Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 492625)

I don't think we are, either, except that I am saying that big data shouldn't be used, at least not without consequences (i.e, a person can sue and recover for discriminatory effect), unless and until those corrections are made. Allowing dig data to be built on a racially biased platform just further institutionalizes the bias and makes it harder to identify and correct.

I'm pretty sure I am alone on that point. And I don't really expect anyone to give up their shiny new toy.

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 492624)

We were just following orders.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 492630)

I think the article generally said people denied having intent, not that they didn't actually have intent.

Lots of people say there is not a discriminatory bone in their body, but then intentionally give preference to alumni of their own lily white school, to people who their own lily white friends recommend, to people who grew up in their icky white suburb or to other people who fit their own tribal characteristics. Hiring nothing but white people while denying discriminatory intent is a time-honored American tradition.

But interviewing people who are shocked at their own discriminatory actions is like asking the guy holding walking out of your house holding a jewel box if he is stealing it. "Stealing what? Oh, this? Just have to bring it to the shop and fix a blown gasket. I don't know how it found it's way into my hands. Is this yours? It looks like mine."

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 492635)

Right now, that means tackling the algorithms. Because that's what's being used...

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 492641)

so the poor wrecked families left in Detroit need to be allowed to buy homes in real nice neighborhoods? that will solve it?

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 492641)

so the poor wrecked families left in Detroit need to be allowed to buy homes in real nice neighborhoods? that will solve it?


hoping for the court to knock down the court's pick up of it.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 492647)

Except for the many examples in the article?

TM

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 492636)

I didn't have intent. I was actually shocked and ashamed at the level of built-in racism I displayed when I actually started paying attention. Stuff like "I can't be racist; I dated the black girl (that's right, there was one) in my class, I was friends with three of the four black guys in my class and two of the three in the classes above and below."

Doesn't make me any less racist in action, but I do maintain there was no overt intent.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 492650)

It's all about who you sell your house to, and how much it pisses off your neighbors.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 492651)

Christ... Do both. You know I'm not suggesting ignoring the sort of stuff in the article. But that stuff is really tough to address, as Wonk earlier explained (far more eloquently than I might here) in his post about choosing a neighborhood.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 492629)

Dunno if anyone else has been following the Ched Evans case. He's a Welsh & Sheffield United soccer player who was convicted of rape and served his sentence, and now wants to resume his career. Protests seem to be closing the door at every club that might take him.

Here's one good take:
http://www.theguardian.com/football/...aw-marina-hyde

Here's another:
http://www.theguardian.com/football/...s-money-morals

Not sure what to think about this.

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 492664)

He's probably not worth it. He's not Luis Suarez or Ben Roethlisburger or (maybe) Adrian Petersen, with loads of talent to make up for the bad behavior. He hasn't even done the Michael Vick apology tour, that at least acknowledged that he did something wrong.

Maybe he's cheap, and that's why Oldham thinks he might be worth it, or maybe Oldham doesn't think the public cares that much about rape. I suspect it will boil down, as it always does, to the sponsors.

I don't think he "deserves" a second chance, but then I don't think anyone deserves anything, especially in situations like these. Fame is such a fleeting thing, and it's as much luck and circumstance as anything else.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 492630)

I think the article generally said people denied having intent, not that they didn't actually have intent.

Lots of people say there is not a discriminatory bone in their body, but then intentionally give preference to alumni of their own lily white school, to people who their own lily white friends recommend, to people who grew up in their icky white suburb or to other people who fit their own tribal characteristics. Hiring nothing but white people while denying discriminatory intent is a time-honored American tradition.

But interviewing people who are shocked at their own discriminatory actions is like asking the guy holding walking out of your house holding a jewel box if he is stealing it. "Stealing what? Oh, this? Just have to bring it to the shop and fix a blown gasket. I don't know how it found it's way into my hands. Is this yours? It looks like mine."

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 492654)

maybe I'm whiffing but you are talking about people who cannot pay their waterbills. As part of the bankruptcy the city contractors were charged with turning off the water to tens of thousands of homes. If "I sell my house to them," I think my heirs would be the ones most pissed off.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 492645)

Big data is going to mean finding patterns in your tweets, to take only a mildly far-fetched example, that suggest that you're a better or worse credit risk.

Those things are only going to be included if the numbers have predictive value. Sure, deciding which things to take a look at will start with a person (in the beginning, anyway), and thus will be subject to human biases, but they are only going to get used if the numbers work.

Which is a different critter from unconsciously going into the no pile because of your name.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 492679)

I noted that decisions were made which appeared to be racist based solely on risk avoidance concerns. These decisions had discriminatory effects, but were not made with the intent to discriminate, but with the intent merely to "make money," as Adder put it. Part of making money is avoiding risk. You couch that however you like.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 492679)

I noted that decisions were made which appeared to be racist based solely on risk avoidance concerns. These decisions had discriminatory effects, but were not made with the intent to discriminate, but with the intent merely to "make money," as Adder put it. Part of making money is avoiding risk. You couch that however you like.



The article does not say all decisions made which have discriminatory impact are based on race. It notes merely that many discriminatory decisions are unconscious. Are you suggesting that even a blind algorithm which was not intended to discriminate, but does so because discriminating happens to dovetail with risk avoidance is nevertheless deciding based on race?



Apples and oranges. People do make decisions unconsciously based on race. I think that is such an obvious fact, I hijacked the point into what I thought was more interesting: How will discrimination be changed as we automate more and more of these decisions?



You got me. But that also means I agree with you, and with the article's observations. I disagree with the article's hopeful tone. What's unconsciously done is rarely fixed. Those behaviors are like heart beats, or breathing.



I don't think this at all. But I do think they will be, and soon. And I think if you want to combat future discrimination, there's lots more to be gained in avoiding mechanized electronic discrimination before it becomes a huge problem than there is in asking people to examine their unconscious biases.



Because they aren't mutually exclusive propositions. Logically, I say pre-emptively adjust the technological thing that hasn't been polluted yet, and does not have human failings, to avoid it becoming infected with racism. Why? Because if we don't, as Wonk noted, it'll acquire all the prejudices of its users and creators. I'm not sure we can ever fully racism-proof the algorithms, but its worth a try, and its more likely to have results than suggesting people individually look at their own unconscious racism. Why would I say this? Because here's the thing about unconsciousness: A person doing something he doesn't even realize until after he's done it has a hard time both stopping the act or remedying its damage. Tweaking the algorithms that may engage in this discrimination in the future has a far greater chance of actual, measurable success.



I'm not much interested in the human element because I hold little hope of it improving much in our lifetimes. Sorry to have hijacked. Can't help myself.

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 492682)

You (not you, personally and exclusively) keep trying to draw this distinction between deep and shallow, fast or slow, big or little, as if they make a difference. All big data is is a shitload of little data being looked at by a big computer array instead of by a roomful of grad students or junior associates.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 492689)

I've been trying to avoid getting into this particular exchange, despite some strong feelings, because conversations about big data are so tedious. Talking about big data is like talking about transportation or weather -- the subject is so incredibly broad that any sort of assertion about it is bound to be part right, part wrong, and completely useless.

There is data and then there is data, and it really depends on what you are actually talking about. Take the phenomenon, described in the NYT piece, that resumes with certain names on them fare much worse than the same resumes with other names on them. No one here can possibly think that any organization hires people in a particularly rational or effective way. Most jobs have specific requirements which set them apart from other jobs, and thus requires a human to make subjective judgments about whether someone is a good fit. I'm sure everyone thinks they are better than average at doing this. I have heard that Google's HR head has tried to do some data analysis to try to figure out which indicators are the most effective at screening resumes to identify the better candidates, and that sounds like a good idea. But if anyone thinks that's going to dispel the racial bias in hiring mentioned in the NYT article, I have a bridge to sell you.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 492691)

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 492691)

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 492694)

Yes, if you could handle this you can handle me, I promise.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 492698)

So, after all this discussion on racial discrimination in hiring, I'm about to go into the market for a young corporate associate. Should I intentionally be giving preference to candidates who are minorities? To women candidates?

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 492699)

I would say not. But I would say you should give greater preference to the person who was top of his class at a lower-tier law school than the person who was 80th percentile at fancy-pants U. And you should consider that someone who didn't start life on third base has worked hard to be a credible candidate for you, and likely be more appreciative and hard-working in the future.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 492698)

So, after all this discussion on racial discrimination in hiring, I'm about to go into the market for a young corporate associate. Should I intentionally be giving preference to candidates who are minorities? To women candidates?

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 492698)

So, after all this discussion on racial discrimination in hiring, I'm about to go into the market for a young corporate associate. Should I intentionally be giving preference to candidates who are minorities? To women candidates?

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 492702)

No. You make a business decision. You hire the best candidate you can find based on the usual criteria (personality, cost, skill, etc.).

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 492703)

Aren't we just talking about how to hire the best candidate?

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 492698)

So, after all this discussion on racial discrimination in hiring, I'm about to go into the market for a young corporate associate. Should I intentionally be giving preference to candidates who are minorities? To women candidates?

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 492701)

If the person satisfies your firm's initial hiring requirements such that they are sitting in front of you, yes. Woman, minority, whatever. That's my approach. Give them preference. And that really just means that non-minority men have to absolutely shine in order to overcome that preference (or the minority or woman has to clearly be wrong for the position). That's how it works 95% of the time in the opposite direction.

TM

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 492702)

No. You make a business decision. You hire the best candidate you can find based on the usual criteria (personality, cost, skill, etc.).

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 492701)

If the person satisfies your firm's initial hiring requirements such that they are sitting in front of you, yes. Woman, minority, whatever. That's my approach. Give them preference. And that really just means that non-minority men have to absolutely shine in order to overcome that preference (or the minority or woman has to clearly be wrong for the position). That's how it works 95% of the time in the opposite direction.

TM

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 492702)

No. You make a business decision. You hire the best candidate you can find based on the usual criteria (personality, cost, skill, etc.).

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 492705)

I'd like to take a moment to speak in support of the elderly white male....

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 492706)

The most honest thing a hiring partner ever said to me was "if you're sitting here, you already know you're qualified for the job. The interview is only to see how well you fit in." There are whole universes of meaning in that sentence.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 492712)

Agree with your last observation. One reaction that I have to this is that it shows how broken law firms are, in how they think about what they need from their lawyers and how they're going to try to serve their clients. Most businesses understand that different applicants for a job will bring a range of different skills to it. It takes a peculiarly insulated view of your organization's business to think that beyond a certain minimum set of qualifications, the only thing that really matters is whether you mesh with the current employees.