4 ms·

> Yet all of a sudden when it comes to mental pursuits (which are physically based in the brain and supporting chemicals), somehow then we're all equally capabl

> Yet all of a sudden when it comes to mental pursuits (which are physically based in the brain and supporting chemicals), somehow then we're all equally capable and the huge biases that exist when using other organs don't exist. And not only don't exist, but so obviously don't exist that anyone suggesting so is met with "I'm literally shaking". It's not "mental pursuits," it is that our society rewards men the most for excelling in fields which are created and controlled by men. When the majority of CEOs, leadership and top government positions are taken by men, it's going to be easier for men to keep gaining and holding those positions. Women will and do face more discrimination trying to enter these fields purely because they are women. By creating a space for women to excel, by trying to fight the pay gap, and by trying to get women into leadership, we are not discriminating against men. I'm not saying that our society, as it stands, should reflect the population perfectly. I am saying that our society needs to change to treat its population equally. And in doing so our tech companies, governments and other industries will change too. For the better. > Same for pointing out if you're hiring for diversity and lowering standards for "diverse" hires, you're making it worse for everyone. No one is "lowering standards" for diverse hires. No one. Why are you even implying this? > And as he mentions, this diversity usually isn't. Hiring a bunch of people with the same views but making sure their skin tones or gender identity fill up a big list... Doesn't give you any useful diversity of thought at all. All I got from his manifesto on this was he wants more people who think like him. His manifesto argues for less diversity, if anything. > Being intellectually dishonest and acting existentially offended when someone points out the obvious is why the left is losing out It's not taking offence, it is surprise that so many people are still willing to argue for inequality and are blind to the extreme imbalances of our society.

trevyn 9y ago
>No one is "lowering standards" for diverse hires. Google fast-tracks diversity candidates simply because they are diversity candidates. Other candidates must reach a higher standard to be fast-tracked.
- interpol_p 9y ago
  That is not "lowering standards" for diversity candidates. It is giving them more opportunities to be measured up to Google's high standards.
  - trevyn 9y ago
    It is lowering the standard for a certain kind of treatment. Whether or not that is justified or relevant to the hiring decision is a separate discussion. A standard is lowered. Full stop.
    - interpol_p 9y ago
      You are changing the argument. The original use of the phrase "lowering standards" implied that Google would forgo hiring someone of high skill to hire a lower skilled but more diverse candidate. This is not happening. Diverse candidates are given more opportunities to have their skill tested, but they must meet the same requirements as anyone else.
Inconel 9y ago
>No one is "lowering standards" for diverse hires. No one. Why are you even implying this? Without wading into the general content of the manifesto, I haven't had the time to read it, and while not directly regarding hiring, there is at least one good example where the quest for a more diverse pool has lead to differing standards being applied, namely university entrance. From the stats I've seen, Asians in the US are fairly strongly penalized with regards to the grades and test scores they need to achieve in order to gain entrance to top universities when compared to their White, African American, or Hispanic counterparts. It certainly seems to me that the standards have been lowered for non-Asians in this area, and while I make no claim of this also occurring in the hiring process, I also don't think it's an unfair question to ask seeing as it seems quite widespread in university admittance.
- MichaelGG 9y ago
  Exactly. Here's acceptance data[1]. Blacks with a GPA of 3.4+ and MCAT of 36+ have an acceptance rate near 100%. For Asians, the acceptance rate is far lower. Just open the two races' PDFs and tab between them. I'm sorta surprised they even publish this, considering how bad it looks. But maybe there's an alternative explanation, like smaller sample size, or Asians being less likely to be well rounded candidates, or maybe it's flat-out race quotas. 1: https://www.aamc.org/data/facts/applicantmatriculant/157998/factstablea24.html https://www.aamc.org/data/facts/applicantmatriculant/157998/...
teen 9y ago
The article isn't saying there is no discrimination though. It's just saying we shouldn't assume discrimination is the only factor we don't have 50% 50% representation in engineering. The author very much believes that we have cultural issues going on as well. This fact seems to be either misunderstood or deliberately ignored by a lot of people. But I can understand why.

trevyn 9y ago

>No one is "lowering standards" for diverse hires. Google fast-tracks diversity candidates simply because they are diversity candidates. Other candidates must reach a higher standard to be fast-tracked.

interpol_p 9y ago
That is not "lowering standards" for diversity candidates. It is giving them more opportunities to be measured up to Google's high standards.
- trevyn 9y ago
  It is lowering the standard for a certain kind of treatment. Whether or not that is justified or relevant to the hiring decision is a separate discussion. A standard is lowered. Full stop.
  - interpol_p 9y ago
    You are changing the argument. The original use of the phrase "lowering standards" implied that Google would forgo hiring someone of high skill to hire a lower skilled but more diverse candidate. This is not happening. Diverse candidates are given more opportunities to have their skill tested, but they must meet the same requirements as anyone else.

Inconel 9y ago

>No one is "lowering standards" for diverse hires. No one. Why are you even implying this? Without wading into the general content of the manifesto, I haven't had the time to read it, and while not directly regarding hiring, there is at least one good example where the quest for a more diverse pool has lead to differing standards being applied, namely university entrance. From the stats I've seen, Asians in the US are fairly strongly penalized with regards to the grades and test scores they need to achieve in order to gain entrance to top universities when compared to their White, African American, or Hispanic counterparts. It certainly seems to me that the standards have been lowered for non-Asians in this area, and while I make no claim of this also occurring in the hiring process, I also don't think it's an unfair question to ask seeing as it seems quite widespread in university admittance.

MichaelGG 9y ago
Exactly. Here's acceptance data[1]. Blacks with a GPA of 3.4+ and MCAT of 36+ have an acceptance rate near 100%. For Asians, the acceptance rate is far lower. Just open the two races' PDFs and tab between them. I'm sorta surprised they even publish this, considering how bad it looks. But maybe there's an alternative explanation, like smaller sample size, or Asians being less likely to be well rounded candidates, or maybe it's flat-out race quotas. 1: https://www.aamc.org/data/facts/applicantmatriculant/157998/factstablea24.html https://www.aamc.org/data/facts/applicantmatriculant/157998/...

teen 9y ago

The article isn't saying there is no discrimination though. It's just saying we shouldn't assume discrimination is the only factor we don't have 50% 50% representation in engineering. The author very much believes that we have cultural issues going on as well. This fact seems to be either misunderstood or deliberately ignored by a lot of people. But I can understand why.