4 ms·

> Do you have any alternative that isn't isomorphic to affirmative action? Possible alternative: We need to embrace that all decisions we make are emotional,

> Do you have any alternative that isn't isomorphic to affirmative action? Possible alternative: We need to embrace that all decisions we make are emotional, even the rational ones [1], and create a process that facilitates the desired change. I believe this can be done by hiring competent minorities into teams [2], where although they are a minority in general they will not be on their team. These teams should not only be that minority as you in a truly inclusive system can't define people by a trait. Since its a minority you probably have to do some extra legway in facilitating matching these teams well to problems the the team members find interesting and that there are growth opportunities. However, that is an ongoing conversation you should be having at any rate. By these teams being competent they will through normal work-conversations and collaborations open minds on how successful people look like. Very suddenly it will be clear that both nerdy and pretty girls as well as anyone in between can code well, and that people that talk and walk in ways that make you uncomfortable might actually be competent and give you a unique perspective if you truly include them in your conversation. Yes, it is not flashy and won't make great campaign posters. However, it empowers individuals while helping those individuals deal with being a minority without it being a zero sum game. And then we can watch history unfold, like how asians went from being railroad grunt work to model immigrants. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Behave-Biology-Humans-Best-Worst-ebook/dp/B01IAUGC5S https://www.amazon.com/Behave-Biology-Humans-Best-Worst-eboo... [2] suggested action by feminists and researchers like Francis Frei, although I am not sure they support this full proposal

joshuamorton 9y ago
So, as an alternative to affirmative action, your proposing we create teams that are essentially ghettos for minorities, and suggesting that this will improve their respect amongst their peers?
- asabjorn 9y ago
  Read my comment again; in no way this is a ghetto for minorities as the teams are not entirely comprised of minorities and this team structure is supported by research that shows that it feels socially isolating to be the sole representative of your minority in your daily life. Maybe even a majority is not a minority on the team. To be honest this kind of comment that makes any alternative proposal into a cartoon while attacking points clearly not made is whats wrong with american discourse. I think we can do better.
  - joshuamorton 9y ago
    But I'm not making it into a cartoon. You're suggestion is to take minorities and segregate them into specific majority-minority teams. Here's a definition of "ghetto" from a Google search: > put in or restrict to an isolated or segregated area or group That is absolutely what your proposal entails. Consider the outcomes of this proposal: > I'm sorry, we don't have any $minority teams working on $area_of_expertise right now, so I don't see a good fit for you. Note that now your minority group is explicitly a marker of what you can or cannot work on. Whether or not you intended it, your proposal creates a racially defined hierarchy, much in the same way that we already have stereotypes about "women work in frontend/ui roles", you'll only support those stereotypes and make them systematically ingrained. Further, without minority advocates and voices at the level of people picking the "minority" teams, minorities will be less likely to access those projects that are considered more interesting/challenging/prestigious. And note that the more reasonable "make all teams minority majority" is not possible unless your population is also minority majority, and even then its artificial and perhaps too strict. Please don't object to my calling a spade a spade. I've provided a reason that your suggestion is flawed, and instead of defending it on its merits, you've objected to my word choice.
    - asabjorn 9y ago
      > segregate them into specific majority-minority teams Again, you mischaracterize what I said: "I believe this can be done by hiring competent minorities into teams [2], where although they are a minority in general they will not be on their team. These teams should not only be that minority as you in a truly inclusive system can't define people by a trait." Where I in the follow up comment say: "... the teams are not entirely comprised of minorities and this team structure is supported by research that shows that it feels socially isolating to be the sole representative of your minority in your daily life. Maybe even a majority is not a minority on the team." > put in or restrict to an isolated or segregated area or group. That is absolutely what your proposal entails. Because of the preceding comments I disagree with this characterization. These teams are an acknowledgement that many find it hard to feel like they are the sole representative of their minority in their daily life. It is a tool that should only be applied at discretion and when appropriate, and to make it work it needs support. > Consider the outcomes of this proposal: I'm sorry, we don't have any $minority teams working on $area_of_expertise right now, so I don't see a good fit for you. Note that now your minority group is explicitly a marker of what you can or cannot work on. > Whether or not you intended it, your proposal creates a racially defined hierarchy, .. This was addressed in the proposal: "Since its a minority you probably have to do some extra legway in facilitating matching these teams well to problems the the team members find interesting and that there are growth opportunities. However, that is an ongoing conversation you should be having at any rate." I never said it was easy and that we wouldn't have to have extra support to make this work. That support requires staffing, training, recruiting etc etc that spends extra effort to make this very difficult thing happen. > Please don't object to my calling a spade a spade. I've provided a reason that your suggestion is flawed, and instead of defending it on its merits, you've objected to my word choice. To my points above these are clearly mischaracterizing of what I am saying by at best not carefully reading the proposal. I am asking you for the same respect in this discourse that I am giving you, and I believe that is fair. Edit: @joshuamorton I am sorry, I can't keep pointing to the same quotes showing how you interpret what I say is different from what I actually said with no progress in our discourse. I think we just have to agree to disagree.

joshuamorton 9y ago

So, as an alternative to affirmative action, your proposing we create teams that are essentially ghettos for minorities, and suggesting that this will improve their respect amongst their peers?

asabjorn 9y ago
Read my comment again; in no way this is a ghetto for minorities as the teams are not entirely comprised of minorities and this team structure is supported by research that shows that it feels socially isolating to be the sole representative of your minority in your daily life. Maybe even a majority is not a minority on the team. To be honest this kind of comment that makes any alternative proposal into a cartoon while attacking points clearly not made is whats wrong with american discourse. I think we can do better.
- joshuamorton 9y ago
  But I'm not making it into a cartoon. You're suggestion is to take minorities and segregate them into specific majority-minority teams. Here's a definition of "ghetto" from a Google search: > put in or restrict to an isolated or segregated area or group That is absolutely what your proposal entails. Consider the outcomes of this proposal: > I'm sorry, we don't have any $minority teams working on $area_of_expertise right now, so I don't see a good fit for you. Note that now your minority group is explicitly a marker of what you can or cannot work on. Whether or not you intended it, your proposal creates a racially defined hierarchy, much in the same way that we already have stereotypes about "women work in frontend/ui roles", you'll only support those stereotypes and make them systematically ingrained. Further, without minority advocates and voices at the level of people picking the "minority" teams, minorities will be less likely to access those projects that are considered more interesting/challenging/prestigious. And note that the more reasonable "make all teams minority majority" is not possible unless your population is also minority majority, and even then its artificial and perhaps too strict. Please don't object to my calling a spade a spade. I've provided a reason that your suggestion is flawed, and instead of defending it on its merits, you've objected to my word choice.
  - asabjorn 9y ago
    > segregate them into specific majority-minority teams Again, you mischaracterize what I said: "I believe this can be done by hiring competent minorities into teams [2], where although they are a minority in general they will not be on their team. These teams should not only be that minority as you in a truly inclusive system can't define people by a trait." Where I in the follow up comment say: "... the teams are not entirely comprised of minorities and this team structure is supported by research that shows that it feels socially isolating to be the sole representative of your minority in your daily life. Maybe even a majority is not a minority on the team." > put in or restrict to an isolated or segregated area or group. That is absolutely what your proposal entails. Because of the preceding comments I disagree with this characterization. These teams are an acknowledgement that many find it hard to feel like they are the sole representative of their minority in their daily life. It is a tool that should only be applied at discretion and when appropriate, and to make it work it needs support. > Consider the outcomes of this proposal: I'm sorry, we don't have any $minority teams working on $area_of_expertise right now, so I don't see a good fit for you. Note that now your minority group is explicitly a marker of what you can or cannot work on. > Whether or not you intended it, your proposal creates a racially defined hierarchy, .. This was addressed in the proposal: "Since its a minority you probably have to do some extra legway in facilitating matching these teams well to problems the the team members find interesting and that there are growth opportunities. However, that is an ongoing conversation you should be having at any rate." I never said it was easy and that we wouldn't have to have extra support to make this work. That support requires staffing, training, recruiting etc etc that spends extra effort to make this very difficult thing happen. > Please don't object to my calling a spade a spade. I've provided a reason that your suggestion is flawed, and instead of defending it on its merits, you've objected to my word choice. To my points above these are clearly mischaracterizing of what I am saying by at best not carefully reading the proposal. I am asking you for the same respect in this discourse that I am giving you, and I believe that is fair. Edit: @joshuamorton I am sorry, I can't keep pointing to the same quotes showing how you interpret what I say is different from what I actually said with no progress in our discourse. I think we just have to agree to disagree.