Recent comments in /f/dataisbeautiful

coffeesharkpie t1_j5gva2d wrote

Welp, if you reviewed the paper, you at least had your chance of critizing the approach. Did you strongly suggest a rejection to the editor? Also, there is a notion that bad or devise papers have a higher chance of being cited. That's one reason why the number of citations is a pretty bad metric to judge the quality of research.

2

hurdurnotavailable t1_j5gl8qg wrote

There's has never been evidence provided that would justify the claim that the differences in outcome are solely or mostly due to discrimination. There are many other variables that are better at explaining those differences.....

Read "Discrimination and Disparities" from Thomas Sowell to better understand this issue.

Edit: Somehow my comment got messed up. Reddit editor really doesn't like copy&paste.

−11

Superb_Firefighter20 t1_j5gjuo9 wrote

Including only a few states’ racial data in the first column is confusing as no other dataset uses states a a parameter thus not particularly relevant. Also, the state data leads the view up to make false comparisons. As example Data Dog is not based in CA but the layout leads to comparison of those numbers. In addition putting the the the US aggregate data within the states obfuscates the number that will give better context for individual companies below.

1

Garconcl t1_j5gceeh wrote

This, I work for a Fin-tech company, all women are relegated to non-technical jobs and all men to technical jobs, and it's extremely funny seeing them appear as a well balanced company yet they discriminate men for non-technical positions and women for technical ones and some of the women they turned down are 30x times better than around 50% of my current coworkers, lol.

43

[deleted] t1_j5g7aqi wrote

We are just curious about how everything works. We measure everything, even by flying right into the hurricanes. We have an innate appetite to understand everything from foundational levels and ponder how can we do it better. It may look like there is lot of chaos and in some case they are; but it is this creative chaos that makes US awesome!

0

DelcoScum t1_j5g79uo wrote

The problem is that even if the outcome isn't being influenced directly, it is still being influenced.

If the previous generation of your family/community statistically migrated to a career path, you are more likely to follow. For demographics that were discriminated against, this means that they still feel the effects of that discrimination, even though they might not have actually faced the same discrimination (they do, for the record, but were just talking in theory).

So do you ignore the problem or create small changes, and allow the minority to continue to feel the effects of those previous generations, but at the same time being more fair to the current candidates?

Or do you Overcorrect temporarily in an attempt to stimulate those communities and create normalcy throughout every demographic, but at the same time admittedly create a new kind of discrimination?

It's a nuanced discussion with no clear answer. At the end of the day skilled jobs are finite, so someone is going to lose out.

5