6 ms·

Lets be concrete. I'm streaming realtime events and then running statistical models on the datastream in order to manipulate user behavior. What "different pers

Lets be concrete. I'm streaming realtime events and then running statistical models on the datastream in order to manipulate user behavior. What "different perspectives" are offered by women, non-Asian minorities or LGBQT+? Is there a secret prediction method that whites/asians don't know about? A special LGBQT+ streaming architecture? On several occasions I've joined a company and been the only diversity carrier. I can't think of a single advantage beyond PR (I make group photos look more diverse, yay!) that my race has given the company. Any such advantage is miniscule in comparison to the advantages gained by my knowledge of statistical significance, multiple comparisons, regression and the like. Realistically, if you wanted to add diversity of thought, you'd be far better off hiring a Frequentist of the majority race than a Bayesian of a different one. And if you wanted real (harmful) diversity of thought, you'd hire a magical thinker rather than someone persuaded by evidence.

onion2k 12y ago
I'm streaming realtime events and then running statistical models on the datastream in order to manipulate user behavior. Having a more diverse team that includes someone with a more emotionally-driven perspective could lead to someone asking the question "Is the way we're manipulating user behavior actually ethical?" This isn't about finding different technical solutions to problems; it's about finding different problems.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  The idea of an emotionally driven person making ethical decisions scares the crap out of me. For example, empathy (a popular mode of emotional decisionmaking in ethics) is known to be racist: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3108582/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3108582/ http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0048546 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.... And most emotionally driven ethical discussions on HN lean towards popularity contests - compare the outcry against online harassment of that gamergate girl to the online harassment of Charles Carreon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Carreon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Carreon), for example. But even if you are right, what does diversity in the traditional sense of your post above have to do with it? Are you suggesting that women/LGBTQ+ people are more emotional and less rational?
- gone35 12y ago
  "Having a more diverse team that includes someone with a more emotionally-driven perspective could lead to someone asking the question "Is the way we're manipulating user behavior actually ethical?" [Emphasis added] Geez, I really hope that that was just an unfortunate turn of phrase. You can't possibly mean that non-(white-males) have a quote "more emotionally-driven perspective", do you?
  - kweinber 12y ago
    I read the post to suggest that the existing team was obviously not very emotionally sensitive since they are explicitly working to "manipulate behavior" which sounds sinister. Perhaps hiring more folks who are both rational AND emotionally sensitive to their users is the diversity they need.
    - yummyfajitas 12y ago
      What's sinister about it? If you ever make a design change to increase conversions, you are working to manipulate user behavior. Are landing pages, a/b tests, pretty designs, and pictures of human faces now "sinister"?
      - kweinber 12y ago
        Making a nicer product that increases user engagement is manipulating the product to match what the user likes, not manipulating the user. Changing the order and quality of ranked news articles, bending the truth, using behavioral science to promote addictive dependence,advertising products you don't actually make are all manipulating the user. There is a big difference and yes, "manipulating the user" is sinister.
        yummyfajitas 12y ago
        I specifically discussed putting human faces on the landing page to get more conversions and other design changes (e.g., button color, button copy). These don't change the product, only the landing page. That's not a lie or bending the truth. It is manipulating the user.
kasey_junk 12y ago
It's pretty trivial to find examples where societal biases create negative results for companies that do not move beyond them. For instance, in some places (you may be aware of ;) there is a societal bias that heterosexual anglo men are hyper sexual. That they are literally untrustworthy due to it is not an uncommon bias. It is an easy jump from that bias to an implicit (or even explicit) belief that it is better NOT to hire engineers to build streaming event architectures who are constantly thinking about sex and therefore to build a pipeline that biases against heterosexual white men. A company that did this, intentionally or not, is at a disadvantage when hiring because they have removed from the applicant pool people for the wrong reasons. A company that instead was blind to that bias (or actively worked against it) would therefore have a wider pool to select from. Even 1 counter example is often enough to change the biases for everyone who encounters them. So the company that hired 'yummyfajitas' and realized either A) he is not hyper sexual or B) he is but it doesn't impact his ability to perform the task is more likely to detach the wrong biases from their hiring pipeline and this has a multiplying effect. Substitute "women aren't as good at math", "older people learn technologies slower", "black guys don't research as well" or whatever other bias you want. Also, you know, sometimes we should do things because they are the right thing to do.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  I'm not sure how your post relates to mine. I'm hiring a data team. Based on the applicant pool it'll probably be me and 3 Punjabi males assuming I hire purely based on ability [1]. My claim is that I'll get no marginal value out of hiring a Maharashtrian, an African or a westerner over an equally qualified Punjabi. I provide no special western perspective on Kafka. I also don't know why it would be the "right thing to do" to hire a Maharashtrian relative over a Punjabi - but that might be because I don't believe in group rights. If you do, I'd love to know how you choose which groups are relevant - there are, after all, 2^{6 billion} subgroups of humanity. [1] I take pains to do exactly that - I skip resumes and look at github, follow scripted interviews with objective criteria, etc.
  - kasey_junk 12y ago
    You asked for how a diversity of thinking improves a company. A specific example of that is a more diverse workforce will be more inclusive at the funnel end of the hiring pipeline, making your applicant pool better. It doesn't matter that you provide no western perspective on Kafka. What matters is that your western perspective provides no negative impact to your ability to work on Kafka problems. If there were a systematic bias against westerners that meant they were unlikely to apply for, get callbacks for, or be able to work in your environment with Kafka, actively removing those impediments is an opportunity. The larger the population being biased against and the more acute the need for applicants is, the larger the opportunity. Framing this as a "hire one person over another" or as a "rights" issue is incorrect. Many of the systematic biases can be corrected for in ways that either don't cost the unbiased set anything, or provide advantages to that set as well. Further, this is an issue of courtesy and empathy, not rights. No one has the right to my courtesy or empathy, but providing it broadly is the right thing to do.

onion2k 12y ago

I'm streaming realtime events and then running statistical models on the datastream in order to manipulate user behavior. Having a more diverse team that includes someone with a more emotionally-driven perspective could lead to someone asking the question "Is the way we're manipulating user behavior actually ethical?" This isn't about finding different technical solutions to problems; it's about finding different problems.

yummyfajitas 12y ago
The idea of an emotionally driven person making ethical decisions scares the crap out of me. For example, empathy (a popular mode of emotional decisionmaking in ethics) is known to be racist: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3108582/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3108582/ http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0048546 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.... And most emotionally driven ethical discussions on HN lean towards popularity contests - compare the outcry against online harassment of that gamergate girl to the online harassment of Charles Carreon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Carreon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Carreon), for example. But even if you are right, what does diversity in the traditional sense of your post above have to do with it? Are you suggesting that women/LGBTQ+ people are more emotional and less rational?
gone35 12y ago
"Having a more diverse team that includes someone with a more emotionally-driven perspective could lead to someone asking the question "Is the way we're manipulating user behavior actually ethical?" [Emphasis added] Geez, I really hope that that was just an unfortunate turn of phrase. You can't possibly mean that non-(white-males) have a quote "more emotionally-driven perspective", do you?
- kweinber 12y ago
  I read the post to suggest that the existing team was obviously not very emotionally sensitive since they are explicitly working to "manipulate behavior" which sounds sinister. Perhaps hiring more folks who are both rational AND emotionally sensitive to their users is the diversity they need.
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    What's sinister about it? If you ever make a design change to increase conversions, you are working to manipulate user behavior. Are landing pages, a/b tests, pretty designs, and pictures of human faces now "sinister"?
    - kweinber 12y ago
      Making a nicer product that increases user engagement is manipulating the product to match what the user likes, not manipulating the user. Changing the order and quality of ranked news articles, bending the truth, using behavioral science to promote addictive dependence,advertising products you don't actually make are all manipulating the user. There is a big difference and yes, "manipulating the user" is sinister.
      - yummyfajitas 12y ago
        I specifically discussed putting human faces on the landing page to get more conversions and other design changes (e.g., button color, button copy). These don't change the product, only the landing page. That's not a lie or bending the truth. It is manipulating the user.

kasey_junk 12y ago

It's pretty trivial to find examples where societal biases create negative results for companies that do not move beyond them. For instance, in some places (you may be aware of ;) there is a societal bias that heterosexual anglo men are hyper sexual. That they are literally untrustworthy due to it is not an uncommon bias. It is an easy jump from that bias to an implicit (or even explicit) belief that it is better NOT to hire engineers to build streaming event architectures who are constantly thinking about sex and therefore to build a pipeline that biases against heterosexual white men. A company that did this, intentionally or not, is at a disadvantage when hiring because they have removed from the applicant pool people for the wrong reasons. A company that instead was blind to that bias (or actively worked against it) would therefore have a wider pool to select from. Even 1 counter example is often enough to change the biases for everyone who encounters them. So the company that hired 'yummyfajitas' and realized either A) he is not hyper sexual or B) he is but it doesn't impact his ability to perform the task is more likely to detach the wrong biases from their hiring pipeline and this has a multiplying effect. Substitute "women aren't as good at math", "older people learn technologies slower", "black guys don't research as well" or whatever other bias you want. Also, you know, sometimes we should do things because they are the right thing to do.

yummyfajitas 12y ago
I'm not sure how your post relates to mine. I'm hiring a data team. Based on the applicant pool it'll probably be me and 3 Punjabi males assuming I hire purely based on ability [1]. My claim is that I'll get no marginal value out of hiring a Maharashtrian, an African or a westerner over an equally qualified Punjabi. I provide no special western perspective on Kafka. I also don't know why it would be the "right thing to do" to hire a Maharashtrian relative over a Punjabi - but that might be because I don't believe in group rights. If you do, I'd love to know how you choose which groups are relevant - there are, after all, 2^{6 billion} subgroups of humanity. [1] I take pains to do exactly that - I skip resumes and look at github, follow scripted interviews with objective criteria, etc.
- kasey_junk 12y ago
  You asked for how a diversity of thinking improves a company. A specific example of that is a more diverse workforce will be more inclusive at the funnel end of the hiring pipeline, making your applicant pool better. It doesn't matter that you provide no western perspective on Kafka. What matters is that your western perspective provides no negative impact to your ability to work on Kafka problems. If there were a systematic bias against westerners that meant they were unlikely to apply for, get callbacks for, or be able to work in your environment with Kafka, actively removing those impediments is an opportunity. The larger the population being biased against and the more acute the need for applicants is, the larger the opportunity. Framing this as a "hire one person over another" or as a "rights" issue is incorrect. Many of the systematic biases can be corrected for in ways that either don't cost the unbiased set anything, or provide advantages to that set as well. Further, this is an issue of courtesy and empathy, not rights. No one has the right to my courtesy or empathy, but providing it broadly is the right thing to do.