24 ms·

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 lev

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.

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.