Our Shared Shelf discussion
JanFeb 18: Why I'm: R Eddo-Lodge
>
discussion about specific points raised by the author
date
newest »
newest »
For me it was the other way around. Before reading the book I thought quotation isn't a good thing, also because of the arguments you've given. But my opinion changed. I think a quotation as a positive discrimination can't be a solution for inequality in the long run and is only really effective in the beginning. There are many white men in powerful positions and I agree with reni, that it occurs - among other things- discrimination, because that skills one needs for a job in special position are associated - unfounded or because constructed - with white men. If other people of other races or gender etc. are put due to quotation in these position they can change the system, because maybe and hopefully they have a wider, more inclusive assoziation (I don't think one can have no assoziation at all, so the aim must be to make assoziations more wider). In the long run they won't need quotation anymore. I have the feeling - but I don't have enough knowledge about the indian system to be sure with my assumption - that in India quotation is a solution in the long run and thus these problems occur. So for me it seems that positive discrimination works just as a starting signal to cause a chance in power/discrimination, but not as a long-term solution
It's an excellent question which needs to think a lot on to "weight" the good and the bad.
I need to reflect more on this to forge myself a clever opinion but, right now, I think quotas are a good things to make equality happens at the beggining and make change the minds of everyone to keep the fair behavior of people going. This solution should work in some situations but I'm agree with you in some other situations it doesn't work well.
I need to reflect more on this to forge myself a clever opinion but, right now, I think quotas are a good things to make equality happens at the beggining and make change the minds of everyone to keep the fair behavior of people going. This solution should work in some situations but I'm agree with you in some other situations it doesn't work well.
Hum... I do not know. Like Lewis, I will need to think about it.
In general, I do not like the idea of quota or affirmative actions.
I have the feeling, it is like building barriers rather than bridges.
I am pretty sure that other solutions are waiting to be found
In general, I do not like the idea of quota or affirmative actions.
I have the feeling, it is like building barriers rather than bridges.
I am pretty sure that other solutions are waiting to be found
I haven’t read the book yet, unfortunately; however, I was thinking about quotas recently. I think quotas can be effective at promoting a change. I agree that there is not enough diversity in high level positions. I believe that too many are looked over due to bias. Having a quota can force people to take a harder look at people that they would have otherwise overlooked/disregarded. My hope would be that the quota would be unnecessary in the future...I went to speak with a woman in my field that runs her own business, recently. She suggested that I not put my full first name on my resume. She wondered if I’d be given more consideration and get my foot in the door if it wasn’t known that I am female. It was a curious suggestion. I’d love to do a social experiment and change my name on my resume to see what happens...I went off on a bit of a tangent just now...sorry!
Mod
There is the parable going around about two people walking along a beach covered in starfish. And as they walked, one of the persons would throw a starfish back into the water where it would go on and thrive in better conditions instead of tolling around trying to get into the water.
The other person asked "Why did you do that, that's not doing much."
To which the first person, still tossing star fish into the water replies "It mattered to that one"
And this is well and all good and all.
But you're not addressing the barriers or the problems facing that thousands upon thousands of the others.
AND like you pointed out Ashwin, that one lucky individual who broke free is typically going to save their family first, the rest second - if they get around to it. (Totally completely the philosophical conundrum behind Black Panther, go see it if you haven't!)
But the institutional and structural issues that have prevented the whole population from succeeding is still in place. And the people benefiting from it get to pat themselves on their back and say how nice they are, how progressive are they.
So while quotas are helpful this cannot be the only way to address such a multi-faceted problem.
- What's the pipeline look like? How are the schools, leading to the universities, leading to the internships, leading to the graduates, leading to positions?
- What are the avenues for growth afterwards? Once you have the position, who will be your mentor, where is the network, where is the guidance on how to get to your next stop.
- Does that person even want to become a symbol and go all the way? Rosa Parks was not the first black woman to not give up her seat. But she was the more media friendly version. Ruby Bridges, the first black child to desegregate a school, grew up to be a happy and successful travel agent. She didn't become a scientist or a noble peace prize winner. Did we fail her or did she live the life she wanted?
- Why follow the same system when you can trail blaze. Motown. BET. When not enough people can get through a quota system, they turned around and created avenues where talent could succeed by making their own chances.
Reese Witherspoon recently came to the conclusion that women in the entertainment industry weren't getting any meaty roles or being given the chance to direct. So she created her own production company and has been doing just fine.
You want to tear down the institution... create your own
Mod
There is actually a lot of data that says that there is truth to it. Look no further than JK Rowling.
That said once you have a phone interview the secret will get out there. Also depends on the field some are more female centric than others. Women in business, running their own for example, actually get a number of small business tax breaks and the like. So check those out.
Hello everyone!
I took a few days to organize my ideas in my little head, even if those thoughts will probably change. Although quotas and affirmative actions are mainly discussed in this thread, meritocracy is approached as well.
I'll start sharing my thoughts about merit. First, meritocracy is, to what I understand, built on the concept that people who are contributing the most to a society should deserved the higher positions, higher wages etc... once can argue that mecitocracy is based on the effort but I think it is wrong. Indeed, if I am able to fulfill a task in 3 days while someone else achieved it in 1 days she/he deserves the position/the wage more than I do.
We can also consider the possibily to bring everyone at the same level, no matter where they come from or who they are (gender, colour, age, nationality, social environment). However, we were all born with different weakness or strenghts, skills or disabilities. In the end people who have the skills which are the most prized by the society where they were borned will get the best positions, the best wages etc...
So I do not think that a meritocracy is fair. I tend to think that the egalitarian concept is more fair, I have not heard or read everything about it but here is a little part of the concept:
"Those who have been favored by nature, whoever they are, may gain from their good fortune only on terms that improve the situation of those who have lost out."
If you want more information I advice you to read John rawls for example. Personnaly, I watched the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcL66...
Now, about affirmative actions. To what I understood, they are used to bring more equalities because of the legacy of the past (slavery, racism are a few examples), to balance the background of everyone (for instance, no matter if I am poor or rich I should have the opportunity to compete for everything) or to educate by exposing people to differences (gender, belief etc...).
What I feel unfair is why someone who has no control on her/his characteristics (gender, belief, colour, social etc...) should be discriminated for the benefit of background balance, legacy of the past or diversity? Moreover, affirmative actions cannot address all the differences since they are too many. If one thinks that companies must hire 50% of males and 50% of females you are being unfair because you are not dealing with colour of skins, social origins, nationalities etc... so I am afraid that it is extremely complexe.
I am sorry, I think I brought more questions than answers with this post :s
I took a few days to organize my ideas in my little head, even if those thoughts will probably change. Although quotas and affirmative actions are mainly discussed in this thread, meritocracy is approached as well.
I'll start sharing my thoughts about merit. First, meritocracy is, to what I understand, built on the concept that people who are contributing the most to a society should deserved the higher positions, higher wages etc... once can argue that mecitocracy is based on the effort but I think it is wrong. Indeed, if I am able to fulfill a task in 3 days while someone else achieved it in 1 days she/he deserves the position/the wage more than I do.
We can also consider the possibily to bring everyone at the same level, no matter where they come from or who they are (gender, colour, age, nationality, social environment). However, we were all born with different weakness or strenghts, skills or disabilities. In the end people who have the skills which are the most prized by the society where they were borned will get the best positions, the best wages etc...
So I do not think that a meritocracy is fair. I tend to think that the egalitarian concept is more fair, I have not heard or read everything about it but here is a little part of the concept:
"Those who have been favored by nature, whoever they are, may gain from their good fortune only on terms that improve the situation of those who have lost out."
If you want more information I advice you to read John rawls for example. Personnaly, I watched the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcL66...
Now, about affirmative actions. To what I understood, they are used to bring more equalities because of the legacy of the past (slavery, racism are a few examples), to balance the background of everyone (for instance, no matter if I am poor or rich I should have the opportunity to compete for everything) or to educate by exposing people to differences (gender, belief etc...).
What I feel unfair is why someone who has no control on her/his characteristics (gender, belief, colour, social etc...) should be discriminated for the benefit of background balance, legacy of the past or diversity? Moreover, affirmative actions cannot address all the differences since they are too many. If one thinks that companies must hire 50% of males and 50% of females you are being unfair because you are not dealing with colour of skins, social origins, nationalities etc... so I am afraid that it is extremely complexe.
I am sorry, I think I brought more questions than answers with this post :s
Florian wrote: "Hello everyone!
I took a few days to organize my ideas in my little head, even if those thoughts will probably change. Although quotas and affirmative actions are mainly discussed in this thread, ..."
Great post @Florian.
Indeed, when we consider all the possible inequalities in a system, we figure out how complicated is to elaborate a fully fair system.
I'm still reflect on and it's gonna blow my mind soon (and I don't want to reach this point of no return obviously). : )
It would be great to have some other draft solutions from people smarter than me. ; )
I took a few days to organize my ideas in my little head, even if those thoughts will probably change. Although quotas and affirmative actions are mainly discussed in this thread, ..."
Great post @Florian.
Indeed, when we consider all the possible inequalities in a system, we figure out how complicated is to elaborate a fully fair system.
I'm still reflect on and it's gonna blow my mind soon (and I don't want to reach this point of no return obviously). : )
It would be great to have some other draft solutions from people smarter than me. ; )
Do not blow your mind please! ;)
I think no solution can be found by only one person. It is something that needs to be done by as many people as possible I guess, and you are smart. You have already proved that point since you are thinking about solutions ;)
Being smart is a thing but I believe motivation is more important! :D
I think no solution can be found by only one person. It is something that needs to be done by as many people as possible I guess, and you are smart. You have already proved that point since you are thinking about solutions ;)
Being smart is a thing but I believe motivation is more important! :D
Sonja wrote: "...In the long run they won't need quotation anymore. I have the feeling - but I don't have enough knowledge about the indian system to be sure with my assumption - that in India quotation is a solution in the long run and thus these problems occur...."Hi Sonja, speaking from the Indian perspective, the quota-system was to be in place for 10 years before re-think and revision. However, with democracy comes the problem of not being able to do the revision.
Best example I can think of is America and gun violence. It is obvious (to those who aren't Americans) that there needs to be strict gun control policy. But how can a democratically elected government take such an unpopular stand without affecting their vote-base? Even if they did, they will be voted out eventually, and the next government may do away with the control for appeasing their vote-base. Isn't what happened to Obamacare similar? I think it is, not entirely sure, it will be great if someone can confirm.
Ashley wrote: "...I went to speak with a woman in my field that runs her own business, recently. She suggested that I not put my full first name on my resume. She wondered if I’d be given more consideration and get my foot in the door if it wasn’t known that I am female..."
It is true (and unfortunate) what she suggested. There was a study (I'll share link asa I find it) where technical papers had a very high chance of getting accepted if they had a by-line with the name of a male. Very same paper was rejected with the name of female in the by-line which was accepted by just changing the name to that of a male.
Florian: If you want more information I advice you to read John rawls for example. Personnaly, I watched the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcL66...
That is a really enlightening lecture. I only watched the first half and I completely agree that meritocracy is not the best system. However, one point I disagree with the lecturer is that it is possible to reduce the real-world opportunities to a single form of running race.
For instance, someone not gifted athletically may be gifted intellectually. Then the intellectual person's race is not with the intellectually poor and physically strong, but with others endowed well intellectually. Rather than handicapping the ones with natural abilities to level the playing field, people should choose races according to their abilities, so that the playing field gets automatically fairer, if not level.
Bill Gates chose software and Michael Jordan chose basketball and both are highly successful in their own choice of "running race". They are not competing each other so neither is more advantaged not disadvantaged as compared to the other. I'm aware that this argument is still incomplete, but I would like to know your views on this.
Pam: Women in business, running their own for example, actually get a number of small business tax breaks and the like. So check those out.
That is very true, I'd love to discuss this in detail as well!
@Ashwin: sure I will give my point of view, probably later since (as you can expect) I need to think about it and I do not have much time because of my time-consuming work ;)
What's important is to give everyone the same opportunities by making a system as equal as possible.
I read several weeks ago somewhere (like a fool I completely forgotten to copy the link to share it with you, sorry) that AI (Artificial Intelligence) will be the next system used to achieve the complete hiring process in some huge companies.
So the solution of the fairest way to hire might be to put in place a public commission, like suggested by @Jasmine in another topic, which will use AI paired with Big Data to select the better candidate for a job.
The process I thought about is the following :
1/ The company which wants to hire tell its need to the public commission ;
2/ The candidate answer to several questions related to his skills, experiences, personal details and so on in a web interface developed by the commission ;
3/ As every companies in the country must use the commission to hire, the AI checks the databases to select the more accurate candidate for the job by making sure it gives the same opportunities to everyone by caring about the previous and actual hirings ;
4/ The commission send the selected candidate to the company.
I think automated state controlled hiring system might be one of the solutions to solve a complex problem like this one.
I read several weeks ago somewhere (like a fool I completely forgotten to copy the link to share it with you, sorry) that AI (Artificial Intelligence) will be the next system used to achieve the complete hiring process in some huge companies.
So the solution of the fairest way to hire might be to put in place a public commission, like suggested by @Jasmine in another topic, which will use AI paired with Big Data to select the better candidate for a job.
The process I thought about is the following :
1/ The company which wants to hire tell its need to the public commission ;
2/ The candidate answer to several questions related to his skills, experiences, personal details and so on in a web interface developed by the commission ;
3/ As every companies in the country must use the commission to hire, the AI checks the databases to select the more accurate candidate for the job by making sure it gives the same opportunities to everyone by caring about the previous and actual hirings ;
4/ The commission send the selected candidate to the company.
I think automated state controlled hiring system might be one of the solutions to solve a complex problem like this one.
Ashwin wrote: "Sonja wrote: "...In the long run they won't need quotation anymore. I have the feeling - but I don't have enough knowledge about the indian system to be sure with my assumption - that in India quot..."
Well actually, Michael Sandel does not really side with a specific concept. He is discussing the point of view of John Rawls :)
I did not understand if you agree or not that reducing the real-world opportunities to a single form of running race is possible. Could you clarify your position?
The issue which is pointed out by Rawls is that some abilities are more prized than other abilities in a specific society (or let's say in a system). If you were borned with abilities which are not prized by the society where you are living you will not do as good as someone who was born with skills prized by the same society. I think Michael Sandel refered to a citation that Nature is not unfair regarding the abilities we got but societies make it unfair (something like that^^).
I think that to fully understand the point of Rawls we need to consider the world before we were borned, it is like setting up the rules of the game before it starts.
Does it make sense to you? :)
@Lewis:
Hey Lewis!
This is a highly thought idea, but I must admit I do not like it, let me explain why :)
First, it is assumed that AI would do a better job than humans but they would be created by humans.
Second, AI are living beings even if they will be substantially different than humans. Living beings means opinions, behaviours etc... and of course rights! Here, the idea proposes to use AI as tools making the assumption they would agree with that, I doubt about it. Furthermore, if humanity does not care about the AI's opinions/rights it will be like slavery. Humanity has already done that, I do not want to see that mistake again!
Third, control has never brought anything good in the history of humanity. Control creates may fix a problem but it creates more issues.
Fourth, by doing so the personnalities, the values, the affinities are no taken in consideration. Personnaly, I rather prefer to work with someone who has a personnality that contribute to the harmony/symbiosis rather than to work with a genius who does not care about anything except herself/himself.
For now, I think guidance and inspiration are part of the key. Show that a system which just and fair is better than a system based on discrimation. People's contribution is always better when they feel good in the environment where they are living. However, I like how you are trying to find solutions, that is what humanity needs, people who think and try to figure out issues.
Well actually, Michael Sandel does not really side with a specific concept. He is discussing the point of view of John Rawls :)
I did not understand if you agree or not that reducing the real-world opportunities to a single form of running race is possible. Could you clarify your position?
The issue which is pointed out by Rawls is that some abilities are more prized than other abilities in a specific society (or let's say in a system). If you were borned with abilities which are not prized by the society where you are living you will not do as good as someone who was born with skills prized by the same society. I think Michael Sandel refered to a citation that Nature is not unfair regarding the abilities we got but societies make it unfair (something like that^^).
I think that to fully understand the point of Rawls we need to consider the world before we were borned, it is like setting up the rules of the game before it starts.
Does it make sense to you? :)
@Lewis:
Hey Lewis!
This is a highly thought idea, but I must admit I do not like it, let me explain why :)
First, it is assumed that AI would do a better job than humans but they would be created by humans.
Second, AI are living beings even if they will be substantially different than humans. Living beings means opinions, behaviours etc... and of course rights! Here, the idea proposes to use AI as tools making the assumption they would agree with that, I doubt about it. Furthermore, if humanity does not care about the AI's opinions/rights it will be like slavery. Humanity has already done that, I do not want to see that mistake again!
Third, control has never brought anything good in the history of humanity. Control creates may fix a problem but it creates more issues.
Fourth, by doing so the personnalities, the values, the affinities are no taken in consideration. Personnaly, I rather prefer to work with someone who has a personnality that contribute to the harmony/symbiosis rather than to work with a genius who does not care about anything except herself/himself.
For now, I think guidance and inspiration are part of the key. Show that a system which just and fair is better than a system based on discrimation. People's contribution is always better when they feel good in the environment where they are living. However, I like how you are trying to find solutions, that is what humanity needs, people who think and try to figure out issues.
Lewis wrote: "So the solution of the fairest way to hire might be to put in place a public commission, like suggested by @Jasmine in another topic, which will use AI paired with Big Data to select the better candidate for a job."I couldn't agree more. The details can be worked out, but an AI (or algorithm to be more specific) recruitment system will certainly prevent biases based on race, gender etc.
@Florian
You put it succinctly - certain abilities are prized more than the others. My point was similar, Michael Sandel's illustration would have been more general, if he had said "certain abilities" and not "one ability". Although, that is just nitpicking on my part.
Indeed, having a completely fair system / society is a utopian concept IMHO, but the world is certainly much fairer and accommodating than it ever was in entire history.
Also, about your objections to AI, let me try and explain why I prefer an AI over human "HR manager"
A human recruiter sees race, gender etc. A computer system sees only qualifications
With humans in charge of recruiting, nepotism and favouritism is also an issue. For a computer, no one is special, it is all about their qualifications.
When a computer selects a candidate, the process is transparent (ideally) whereas a person may recruit someone based on their race / gender and explain away the recruitment based on unverifiable claims - as it so often happens.
As it is, bigger companies employ software to filter out resumes already. I don't see harm in taking it a step further, I see it to be more beneficial.
Florian wrote: "Ashwin wrote: "Sonja wrote: "...In the long run they won't need quotation anymore. I have the feeling - but I don't have enough knowledge about the indian system to be sure with my assumption - tha..."
AI is just a specific software running on servers' cluster able to emulate human brain. It's not a living being (fortunately I'd like to say).
We can develop an AI to achieve a specific task. As AI is developed by human, human can program it to do what he want to do with.
I follow @Ashwin by saying a computer software well programed have no prejudice of any kind. It's neutral and objective.
AI is just a specific software running on servers' cluster able to emulate human brain. It's not a living being (fortunately I'd like to say).
We can develop an AI to achieve a specific task. As AI is developed by human, human can program it to do what he want to do with.
I follow @Ashwin by saying a computer software well programed have no prejudice of any kind. It's neutral and objective.
Lewis wrote: "Florian wrote: "Ashwin wrote: "Sonja wrote: "...In the long run they won't need quotation anymore. I have the feeling - but I don't have enough knowledge about the indian system to be sure with my ..."
Ok, so I guess I have a different perception of what and AI was. For me, it was "something" able to make "its" own decision just like humans :)
Edit: I have looked for definitions of AI and it turns out that most of them tell that AI is an imitation of human's intelligence. So an AI is an autonomous system which is, of course, created with code by humans at the beginning, but then it is independant and it has its own reasonning, its own logic, learning process and self-correction for example. I would push further saying that an AI system would be able to reproduce by creating other code and autonomous systems. To me it looks like a living beings. I guess when I am saying living being I do not restrict the definition to organisms, I consider every forms of intelligences not only those made of Carbon and Hydrogen.
Ashwin wrote: "Lewis wrote: "So the solution of the fairest way to hire might be to put in place a public commission, like suggested by @Jasmine in another topic, which will use AI paired with Big Data to select ..."
About the video:
I understand, he is taking specific examples. Let's keep in mind that he is giving lectures about several topics, so one lecture is just a bit and people need to read more about it and develop their own ideas. I have not done that yet since I am reading and thinking about many topics and issues (not only about moral ;)) in the same time.
Your are totally right, the next step of the reasoning is to consider the entire set of abilities but in the end a set will be more prized than another one. In those example, no interconnections are considered, I think that is the point you raised, I agree with you on that ;) I guess Michael Sandel, tried to explain to his class with a "simple example" (not that simple when you need to think about it^^).
I know it is pretty much impossible to reach it but I like utopia :D maybe symbiosis or harmony are more reasonable for humans :p
About AI:
To me what you are talking about is not AI, you are talking about an automatic system. Maybe I am totally wrong about what an AI is though. Let's put aside the definition of AI for a seconde since I think I get what Lewis and you mean.
You actually raised one point that does not suit me "a computer system sees ONLY qualifications." I am sorry but work is not only qualifications. A good manager has to make sure that her/his collaborators are contributing to each other and to the atmosphere. To do so he/she needs a "human" character.
However, maybe what you are suggesting is a third party which is not involved in the situation and therefore does not have any benefits for making a specific descision. I am more tempted to say yes to that idea even though I believe that to make a descision about a situation you need to know it (everyone can does that, I mean more or less) and you need someone who has experienced it (this is more difficult), otherwise you are missing a lot of parameters/information.
I looking forward to your reply, I am more and more curious about your reasing and idea :)
To sum up, I would say that logic/thinking is as much needed as perception/feelings ;)
Ok, so I guess I have a different perception of what and AI was. For me, it was "something" able to make "its" own decision just like humans :)
Edit: I have looked for definitions of AI and it turns out that most of them tell that AI is an imitation of human's intelligence. So an AI is an autonomous system which is, of course, created with code by humans at the beginning, but then it is independant and it has its own reasonning, its own logic, learning process and self-correction for example. I would push further saying that an AI system would be able to reproduce by creating other code and autonomous systems. To me it looks like a living beings. I guess when I am saying living being I do not restrict the definition to organisms, I consider every forms of intelligences not only those made of Carbon and Hydrogen.
Ashwin wrote: "Lewis wrote: "So the solution of the fairest way to hire might be to put in place a public commission, like suggested by @Jasmine in another topic, which will use AI paired with Big Data to select ..."
About the video:
I understand, he is taking specific examples. Let's keep in mind that he is giving lectures about several topics, so one lecture is just a bit and people need to read more about it and develop their own ideas. I have not done that yet since I am reading and thinking about many topics and issues (not only about moral ;)) in the same time.
Your are totally right, the next step of the reasoning is to consider the entire set of abilities but in the end a set will be more prized than another one. In those example, no interconnections are considered, I think that is the point you raised, I agree with you on that ;) I guess Michael Sandel, tried to explain to his class with a "simple example" (not that simple when you need to think about it^^).
I know it is pretty much impossible to reach it but I like utopia :D maybe symbiosis or harmony are more reasonable for humans :p
About AI:
To me what you are talking about is not AI, you are talking about an automatic system. Maybe I am totally wrong about what an AI is though. Let's put aside the definition of AI for a seconde since I think I get what Lewis and you mean.
You actually raised one point that does not suit me "a computer system sees ONLY qualifications." I am sorry but work is not only qualifications. A good manager has to make sure that her/his collaborators are contributing to each other and to the atmosphere. To do so he/she needs a "human" character.
However, maybe what you are suggesting is a third party which is not involved in the situation and therefore does not have any benefits for making a specific descision. I am more tempted to say yes to that idea even though I believe that to make a descision about a situation you need to know it (everyone can does that, I mean more or less) and you need someone who has experienced it (this is more difficult), otherwise you are missing a lot of parameters/information.
I looking forward to your reply, I am more and more curious about your reasing and idea :)
To sum up, I would say that logic/thinking is as much needed as perception/feelings ;)
Florian wrote: "To me what you are talking about is not AI, you are talking about an automatic system. ..."Yes, actually I meant a computer system. Whether or not it employs AI is secondary. Primary thing is it should be a completely objective system.
About qualifications, I should have explained my point better. What I meant was a computerised system can generate a list of suitable candidates based on various parameters and then a human manager can take the final call. By delaying "perception/feelings" to as late a stage as possible, one can hope that relatively more deserving candidates are not looked past due to prejudices of an employer even before they have a chance of proving themselves.
Ok, now I understand, thanks for the explanations :) I do not know whether I would like such a system or not :)
In my mind, those change need to come from everyone, from inside not outside otherwise the intrinsic issue will not be resolved. I talked with someone yesterday and we thought that it would probably takes a couple of generation to see "real" change.
Inspiration and awareness is a way to self-regulation :) Controle and regulation is a way to illusion. (why illusion, for the rhyme of course :p)
In my mind, those change need to come from everyone, from inside not outside otherwise the intrinsic issue will not be resolved. I talked with someone yesterday and we thought that it would probably takes a couple of generation to see "real" change.
Inspiration and awareness is a way to self-regulation :) Controle and regulation is a way to illusion. (why illusion, for the rhyme of course :p)
Florian wrote: "Lewis wrote: "Florian wrote: "Ashwin wrote: "Sonja wrote: "...In the long run they won't need quotation anymore. I have the feeling - but I don't have enough knowledge about the indian system to be..."
As I said before, AI is a software which emulate human brain. So, this software has its own reasoning, learning and so on. Like a human indeed. I think make an algorithm to solve hiring inequality problem without using AI is extremly difficult because we have to pay attention to too many unstable datas to achieve the goal.
AI can be used to achieve a specific task and be train to recognise pics or playing to chess for example without being able to do other thing if we don't program it to do so.
As I said before, AI is a software which emulate human brain. So, this software has its own reasoning, learning and so on. Like a human indeed. I think make an algorithm to solve hiring inequality problem without using AI is extremly difficult because we have to pay attention to too many unstable datas to achieve the goal.
AI can be used to achieve a specific task and be train to recognise pics or playing to chess for example without being able to do other thing if we don't program it to do so.
Final thoughts on reservation:Even if there was to be a quota for "non-white" people in the UK, the question would still remain that even within the quota, what percentage would be represented by people from African, Asian, South American etc ethnicities. What if certain minority groups perceive that the quota only works for other communities and not their own and demand a separate quota for themselves exclusively? And what happens to immigrants who are "white" but not British?
Eddo-Lodge herself found that it was not enough for her to be part of feminist groups, but that she required black feminist groups to feel comfortable. If we take this analogy to workplace, would we be saying there will be quota for people of a particular race and within that there should be a quota for women? Or would one want reservation for women and a part of it for women of minority group? Intersectionality makes it difficult to even start imagining a quota system that takes care of all these issues.
I would love to know my fellow members' concluding remarks on this. We can then move on to other issues.
@Lewis: you are right that AI will be required to figure out the permutations and combinations. My only question is, whether it is desirable to be taking qualitative factors into consideration or should the software be only evaluating based on quantitative aspects such as SAT score No. of years of experience etc.
As the author discusses primarily the prevalence of racism in Britain, here is an interesting episode of BBC's The Big Questions - "Is Britain still a racist country":https://youtu.be/OTi1SCVI6Xo
Many strong arguments have been presented in this debate,
The very first issue I would like to discuss is the one of reservation or quota. Following are my views:
“Creating a principle of appointment not because of merit but in order to achieve gender or ethnic balance will inevitably lead to the inference that those appointments are most decidedly not based on merit alone” – Lord Justice Leveson (as read in the book)
Reni Eddo-Lodge seems to take great exception to this. She says:
“Opposing positive discrimination based on apprehensions about getting the best person for the job means inadvertently revealing what you think talent looks like, and the kind of person in which you think talent resides”
I’ll cite an example. In India we have reservation (quota) system in education and government job appointments for the castes and tribes that were historically oppressed. The idea was that positively discriminating in favour of the people belonging to these communities will help undo the years of wrongs they have been subject to.
The result is that it did not uplift the entire communities but rather a few persons, belonging to the said communities, who could get into positions of power. These few people who got good job appointments, became politicians, industrialists etc continue using the quota for their own children who study in posh schools and have all the opportunities to get top-notch education.
A poor person from “upper caste” though has not the access to good education and yet when getting admissions in college, a rich student from historically oppressed caste can get in by only getting 40% marks where as a “upper caste” student will require minimum 60% (the percentage is for illustration purposes only, in reality it is much worse). Rather than achieving equality, the system has in fact been detrimental to those who are “historically oppressed” as now not only the people from “upper caste” have power over them, but people from their own community – a double whammy. Also, it is creating joblessness among those of the “upper caste”.
My personal experience has been that quotas don't bring equality but reinforce "us vs them" thinking. I would love to know everyone's opinions / views / experiences regarding this issue.
(we can discuss other issues once we have heard as many possible voices on this one - I hope that is ok!)