Hacker News Reader

Comment by evolve2017 | Hacker News Reader

evolve2017

I replied elsewhere but in case you didn't see it:

It looks like the author is talking about setting a threshold, as in the context of creating a test. Please have a look at [1].

In this setting, it is not possible to decrease the false-negative rate without increasing the false-positive rate.

I think the author is phrasing things this way simply as a matter of rhetoric, but his argument clearly suggests that less qualified 'diversity' candidates are being hired.

1. http://www.prolekare.cz/dbpic/jp_5403_f_21-x1000_1600

View on HN

There are several studies on this domain that show things like reminding people of their biases remove about 90% of the effect of a bias. I don't think the studies showed that they create a bias in the opposite direction. Removing bias would substantially lower false negatives. While this would slightly increase false positives I see no reason that it would make false positives higher than the non-minority false positive rates so inferring that increasing false positives implies coworkers of that demographic are unqualified is just outright false.

I see what you're saying about the bias-awareness intervention.

For your last sentence, I did not write, and did not mean to imply anything about the number of false-positive (FP) 'diversity' candidates vs FP non-'diversity' candidates. It's true that the author hints at this comparison.

I meant to convey that, per the author's statement about 'lowering the bar', Google's practices increase the FP rate in 'diversity' candidates as compared to what would have happened without the practices.

From this perspective, the author is stating that the 'diversity' hires have a higher FP rate than might have occurred otherwise. I think this conclusion - I think it's a fair one, though we may disagree - is what people find somewhat problematic.

I think the majority of what people find problematic is Gizmodo removing all the references, removing the chart that explained the core concept in the idea and aggressively misrepresenting the author's positions. I think the author could do more to acknowledge the 'default' state of no programs is unfair and people would have to find something else to find problematic if he did so but I think most of the problematic comes from virtue signalling attached to misrepsentation and oversimplification of complicated issues.

First off, this isn't a pharmaceutical trial this is a hiring process. Second, even if there is a fundamental principle of probability that assures this is the case it's still possible to have a change that vastly reduces to false-negative rate as compared to the increase false positive rate - so much to the extent that the latter is negligible.

On a broader note, the way you're injecting a completely different message into the author's text is exactly the kind of behavior that makes these discussions toxic. I realize that might sound accusatory, but if people can't make a statement without people stuffing contradictory or unrelated words into their mouths there's no possibility of civil discussion.

Thanks for your response!

This isn't a pharmaceutical trial but there's no reason why we can't follow along with the author's analogy of 'false negatives'.

Here are his words from 'The Harm of Google's Biases':

    I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and 
    I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve 
    a more equal gender and race representation, Google has 
    created several discriminatory practices:

He goes on to list his examples, which include the following:

    Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar 
    for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false 
    negative rate

I think you may have misread his position earlier; I noted that you misspoke when talking about this particular statement (i.e., whether the false-negative rate applied to 'diversity' vs 'non-diversity' candidates)

EDIT:

Didn't see your statistical comment. Unfortunately, I can't think of a case where 'adjusting a bar' to decrease the false-negative rate does not neceessarily increase the false-positive rate.

The fact that the author uses the phrase 'lowering the bar' suggests that he is also thinking of this statistical requirement.

> Unfortunately, I can't think of a case where 'adjusting a bar' to decrease the false-negative rate does not neceessarily increase the false-positive rate.

Here's one:

* Phone screens have a 50% false negative rate, and a 0% false positive rate.

* On-site interviews have a 0% false negative rate, and a 0% false positive rate.

Non-diverse candidates do one phone screen, and if passed, do an onsite. Diverse candidates do two phone screens, and if either passes, they go on to the onsite. For all candidates, if the onsite is passed, the candidate gets an offer.

* Unqualified candidates, regardless of diversity, never get an offer.

* Qualified, non-diverse candidates get an offer 50% of the time (the other 50% are erroneously eliminated at the phone interview stage).

* Qualified, diverse candidates get an offer 75% of the time (25% eliminated at the phone interview stage due to false negatives).

It seems to me that the author is advocating either doing two phone interviews for all candidates, or one phone interview for all candidates. Neither change would alter false positive rates, since false positive rates are 0% at all times.

If you're inclined to point out that all tests have a false positive rate >0%, substitute 0% for 0.00000001% and note that I stated the change in false positive rates could be trivially small to the point of omission in the comment above.

I think the quinessential example of this is reminding people about their bias against minorities. Several studies have shown this drastically reduces false negatives and raises false positives to a level that is no higher than the false positive rate in the non-minority population. This isn't enough to say the false positive rate doesn't raise, but it's more than enough to say increasing false positives doesn't imply unqualified.

I think we're drifting away from the author's article.

His statement about 'lowering the bar' with respect to decreasing false negatives directly implies a relationship between candidate quality and the false negative rate.

I can't comment on your hiring analogy, as you have more experience in this area than I do. My responses were only to highlight the subtle negative character of the author's statement.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com