From: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Correcting past injustices  [survey result and comments]
Date: 7 Apr 92 14:00:49 GMT
Reply-To: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU

The corrected verison of my original question is:

>The following is a hypothetical situation, please to not add any
>conditions other than those stated.  What I would like from all of you
>is to respond to the following question by email.  In one week's
>time, I'll present the results and the discussion can begin in
>earnest.  PLEASE DO NOT POST YOUR RESPONSE.  I would like to get as
>many unbiased responses as possible.
>
>Given a population that is composed of two sub-groups, call them X and
>Y.  Due to past history, the population distribution in industry I
>heavily favors group X.   Given a single opening for a job in industry
>I for which there are N equally (and I mean equally) qualified
>applicants,  (100-P)% from group X and P% from group Y, where P<<100,  
>and you must hire only one person, how would you make your choice? 


The full results of the survey are given below.  In summary, there
were 15 responses, 7 said to pick randomly from the set of all
applicants, 4 said to pick from the under-represented group and 4
responses are too complex to neatly categorize.

My first comment is that it is interesting that such a large
percentage of the responses fell into two clearly defined categories,
since no answer was suggested.

Second, I wish to show how the "pick the under-represented group"
answer actually becomes "pick randomly" if taken to its logical
extreme.  All societies can be divided into a very large number of
groups, for instance:
  male-female
  white-black-oriental-indian-eskimo-etc
  heterosexual-homosexual
  jew-christian-moslem-buddist-hindu-etc
If we list enough categories, it becomes quite apparent that EACH
person is a category in and unto themselves!  Therefore, each category
is equally under-represented in the labor pool, and you must chose
randomly amongst the candidates.

On a more "political" level, I will say that systematically basing a 
decision on facts that are not relevant to that decision is
fundementally wrong.  Replacing an injustice with another injustice
only serves to propagate injustice.  

======

I would ignore P and pick the person from group Y.

--

The population breakup of groups X and Y is completely irrelavent.
Assuming your 'absolutely equal' applicants, you should determine the
applicant by a random throw of the dice, or spinning of a wheel, etc.

--

I'ld chose from group Y, at least the first time, possibly the second time,
I doubt I'ld continue that way for very long, I suspect I'ld settle down
to roughly even parity between X and Y.   Oh, but thats adding conditions,
so, since I have to pick one of the other, I'll say ...

Flip a mental coin to choose between X and Y.
Once the group is chosen, randomly select any member of that group.

I'm assuming that, as stated, the only reason for the large success of
group X is historical and does not reflect any inherent strengths of 
group X or weaknessess of group Y.  That being the case, it might be
that if more of group Y was qualified there would be other traits of
group Y that the coorporation could use (that aren't currently considered
part of the qualifications because very few people have this trait since
very few people fall into group Y).  Therefore, it may be to
the companies advantage to increase the number of potential Y applicants
for future positions.  This is clearly raw rationalization and is
enough for me to feel comfortable giving equal weight to group X
and Y (well, probably the weight should reflect the proportions of
X and Y in the general population, which may not be 50/50) but I wouldn't
feel comfortable giving Y any more weight.  

For all of these ramblings, its ultimately a personal choice that I
would do that I can't really justify to anyone but myself.

--

I would pick the person at random (no doubt using a good random sequence
such as the digits of pi :-) ).

I am personally against quotas of any kind, and to select someone from
group Y to correct some possible past injustices to Y's group (which I
realize you didn't claim) only creates new injustices to group X.  

I notice you didn't indicate the relative proportions of the two groups
in the society as a whole.  In any case, if there was some sort of 
societal force at work causing a disproportionate number of Xs as 
opposed to Ys in the industry, it seems that the force is at work before
the applicants apply in the first place.  Perhaps the relative numbers
*are* representative of the number of *qualified* individuals available
from each group.

--

Seriously, with absolutely *no* grounds (as specified) for choosing
on the basis of competence, this looks like an ideal opportunity for
non-harmful social engineering. I'd choose an applicant from the
under-represented group (that's Y, if I'm reading your notation
correctly.)

--

      The answer's obvious.  I would pick the person who's the
most like me!

--

At random (indep to group of the candidates) ie P% chance a group Y is picked.

--

I would choose randomly between the applicants (using digits of pi :) )
because I see that as the fairest way; they should be considered as
individuals rather than just as members of a group.

--

Given the conditions you cite, I would have to flip a coin, or use some other
random method of deciding.  I would pont out, however, the rarity of this
situation, thus questioning the relevance of your hypothetical situation to
reality.  ALmost always, there is something which distinguishes one of two
candidates as being better for the job.  Also, if I were not satisfied with the
value of P, I would increase it before making my decision on who to hire.

--

First, I'd wonder where the other 99% went... :)

Assuming you meant (1-P)N and PN, P<<1, then I really don't know.  I'd 
probably have to reinterview them for fit with the current personnel,
check over their references, etc. to find some way to differentiate.

I realize this changes the conditions of the problem, but I refuse to accept
your problem as anything but a hypothetical exercise anyway; people will
bring different attitudes and different experiences to a job, and this in
itself precludes totally equal qualifications.

Hypothetically, therefore, my answer depends on whether I myself am a member
of group X or group Y.  If group Y, I'd probably hire one of the group Y
members without much thought, simply to "correct" the imbalance. (BTW, you
neglected to consider the population distribution: if the actual population
balance is (1-Q)% of X and Q% of Y, where Q<(P/N), then actually there's
imbalance the other way. But I digress.) If I were a member of group X, I'm
not sure what I'd do; it would depend on whether or not I saw a problem in
industry I.

The problem with your situation is that it's so vague, and so I can't give a
concrete answer without seriously misrepresenting myself (or changing the
statement of the situation).  OTOH, to give more specifics biases the problem
away from the general.  I'm not sure what to do about it except point out the
difficulty.

--

Of the equally-qualified persons, I would hire the one who applied
for the position first.

--

 This is a pretty abstract question.  If the people are identical,
there is no real basis for a decision.  However, I would almost certainly
pick the person from group Y, because they would be more likely to bring
new perspectives/insights to their job.  It is better to have diversity
among any set of people engaged in a common activity for this reason.  
But I would count the ability to bring fresh ideas into the 
workplace as part of the qualification for a job. 
 On a more personal note -- I am a woman currently seeking a job in a
traditionally male field.  I have trouble imagining being in a situation
like the one you describe; you have left out all the most important infor-
mation about the situation.  I think my decision would be based more on 
factors such as:  would the company environment be hostile for person
for group Y?  Would hiring that person piss people off? (if yes, I probably
would do it just to upset the other workers; they'd deserve it)  If there was 
really *no* basis for a decision due to qualifications, personal factors 
would come into play. I think a person from group Y would score high
on a scale measuring good personal characteristics, precisely because
they would be different from the average employee.  If there was no basis for
a decision due to personal characteristics, (the way the person interacted
with other people, how she/he thinks, etc), then what you've got is a pool
of identical applicants. (And I mean *identical*.)
This is not a realistic situation.
  My instinct is to go with person from group Y, but the reasons are based
on a percieved benefit to the employer to be gained by having a diverse
set of employees.  

--

Choose randomly from group union(X, Y) with equal probability.
Otherwise you're discriminating on the basis of whatever distinguishes
groups X and Y.

Of course, in practice there won't be two or more equally qualified
applicants...

--

Hire a Y.

--

Since all applicants are equally qualified, the fraction P is
irrelevant, and the existing distribution of the population on the
industry is also irrelevant, given that there seems to be no correlation
between qualification and membership to group X or Y. I would choose
at random among all aplicants, no matter which group they belong to;
doing otherwise would be discrimination.




--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | The story of Jesus Christ appearing after
Field Robotics Center,          | he was dead is the story of an apparition,
Carnegie Mellon University      | such as timid imaginations can always
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | create in vision, and credulity believe.
(412) 268-3856                  | Stories of this kind had been told of the
                                | assassination of Julius Caesar...
The opinions expressed are mine | Thomas Paine
and do not reflect the official | 
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone,  | 
or any other organization.      | 
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:7895 alt.paranormal:1223