Hacker News Reader

Comment by tuna-piano | Hacker News Reader

What person from an underrepresented group wants to be chosen just because of their group status? Isn't that highly patronizing for someone who likely had worked hard to get to where they got? Do you want to be "pretty great for a xxxxx person!" or just "one of the best".

Is this a lesson that people want their kids to learn?

Doesn't this also lead discrimination actually being a rational (and maybe ethical) thing to do?

Simply put- if the top 100 medical students (based on MCAT, boards scores, etc) are chosen to become heart surgeons, choosing a heart surgeon from those 100 based on race or gender is not only absolutely egregious morally but it's also irrational.

But if the top 90 of the 100 medical students are chosen and then 10 are chosen because of non-relevant factors (race, gender, etc)... doesn't it become rational (and maybe morally acceptable) to try and avoid choosing those lesser-qualified 10 for your life-or-death surgery?

View on HN

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas

>Thomas has recollected that his Yale Juris Doctor degree was not taken seriously by law firms to which he applied after graduating. He said that potential employers assumed he obtained it because of affirmative action policies.[18] In 1969 Dean Louis Pollak wrote that the law school was expanding its program of quotas for black applicants, with up to 24 entering that year admitted under a system that deemphasized grades and LSAT scores.[19] According to Thomas, he was "asked pointed questions, unsubtly suggesting that they doubted I was as smart as my grades indicated."[20] He further reflected:

> ⠀⠀ "I peeled a fifteen-cent sticker off a package of cigars and stuck it on the frame of my law degree to remind myself of the mistake I'd made by going to Yale. I never did change my mind about its value."[21]

This effect was so obvious from the outset that it frustrates the hell out of me how many people didn’t see how shortsighted these policies are.

People who genuinely care about the success of those who were given fewer opportunities were called racist for pointing this out, and the righteous virtue signalers ended up doing way more damage to the groups they were supposedly helping. Same thing is currently happening with women in tech.

Hiring quotas and racist/sexist hiring policies make more problems, not fewer problems. It doesn’t matter which group is on which side of these policies. They are inherently bad for everyone.

Yet, people can’t fathom how a black man like Thomas could lean conservative. They all think that he must be an self-hating fool who doesn’t get it, and as a result, he’s on the receiving end of some of the most racist language of any public figure, being called Uncle Tom and Coon probably more than anybody else. They don’t entertain the possibility that maybe he knows something that they don’t.

>>What person from an underrepresented group wants to be chosen just because of their group status? Isn't that highly patronizing for someone who likely had worked hard to get to where they got? Do you want to be "pretty great for a xxxxx person!" or just "one of the best".

For comparison, consider the case of people who get their jobs via nepotism. The people who are hired for nepotism are seldom concerned with the fact that they were chosen because of who their parents were. In many cases these people are reasonably qualified and do just fine in spite of the fact that they were given the job because of their family's status.

When there is a preponderance of talent and success is hard to quantify precisely, choosing the best means choosing between a number of comparably good alternatives (to within the large uncertainty of the measurement). In certain cases there are very meritocratic scenarios where I think your statement holds, but when there is a surplus of talent for a role and quantifying success is very imprecise, I'm not sure if meritocracy makes sense. Given that many hedge funds are basically glorified ETFs that average to the market, I'm not if there is much difference between reasonably qualified candidates for these jobs.

I think your nepotism example and "preponderance of talent and success is hard to quantify precisely" are nice arguments and give me something to think about, thanks.

But when you say "I'm not sure if meritocracy makes sense"... you are really saying that instead of trying for meritocracy, they should just use skin color?

How do you feel about the idea of blind auditions for orchestras (auditions where the candidate cannot be seen, only heard)? These were originally done to eliminate the possibility of discrimination.

I think orchestras could also qualify for "preponderance of talent and success is hard to quantify precisely"... should they eliminate blind auditions so they can choose performers based on skin color+gender?

Well I'm not really advocating for choosing people based on skin color or gender per se. Rather that in a cases where there is an surplus of talent for the role we should consider making a choice based upon serving the interests of society more broadly. Sometimes this will fall along racial lines. For example, having doctors of color to serve communities of color has demonstrable positive health outcomes for society more broadly.

In the case of managing portfolios, I think that there are compelling reasons from a risk management perspective to cultivate different perspectives (a room full of Bulls will get burned in a downturn). Increasing the number of people from working class backgrounds, genders with different spending priorities, or races with different community ties can potentially add a lot of important perspectives to a financial portfolio.

Blind Auditions in orchestras are an interesting idea. People are actually much better and judging sound quality of violins than they are judging the quality of stock options, so it is easier to definitively state that someone is the 'best' Violinist in a group.

> we should consider making a choice based upon serving the interests of society more broadly. Sometimes this will fall along racial lines.

This line kind of contradicts this line:

> Well I'm not really advocating for choosing people based on skin color or gender per se.

>But when you say "I'm not sure if meritocracy makes sense"... you are really saying that instead of trying for meritocracy, they should just use skin color?

I'm not GP but that doesn't seem like a charitable rendering of their argument. Its the stupidest possible rendering of their statement.

I'm not sure we want to use nepotism as the standard to meet.

> The people who are hired for nepotism are seldom concerned with the fact that they were chosen because of who their parents were.

Nepotism is personal and hidden. It isn't a rule everyone knows about, but something done on an individual level. If people could spot nepotism as easily as they could spot race and knew about confirmed corporate nepotism as easily as they knew about diversity initiatives, it would carry a greater stigma.

People see the race question on the job application. I have never seen a form ask about family members.

>I have never seen a form ask about family members.

You haven't? Because I definitely have seen it. I'm not sure it's universal, and I know people do go to work for companies where their relatives work, but it's something that is asked on applications I've filled out, and as far as I know, is perfectly legitimate to factor into decisions.

Furthermore, race, that I can remember, always has a disclaimer that it's kept separate without identifying the person and used for reporting on diversity. And you can decline to select an answer too.

My view is that if there is a bar set that is reasonable and results in competent people being hired, then how people are selected within that set doesn't matter that much. Maybe with the caveat that I wouldn't want everyone to use the same preferences such that every employer would exclude me.

I don't see why I should be threatened by either nepotism or affirmative action. If I'm at a disadvantage, then I can take pride in having to work a little harder. Conversely, people give you more credit if they are aware you are disadvantaged, even if it's unspoken and unofficial.

>as far as I know, is perfectly legitimate to factor into decisions

I mean, to prevent nepotism.

If the people in underrepresented groups are anything like the females I knew in the military, most of them will hate that they were treated differently. The females had lower physical fitness standards, but competed for the same promotion slots as males. Most females I knew resented the fact that they were put in a position where their male subordinates would always question whether they were actually qualified to be in charge, or if they just happened to get promoted earlier because it was easier for them to get high physical fitness scores.

Remind me why higher physical fitness is important to leading a battalion.

Physical fitness is important for the grunts.

I remember several comments in the Iowa Caucus app debacle threads calling out the ex-googler who led the project as an affirmative action hire. Irregardless of morality or righteousness the more affirmative action permeates our culture the more resentment is going to build up in groups that feel cheated by such a system.

> like it or not it is not a natural human sentiment to stop and go "well one hundred years ago my great grandfather benefited unfairly...".

It's not a hundred years ago, it's this year, right now.

And I think if you're going to bend to "natural human sentiment", then you might as well give up on trying to get people to change at all. Why try to get people to exercise or learn if "natural human sentiment" is to sit on the couch and watch TV?

I removed that portion of my comment before I saw your response because it was a poorly developed thought that detracted from the substance of my original comment.

The point is that we shouldn't adapt our processes because people feel cheated. Just because you feel like someone didn't earn something doesn't mean much.

So you agree with the parent then, affirmative action and quotas should have never existed in the first place?

No?

If someone has to complete a marathon with a 20 lbs weight around their neck, I'm willing to adjust their time downwards to reflect that. I'm not going to avoid doing it because unencumbered runners feel cheated by it.

The point I was making is that your argument seems to be inconsistently applied. It would seem that it’s equally wrong to adjust anyone’s time just because one person felt cheated for forgetting to remove a 20lbs weight from their own neck.

Yes, if racism were something people could choose opt out of, my argument would be inconsistent. But I'm not sure how that's relevant?

Weird how no one seemed to care much when racism permeates our culture and law and resentment builds up in groups that feel cheated by such a system.

> What person from an underrepresented group wants to be chosen just because of their group status? Isn't that highly patronizing for someone who likely had worked hard to get to where they got?

Your question rests on the assumption that that's actually how they feel about it.

If they are from an underrepresented group, then by definition there is some factor that works against them. (Or multiple factors.)

If you appropriately counterbalance that factor with another factor that works in their favor, then it shouldn't make them feel bad about themselves. Competing on a level playing field doesn't reflect negatively on someone. It doesn't undermine their confidence or cast doubt on their achievements.

Of course, this assumes the playing field is actually level. In theory it's possible to get this wrong. (You could apply either too little or too much correction. It's ultimately a quantitative question.) But my point is, to argue that someone would feel bad, you need to do more than say that correction has been applied; you also need to show that it is the wrong amount of correction.

> But if the top 90 of the 100 medical students are chosen and then 10 are chosen because of non-relevant factors (race, gender, etc)... doesn't it become rational (and maybe morally acceptable) to try and avoid choosing those lesser-qualified 10 for your life-or-death surgery?

What if the 90 were chosen in a process that is also not really entirely about their qualifications? Isn't this also a problem? Why focus only on the problems in choosing the 10?

Particularly as, when you get surgery, you're way more likely to get surgeon who is one of the 90. If this is the real concern, Amdahl's Law tells you to look first at the 90.

>But if the top 90 of the 100 medical students are chosen and then 10 are chosen because of non-relevant factors (race, gender, etc)... doesn't it become rational (and maybe morally acceptable) to try and avoid choosing those lesser-qualified 10 for your life-or-death surgery?

Isn't that assuming test scores have a linear relationship to ability? I would pick one of the conscientious hardworking "lesser-scoring" surgeon over the class valedictorian who might just happen to be a functioning alcoholic.

I agree (and I hope most people could agree) that this downside exists. I think the harder question is how to weigh this downside against the upsides of better representation. For example, of course it's also bad for kids to learn that "xxxxx people can't be doctors." Affirmative action comes in lots of different forms, and I think there's room to optimize for more than one problem at the same time.

On the other hand, being a doctor pays really well and is often a rewarding and fulfilling career.

We just want justice. We need to ask how and why people found themselves in “underrepresented” and “marginalized” categories in first place. Piketty [1], Katznelson [2] (white people are happy to go along with set asides and actions to address class inequity, as long as no Black or Brown folk are involved) might be worth pondering. I hope that everyone is using the opportunity to understand the processes that got us to mass uprisings in most U.S. cities.

Funny, I had to have drawn out argument with a white surgeon — day after day a few months back. He didn’t think my mother’s Black life was worth much.

[1] http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/Piketty2020SlidesLongVersion... [2] http://origins.osu.edu/review/when-affirmative-action-was-wh...

This analogy is weak for a few reasons, first off companies are not doctors and with diversification no one is at risk of death.

Secondly, expanding the pool of available investments with an eye towards attempting to correct systematic injustice doesn’t need to accompany a loss of quality, which is what is argued here. If the pool of quality candidates is large, then having a diversity goal in an investment fund doesn’t necessarily lead to lower quality.

After all, can you honestly say that all the worthy startups and teams are getting investment now?

As a side note, if the diversity argument lowering quality is “correct”, then why wouldn’t any investment hypothesis also lead to lower quality? There are tons of vc firms that only invest in certain types of companies. They still manage to keep quality high while being discerning about who they invest in. Think funds that only do bio or only do social media.

Instead of coming up with reasons why status quo is totally fine or why giving money to black entrepreneurs is going to cause losses, perhaps we could imagine a world where such investment thesis are successful, and expand the total success of everyone?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com