income inequality in Sweden is vastly lower than in the United States as it is, and in the United States much of the inequality falls on racial boundaries. A recent Federal Reserve Bank of Boston study found that local white household’s median net worth was $247,000 while for African American households it was $8. Yes, eight single dollars. The Black population in Boston has been well established for well over a century, and much of its white population came in waves of western European immigration in the early to mid 20th century. Not talking about this problem hasn't solved it so far because systemic self-perpetuating inequality doesn't just go away if you ignore it.
  - 493579620678 4y ago
    I'm not objecting to talking about racism. I'm objecting to seeing race as a significant part of what makes a person. It's possible to do one without the other. I don't see how it's useful to note that something didn't work when there is no evidence to suggest that the alternative works any better. I don't understand how talking more about race as a characteristic could possibly help to reduce racism or racial inequality. It seems to me much more likely to do the opposite.

ShredKazoo 4y ago

I'm not sure the 2005 study tells us much. Our question is which strategy works best for reducing discrimination. To answer that, we'd want to measure the level of discrimination over time to estimate the trend. Imagine we found an identical study from 1995 that showed that white people received 100% more callbacks at that time, and a study from 1985 that found that white people received 200% more callbacks at that time. And then imagine that when subgroup analysis was done on the 2005 study, it was determined that most of the effect was from older hiring managers who were about to age out of the population. In this hypothetical, the study would strongly validate the strategy being used in the 90s and the 00s. >This idea that we can have equal opportunity by deliberately avoiding intervention is a proven fallacy. I didn't claim that. I just want interventions that don't backfire. For example, how about removing the name from the resume? With modern technology, it would be easy to conduct interviews remotely over screenshare with a voice changer. 80/20 rule, 20% of the discrimination probably causes 80% of the harm. As you imply, hiring discrimination is one of the most harmful types of discrimination. So anonymized interviews could put a serious dent in racial inequality. As the technology matured, we could hit firms which didn't anonymize interviewees with a punitive tax. Would certainly be an interesting study, at least. Run it every few years to measure the trend in discrimination, as discussed previously. >The increase in political tension our culture has seen in the past decade plus is vastly more complex than the most visible catalyst of any given moment. If political tension is a complex phenomenon, isn't it possible that racial discrimination is also a complex phenomenon, which won't be solved effectively using the social equivalent of a sledgehammer? >Blaming social progress for the increasing resistance to social progress doesn't make sense. Imagine a cop responded to criticism by saying: "Blaming crime fighting for the increasing resistance to crime fighting doesn't make sense." Would you find that persuasive? It's possible to "solve" a problem in a way that superficially looks like progress, but actually makes the underlying issue worse. And if you can find a way to get paid money to do that, you'll never be out of a job. (Trump may not be good for America, but he's good for CBS. NY Times subscriptions exploded in the wake of Trump's election, IIRC.) >You could just as easily blame fascism or any other activist end of a political blob. I do in fact blame fascism. Historically speaking, it seems fairly normal for right-wing extremism and left-wing extremism to arise at the same time in the same society. The left-wing extremism is strengthened by the right-wing extremism, and vice versa.

DrewADesign 4y ago
That's a pretty glib dismissal of a peer-reviewed and heavily cited study with a ton of data. Calling any of these interventions a social sledgehammer is laughably hyperbolic. How does any of what I said really on racism being simple? The name on the resume is obviously a symptom of a larger problem and only one of many ways someone's race shows up in any number of consequential situations far more difficult to spot, like in neural network derived decisions. No I don't blame crime fighting for the increased resistance to crime fighting because the actions taken by cops that people are actually mad about are crimes and opposing them is crime fighting. That you consider interrogating our culture to highlight racism to be political extremism says a lot. I'm all done here.
- ShredKazoo 4y ago
  >That's a pretty glib dismissal of a peer-reviewed and heavily cited study with a ton of data. I explained why regardless of study quality, the study can't support the point you want it to. You're not addressing my point, just making a vague appeal to authority. >Calling any of these interventions a social sledgehammer is laughably hyperbolic. What interventions are you referring to? You yourself referred to wokeness as "flawed and overly bandwagoned". >How does any of what I said really on racism being simple? You argued, without any supporting evidence, that it couldn't be the case that efforts to reduce racism could make it worse. If racism is complex then we shouldn't be surprised by counterintuitive results like that. >The name on the resume is obviously a symptom of a larger problem and only one of many ways someone's race shows up in any number of consequential situations far more difficult to spot, like in neural network derived decisions. I didn't claim that removing names from resumes was a complete solution, but it's suspicious that there seems to be so little interest in it, given that it could be very impactful. Additionally, reducing hiring discrimination should have positive downstream effects: As Black people get better jobs, they move up in social class and that reduces stereotyping. I think the fact that you aren't interested in an incremental solution should make you wonder if you're part of the flawed woke bandwagon you referred to. Remember, lots of incremental solutions can add up to a complete solution. >No I don't blame crime fighting for the increased resistance to crime fighting because the actions taken by cops that people are actually mad about are crimes and opposing them is crime fighting. By the same token, many people who claim to advance social progress may actually be advancing social regress. >That you consider interrogating our culture to highlight racism to be political extremism says a lot. I consider abolishing the police to be political extremism. See this article: "Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police" https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-defund-police.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abol... >I'm all done here. I don't mind, it's tiresome to debate people who argue in bad faith.

493579620678 4y ago

What makes you think talking more about race works any better or should be considered to be "social progress" rather than the opposite? Would that study have better results if done today? I'm not American, but I don't see why you are so sure today's America is not closer to the Jim Crow Era than 2005 was. I'm a black person who grew up in Sweden in the 00s and early 10s, and I'm very glad race was never relevant or talked about outside of social science class. Almost everyone at my school was white, and I never felt like I was different because of my skin color. The first person who ever told me that my race or skin color was relevant to anything was an American. The worst thing about American culture (and what keeps me from moving to the US even though I could make much more money there) is that so many Americans are insisting on considering race (and other arbitrary categorizations like ethnicity, sex and gender) to be such a large part of what makes a person, overshadowing that person's unique attributes and identity.

whynaut 4y ago
You didn't grow up in America, you grew up in Sweden. I don't think any further explanation is required.
DrewADesign 4y ago
You should read about the experiences of African Americans. Many cultural facets and political tensions held over from slavery are alive and well. Financially, income inequality in Sweden is vastly lower than in the United States as it is, and in the United States much of the inequality falls on racial boundaries. A recent Federal Reserve Bank of Boston study found that local white household’s median net worth was $247,000 while for African American households it was $8. Yes, eight single dollars. The Black population in Boston has been well established for well over a century, and much of its white population came in waves of western European immigration in the early to mid 20th century. Not talking about this problem hasn't solved it so far because systemic self-perpetuating inequality doesn't just go away if you ignore it.
- 493579620678 4y ago
  I'm not objecting to talking about racism. I'm objecting to seeing race as a significant part of what makes a person. It's possible to do one without the other. I don't see how it's useful to note that something didn't work when there is no evidence to suggest that the alternative works any better. I don't understand how talking more about race as a characteristic could possibly help to reduce racism or racial inequality. It seems to me much more likely to do the opposite.