7 ms·

So in my country, we have our own version of affirmative action called caste-based reservations. Basically, if you belong to a certain caste, there are seats re

So in my country, we have our own version of affirmative action called caste-based reservations. Basically, if you belong to a certain caste, there are seats reserved for you in every government institution (schools, universities) and public sector jobs. One of the smartest people I know belongs to one of these castes. She is brilliant at her job but constantly worries whether she got in because of her brains or because of the reservations. There is STILL a serious need for reservations and affirmative action in my country, but man does it screw with people.

dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
The problem here is that even a discussion about this topic is dangerous. That's unbelievable!
- pyvpx 9y ago
  a persons humanity should not be in question. you can discuss the merits of a specific persons qualifications but to argue "women, as an aggregate, are poor coders because they care about people and not things like dudes do" isn't a discussion. it's just grade-school level sexism. for someone with a PhD in biological systems, you'd expect a person to be a little more developed in their thinking...
  - BearGoesChirp 9y ago
    Woman and men are, on average, different. Is this wrong? These differences can be in factors that impact ones desire or ability to perform certain roles. Is this wrong? This individual person, because they are a man/woman, is unfit for the role. This IS wrong. Is it wrong to say there are differences that make women, on average, worse football players? Is that inherently bad, perhaps even blasphemous, thing to say? I don't think so. So why can't one discuss this about other jobs? Perhaps they are wrong, Perhaps which ever group isn't worse on average. But even if they are wrong, then the way to respond is to say that their information is wrong, not that they are wrong for saying it. We are treating the conversation itself like it is a blasphemy that shall not be uttered aloud. Instead, we should be asking 'is this information factual or not'. And we should be taking safe guards that averages aren't assigned to individuals.
    - troupe 9y ago
      > the way to respond is to say that their information is wrong, not that they are wrong for saying it. This is what bothered me the most about Google's response. They have the data to prove that the stereotypes about women were wrong. Instead of doing that, they focused on the idea that articulating the stereotypes was wrong. Some stereotypes actually have a basis in facts. The best way to deal with ones that aren't is to use the facts. Google failed at doing this.
      - lerpa 9y ago
        > Google failed at doing this. Implying they cared about false stereotypes. They only failed if they actually wanted to do that. My bet is this gives them negative PR to their target market, end of story.
  - dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
    > to argue "women, as an aggregate, are poor coders because they care about people and not things like dudes do" isn't a discussion. Did you actually read the paper or just one of the many summaries? Because he didn't say that, and your use of quotes is inappropriate here. Also, he didn't question anyone's humanity. While I don't agree with some of the points he made and I'm for Diversity programs in general, I find these misrepresentations and personal attacks on him quite disturbing. What we need is more civilized discussion, not name-calling.
    - pyvpx 9y ago
      yes, I did read it. and yes, that's precisely the argument that was presented. with a nice "we should talk about it!" cherry on top. there's nothing to discuss. women have just as much right as men to be programmers or any other "computer science" or "tech" job and they reason there AREN'T that many of them is preicsely because of the pseudo-science bona fide bullshit written in his "Manifesto". it only takes one asshole to drive away everyone else.
      - dijit 9y ago
        You didn't read it.
        pyvpx 9y ago
        I did. care to tell me what parts I missed?
        dijit 9y ago
        Well. You invented everything you're claiming it said. At no point did it even insinuate that women were less capable than men, what it seemed to be trying to do is note marginal statistical differences in choices by men and women and what we could do as an industry to be more accommodating to women without resorting to hiring quotas- which, he claims, may actually cause greater levels of imposter syndrome and tension amongst genders. There was no part of the document that came close to refuting that women have a right to be in the industry. In fact. The document was the opposite, "how do we get women in tech in a non-discriminatory way?"
  - jorgemf 9y ago
    Strongly different of what you think there are a lot of PhD in the area that agree with him. That people have different biological systems and so the expressed skills are different. The same way genes express the gender they also express different skills. What I don't understand is why this is so bad? we have different skills, let's try not to think everybody is exactly the same and focus in the skills every individual have.
    - lerpa 9y ago
      > What I don't understand is why this is so bad? It's the idea that it would be unfair that on average women cannot do as well in things men do, ignoring basic biology that genders are different and that there are things that absolutely no man can do, that women can. Even sometimes those areas which privilege females are seen as they were basically cornered into doing, and have no bearing into the fact that while there is some chauvinism, that possibly on average the desires, needs and skills may be not better or worse but different. And the women that embrace those things are positive are seen as being dominated against their will, or brainwashed into hating themselves. In short, if a women does something that historically men used to do, then it's good. Else, and even more if it is something that historically women used to do, they are being subject to sexism. The PhD guy should know better, perhaps too much specialization in his field made his brain go fritz.
kamaal 9y ago
>>There is STILL a serious need for reservations and affirmative action in my country, but man does it screw with people. I come from the same country. Reservation policy has denied hordes and hordes of exceptionally smart, hardworking and merit people their rightful chance of doing good in life. It continues to. This has been one of the key reasons for mass exodus of these people to foreign lands. The damage is irreversible. Those people are lost for ever. And worst, they do so well outside India that more and more smart people are incentivized to leave the country for the better. The damage to the Indian economy and the STEM ecosystem in India in general is incalculable. Also by and large, at least from the past few decades(of economic boom and social progress) these reservation policies have no meaning at all.
- keganunderwood 9y ago
  I just wanted to record my position on this because I in no way support what you're saying. I fully support reservation for people who belong to traditionally marginalized communities when it comes to education. The only way you can make me reconsider is to make education free of cost and open to all candidates regardless of merit. However, you do raise a good point. Reservation policy should not extend into the work force. I am more in favor of literal handouts of cash rather than forced diversity in the workplace. Come to think of it, basic income can't come soon enough. I don't mean we need to end diversity programs in the workplace but the way it was explained to me was these were recruitment programs and not hiring programs. Considering gender or caste or color of skin as one of the conditions for employment should be illegal in all nations.
  - kamaal 9y ago
    >>I fully support reservation for people who belong to traditionally marginalized communities when it comes to education. This was the original vision of the people who designed the reservation system in India. Their idea was some people where so behind in the social strata that merely expecting them to make up on hard work would take it forever to work. But this policy should have some expiry conditions. Else it leads to absurd conditions like it does in India. There are cases where the father is a well earning rich doctor, and the kids still get reservations. There is a guy who has just done his MBBS, and yet he qualifies for reservation for a MD seat. Entry and qualifying marks/percentages are lower for reservation seats, so you have a condition where exceptionally good performers and bad performers are both in the same peer group in a class, and then the bad performing group routinely does bad and loses out. >>Reservation policy should not extend into the work force. Once you create a entitled group of people, you can't succeed them in stopping them from asking special privileges in other places.
ZeroGravitas 9y ago
So this is a common talking point, and I'd like to flip your case around, because the belief that people from a caste are inferior human beings isn't as widespread in the US. So what you are really saying is there's a problem with affirmative action for lower castes, because large numbers of people assume that they are inferior. That's the problem your friend has. That's she's brilliant, and lots of people assume she isn't because of some arbitrary prejudice. This is the same arbitrary prejudice that the affirmative action seeks to remedy, and so these attitudes to affirmative action, in themselves, prove the need for affirmative action.
- puranjay 9y ago
  > because large numbers of people assume that they are inferior. You're taking this the wrong way. It's not that they think that people who came in through reservations are inferior. It's that they don't have to work nearly as hard. In an exam where an upper caste person might have to score 100 to get in, the reserved caste person would have to score 70. It's about the unfairness of this system. Which is strange because the caste system before this was wildly unfair itself. To mitigate the damage of one unfair system, we've set up another one.
  - croon 9y ago
    > In an exam where an upper caste person might have to score 100 to get in, the reserved caste person would have to score 70. Are there less people in the "lower" caste? I would assume there would be more and severe competition.
    - jorgemf 9y ago
      Probably yes, at least the people interested in the position. Considering that distributions on both sets are the same, lowering the bar in the minor set is an unfair advantage of positive discrimination
    - kamaal 9y ago
      Actually caste isn't a binary classification. And reservations don't apply only to one caste. Many castes get reservations. The remainder bulk of the people who don't get reservations fall into this category called 'General Merit'. Now the system fills up the reservation quotas first, leaving leftovers to general merit. General merit has way more candidates and a larger section of people who score above reservation people. The net result is you end up denying top performers seats, so that you can fill reservation quotas.

dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago

The problem here is that even a discussion about this topic is dangerous. That's unbelievable!

pyvpx 9y ago
a persons humanity should not be in question. you can discuss the merits of a specific persons qualifications but to argue "women, as an aggregate, are poor coders because they care about people and not things like dudes do" isn't a discussion. it's just grade-school level sexism. for someone with a PhD in biological systems, you'd expect a person to be a little more developed in their thinking...
- BearGoesChirp 9y ago
  Woman and men are, on average, different. Is this wrong? These differences can be in factors that impact ones desire or ability to perform certain roles. Is this wrong? This individual person, because they are a man/woman, is unfit for the role. This IS wrong. Is it wrong to say there are differences that make women, on average, worse football players? Is that inherently bad, perhaps even blasphemous, thing to say? I don't think so. So why can't one discuss this about other jobs? Perhaps they are wrong, Perhaps which ever group isn't worse on average. But even if they are wrong, then the way to respond is to say that their information is wrong, not that they are wrong for saying it. We are treating the conversation itself like it is a blasphemy that shall not be uttered aloud. Instead, we should be asking 'is this information factual or not'. And we should be taking safe guards that averages aren't assigned to individuals.
  - troupe 9y ago
    > the way to respond is to say that their information is wrong, not that they are wrong for saying it. This is what bothered me the most about Google's response. They have the data to prove that the stereotypes about women were wrong. Instead of doing that, they focused on the idea that articulating the stereotypes was wrong. Some stereotypes actually have a basis in facts. The best way to deal with ones that aren't is to use the facts. Google failed at doing this.
    - lerpa 9y ago
      > Google failed at doing this. Implying they cared about false stereotypes. They only failed if they actually wanted to do that. My bet is this gives them negative PR to their target market, end of story.
- dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
  > to argue "women, as an aggregate, are poor coders because they care about people and not things like dudes do" isn't a discussion. Did you actually read the paper or just one of the many summaries? Because he didn't say that, and your use of quotes is inappropriate here. Also, he didn't question anyone's humanity. While I don't agree with some of the points he made and I'm for Diversity programs in general, I find these misrepresentations and personal attacks on him quite disturbing. What we need is more civilized discussion, not name-calling.
  - pyvpx 9y ago
    yes, I did read it. and yes, that's precisely the argument that was presented. with a nice "we should talk about it!" cherry on top. there's nothing to discuss. women have just as much right as men to be programmers or any other "computer science" or "tech" job and they reason there AREN'T that many of them is preicsely because of the pseudo-science bona fide bullshit written in his "Manifesto". it only takes one asshole to drive away everyone else.
    - dijit 9y ago
      You didn't read it.
      - pyvpx 9y ago
        I did. care to tell me what parts I missed?
        dijit 9y ago
        Well. You invented everything you're claiming it said. At no point did it even insinuate that women were less capable than men, what it seemed to be trying to do is note marginal statistical differences in choices by men and women and what we could do as an industry to be more accommodating to women without resorting to hiring quotas- which, he claims, may actually cause greater levels of imposter syndrome and tension amongst genders. There was no part of the document that came close to refuting that women have a right to be in the industry. In fact. The document was the opposite, "how do we get women in tech in a non-discriminatory way?"
- jorgemf 9y ago
  Strongly different of what you think there are a lot of PhD in the area that agree with him. That people have different biological systems and so the expressed skills are different. The same way genes express the gender they also express different skills. What I don't understand is why this is so bad? we have different skills, let's try not to think everybody is exactly the same and focus in the skills every individual have.
  - lerpa 9y ago
    > What I don't understand is why this is so bad? It's the idea that it would be unfair that on average women cannot do as well in things men do, ignoring basic biology that genders are different and that there are things that absolutely no man can do, that women can. Even sometimes those areas which privilege females are seen as they were basically cornered into doing, and have no bearing into the fact that while there is some chauvinism, that possibly on average the desires, needs and skills may be not better or worse but different. And the women that embrace those things are positive are seen as being dominated against their will, or brainwashed into hating themselves. In short, if a women does something that historically men used to do, then it's good. Else, and even more if it is something that historically women used to do, they are being subject to sexism. The PhD guy should know better, perhaps too much specialization in his field made his brain go fritz.

kamaal 9y ago

>>There is STILL a serious need for reservations and affirmative action in my country, but man does it screw with people. I come from the same country. Reservation policy has denied hordes and hordes of exceptionally smart, hardworking and merit people their rightful chance of doing good in life. It continues to. This has been one of the key reasons for mass exodus of these people to foreign lands. The damage is irreversible. Those people are lost for ever. And worst, they do so well outside India that more and more smart people are incentivized to leave the country for the better. The damage to the Indian economy and the STEM ecosystem in India in general is incalculable. Also by and large, at least from the past few decades(of economic boom and social progress) these reservation policies have no meaning at all.

keganunderwood 9y ago
I just wanted to record my position on this because I in no way support what you're saying. I fully support reservation for people who belong to traditionally marginalized communities when it comes to education. The only way you can make me reconsider is to make education free of cost and open to all candidates regardless of merit. However, you do raise a good point. Reservation policy should not extend into the work force. I am more in favor of literal handouts of cash rather than forced diversity in the workplace. Come to think of it, basic income can't come soon enough. I don't mean we need to end diversity programs in the workplace but the way it was explained to me was these were recruitment programs and not hiring programs. Considering gender or caste or color of skin as one of the conditions for employment should be illegal in all nations.
- kamaal 9y ago
  >>I fully support reservation for people who belong to traditionally marginalized communities when it comes to education. This was the original vision of the people who designed the reservation system in India. Their idea was some people where so behind in the social strata that merely expecting them to make up on hard work would take it forever to work. But this policy should have some expiry conditions. Else it leads to absurd conditions like it does in India. There are cases where the father is a well earning rich doctor, and the kids still get reservations. There is a guy who has just done his MBBS, and yet he qualifies for reservation for a MD seat. Entry and qualifying marks/percentages are lower for reservation seats, so you have a condition where exceptionally good performers and bad performers are both in the same peer group in a class, and then the bad performing group routinely does bad and loses out. >>Reservation policy should not extend into the work force. Once you create a entitled group of people, you can't succeed them in stopping them from asking special privileges in other places.

ZeroGravitas 9y ago

So this is a common talking point, and I'd like to flip your case around, because the belief that people from a caste are inferior human beings isn't as widespread in the US. So what you are really saying is there's a problem with affirmative action for lower castes, because large numbers of people assume that they are inferior. That's the problem your friend has. That's she's brilliant, and lots of people assume she isn't because of some arbitrary prejudice. This is the same arbitrary prejudice that the affirmative action seeks to remedy, and so these attitudes to affirmative action, in themselves, prove the need for affirmative action.

puranjay 9y ago
> because large numbers of people assume that they are inferior. You're taking this the wrong way. It's not that they think that people who came in through reservations are inferior. It's that they don't have to work nearly as hard. In an exam where an upper caste person might have to score 100 to get in, the reserved caste person would have to score 70. It's about the unfairness of this system. Which is strange because the caste system before this was wildly unfair itself. To mitigate the damage of one unfair system, we've set up another one.
- croon 9y ago
  > In an exam where an upper caste person might have to score 100 to get in, the reserved caste person would have to score 70. Are there less people in the "lower" caste? I would assume there would be more and severe competition.
  - jorgemf 9y ago
    Probably yes, at least the people interested in the position. Considering that distributions on both sets are the same, lowering the bar in the minor set is an unfair advantage of positive discrimination
  - kamaal 9y ago
    Actually caste isn't a binary classification. And reservations don't apply only to one caste. Many castes get reservations. The remainder bulk of the people who don't get reservations fall into this category called 'General Merit'. Now the system fills up the reservation quotas first, leaving leftovers to general merit. General merit has way more candidates and a larger section of people who score above reservation people. The net result is you end up denying top performers seats, so that you can fill reservation quotas.