Quote:
Originally Posted by juan valdez
so if this is correct....
-how do you measure the size of this bias problem?
-what would be the consequences of ignoring this problem?
-what would you propose to do about this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chezlaw
Fair questions.
Measuring is very interesting from an SMP pov but from a political view all I really care about is whether it's significant or not. I've no doubt it is.
The consequences of ignoring it is that groups of people are discriminated against - I don't like that at all.
I propose exposure of the pay gap (as per this thread), positive discrimination and various equality laws. I'm also a huge fan of avoiding language that reinforces the cognitive bias and even using language that reduces the cognitive bias.
if you can't measure where the bias exists how can you possibly create laws to adjust for it? you cant just say sexism exists, im going to fix it. you need to actually identify it and measure it. you cant even (along with well named) even attempt to embarrass yourself by going through the process of trying to do the impossible and falling flat on your face
that is absolutely absurd. you cant even come within a light year to describe all the factors involved in determining someones worth to an organization specifically, or the workforce in general. its absolutely ******ed to look at women as a group. women make up half the population and they vary wildly on an individual basis. lumping them together as a group and comparing them to men is idiotic. men and women are not the same. expecting the same outcomes to men is idiotic. hiring someone or prejudging a women based on their gender is also idiotic. giving a women a raise based on the fact they are a women is idiotic. giving a man a raise or paycut based on their gender is idiotic
i asked you the consequence of this bias (that you cant measure) and in your sea of bias you failed to even attempt to discover what will happen. if women are under valued or under paid by one organization then the rest of the job market has an opportunity to exploit that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chezlaw
The companies will suffer argument is one we have to just disagree about but if we imagine you are right and equality means companies are less efficient then I'll choose equality over efficiency in a heartbeat.
equal outcomes is absolutely ******ed. do you really think everyone is equal? companies employ people to be productive, thats what they care about. if a company is providing something people don't want or they are providing something people do want in an inefficient manner, it dies. it really is that simple. how can you possibly demand equality if you cant even come within a light year of calculating it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chezlaw
Your idea is that people will be rewarded based on merit but in reality they are rewarded on perceived merit which is a very different thing. Perception is heavily distorted by cognitive biases such as sexism.
here is the truth about bias. it exists in far more ways than you seem to even comprehend and it can never be fixed. a more accurate statement would be biases exist everywhere and you are a perfect example of someone who is badly biased. in a world of infinite bias, you are focused on gender. and in the job market, you are biased towards think about companies that penalize women through bias vs the fact they are penalizing themselves through bias. the fact that biases exist in a free market means you can actually exploit them equally to being oppressed by them in many ways. to help you understand how completely stupid the concept of "equality" is and then filtering out men vs women i will make a few of almost infinite number of issues that create "inequality" within the context of just being a women
-IQ probably the greatest injustice we have in the west. best predictor of "success". you cant fix this, its just unfair
-beauty. i'll go ahead and speak for 99% of heterosexual men who aren't morally infallible here. men are biased towards beautiful women. they have advantages every step of the way in life, including the hiring process. im not sure how we equalize beauty but beautiful women enjoy those benefits far more than men. im sure women in tv enjoy those benefits more than women on the radio. should female strippers give a portion of their paycheck to underpaid male strippers? the advantages of beauty alone are far too complex to be able to regulate the market and equalize it for just beauty alone
-the extrovert inequality. social people do better in interviews. they also build bonds with people around them more easily which tilts promotion in their favor over strictly focusing on performance. how are we going to equalize the unfair advantages of being an extrovert? obviously being an extrovert is far more advantageous in some fields than others. how are we going to weight which fields and jobs within that field favor extroversion?
-how about negotiation ability? it turns out that negotiation ability is strongly linked to trait agreeableness. women are also high in trait agreeableness. so obviously they get penalized by their natural inclination to avoid conflict in negotiating their wage. but wait, theres plenty of men high in agreeableness and even more agreeable than women. so how do we filter by gender when trying to equalize the negotiation inequality when its not actually the best measure. but wait, theres more. being low in agreeableness gives you an advantage in negotiation but it also penalizes you in that you have difficulty working with others. right, just like calculating all the advantages you now need to factor in that there usually is also a disadvantage associated with it
a few posts ago i challenged well named to go through the mental exercise of calculating the value of a used honda civic with no market data. its impossible. you could spend the rest of your life doing this and still come up with a feeble answer. the value of a used car could be based on the distance to where you work, public transit options, the cost of gas, disposable income, etc etc etc. then you would need to calculate all the options of other cars and how and why you value them vs a honda civic. then you need to calculate the each individual person in the car market has a different value system for the car they want and how much they will pay for each car. it is impossibly complicated. so what do we do? we outsource it to a collective intelligence. we look at transaction prices and we can tell the ball park value immediately. we can then look at mileage differences or different option upgrades etc and adjust the price accordingly. is it perfect? no. it cant be. but its certainly going to get you a better answer to the infinite calculation involved in avoiding market data and its certainly going to be more efficient. the same goes for workers in a job market. their value is impossibly complicated. inequality is impossibly complicated. trying to equalize based on filter the population 50/50 is impossibly stupid
this is just the tip of the iceberg. i hope you can begin to the see world is not fair. calculating what is fair based on a generalization of half the population is neither fair or accurate. implementing any sort of affirmative action based on such a ******ed and inaccurate categorization of the workforce is an absolute disaster. the inclination to implement affirmative action based on gender is absolutely idiotic. idiotic theories based on equality where equality doesn't even exist and the fact that it is impossible, results in genocide. wanting a diet version of a genocidal philosophy doesn't make you genocidal, it just makes you a dangerous moron if you have any power or start accumulating like-minded morons in a democracy