4 ms·
>I doubt Chinese or Korean CEOs spend as much time on 'identity politics' flavored 'diversity hiring' as a CEO would in SF There are many responses to that sta
by GuiA 8y ago
>I doubt Chinese or Korean CEOs spend as much time on 'identity politics' flavored 'diversity hiring' as a CEO would in SF
There are many responses to that statement, but one of the most notable ones is that there are significantly more non American users of American software products than non Chinese/Korean users of Chinese/Korean software products.
Building a diverse team that will be able to reason about how your product will be used in a variety of cultural contexts, by people from a wide array of different backgrounds, is therefore much more important in the former situation than the latter.
- 1996 8y agoIf diversity hiring was so good the government wouldn't need to force it by law
- cossatot 8y agoTotally. Just like seatbelts.
- perl4ever 8y agoI think you can summarize "what is the government good for" with "solving collective action problems", but libertarians tend to think that there are not many important such problems because market solutions are so versatile. ...but the most important collective action problem IMO (ever since someone told me about Ronald Coase) is maintaining low transaction costs in markets so they can function. So free markets and (good) government seem to me symbiotic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem
- ironjunkie 8y agoThe issue is that the commonly accepted definition of diversity is always about having different gender, race and sexual orientation represented. The important thing though is to achieve diversity of thought, which is a positive thing since it brings a larger set of creative ideas to the table. In the SF Tech Bubble, people look diverse but they all think more or less in the same way as the "Culture" part of hiring will remove anyone not fitting in the same mold. Also as soon as ideas get out of the spectrum of acceptable ideas, people get shamed and learn to shut up or lose their job. I think that the current conversation going on about diversity completely misses the point. It mainly became a good way for companies/CEO to demonstrate a morale high ground.
- njoro 8y agoI think it is hard to not say that part of Silicon Valleys success is because of diversity and that part of the diversity is as simple as "gender, race and sexual orientation". I isn't a political correct things to say but Japanese, Korean and to some extent Chinese people are generally better organized, harder working and smarter than Americans. But they are also to a large extent also culturally isolated. Which makes their societies full of social rules. We can certainly question how much of a meritocracy the US is, but it certainly is to a large extent compared to the mentioned countries. It isn't even that diversity itself being new perspectives, it is that non-diversity excludes people. And in highly uncertain activities it is all about how many people you can bring to the starting line. Success is its own filter, if you put a largely arbitrary filter in front you end up with a corresponding decrease in success. Which create a situation similar to the social rules in Asian countries. If there will be any regret in Silicon Valley in 50 years I don't think it is going to be whatever the current political issue is, but that it didn't acquire a larger share of the global tech market. And that is certainly a factor of competition, equality, diversity and other things that give more people the chance to do just that.