Oh, you’re with them? (2016) • Hacker News Board

Re: Oh, you’re with them? (2016)

#11

Post by nl » Fri, Mar 10, 2017, 2:31 AM UTC

I think about this a lot.

I'm hiring heavily atm, and one obvious thing I look at is what degree the person has. I've noticed that I've started to go "oh, they did that course. We had person Y from that course and they were bad".

It's such a subconscious thing on such a non-obvious attribution that it made me even more aware of how people make racist assumptions because they group on the color characteristic and project from sparse examples.

I don't know what the solution is, but it would be a good thing if someone could come up with a solution.

Re: Oh, you’re with them? (2016)

#12

Post by danbolt » Fri, Mar 10, 2017, 2:31 AM UTC

renlo wrote: post #2

Why does everything have to be a big deal these days? Forgive, forget, move on.

I don't really agree with your sentiment at all, but I think that the discussion that can come from it is really valuable, so I hope your comment doesn't get downvoted into oblivion.

Re: Oh, you’re with them? (2016)

#13

Post by fjert » Fri, Mar 10, 2017, 2:32 AM UTC

sdflkd wrote: post #3

renlo wrote: post #2

Why does everything have to be a big deal these days? Forgive, forget, move on.

Because women should not have to "forgive, forget, move on" when it comes to being disrespected and having their career held back.

But this sounds like a real mistake someone can make... how do you know which groups of people are together? If they're spaced apart enough it's not hard mistake them as separate groups. Not to mention you don't know what the assistant's tone was or whether or not the author was misinterpreting the situation. Honestly, that blog post feels like bait for a forced debate based on an anecdote with little to no information/evidence of anything.

Re: Oh, you’re with them? (2016)

#14

Post by aaron-lebo » Fri, Mar 10, 2017, 2:33 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #6

oculusthrift wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

we have no idea what happened. it's possible the 3 men were sitting together talking while the woman boss was sitting farther away. it seems that whenever a mistake happens it must be because of your sex or race and nothing else.

Yes, I agree. This must be an elaborate attempt by Raymond Chen to trick us into believing in gender bias.

There's no reason to discount this post, but you're talking about a secondhand story. We have one account from someone a step removed from the story.

The post is about bias, and people are guilty of their own biases in perspective.

Re: Oh, you’re with them? (2016)

#15

Post by noobermin » Fri, Mar 10, 2017, 2:33 AM UTC

charles-salvia wrote: post #10

If you trained a neural network to recognize "high powered tech executives", it will likely start picking up on features associated with 30 to 40 year old (mostly white) males wearing sweaters or "business casual" attire. It probably would report a low value if you showed it a minority female. (Google "tech executive" on Google images to test this out.) Human beings are really advanced neural networks, trained on yea…

While micro-aggressions suck, I agree with your sentiment. This is the problem with PC, it is treating the symptoms without addressing the fundamental causes.

Re: Oh, you’re with them? (2016)

#16

Post by alexdumitru » Fri, Mar 10, 2017, 2:34 AM UTC

renlo wrote: post #2

Why does everything have to be a big deal these days? Forgive, forget, move on.

I agree. If it was for a man instead of her, it would've been nothing. And I'm sure this happens often for men too, they just don't think about it.

Re: Oh, you’re with them? (2016)

#17

Post by aaron-lebo » Fri, Mar 10, 2017, 2:35 AM UTC

essayist wrote: post #9

renlo wrote: post #2

Why does everything have to be a big deal these days? Forgive, forget, move on.

If nothing else, because people who screw up should have better manners. You step on my foot, I notice and ask you to get off, and you immediately do and say "sorry" -> I forgive, forget, move on. You step on my foot, I notice and ask you to get off and you delay, express surprise, finally do, and then explain, at length, that you didn't notice, aren't that heavy, meant nothing by it, but you're sorry if I'm offended…

How do you extrapolate that from the post?

Re: Oh, you’re with them? (2016)

#18

Post by darawk » Fri, Mar 10, 2017, 2:36 AM UTC

sdflkd wrote: post #3

renlo wrote: post #2

Why does everything have to be a big deal these days? Forgive, forget, move on.

Because women should not have to "forgive, forget, move on" when it comes to being disrespected and having their career held back.

But this woman's career was not held back. She was the head of the department. So, if this story is evidence of anything at all, it's that this sort of bias doesn't matter. That being said, I don't think this story is evidence of much of anything.

Re: Oh, you’re with them? (2016)

#19

Post by aaron-lebo » Fri, Mar 10, 2017, 2:38 AM UTC

charles-salvia wrote: post #10

If you trained a neural network to recognize "high powered tech executives", it will likely start picking up on features associated with 30 to 40 year old (mostly white) males wearing sweaters or "business casual" attire. It probably would report a low value if you showed it a minority female. (Google "tech executive" on Google images to test this out.) Human beings are really advanced neural networks, trained on yea…

The people who run tech companies are mostly similar demographics. They make a lot of short-sighted decisions.

Make your leadership pool more diverse in gender, race, and (more importantly) life experience and things will change. An artificial solution is only going to be top down, engineered by the very execs who have limited experience.

The bigger problem is the self-perpetuating vortex that is Silicon Valley. Mix it up.

Re: Oh, you’re with them? (2016)

#20

Post by darawk » Fri, Mar 10, 2017, 2:40 AM UTC

charles-salvia wrote: post #10

If you trained a neural network to recognize "high powered tech executives", it will likely start picking up on features associated with 30 to 40 year old (mostly white) males wearing sweaters or "business casual" attire. It probably would report a low value if you showed it a minority female. (Google "tech executive" on Google images to test this out.) Human beings are really advanced neural networks, trained on yea…

Couldn't agree more. The solution isn't to make this assistant apologize profusely. It's a reasonable mistake to make. Women of color are extraordinarily unusual in this position.

This isn't an instance of bias. It's a mistake based on simple base rate prevalence. No harm was done here and no harm was meant. Now, that doesn't mean that all forms of what people have taken to calling 'microaggressions' are harmless - some of them are harmful. This is just pretty clearly not one of them.