3 ms·

Hmm. I'm guessing at what you mean by "diversity for the sake of diversity", but - pretty sure that's definitely something from the perspective of those, well,

Hmm. I'm guessing at what you mean by "diversity for the sake of diversity", but - pretty sure that's definitely something from the perspective of those, well, on the receiving end of privilege. Sure, diversity for diversity is a shittier reason than diversity to break the glass ceiling, or to cover bases you don't otherwise cover ("hey let's built a web app and never talk to dev ops!" "hey let's build something without figuring out how to sell it!"); there's those statistics that say teams with both men and women function better, yadda yadda... ...but like college graduation, it's not for you, or about you; it's about a bunch of other people. Diversity-for-diversity looks pointless when you already think you can join those groups. It looks like realizing you have a possibility you never thought could be yours, when you think you can't join those groups. Does that make any sense? With regards to what you've seen with online communities, that sounds a lot like gentrification: you have an influx of people that, rather than trying to adapt themselves to the existing culture and contribute to it - to actually join what was there, try (inadvertently or deliberately) to adapt the culture to their existing selves. On the other hand, what's the point if you have to / end up conforming so much you can't add anything new?

yakult 10y ago
"Diversity for the sake of diversity" may be better phrased as "choosing to recruit member of ingroup Y due to government and media pressure when market forces would have instead chosen member of outgroup X". The problem is almost immediately obvious: advantaging Y at the expense of X, at a 1:1 ratio, is already very bad compared to eg anti-malaria tents in Africa. Considering the cost of intervention and the cost to market efficiency, this ratio gets much worse. The X-member being displaced is marginal, which means likely poor. So this is inefficiently redistributing resources from poor people to other poor people. There is also a natural justice angle, for which I paraphrase an old play: "But ingroup Y has been treated like slaves for the last eight thousand years -" "So what, outgroup X should cop it for the next eight thousand?"
- RangerScience 10y ago
  Ah, took me a minute, but I think I see. I can honestly say I haven't seen this occur. Do you have any real-world examples (news, probably) you can link do?
  - yakult 10y ago
    A certain biomed firm has in its annual report that xx% of its engineers are female. It has a goal of increasing this to yy% by %year%. Most of the eligible applicants are male. This is easily observed in university graduate numbers as well as stated in their report. These are pretty smart business people. I can't imagine they're doing this without knowing it will impact the bottom line to potentially have to pass up on promising candidates for not having the right sexual organ (which, unless things go very wrong, will not be utilized in their work). Yet this is depressingly common. I am guessing that they have weighed the cost of inefficiency against the improved corporate image - or, put another way, against the decreased media pressure - and chose the lesser of two evils. Maybe an example outside of US will make it a bit easier to see: http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/09/29/495665329/for-affirmative-action-brazil-sets-up-controversial-boards-to-determine-race http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/09/29/495665329/f...
    - erikpukinskis 10y ago
      You are assuming without data that the old hiring process was fair and those women will do less for that firm than other new employees. I am assuming without data that those old hiring practices were bad predictors of success, and those women will do more for the firm than the average new hire. In absence of data you rely on the assumption that hiring practices and corporate practices in general are mostly smart. In the absence of data I rely on the assumption that hiring practices and corporate practices in general tend to be nepotistic and unrelated to performance. To me, the best affirmative action just takes demographics and uses them as motivation to find bad performance metrics.
      - yakult 10y ago
        Eligible candidates for most jobs are not 50:50 in gender. For some fields it may be 90:10. This means a perfectly fair selection process will select 90 men and 10 women for every 100 jobs, or at least in this ballpark. Affirmative action is mostly policed by media pressure. The media does not give a shit about the above math. They will read the line in the annual report that says '90% of our engineers are male' and name and shame you on twitter. Alternatively, being more politically correct than your peer competitors is a way to virtue-signal and you get little award badges to put on your website. The politically correct ratio is 50:50. Let's say you have 100 available jobs and 1000 candidates, 900 men and 100 women. To enforce 50:50, you choose the best 50 men out of 900 and best 50 women out of 100. Your hypothesis is that affirmative action unlocks economic benefits. This is asserting that the marginal female engineer who is better than 50% of her peers is superior to the marginal male engineer, who is better than 94% of his peers. Additionally, the difference must be large enough to overcome the inefficiency of messing with market mechanisms. This is an extraordinary claim and would require extraordinary evidence. What about the effect of nepotism? Let's say the hiring manager really doesn't like women, and the selection ends up 95:5. Five marginal female engineers are replaced by five marginal male engineers. Compared to the huge skewing above, this is a blip on the radar. Note I am not saying it is not a problem, I am saying the current solution is on average much worse. I do not doubt that for some pathological cases affirmative action actually does have a positive effect on the bottom line. But this will only happen when the company is badly screwing up recruitment. On the other hand, companies with saner, optimized hiring processes are penalized with an arbitrary ratio. The effect here is to boost inefficient businesses and penalize relatively efficient ones.
Kadin 10y ago
> that sounds a lot like gentrification "Gentrification" is frequently just a polite euphemism for diversity that the person making the statement finds undesirable.
- RangerScience 10y ago
  A friend of mine explained gentrification very nicely, because I really didn't understand (and still only kinda do): You have a historically poor & hispanic neighborhood. Typically, the youth will hang out on a particular street corner; it's not like they've got other places to go, or, the other place they have to go (home) are worse. Wealthier white people move in. They don't see kids being the only place the kids can be; they see thugs making them feel unsafe. They complain to the cops, or maybe actually call the cops. Kids end up dispersed. What community they had, they can't have anymore. Bad cases, some end up arrested. Worst cases, some end up shot. Is this necessarily the fault of the new people? Eh. Fault, maybe not; cause, yeah, probably. A summation is: People with drastically different expectations for their neighborhood use power [they probably don't realize they have] to enforce those expectations. Existing community is displaced [without the new people realizing it]. Diversification doesn't result in displacement; (near as I can tell) gentrification does. Yes, it is still a more complicated question (I have a new society, where do I put it?), continues to stay more complicated (cultures with non-monetary wealth get out-competed by cultures with monetary wealth), but the gist remains: are you participating in the existing culture, or replacing it? (Of course, if the existing culture doesn't let you participate, well...)

yakult 10y ago

"Diversity for the sake of diversity" may be better phrased as "choosing to recruit member of ingroup Y due to government and media pressure when market forces would have instead chosen member of outgroup X". The problem is almost immediately obvious: advantaging Y at the expense of X, at a 1:1 ratio, is already very bad compared to eg anti-malaria tents in Africa. Considering the cost of intervention and the cost to market efficiency, this ratio gets much worse. The X-member being displaced is marginal, which means likely poor. So this is inefficiently redistributing resources from poor people to other poor people. There is also a natural justice angle, for which I paraphrase an old play: "But ingroup Y has been treated like slaves for the last eight thousand years -" "So what, outgroup X should cop it for the next eight thousand?"

RangerScience 10y ago
Ah, took me a minute, but I think I see. I can honestly say I haven't seen this occur. Do you have any real-world examples (news, probably) you can link do?
- yakult 10y ago
  A certain biomed firm has in its annual report that xx% of its engineers are female. It has a goal of increasing this to yy% by %year%. Most of the eligible applicants are male. This is easily observed in university graduate numbers as well as stated in their report. These are pretty smart business people. I can't imagine they're doing this without knowing it will impact the bottom line to potentially have to pass up on promising candidates for not having the right sexual organ (which, unless things go very wrong, will not be utilized in their work). Yet this is depressingly common. I am guessing that they have weighed the cost of inefficiency against the improved corporate image - or, put another way, against the decreased media pressure - and chose the lesser of two evils. Maybe an example outside of US will make it a bit easier to see: http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/09/29/495665329/for-affirmative-action-brazil-sets-up-controversial-boards-to-determine-race http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/09/29/495665329/f...
  - erikpukinskis 10y ago
    You are assuming without data that the old hiring process was fair and those women will do less for that firm than other new employees. I am assuming without data that those old hiring practices were bad predictors of success, and those women will do more for the firm than the average new hire. In absence of data you rely on the assumption that hiring practices and corporate practices in general are mostly smart. In the absence of data I rely on the assumption that hiring practices and corporate practices in general tend to be nepotistic and unrelated to performance. To me, the best affirmative action just takes demographics and uses them as motivation to find bad performance metrics.
    - yakult 10y ago
      Eligible candidates for most jobs are not 50:50 in gender. For some fields it may be 90:10. This means a perfectly fair selection process will select 90 men and 10 women for every 100 jobs, or at least in this ballpark. Affirmative action is mostly policed by media pressure. The media does not give a shit about the above math. They will read the line in the annual report that says '90% of our engineers are male' and name and shame you on twitter. Alternatively, being more politically correct than your peer competitors is a way to virtue-signal and you get little award badges to put on your website. The politically correct ratio is 50:50. Let's say you have 100 available jobs and 1000 candidates, 900 men and 100 women. To enforce 50:50, you choose the best 50 men out of 900 and best 50 women out of 100. Your hypothesis is that affirmative action unlocks economic benefits. This is asserting that the marginal female engineer who is better than 50% of her peers is superior to the marginal male engineer, who is better than 94% of his peers. Additionally, the difference must be large enough to overcome the inefficiency of messing with market mechanisms. This is an extraordinary claim and would require extraordinary evidence. What about the effect of nepotism? Let's say the hiring manager really doesn't like women, and the selection ends up 95:5. Five marginal female engineers are replaced by five marginal male engineers. Compared to the huge skewing above, this is a blip on the radar. Note I am not saying it is not a problem, I am saying the current solution is on average much worse. I do not doubt that for some pathological cases affirmative action actually does have a positive effect on the bottom line. But this will only happen when the company is badly screwing up recruitment. On the other hand, companies with saner, optimized hiring processes are penalized with an arbitrary ratio. The effect here is to boost inefficient businesses and penalize relatively efficient ones.

Kadin 10y ago

> that sounds a lot like gentrification "Gentrification" is frequently just a polite euphemism for diversity that the person making the statement finds undesirable.

RangerScience 10y ago
A friend of mine explained gentrification very nicely, because I really didn't understand (and still only kinda do): You have a historically poor & hispanic neighborhood. Typically, the youth will hang out on a particular street corner; it's not like they've got other places to go, or, the other place they have to go (home) are worse. Wealthier white people move in. They don't see kids being the only place the kids can be; they see thugs making them feel unsafe. They complain to the cops, or maybe actually call the cops. Kids end up dispersed. What community they had, they can't have anymore. Bad cases, some end up arrested. Worst cases, some end up shot. Is this necessarily the fault of the new people? Eh. Fault, maybe not; cause, yeah, probably. A summation is: People with drastically different expectations for their neighborhood use power [they probably don't realize they have] to enforce those expectations. Existing community is displaced [without the new people realizing it]. Diversification doesn't result in displacement; (near as I can tell) gentrification does. Yes, it is still a more complicated question (I have a new society, where do I put it?), continues to stay more complicated (cultures with non-monetary wealth get out-competed by cultures with monetary wealth), but the gist remains: are you participating in the existing culture, or replacing it? (Of course, if the existing culture doesn't let you participate, well...)