##Let's say tech executives (consciously or subconsciously) seek teams in which at least 1/3 of team members are like them (gender, age, race). How will this impact the types of jobs available?
Even this seemlingly small bais will impact the larger job market, because over time only certain people will be hired for these jobs creating a large gap in diversity.
##Diversity "quotas" are sometimes dismissed as counter-productive or missing the point of actually valuing diversity. PotP does demonstrate how they may add some value. What are your attitudes toward diversity quotas; does this game change your assumptions?
I can see how people could dismiss diversity quotas, but personally I think it's a nice way to hold a company accountable. Without any sort of metric it is easy to dismiss the idea. This game really highlights how even if you personally don't have a bias, not actively trying to create a more diverse neighborhood or workforce does nothing to change the status quo.
##Given the patterns illuminated by PotP, what other strategies may be effective in counteracting bias?
Becoming an advocate rather than a bystander. If everyone has the attitude of a bystander the level of diversity will never increase.
##PotP speaks to the power of group norms: a seemingly innocuous attitude, wanting to be surrounded by at least 1/3 of people who look like you, when embraced by a large group, can have huge implications on that community. Considering this reality, what knowledge and understandings should Turing impart to students to ensure they do not enter the field perpetuating ideas that are in conflict with our mission.
I think reinforcing that idea that being a bystander isn't good enough. Diverse communities can be created by small actions taken by everyone. It doesn't mean that you have to be at the forefront of a particular movement, but being conscious everyday of your surroundings and taking small steps to promote inclusion are very powerful at scale.