3 ms·

So the problem is this: there are parts of his "manifesto" that are actually quite interesting, about the nature of diversity, its key importance for the healt

So the problem is this: there are parts of his "manifesto" that are actually quite interesting, about the nature of diversity, its key importance for the health of a company. The supplemental implication that diversity should be able to be justified by its own terms, and not held on a pedestal, guarded by armed militia. the problem is that he half-arsed the bit about biological differences. Firstly he didn't bother to find decent primary sources (I suspect because they didn't backup his initial point.) There are other assertions that are iffy, but they will be utterly forgotten, as they are not as simple as "he said women are Inferior" The problem for google is this: o If they fire the author, they create a martyr o If they keep him on, he would have been de-anonymised o If they didn't fire him after being found out, they would have been accused of harbouring a malfeasant misogynist. Basically its your standard loose loose situation for a company. All of which masks the main point of this whole cerfuffle. what is the nature of diversity I think Diversity is good. I want people from all walks of life in my company. However I also want Equality of access and treatment. Hiring someone because they conform to a (non work skill based) target is discriminatory. discrimination is the enemy of diversity, be it positive or negative discrimination.

TheAceOfHearts 9y ago
I'm not an expert on the subject. However, in his interview with Jordan Peterson [0], whom AFAIK is an expert on the field, the following claim was made: "I would like to state for the record that I believe that what you said in there, if not accurate, was at least representative of the current state of the art among well-trained psychometrically informed psychologists who are experts in the field of individual difference." Peterson points out a few issues in his writeup as they go over it. Considering the author of the memo is not an expert, I think it's reasonable to be a bit more charitable with his writeup. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU
nyxtom 9y ago
> Hiring someone because they conform to a (non work skill based) target is discriminatory. discrimination is the enemy of diversity, be it positive or negative discrimination. Not sure about this one, companies hire based on whether or not they feel like people will be a cultural fit all the time (in the positive and negative sense). Is it discriminating to avoid hiring someone whom you perhaps could expect will not keep pace with what is required of their job? Or use company hours to stir up political controversy? I realize that some of this is a straw-man argument given the overlap of the discussion, but cultural fits are something companies do whether it is direct or indirect bias. Stirring up controversy is almost by definition the antithesis of a productive work environment; this is evident by all the time now wasted in the totality of Silicon Valley at this point. Is it a bad idea to stir the pot? Absolutely not, but these are definitely causal effects of it (good or bad). That being said, there is probably some evolutionary utility in generating such polarities as I would expect a social group to address the point of controversy where they vehemently disagree.
- KaiserPro 9y ago
  _this_ is the debate we should have been having. Your observation is 100% correct, and the hardest part to overcome. How does one change practices, without imposing, or lowering standards, or deliberately introducing social 'sand' around which pearls must be built to maintain productivity. Hiring for cultural fit is not intrinsically antithetical to diversity. Most cultural qualities that I've seen are based around universal human qualities. But you are correct that they can be an impediment. Especially as cultural fit is by its very nature difficult to define. We must also tackle training, because we can't magic up highly skilled people out of nowhere.

TheAceOfHearts 9y ago

I'm not an expert on the subject. However, in his interview with Jordan Peterson [0], whom AFAIK is an expert on the field, the following claim was made: "I would like to state for the record that I believe that what you said in there, if not accurate, was at least representative of the current state of the art among well-trained psychometrically informed psychologists who are experts in the field of individual difference." Peterson points out a few issues in his writeup as they go over it. Considering the author of the memo is not an expert, I think it's reasonable to be a bit more charitable with his writeup. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU

nyxtom 9y ago

> Hiring someone because they conform to a (non work skill based) target is discriminatory. discrimination is the enemy of diversity, be it positive or negative discrimination. Not sure about this one, companies hire based on whether or not they feel like people will be a cultural fit all the time (in the positive and negative sense). Is it discriminating to avoid hiring someone whom you perhaps could expect will not keep pace with what is required of their job? Or use company hours to stir up political controversy? I realize that some of this is a straw-man argument given the overlap of the discussion, but cultural fits are something companies do whether it is direct or indirect bias. Stirring up controversy is almost by definition the antithesis of a productive work environment; this is evident by all the time now wasted in the totality of Silicon Valley at this point. Is it a bad idea to stir the pot? Absolutely not, but these are definitely causal effects of it (good or bad). That being said, there is probably some evolutionary utility in generating such polarities as I would expect a social group to address the point of controversy where they vehemently disagree.

KaiserPro 9y ago
_this_ is the debate we should have been having. Your observation is 100% correct, and the hardest part to overcome. How does one change practices, without imposing, or lowering standards, or deliberately introducing social 'sand' around which pearls must be built to maintain productivity. Hiring for cultural fit is not intrinsically antithetical to diversity. Most cultural qualities that I've seen are based around universal human qualities. But you are correct that they can be an impediment. Especially as cultural fit is by its very nature difficult to define. We must also tackle training, because we can't magic up highly skilled people out of nowhere.