3 ms·

But this is forced diversity on the demand end, instead of genuine diversity on the supply end. I agree that diversity is a good thing, but hear me out. What

by pitaj 10y ago

But this is forced diversity on the demand end, instead of genuine diversity on the supply end. I agree that diversity is a good thing, but hear me out. What if women are generally genetically predisposed to disliking computer science? I'm not saying they are, but just take it as a given for a moment. Would attempting to increase the diversity in certain places be a good thing to do then? I think it would probably be harmful. It's unfortunate that we may never know why there are so few women in CS and similar fields. When I saw the 31% stat for women in Silicon Valley, I was surprised, as that seems much higher than I though the general rates were. Maybe that includes managers and stuff? Believe me, I'd love to see more diversity, but I think forcing it could be dangerous.

yellowapple 10y ago
"Would attempting to increase the diversity in certain places be a good thing to do then?" If I'm genetically predisposed to not want to eat my vegetables, does that mean I shouldn't be encouraged to eat my vegetables? Does that also mean that a group of people who are genetically predisposed to want to eat their vegetables shouldn't encourage me to try gardening and possibly even join their vegetable cooking club? Should they not themselves be encouraged to invite me to said vegetable cooking club simply because I'm genetically predisposed to having a tendency to decline such a proposition? "Maybe that includes managers and stuff?" More likely customer support, clerical, sales, and other such supporting roles, but yes. That figure is almost certainly not limited strictly or even loosely to technical positions.
- RandomOpinion 10y ago
  >If I'm genetically predisposed to not want to eat my vegetables, does that mean I shouldn't be encouraged to eat my vegetables? C. S. Lewis said it better than I possibly ever could: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." Even as a liberal, I find the "It's for their own good" argument frequently advanced by modern authoritarian liberals to be insufferably arrogant. We're all adults here and we deserve the opportunity to chart our own course in life, whether for good or for ill.
  - yellowapple 10y ago
    I'm by no means trying to imply that such a thing should be forced. On the contrary: it should be encouraged, sure, but the decision to embrace diversity must be a voluntary one. No tyranny wanted or needed here; the benefits of avoiding the stagnation of a monoculture should be apparent enough.
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  > If I'm genetically predisposed to not want to eat my vegetables, does that mean I shouldn't be encouraged to eat my vegetables? You're conflating two arguments. First, in the western diet, we objectively eat too little vegetables. It's been proven that eating more vegetables helps your overall well being. You're begging the question here by equating eating more vegetables in a Western diet to having more diversity. The former has been proven to be good, the latter has not yet been proven to have any effectiveness. And as another commenter has brought up, should be we forced to do things that are "good" for us? I know that at Google, you're forced to interview one underrepresented minority candidate for each position you're trying to fill. (Underrepresented meaning black, hispanic, or female) That sounds less like encouragement and more like coercion.
  - yellowapple 10y ago
    "And as another commenter has brought up, should be we forced to do things that are "good" for us?" No, and I never stated or even implied such a thing. The choice to embrace diversity is precisely that: a choice. The choice to eat vegetables is precisely that: a choice. In both cases, there are purported benefits (I'd argue them in both cases to be much more proven than what you seem to believe, but that's another discussion altogether). There's nothing wrong with encouraging the world to explore those benefits. Said encouragement is not tyranny or coercion. With that said... "I know that at Google, you're forced to interview one underrepresented minority candidate for each position you're trying to fill. (Underrepresented meaning black, hispanic, or female) That sounds less like encouragement and more like coercion." I agree completely. Google and other large companies like it do not genuinely understand the benefits of diversity; they are more interested in checking boxes to make themselves look good. Along with that, they fail to realize that embracing diversity must be a voluntary and wholehearted choice for it to be effective.

by pitaj 10y ago

yellowapple 10y ago

"Would attempting to increase the diversity in certain places be a good thing to do then?" If I'm genetically predisposed to not want to eat my vegetables, does that mean I shouldn't be encouraged to eat my vegetables? Does that also mean that a group of people who are genetically predisposed to want to eat their vegetables shouldn't encourage me to try gardening and possibly even join their vegetable cooking club? Should they not themselves be encouraged to invite me to said vegetable cooking club simply because I'm genetically predisposed to having a tendency to decline such a proposition? "Maybe that includes managers and stuff?" More likely customer support, clerical, sales, and other such supporting roles, but yes. That figure is almost certainly not limited strictly or even loosely to technical positions.

RandomOpinion 10y ago
>If I'm genetically predisposed to not want to eat my vegetables, does that mean I shouldn't be encouraged to eat my vegetables? C. S. Lewis said it better than I possibly ever could: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." Even as a liberal, I find the "It's for their own good" argument frequently advanced by modern authoritarian liberals to be insufferably arrogant. We're all adults here and we deserve the opportunity to chart our own course in life, whether for good or for ill.
- yellowapple 10y ago
  I'm by no means trying to imply that such a thing should be forced. On the contrary: it should be encouraged, sure, but the decision to embrace diversity must be a voluntary one. No tyranny wanted or needed here; the benefits of avoiding the stagnation of a monoculture should be apparent enough.
jimmywanger 10y ago
> If I'm genetically predisposed to not want to eat my vegetables, does that mean I shouldn't be encouraged to eat my vegetables? You're conflating two arguments. First, in the western diet, we objectively eat too little vegetables. It's been proven that eating more vegetables helps your overall well being. You're begging the question here by equating eating more vegetables in a Western diet to having more diversity. The former has been proven to be good, the latter has not yet been proven to have any effectiveness. And as another commenter has brought up, should be we forced to do things that are "good" for us? I know that at Google, you're forced to interview one underrepresented minority candidate for each position you're trying to fill. (Underrepresented meaning black, hispanic, or female) That sounds less like encouragement and more like coercion.
- yellowapple 10y ago
  "And as another commenter has brought up, should be we forced to do things that are "good" for us?" No, and I never stated or even implied such a thing. The choice to embrace diversity is precisely that: a choice. The choice to eat vegetables is precisely that: a choice. In both cases, there are purported benefits (I'd argue them in both cases to be much more proven than what you seem to believe, but that's another discussion altogether). There's nothing wrong with encouraging the world to explore those benefits. Said encouragement is not tyranny or coercion. With that said... "I know that at Google, you're forced to interview one underrepresented minority candidate for each position you're trying to fill. (Underrepresented meaning black, hispanic, or female) That sounds less like encouragement and more like coercion." I agree completely. Google and other large companies like it do not genuinely understand the benefits of diversity; they are more interested in checking boxes to make themselves look good. Along with that, they fail to realize that embracing diversity must be a voluntary and wholehearted choice for it to be effective.