
Cognitive roadblocks to reconciling merit and diversity - wallflower
https://hbr.org/2016/07/we-just-cant-handle-diversity
======
yummyfajitas
I used to be really concerned and generally opposed to such biases. But after
careful thought, I'm now very uncertain.

I really want to know how much of this "bias" is actually just an informative
and useful prior.

As an example, suppose you have two candidates from Princeton. One is black,
the other is asian. With high probability, the asian candidate is smarter - he
had to pass through a much more rigorous college admissions filter than the
black person.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11904256](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11904256)

Now given equal evaluations, it probably makes sense to hire the Asian person
over the black person. (Similar reasoning suggests you should prefer an Asian
to a white person.) The reason is simply that base rates matter. Bayes rule
says that P(good candidate|evidence) = P(evidence|good candidate) P(good
candidate)/P(evidence).

The term P(good candidate) is known as the _base rate_ \- as simple arithmetic
demonstrates it's important information.

So assuming the base rate for various groups differs, these "biases" might
actually not be biases at all - they might be informative. If we eliminate
these biases from our process, we might actually make worse decisions [1].
Unfortunately this article doesn't address that question at all.

See also this body of research, which suggests that many racial/sexual
stereotypes are actually useful priors and improve human decisionmaking:
[http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jussim/unbearable%20accuracy%20o...](http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jussim/unbearable%20accuracy%20of%20stereotypes.pdf)

I'm also curious to hear arguments about the _ethics_ of using such
information in decision making, assuming they are in fact informative.

[1] For those unfamiliar with statistics, I've got a simple article here
illustrating the arithmetic of base rates. Clickbait title: _A gay person
donates blood which tests negative for HIV. A straight person donates untested
blood. Which is safer? The answer will SHOCK you._
[https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2016/why_gays_cant_donate...](https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2016/why_gays_cant_donate_blood.html)

~~~
Zigurd
"Biases" are a species of uninformed preference. It is really unlikely that
satisfying your biases is going to lead to better decision-making. This goes
for just about any mismeasure and folk wisdom, as Google has found out.

Multiple dimension of Google's hiring process have been revised as they found
they were getting sub-optimal results from the usual kind of "hiring people
like me" approach.

For example, it used to be a good bet that men made better orchestra
musicians. Until they made auditioners take off their shoes and play behind a
screen. You can't detect that bias without trying very hard to wash it out. If
men were substantially ALL of the successful orchestral musicians, it would of
course look like a completely justified "bias."

~~~
yummyfajitas
First of all, base rates matter. Here's a simplified proof:

Suppose you want to know if X is true. You have evidence E which is correlated
with X - suppose A = P(E|X) > 0.5 and B = P(!E|!X) > 0.5. Bayes rule shows:

P(X|E) = P(E|X) P(X) / P(E) = P(E|X)P(X) / (P(X)A + (1-B)P(!X)) = P(X)A /
(P(X)(A+1-B) + 1-B)

Differentiating this w.r.t. P(X) shows that it monotonically increases with
P(X). QED.

Now I'm not disputing - at all - that human biases exist. Far from it! What
I'm asking is whether the behaviors discovered in this article are biases
(errors that result in worse decisions) or merely _accurate_ use of priors
(using correct base rate knowledge to make better decisions).

In the case of orchestras the answer is pretty clearly yes. Similarly in the
case of baseball. In college admissions and lending the answer is likely to be
no [1]. This article _completely ignores the question!_

[1]
[https://randomcriticalanalysis.wordpress.com/2015/05/16/on-c...](https://randomcriticalanalysis.wordpress.com/2015/05/16/on-
concentrated-poverty-and-its-effects-on-academic-outcomes/)
[http://ftp.iza.org/dp8733.pdf](http://ftp.iza.org/dp8733.pdf)
[https://randomcriticalanalysis.wordpress.com/2015/11/22/on-t...](https://randomcriticalanalysis.wordpress.com/2015/11/22/on-
the-relationship-between-negative-home-owner-equity-and-racial-
demographics/#my_analysis)

~~~
ubernostrum
1\. Argue that yummyfajitas is known to often be wrong, and in fact terribly
wrong, thus justifying bias against acceptance of any views advanced by
yummyfajitas.

2\. Spread this now rationally-supported (on base rate grounds) bias among
many people.

3\. Find some time later that yummyfajitas' views are overwhelmingly rejected
by persons reached in step 2.

4\. Declare bias established in step 1 to be retroactively objectively correct
after observing how yummyfajitas' posts fare with observers, and note that
even yummyfajitas will not be able to argue with it, as the correctness will
be demonstrated by yummyfajitas' own argument in comment above.

~~~
yummyfajitas
The chain of reasoning you advocate for is circular - the validity of step 1
is dependent on the conclusion in step 4, but step 4 depends on step 1.

The same is not true of the chain of reasoning I suggested.

------
this2shallPass
Notice the framing. Much of this is framed well from the author's point of
view- you agree, or you are wrong.

"Tost’s research shows, may help individuals recognize the privileges they
enjoy as part of a dominant group, as long as they also believe they’ve
experienced disadvantages as members of other, subordinate groups (and thus
can identify with people who feel disadvantaged in comparison with them).
White women overall, for instance, are more likely than white men to view
themselves as beneficiaries of racial privilege; they get it because they,
too, have had to deal with discrimination."

White men can't be part of a group that experiences discrimination? What if
they're old or young? Have a disability? Are part of the certain ethnic or
religious groups, e.g. Jews? Are gay, bisexual or have some other sexual
orientation? Who's discriminated against isn't a competition. But all people
are judged and get treated how they do in part because of superficial factors
(and the prejudices associated with them). At least sometimes.

As referenced by another comment, this article was enlightening: research
which suggests that many stereotypes e.g. around race or gender are actually
useful priors and improve human decision making when you don't have other,
better information:

[http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jussim/unbearable%20accuracy%20o...](http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jussim/unbearable%20accuracy%20of%20stereotypes.pdf)

~~~
Mendenhall
I noticed that right away. Things like "We believe we know good talent when we
see it, yet we usually don’t—we’re terrible at evaluating people objectively"

Some are really good at evaluating talent/people. Author seems to want to lump
everyone together in a mass of "we" to make some grand point. Missing the
trees because of the forest.

------
hyperion2010
Gotta say, I love how not once was age mentioned. If you want a different
perspective, get it from someone who has been around for awhile. It would be
interesting if someone tried to calculate how much suboptimal hiring costs the
economy, I have this suspicion that failure to utilize people with real
experience will top the list.

~~~
HarryHirsch
_how much suboptimal hiring costs the economy_

But it's not about the economy, it's to preserve the status quo for
management, a small subset of the company.

------
eevilspock
While these cognitive roadblocks affect everyone, I wish the tech community
and others who believe in "meritocracy" would take greater hede of this
article and other criticisms of it.

------
NetTechM
Seems like a really small sample pool, 73 candidates.

------
Mendenhall
I am bias on every decisions I make. I dont want to hire lazy people or people
who stink or people who talk too much or busy bodies or on and on and on.
Being a single entity among many makes you bias, just learn to be bias on the
correct things.

~~~
oh_sigh
If you read the article, it points out that people alter their bias threshold
depending on who they are interviewing. Black guy is a little quiet? He's shy,
a bad culture fit. White guy a little quiet? He's modest, a great culture fit.

~~~
Mendenhall
Yes I read it, and your example I covered when I said be biased on the correct
things. Not all people alter their bias but part of the problem with this
article is its generalities that dont apply to everyone but are written about
like they do.

~~~
oh_sigh
That's like saying "If you're drowning, just start swimming".

