5 ms·

Seems to me that requiring, rather than simply allowing, a team to be diverse actually restricts the talent pool. That is, it reduces the number of viable tea

Seems to me that requiring, rather than simply allowing, a team to be diverse actually restricts the talent pool. That is, it reduces the number of viable teams one can form from a population. And if you have an existing team you need to grow, it can rule out some candidates.

pooya13 9y ago
True. But if we want to break a feedback loop and exit a local minimum in hopes of reaching a global minimum it might be needed to force diversity out of the local minimum for a period before letting it to naturally settle.
Hnrobert42 9y ago
I understand your position I agree with it in theory. In practice, that’s not how things work. If it was, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. In practice, simply “allowing” for diversity doesn’t work. The only way to reach diversity goals is to actively include people. So long as those people are qualified, I am okay if the cost is missing out on a slightly more qualified candidate. Not least of which because horing isn’t an exact science in which qualifications are completely measurable and all possible candidates are always considered. Again, reality is messy. So a few white dudes (such as myself) might not get a job because of a quota. Big deal. If I am such hot shit that I definitely should have gotten the job, then I won’t have a problem getting a job elsewhere.
- emsy 9y ago
  >So a few white dudes (such as myself) might not get a job because of a quota. Big deal. It is. You're either racist or you're not. You can sugercoat it with comfy terms such as "diversity" or "inclusion" but as soon as you positively discriminate for one race, you negatively discriminate against another and that is racism, even if it "only" affects white males. Or stated differently, would you be for quotas if it meant a POC doesn't get the job, because there are already too many? If not, why?
  - scientician 9y ago
    Hear hear! If you're not against racism, and you support racist policies, you're a racist!
    - emsy 9y ago
      There is no need for sarcasm. I'm not a native English speaker, but I'm sure I didn't call anyone "a racist". I intended to use racist as an adjective. Such a misunderstanding could've easily been avoided had you asked me for clarification or picked a more charitable interpretation of my comment.
      - scientician 9y ago
        ..... Why would you think I was being sarcastic? I agree with you ...
  - dwaltrip 9y ago
    > You're either racist or you're not. If only it were this simple... In reality, life doesn't seem to be constrained to our underdeveloped conceptual boxes, no matter how much we get attached to them.
    - emsy 9y ago
      I think I understand what you're getting at, but I didn't intend to draw a hard line of what racism is, but merely wanted to point out the slippery slope you're of using racist policies to fix discriminatory issues.
      - dwaltrip 9y ago
        Is it actually racist to make reparations for former wrongs that have had a direct, severely negative impact on the aggregate experiences of a group living today? Those reparations have to come from somewhere, so in most cases anyone could complain that it's "taking away" from whatever. I don't think it is so easy to answer that question off the cuff, especially without further details. Also, I think it is very important to remember: these situations are usually _not_ zero sum. Helping one group does not mean another group has been harmed in equal magnitude.
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
  > In practice, simply “allowing” for diversity doesn’t work. The only way to reach diversity goals is to actively include people. What makes you say this? Doesn't this kind of assume that there aren't other reasons why such gender, racial, or cultural imbalances exist? > So a few white dudes (such as myself) might not get a job because of a quota. Big deal. There are large areas of the country still recovering from the recession. It's not like everyone is living in an economically prosperous area of the country. In those areas, not getting hired is a _huge_ deal.
  - Hnrobert42 9y ago
    There absolutely are other reasons. First, people are biased against those groups. Second, folks in those groups may not have the same degree of education and experiece, stemming in large part from lack of opportunity. That farcical “discrimination of low expectations” argument has no place in civilized discussion. In any area, not getting hired is a huge deal to the person not hired. It is just as huge for everyone else as it is for white men.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- textor 9y ago
  Non sequitur. You're having this conversation because the current political climate in the USA leads to conflicting opinions on this subject. How come you're so confident that "that’s not how things work"? Do you have any idea about epistemic standards in social sciences? And if qualifications are not completely measurable, then how much more qualified is "slightly more qualified" and thus disposable? Lastly, on what grounds can people that promote diversity claim to have enough expertise to regulate this process of affordable exclusion?
  - Hnrobert42 9y ago
    Slightly more qualified is anything so slight as to make not hiring the person simple based on race make me feel unconfortable. Is that subjective? Yes. Do I care? No. My expertise is no greater than my expertise in selecting people to hire. I make no claim that this effort should be enforced by regulation. I enforce it through my hiring and recruitment efforts.
- ipsocannibal 9y ago
  I think this comment encapsulates pretty clearly the "ally" role advocated by "diversity" "experts".
tdb7893 9y ago
Yeah, this can be an example of going maybe too far if they are very strict about it. It's a balancing act

pooya13 9y ago

True. But if we want to break a feedback loop and exit a local minimum in hopes of reaching a global minimum it might be needed to force diversity out of the local minimum for a period before letting it to naturally settle.

Hnrobert42 9y ago

I understand your position I agree with it in theory. In practice, that’s not how things work. If it was, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. In practice, simply “allowing” for diversity doesn’t work. The only way to reach diversity goals is to actively include people. So long as those people are qualified, I am okay if the cost is missing out on a slightly more qualified candidate. Not least of which because horing isn’t an exact science in which qualifications are completely measurable and all possible candidates are always considered. Again, reality is messy. So a few white dudes (such as myself) might not get a job because of a quota. Big deal. If I am such hot shit that I definitely should have gotten the job, then I won’t have a problem getting a job elsewhere.

emsy 9y ago
>So a few white dudes (such as myself) might not get a job because of a quota. Big deal. It is. You're either racist or you're not. You can sugercoat it with comfy terms such as "diversity" or "inclusion" but as soon as you positively discriminate for one race, you negatively discriminate against another and that is racism, even if it "only" affects white males. Or stated differently, would you be for quotas if it meant a POC doesn't get the job, because there are already too many? If not, why?
- scientician 9y ago
  Hear hear! If you're not against racism, and you support racist policies, you're a racist!
  - emsy 9y ago
    There is no need for sarcasm. I'm not a native English speaker, but I'm sure I didn't call anyone "a racist". I intended to use racist as an adjective. Such a misunderstanding could've easily been avoided had you asked me for clarification or picked a more charitable interpretation of my comment.
    - scientician 9y ago
      ..... Why would you think I was being sarcastic? I agree with you ...
- dwaltrip 9y ago
  > You're either racist or you're not. If only it were this simple... In reality, life doesn't seem to be constrained to our underdeveloped conceptual boxes, no matter how much we get attached to them.
  - emsy 9y ago
    I think I understand what you're getting at, but I didn't intend to draw a hard line of what racism is, but merely wanted to point out the slippery slope you're of using racist policies to fix discriminatory issues.
    - dwaltrip 9y ago
      Is it actually racist to make reparations for former wrongs that have had a direct, severely negative impact on the aggregate experiences of a group living today? Those reparations have to come from somewhere, so in most cases anyone could complain that it's "taking away" from whatever. I don't think it is so easy to answer that question off the cuff, especially without further details. Also, I think it is very important to remember: these situations are usually _not_ zero sum. Helping one group does not mean another group has been harmed in equal magnitude.
TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
> In practice, simply “allowing” for diversity doesn’t work. The only way to reach diversity goals is to actively include people. What makes you say this? Doesn't this kind of assume that there aren't other reasons why such gender, racial, or cultural imbalances exist? > So a few white dudes (such as myself) might not get a job because of a quota. Big deal. There are large areas of the country still recovering from the recession. It's not like everyone is living in an economically prosperous area of the country. In those areas, not getting hired is a _huge_ deal.
- Hnrobert42 9y ago
  There absolutely are other reasons. First, people are biased against those groups. Second, folks in those groups may not have the same degree of education and experiece, stemming in large part from lack of opportunity. That farcical “discrimination of low expectations” argument has no place in civilized discussion. In any area, not getting hired is a huge deal to the person not hired. It is just as huge for everyone else as it is for white men.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
textor 9y ago
Non sequitur. You're having this conversation because the current political climate in the USA leads to conflicting opinions on this subject. How come you're so confident that "that’s not how things work"? Do you have any idea about epistemic standards in social sciences? And if qualifications are not completely measurable, then how much more qualified is "slightly more qualified" and thus disposable? Lastly, on what grounds can people that promote diversity claim to have enough expertise to regulate this process of affordable exclusion?
- Hnrobert42 9y ago
  Slightly more qualified is anything so slight as to make not hiring the person simple based on race make me feel unconfortable. Is that subjective? Yes. Do I care? No. My expertise is no greater than my expertise in selecting people to hire. I make no claim that this effort should be enforced by regulation. I enforce it through my hiring and recruitment efforts.
ipsocannibal 9y ago
I think this comment encapsulates pretty clearly the "ally" role advocated by "diversity" "experts".

tdb7893 9y ago

Yeah, this can be an example of going maybe too far if they are very strict about it. It's a balancing act