4 ms·

If all these things were true, shouldn't they be demonstrably obvious to everybody, such that their brightly shining obviousness would handily over power whatev

If all these things were true, shouldn't they be demonstrably obvious to everybody, such that their brightly shining obviousness would handily over power whatever -phobia or -ism du jour you think you are battling. If they were so obviously true why aren't societies' and biologies' natural optimization mechanisms making them unmistakably and obviously true? If it's really the case that women will do equal work for %X less money than men, why hasn't any organization capitalized on this by hiring only women and drastically reduced their costs? But if word got out on this strategy thanks to you and your comrades tireless efforts then demand for this cheaper labor would go up and thus it's price would rise. hmm... this claim seems counter to what we know about market economics. If it's really the case that "diverse" teams(what's the definition of "diverse"?) are so superior to other configurations, then why aren't the Snaps, Bings, and HTCs of the world making it their number one priority to "diversify" and then demonstrating the shining obviousness of the "diverse" claim by successfully taking on the big bad "undiverse" market leaders. Why do you think it is the purview of SJW brigades to bring these truths on the world when nature otherwise does a pretty good job of revealing her truths. Maybe they aren't true.

greenavoid 9y ago
https://twitter.com/DrNerdLove/status/894199995800449024 https://twitter.com/DrNerdLove/status/894199995800449024 Usage of “SJW” flags you as the personality archetype outlined in that thread.
adjkant 9y ago
Just to summarize your post, you ask why it all isn't obvious yet and cite no evidence. There are plenty of reasons for your questions with answers ranging from historical oppression, lack of early education in STEM for minorities, class differences, and more. Not to mention that not all that is true is obvious. You also seem to be ignoring a lot of people in various communities who are trying to communicate all this, writing them off as having an agenda against yours. "Well maybe its wrong because it's not how the world is currently" is a terrible argument. Go back in time X years and say this about things the way they were. It's not going to sound good.
rpearl 9y ago
You assert that there's a magical unbiased optimization mechanism. There is not. You then assert that women will do equal work for less money than men and then make a bunch of inferences based on this, ignoring multiple faulty aspects of the assertion in the first place. The fundamental disagreement we're having is whether society is biased in the first place. You are making a bunch of analyses and logical inferences about social behaviors of people, but all of the things you are analyzing are fundamentally embedded in a biased culture. By contrast, the people you're arguing against are trying to change the culture that you are making analyses in such that we can actually use analyses like yours effectively. We claim that right now, we cannot. The evidence suggests that "there are fundamental social biases against certain groups resulting in their disadvantage" is an explanation that better reflects reality than biological pseudoscientific assertions. See several of my links above, for instance citing studies that indicate that men judge women's competence based on appearance. Thus, seeking to eliminate those biases is a goal which will result in value.
electric_sheep 9y ago
As others have noted, you're assuming a natural optimization in labor markets that is unproven. It seems like you're arguing that the value proposition of paying 0.9x wages for an employee of 1.0x talent would cause companies to snatch up all such disadvantaged workers, which in turn would result in their market price equalizing. But that's a circular argument. The whole point that diversity proponents are arguing is that organizations and their hiring managers aren't rational economic actors, and that their biases have in fact distorted the market. So not exactly the invisible hand of balance you're talking about. Also, for goodness sake, stop saying "SJW." Whether you're trying to win hearts and minds or just trololol, it doesn't matter; you'll do better without it. Because when I read it, I just feel a little sad and embarrassed for the person writing it.

greenavoid 9y ago

https://twitter.com/DrNerdLove/status/894199995800449024 https://twitter.com/DrNerdLove/status/894199995800449024 Usage of “SJW” flags you as the personality archetype outlined in that thread.

adjkant 9y ago

Just to summarize your post, you ask why it all isn't obvious yet and cite no evidence. There are plenty of reasons for your questions with answers ranging from historical oppression, lack of early education in STEM for minorities, class differences, and more. Not to mention that not all that is true is obvious. You also seem to be ignoring a lot of people in various communities who are trying to communicate all this, writing them off as having an agenda against yours. "Well maybe its wrong because it's not how the world is currently" is a terrible argument. Go back in time X years and say this about things the way they were. It's not going to sound good.

rpearl 9y ago

You assert that there's a magical unbiased optimization mechanism. There is not. You then assert that women will do equal work for less money than men and then make a bunch of inferences based on this, ignoring multiple faulty aspects of the assertion in the first place. The fundamental disagreement we're having is whether society is biased in the first place. You are making a bunch of analyses and logical inferences about social behaviors of people, but all of the things you are analyzing are fundamentally embedded in a biased culture. By contrast, the people you're arguing against are trying to change the culture that you are making analyses in such that we can actually use analyses like yours effectively. We claim that right now, we cannot. The evidence suggests that "there are fundamental social biases against certain groups resulting in their disadvantage" is an explanation that better reflects reality than biological pseudoscientific assertions. See several of my links above, for instance citing studies that indicate that men judge women's competence based on appearance. Thus, seeking to eliminate those biases is a goal which will result in value.

electric_sheep 9y ago

As others have noted, you're assuming a natural optimization in labor markets that is unproven. It seems like you're arguing that the value proposition of paying 0.9x wages for an employee of 1.0x talent would cause companies to snatch up all such disadvantaged workers, which in turn would result in their market price equalizing. But that's a circular argument. The whole point that diversity proponents are arguing is that organizations and their hiring managers aren't rational economic actors, and that their biases have in fact distorted the market. So not exactly the invisible hand of balance you're talking about. Also, for goodness sake, stop saying "SJW." Whether you're trying to win hearts and minds or just trololol, it doesn't matter; you'll do better without it. Because when I read it, I just feel a little sad and embarrassed for the person writing it.