7 ms·

> best predictor of human behavior is still what they have done in the past I do not agree. I’m not sure in which context you are saying that. But that implie

by f1shy 2y ago

> best predictor of human behavior is still what they have done in the past I do not agree. I’m not sure in which context you are saying that. But that implies people never change, never learn, never get better. Specially that phrase is used in HR, what is terrible. There are traits that are hard to change, and things that hardly change, as there are lots of things that do change. That all being said, I’m totally with you, that the question has to be asked, but not to put the people in a box and never move them. Just to have a reference point in a changing curve.

iugtmkbdfil834 2y ago
<< I do not agree. Ok. I accept that you do not accept my personal opinion. << I’m not sure in which context you are saying that. There are multiple reasons, but speaking from perspective of crime statistics ( and I don't even mean in US, where once you are in the system, it is actively working to keep you in its grasp ), recidivism[1] is common even among prisoners, where the system actively tries to rehabilitate you[2]. I don't want to belabor that point too much though as people tend to take it as a political stance ( and it is not ). That said, those do translate to other less extreme forms of behavior. << But that implies people never change, never learn, never get better. No, it is a common misconception. Going from the original recidivism claim, the rate of recidivism is not 100%, but it is high enough that it gives people pause[2]. In other words, never is never the right or accurate claim here. I can start with more likely yes than not and take it from there if it makes you more comfortable to quibble over details. << Specially that phrase is used in HR, what is terrible. HR is terrible. No disagreement. I have no control over HR or their phraseology. << There are traits that are hard to change, and things that hardly change, as there are lots of things that do change. You may be confusing things a little, but maybe I am misunderstanding your point. Do you want to elaborate? << but not to put the people in a box and never move them. Yes. I accept the concern about being labeled even though you did not voice it. That said, the box remains a box. No amount of language will change its boxy nature. Things just are. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism [2]https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/recidivism-rates-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/recidivis...
- glitchc 2y ago
  While I agree with the general thrust of your argument, the use of prison and rehabilitation is a poor example to make your point. Recidivism is a well-studied topic in the social sciences. There is a multi-factor causal chain behind the high-rate of recidivism, driven by the circumstances of the individual (past trauma) that led to incarceration in the first place, the resources available in a particular prison (few are equipped to properly rehabilitate the inmates) and the barriers that society places on reintegration for those individuals. For a prior criminal, the paths to a middle-class existence are few and far between. For professionals, resuming a profession, be it doctor, lawyer, accountant, engineer, etc. is almost impossible with a criminal record. So is holding down a government job, any job in the military or defence requiring a clearance, any positions that may require the public trust, such as working with children. Banks will not provide loans to individuals with a criminal record, making it impossible to start a business. This is a topic worth reading up on in greater depth.
  - iugtmkbdfil834 2y ago
    Agreed. In retrospect, I probably should have opted for something more appropriate for the subject at hand, but I think I just rushed through parent's argument and just picked first option that presented itself in my mind.
- f1shy 2y ago
  In the context of knowing who somebody is, to know if I should take advice from him, I think knowing what somebody did as a predictor does not tell me if he can help me or not. The whole thing about prison does not apply to work, does it? I mean, I have switched tasks, countries, companies, industries many times. And through it, you could not believe I was the same person, as my behavior was very much influenced by the environment. That was pointed out by people who know me. So the trying to predict the future just doing linear interpolation of the past, no, it does not work with people in the professional environment. I do believe you it works for convict felons. But I know nothing about it. On the other hand many many times in HN I’ve read comments of people that were in prison, and today are much better and are not looking back. Survivor bias you may say?

by f1shy 2y ago

iugtmkbdfil834 2y ago

<< I do not agree. Ok. I accept that you do not accept my personal opinion. << I’m not sure in which context you are saying that. There are multiple reasons, but speaking from perspective of crime statistics ( and I don't even mean in US, where once you are in the system, it is actively working to keep you in its grasp ), recidivism[1] is common even among prisoners, where the system actively tries to rehabilitate you[2]. I don't want to belabor that point too much though as people tend to take it as a political stance ( and it is not ). That said, those do translate to other less extreme forms of behavior. << But that implies people never change, never learn, never get better. No, it is a common misconception. Going from the original recidivism claim, the rate of recidivism is not 100%, but it is high enough that it gives people pause[2]. In other words, never is never the right or accurate claim here. I can start with more likely yes than not and take it from there if it makes you more comfortable to quibble over details. << Specially that phrase is used in HR, what is terrible. HR is terrible. No disagreement. I have no control over HR or their phraseology. << There are traits that are hard to change, and things that hardly change, as there are lots of things that do change. You may be confusing things a little, but maybe I am misunderstanding your point. Do you want to elaborate? << but not to put the people in a box and never move them. Yes. I accept the concern about being labeled even though you did not voice it. That said, the box remains a box. No amount of language will change its boxy nature. Things just are. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism [2]https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/recidivism-rates-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/recidivis...

glitchc 2y ago
While I agree with the general thrust of your argument, the use of prison and rehabilitation is a poor example to make your point. Recidivism is a well-studied topic in the social sciences. There is a multi-factor causal chain behind the high-rate of recidivism, driven by the circumstances of the individual (past trauma) that led to incarceration in the first place, the resources available in a particular prison (few are equipped to properly rehabilitate the inmates) and the barriers that society places on reintegration for those individuals. For a prior criminal, the paths to a middle-class existence are few and far between. For professionals, resuming a profession, be it doctor, lawyer, accountant, engineer, etc. is almost impossible with a criminal record. So is holding down a government job, any job in the military or defence requiring a clearance, any positions that may require the public trust, such as working with children. Banks will not provide loans to individuals with a criminal record, making it impossible to start a business. This is a topic worth reading up on in greater depth.
- iugtmkbdfil834 2y ago
  Agreed. In retrospect, I probably should have opted for something more appropriate for the subject at hand, but I think I just rushed through parent's argument and just picked first option that presented itself in my mind.
f1shy 2y ago
In the context of knowing who somebody is, to know if I should take advice from him, I think knowing what somebody did as a predictor does not tell me if he can help me or not. The whole thing about prison does not apply to work, does it? I mean, I have switched tasks, countries, companies, industries many times. And through it, you could not believe I was the same person, as my behavior was very much influenced by the environment. That was pointed out by people who know me. So the trying to predict the future just doing linear interpolation of the past, no, it does not work with people in the professional environment. I do believe you it works for convict felons. But I know nothing about it. On the other hand many many times in HN I’ve read comments of people that were in prison, and today are much better and are not looking back. Survivor bias you may say?