11–20 of 94 posts
More like "because of Affirmative Action". Just treat people as fairly as possible. The other way doesn't work.
More like "because of Affirmative Action". Just treat people as fairly as possible. The other way doesn't work.
We're going to play poker. Everyone will start with a randomly determined number of chips. But people whose HN handles start with A-H will get, on average, 40% less to start with. Aside from that tiny nit, it'll be a totally fair game.
At what point(s) should redistribution happen? At what point(s) should it stop to allow better decision making?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're going to play poker. Everyone will start with a randomly determined number of chips. But people whose HN handles start with A-H will get, on average, 40% less to start with. Aside from that tiny nit, it'll be a totally fair game.
So give everyone the same number of chips; don't compensate by changing the rules so that a black straight beats a white flush.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're going to play poker. Everyone will start with a randomly determined number of chips. But people whose HN handles start with A-H will get, on average, 40% less to start with. Aside from that tiny nit, it'll be a totally fair game.
The "fair" solution is to make sure that A-H folks start with the same amount as the rest. The "reverse discrimination" solution is to take, after half of the game, the winnings of P-W folks and give them to C-J folks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're going to play poker. Everyone will start with a randomly determined number of chips. But people whose HN handles start with A-H will get, on average, 40% less to start with. Aside from that tiny nit, it'll be a totally fair game.
The "fair" solution is to make sure that A-H folks start with the same amount as the rest. The "reverse discrimination" solution is to take, after half of the game, the winnings of P-W folks and give them to C-J folks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're going to play poker. Everyone will start with a randomly determined number of chips. But people whose HN handles start with A-H will get, on average, 40% less to start with. Aside from that tiny nit, it'll be a totally fair game.
Is the alternative that we play poker and after every N rounds the chips are redistributed so that everyone has the same amount? At what point(s) should redistribution happen? At what point(s) should it stop to allow better decision making?
More like "because of Affirmative Action". Just treat people as fairly as possible. The other way doesn't work.
We're going to play poker. Everyone will start with a randomly determined number of chips. But people whose HN handles start with A-H will get, on average, 40% less to start with. Aside from that tiny nit, it'll be a totally fair game.
I bet it's all those pesky good for nothing lazy asians that spend their entire time doing useless things like studying and trying to make it in life. They're the reason smart and honest blacks and hispanics are being pushed out of top universities. We really need to do something about this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Just treat people as fairly as possible. Wow, man, you just like, solved racism and discrimination.
Discrimination can't be "solved" because 1. People are genetically different and 2. Anyone can have biases about anything. I could shut down every interviewee with big ears, or beady eyes, if I wanted to. Again, all you can do is treat people as fairly as possible by basing admissions policies on merit and standardization, rather than sloppily basing them on perceived group identity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Just treat people as fairly as possible. Wow, man, you just like, solved racism and discrimination.
Discrimination can't be "solved" because 1. People are genetically different and 2. Anyone can have biases about anything. I could shut down every interviewee with big ears, or beady eyes, if I wanted to. Again, all you can do is treat people as fairly as possible by basing admissions policies on merit and standardization, rather than sloppily basing them on perceived group identity.
Where does the talk about genetic variation and unconscious bias even come from? It's not relevant in this context.