Wouldn't be nice if the only box to check was "person"?
Wouldn't it be nice if the only box to check was "person"?
If you want to totally ignore people’s life experiences and what makes them who they are then sure, I guess so.
Not sure how this statement applies to anything that might require a box to be checked. I cannot imagine how long the list of options would have to be to account for the totality of life experiences and the substances that makes one who they are.
The fact that this sort of micro data is harder to quantify doesn't make more macro-oriented data useless.^^^ X a million. I don't understand, and won't, and neither will you, because you can't accurately quantify, the difference of my life experiences growing up with parents who beat me for sport and made daily life at home a traumatic experience, vs. a person who grew up with a lower bottom line on their tax return, and who happens to have darker skin. I can't respect you placing your suck ahead of mine, just because it's easier to score on a list of checkboxes.
It does make it equally hard to quantify, which calls into question its usefulness.The fact that this sort of micro data is harder to quantify doesn't make more macro-oriented data useless.
This is simply untrue. Trends can be discerned, individual exceptions to said trends don't negate that.It does make it equally hard to quantify, which calls into question its usefulness.
Not sure how this statement applies to anything that might require a box to be checked. I cannot imagine how long the list of options would have to be to account for the totality of life experiences and the substances that makes one who they are.
This is simply untrue. Trends can be discerned, individual exceptions to said trends don't negate that.
As stated before, it seems a bunch here simply dislike the idea of examining their unconscious biases, and are bending over backwards to pretend that unconscious bias doesn't even exist (including arguing against stuff that isn't being argued in the first place), despite plenty of research to suggest otherwise.
Pretty simple. The “boxes” refer to race and gender, and in some hiring instances ability/disability. Denying the experiences unique to growing up black/brown/white or male/female or disabled is plain ignorance.
Pretty simple. The “boxes” refer to race and gender, and in some hiring instances ability/disability. Denying the experiences unique to growing up black/brown/white or male/female or disabled is plain ignorance.
The fact that this sort of micro data is harder to quantify doesn't make more macro-oriented data useless.
I also believe vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate ice cream.Dismissively arrogant, and perfectly illustrative of my point while managing to simultaneously miss the point. The problem isn't with data. The problem is with arrogant [ Arschloch]s who think that *their* preferred set of data is the only one that matters.
Incredibly racist (and biased), imo.I also believe vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate ice cream.
That sounds pretty arrogant to me...I also believe vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate ice cream.
Several posts, particularly in the first few pages, rejected the entire notion of unconscious bias. Others argued against the efficacy of the exhibit by rejecting strawmen of unconscious bias.I haven't seen much evidence of anyone suggesting that implicit bias or preference does not exist.
I'd be interested to see those claims from said staunch advocates.I have however seen much discussion about the relevance of "training" about implicit bias and note that even staunch advocates of unconscious bias education have serious doubts about the extent to which behavioral change can be expected to occur. In fact, some proponents of implicit bias education even go as far to suggest that mandatory training sessions can be counterproductive.
How was anything said "dismissive" or "arrogant"?Dismissively arrogant, and perfectly illustrative of my point while managing to simultaneously miss the point.
Nobody has said anything approaching this.The problem isn't with data. The problem is with arrogant [ Arschloch]s who think that *their* preferred set of data is the only one that matters.