4 ms·

> But you say "going with what's in the pipeline", that basically means "hiring on average the best/mean candidates according to their metrics that apply". > T

> But you say "going with what's in the pipeline", that basically means "hiring on average the best/mean candidates according to their metrics that apply". > To say that they shouldn't do that you basically have two options: Say that they should discriminate and hire candidates that will be worse on average by their metrics, in the name of social justice, > Say that their metrics are wrong and they should adapt them. > I'd probably accept the second statement but that has to be a complicated and difficult thing to do. would you accept the second statement and then also accept the status quo because figuring out better metrics is complicated and difficult? would it be better to keep getting bad answers and perpetuating old injustices because the alternative is difficult reform work?

zimablue 9y ago
I think that there's an implicit assumption that there's a massive injustice, and that those things are most defined by race/gender and not, for example, parental income. In my limited personal experience of social justice measures you just give ethnic minority private school girls yet another leg up whilst working class white men get absolutely no chance (competing against all the rich white men, then placed at a disadvantage against everyone else). I definitely accept the second statement, I think almost everyone does. Damore had it in his memo. Noone is against behind the curtain auditions kind of measures, but far more people than would be willing to admit it publically are very much against quotas, or positive discrimination, or whatever the current PC term is for giving someone a job on the basis of their skin colour/gender and a perceived social injustice.
- arthur_pryor 9y ago
  fwiw, i think there are many ethnic minority private school girls who have just about as much working against them in total as a working class white guy. parental income is definitely a huge factor, maybe bigger than any other. but i would not agree that it is far and away a bigger deal than race. i think depending on where a person is, a black person can, because of their skin color, be in a much more precarious position than a white person with a smaller bank account (yes, even in 2017, and while it's gotten much better, i think it's still a huge problem, and there is statistical evidence to back up that assertion). also consider that people (of all races) may attend private schools on scholarship. i would have to dig up a citation for this, but my recollection is that kids who go to good schools and get good jobs and all are still at a disadvantage relative to their peers who did the same but who have some inherited wealth or who generally come from a higher income bracket. this is one of the ways in which it's statistically advantageous to be white: inherited wealth makes it hard for historical discrimination to not be seriously self-perpetuating. > but far more people than would be willing to admit it publically are very much against quotas, or positive discrimination, or whatever the current PC term is for giving someone a job on the basis of their skin colour/gender and a perceived social injustice. does this sort of positive discrimination happen much? i mean, i think race can reasonably be considered one of the adverse circumstances to use when e.g. framing a person's college application for consideration. similarly, i'd say a white working class kid definitely has disadvantages that a well off black kid doesn't (but likewise, a woman has disadvantages that neither of them has, and realistically, the well off black kid has disadvantages that the working class white kid doesn't). but to get back to your original point, can you point to research that shows that there is effective positive discrimination for minorities in any general private industry or even government context? or, some major organization that practices that approach to the detriment of white male applicants, or to the detriment of the product or service they offer? because i am aware of a lot of research that says there is effectively the usual old style racial discrimination against minority candidates. so your point here feels like a straw-man to me.

zimablue 9y ago

I think that there's an implicit assumption that there's a massive injustice, and that those things are most defined by race/gender and not, for example, parental income. In my limited personal experience of social justice measures you just give ethnic minority private school girls yet another leg up whilst working class white men get absolutely no chance (competing against all the rich white men, then placed at a disadvantage against everyone else). I definitely accept the second statement, I think almost everyone does. Damore had it in his memo. Noone is against behind the curtain auditions kind of measures, but far more people than would be willing to admit it publically are very much against quotas, or positive discrimination, or whatever the current PC term is for giving someone a job on the basis of their skin colour/gender and a perceived social injustice.

arthur_pryor 9y ago
fwiw, i think there are many ethnic minority private school girls who have just about as much working against them in total as a working class white guy. parental income is definitely a huge factor, maybe bigger than any other. but i would not agree that it is far and away a bigger deal than race. i think depending on where a person is, a black person can, because of their skin color, be in a much more precarious position than a white person with a smaller bank account (yes, even in 2017, and while it's gotten much better, i think it's still a huge problem, and there is statistical evidence to back up that assertion). also consider that people (of all races) may attend private schools on scholarship. i would have to dig up a citation for this, but my recollection is that kids who go to good schools and get good jobs and all are still at a disadvantage relative to their peers who did the same but who have some inherited wealth or who generally come from a higher income bracket. this is one of the ways in which it's statistically advantageous to be white: inherited wealth makes it hard for historical discrimination to not be seriously self-perpetuating. > but far more people than would be willing to admit it publically are very much against quotas, or positive discrimination, or whatever the current PC term is for giving someone a job on the basis of their skin colour/gender and a perceived social injustice. does this sort of positive discrimination happen much? i mean, i think race can reasonably be considered one of the adverse circumstances to use when e.g. framing a person's college application for consideration. similarly, i'd say a white working class kid definitely has disadvantages that a well off black kid doesn't (but likewise, a woman has disadvantages that neither of them has, and realistically, the well off black kid has disadvantages that the working class white kid doesn't). but to get back to your original point, can you point to research that shows that there is effective positive discrimination for minorities in any general private industry or even government context? or, some major organization that practices that approach to the detriment of white male applicants, or to the detriment of the product or service they offer? because i am aware of a lot of research that says there is effectively the usual old style racial discrimination against minority candidates. so your point here feels like a straw-man to me.