6 ms·

>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 sup

>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.

tptacek 4y ago
I don't see how you've rebutted the study at all; you've argued that it would be possible to offset the racism in job applications by scrubbing names from resumes and using voice changers on interview calls (come on). But both of those interventions just mitigate the racism, they don't directly reduce it. Mewanwhile, you've just cited a totally unrelated (and widely dunked-upon) NYT op-ed as evidence for your position, and then accused the person you're arguing with of bad faith. Physician, heal thyself.
- ShredKazoo 4y ago
  >I don't see how you've rebutted the study at all You're correct, I haven't rebutted the study. Again, I explained that it doesn't make the point he wants it to make. See first 2 paragraphs here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34214917 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34214917 >using voice changers on interview calls (come on) What I describe has already been done for gender: https://interviewing.io/blog/voice-modulation-gender-technical-interviews https://interviewing.io/blog/voice-modulation-gender-technic... And if researchers can change the name on an applicant's resume to do a study, why can't HR departments do the same thing? "Come on" is not a good faith counterargument. >But both of those interventions just mitigate the racism, they don't directly reduce it. I'm not sure that is true. Imagine someone had the experience of interviewing a Black developer using a voice changer, giving them a thumbs up, meeting them in person for the first time, and learning that they were Black -- counter to the stereotype they held. You don't think that experience could be a powerful demonstration of a person's racial bias which could cause them to rethink some stuff? Past that, I don't see why the distinction between mitigating and reducing is so important. Racism is bad because it causes bad effects. (CF argument earlier in the thread: "If another race with a far larger population was 50% more likely to get job callbacks than you were, I guarantee you'd agree.") If the easiest way to reduce the bad effects doesn't involve reducing racism, we should do it anyway. The point is to help people, not ideologically purify people. >Mewanwhile, you've just cited a totally unrelated (and widely dunked-upon) NYT op-ed as evidence for your position I cited it as evidence for the position that some extremists want to abolish the police. It's right there in the title of the op-ed. I don't see what dunking has to do with it. Here's a woman with almost half a million Twitter followers saying the same thing in 2022: https://twitter.com/BreeNewsome/status/1547223384643231744 https://twitter.com/BreeNewsome/status/1547223384643231744 She tweets something like this every few months. Here's one of her tweets where she explains what she means in more detail: https://twitter.com/BreeNewsome/status/1267138648174137345 https://twitter.com/BreeNewsome/status/1267138648174137345
  - tptacek 4y ago
    Interviewing.io ran an experiment with voice changes, in part for the publicity value (that's not a criticism). Can you cite a tech company with more than 20 employees that uses voice changers in interviews? There's a bunch of other problems with what you're saying here (for instance, the idea that you can correct for ethnicity with a voice changer), but they're not interesting compared to this question.

tptacek 4y ago

I don't see how you've rebutted the study at all; you've argued that it would be possible to offset the racism in job applications by scrubbing names from resumes and using voice changers on interview calls (come on). But both of those interventions just mitigate the racism, they don't directly reduce it. Mewanwhile, you've just cited a totally unrelated (and widely dunked-upon) NYT op-ed as evidence for your position, and then accused the person you're arguing with of bad faith. Physician, heal thyself.

ShredKazoo 4y ago
>I don't see how you've rebutted the study at all You're correct, I haven't rebutted the study. Again, I explained that it doesn't make the point he wants it to make. See first 2 paragraphs here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34214917 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34214917 >using voice changers on interview calls (come on) What I describe has already been done for gender: https://interviewing.io/blog/voice-modulation-gender-technical-interviews https://interviewing.io/blog/voice-modulation-gender-technic... And if researchers can change the name on an applicant's resume to do a study, why can't HR departments do the same thing? "Come on" is not a good faith counterargument. >But both of those interventions just mitigate the racism, they don't directly reduce it. I'm not sure that is true. Imagine someone had the experience of interviewing a Black developer using a voice changer, giving them a thumbs up, meeting them in person for the first time, and learning that they were Black -- counter to the stereotype they held. You don't think that experience could be a powerful demonstration of a person's racial bias which could cause them to rethink some stuff? Past that, I don't see why the distinction between mitigating and reducing is so important. Racism is bad because it causes bad effects. (CF argument earlier in the thread: "If another race with a far larger population was 50% more likely to get job callbacks than you were, I guarantee you'd agree.") If the easiest way to reduce the bad effects doesn't involve reducing racism, we should do it anyway. The point is to help people, not ideologically purify people. >Mewanwhile, you've just cited a totally unrelated (and widely dunked-upon) NYT op-ed as evidence for your position I cited it as evidence for the position that some extremists want to abolish the police. It's right there in the title of the op-ed. I don't see what dunking has to do with it. Here's a woman with almost half a million Twitter followers saying the same thing in 2022: https://twitter.com/BreeNewsome/status/1547223384643231744 https://twitter.com/BreeNewsome/status/1547223384643231744 She tweets something like this every few months. Here's one of her tweets where she explains what she means in more detail: https://twitter.com/BreeNewsome/status/1267138648174137345 https://twitter.com/BreeNewsome/status/1267138648174137345
- tptacek 4y ago
  Interviewing.io ran an experiment with voice changes, in part for the publicity value (that's not a criticism). Can you cite a tech company with more than 20 employees that uses voice changers in interviews? There's a bunch of other problems with what you're saying here (for instance, the idea that you can correct for ethnicity with a voice changer), but they're not interesting compared to this question.