[malisper]

I believe this is the heart of the problem of all of the bias flamewars. I think we can agree that it is reasonable to make statements about the group as long as the statements are true (women are more likely to be recruiters). It becomes much more fuzzy when trying to figure out how to apply that to an individual. That is where I draw the line. When you say an individual is a recruiter because they are female, you are doing something harmful.

[beat]

Right. That's where common sense fails us.

The thing is, this sort of thing is pretty easy to manage in real life - just don't make assumptions, and ask people about themselves. This also falls right in line with the classic advice from "How to Win Friends and Influence People". People like you more because you're interested in them, and you don't make harmful assumptions about them.

Sadly, too many people think "Well, I'm not sexist/racist/homophobic", and make excuses for continuing their pattern of bias rather than really questioning their own behavior and finding better ways to act.

[tomjen3]

>The thing is, this sort of thing is pretty easy to manage in real life - just don't make assumptions, and ask people about themselves.

Assumptions are useful, which is why we use them. Yeah you should ask people about who they are and what they do, but do you really want to spend 15 minutes talking with a recruiter that you could have spent talking with a programmer? No, so you have to avoid the recruiters (lets you be stuck with them) and the best you can do is work based on your assumptions.

If you don't like it, try to replace the word assumptions with Bayesian weighted probability.