12 ms·

But shouldn't we just hire people based on whatever qualifications we deem an indicator to talent, skill, ethic, etc? Does being a woman, disabled, ethnic, etc

But shouldn't we just hire people based on whatever qualifications we deem an indicator to talent, skill, ethic, etc? Does being a woman, disabled, ethnic, etc bring meaningful insight to designing a network protocol? Is that a quantifiable thing? I suspect both of these answers are a resounding no. Lets care what talent and interests people have. Lets give them the education they need to pursue those interests. Creating groups of people by what I consider irrelevant details like what organs they have and then forcing them into certain occupations does not seem likely to make better network protocols. I frankly am always puzzled that people who fight for equality, simultaneously care so much about what's between our legs. Now, if you think the blind, or women, or w/e are interested in STEM/etc but due to culture they avoid it? Great, that's something we can work with. Lets work on trying to change culture for new generations. Don't force them into STEM, but ensure that children who are interested in STEM can follow it, regardless of gender.

Retric 8y ago
You may be surprised, but having a diversity of ideas and backgrounds really could improve a network protocol. Suppose nobody on the team ever dealt with significant packet loss. It’s easy to overlook something like that if you have never dealt with it. Again it’s not about direct discrimination it’s the benefit of having a wider pool of experience to draw from. You want the wisest possible funnel at the start so you get the guy who working a winter in Antarctica etc not just a group that passes the interview by having similar backgrounds.
- beaconstudios 8y ago
  > You may be surprised, but having a deversity of ideas really could improve a network protocol. So why are so many companies that are hiring for racial, gender, sexual orientation etc. diversity, actively promoting a political monoculture? If it were really about diversity of ideas, political diversity would be a good place to start because people with different political alignments are much more likely (in my opinion) to have different ideas than a black and a white person from the same city who are politically aligned.
  - Retric 8y ago
    Because they are doing it poorly? It's easy to measure a proxy for what you care about rather than what you actually want. That said, promoting diversity of backgrounds could under represent more homogeneous political groups. But, again you don't necessarily care about representing each group equally you care about having the maximum range of input while still functioning as a team.
    - yourbandsucks 8y ago
      How about people who aren't from wealthy coastal suburbs? That's the monoculture in tech. Tech diversity stats basically mirror those suburbs with the exception of the east asian and south asian groups. (The suburbs are catching up as they raise families).
    - beaconstudios 8y ago
      I think the kind of diversity initiative you are speaking about is fundamentally different from the one the startup industry is aiming for. Diversity metrics are fairly commonplace, as is political homogenisation and suppression of alternative views. This leads me to believe that these companies are not in fact pursuing the kind of diversity (that of ideas/perspectives) that you are championing. They instead seem to be pursuing a kind of demographic equality of outcome where for any % of the populace, that same % should be represented in technology jobs. I find your idea of diversity a lot more defensible than the industry one.
      - scarejunba 8y ago
        This hasn't been my experience, at least in SF. The so-called political monoculture is heavily reason-driven, inclusive, and expressive. This might mean that people whose views are exclusive are excluded from evangelizing those views. The reasons for those are better expressed by Karl Popper's essays on the tolerance of intolerance. So you can't be against gay marriage or sex before marriage, and be for the suppression of expression. But that's a good thing for the reasons that Karl Popper brings up.
sj3k 8y ago
Diversity is good for business! I think you may find these articles interesting. https://hbr.org/2018/01/how-and-where-diversity-drives-financial-performance https://hbr.org/2018/01/how-and-where-diversity-drives-finan... https://hbr.org/2016/11/why-diverse-teams-are-smarter https://hbr.org/2016/11/why-diverse-teams-are-smarter
- djschnei 8y ago
  Then we don't need to social engineer it. Or worse, mandate it. Both of those strategies ALWAYS have negative side effects.
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    Do businesses always behave perfectly rationally?
    - djschnei 8y ago
      Farrrrrrr from it. Humans don't behave perfectly rationally. Humans often behave badly, in fact. I think you'd agree businesses are just humans (as are governments). That means they get all the beautiful and ugly traits we bring to them. That's why a strong legal framework to prevent business/other humans from using coercion against you and I is a great idea! That is what government is for!
      - emodendroket 8y ago
        So then it doesn't follow that there is no need for intervention simply because it is in businesses' rational interest to promote diversity.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  Maybe it is and maybe it isn't, but I don't argue on these grounds because it's not the reason I think what I think and it would not change my opinion if the research broke the other way.
wastedhours 8y ago
> due to culture they avoid it And do you know one of the best ways to change the culture? Get more people from different backgrounds in the room. > Creating groups of people by what I consider irrelevant details > ensure that children who are interested in STEM can follow it, regardless of gender People massively underestimate the importance of role models and empathy in career decision making. At some point you need to jump start it and use contextual signs to plot future potential. We're not talking about a C grade Person being chosen over an A+ Person, but if you have an A+ grade Person and an A- grade Person, and the latter is from an underrepresented group, then taking into consideration the context of the latter entering an industry that's seen as "not for them" based on the demographic of those inside of it already, can imply they have greater potential for success. I'm expecting this line of argument to get me downvotes on HN, but contextual recruitment, and that increasing levels of diversity on all teams being a good thing (even if it means, within a few percentage points, hiring for potential than current expertise), is a fairly uncontroversial thing in the world of recruitment.
- yourbandsucks 8y ago
  I'd say if you have two people that are in the same ballpark technically but one is from a disadvantaged background, that one probably showed more grit to get where they are and will be a better producer. So I'm with you there. But that's still about hiring the best person. What I can't get behind is the idea that making blatant 'diversity hires' is going to fix broader societal problems.
  - wastedhours 8y ago
    Again, someone makes a much better TL;DR of my point :) I'd say though that your second point is actually part of the first, the desire to look for and help those from disadvantaged backgrounds is really just a sourcing strategy to find that "best person". Quota filling and box ticking isn't good for anyone and that's a BS strategy any way you look at it. But if you're in it for the right reasons and the candidate's in the right ballpark, is capable, and can also serve as a role model to attract more people like them - it's a win-win. Especially in tech, recruitment pipelines across the board are so screwed if we only limit ourselves to attracting white, middle class, men as the need for knowledge workers booms. Just to fill future jobs we're going to need people from across the spectrum to feel as they though should be heading for those roles.

Retric 8y ago

You may be surprised, but having a diversity of ideas and backgrounds really could improve a network protocol. Suppose nobody on the team ever dealt with significant packet loss. It’s easy to overlook something like that if you have never dealt with it. Again it’s not about direct discrimination it’s the benefit of having a wider pool of experience to draw from. You want the wisest possible funnel at the start so you get the guy who working a winter in Antarctica etc not just a group that passes the interview by having similar backgrounds.

beaconstudios 8y ago
> You may be surprised, but having a deversity of ideas really could improve a network protocol. So why are so many companies that are hiring for racial, gender, sexual orientation etc. diversity, actively promoting a political monoculture? If it were really about diversity of ideas, political diversity would be a good place to start because people with different political alignments are much more likely (in my opinion) to have different ideas than a black and a white person from the same city who are politically aligned.
- Retric 8y ago
  Because they are doing it poorly? It's easy to measure a proxy for what you care about rather than what you actually want. That said, promoting diversity of backgrounds could under represent more homogeneous political groups. But, again you don't necessarily care about representing each group equally you care about having the maximum range of input while still functioning as a team.
  - yourbandsucks 8y ago
    How about people who aren't from wealthy coastal suburbs? That's the monoculture in tech. Tech diversity stats basically mirror those suburbs with the exception of the east asian and south asian groups. (The suburbs are catching up as they raise families).
  - beaconstudios 8y ago
    I think the kind of diversity initiative you are speaking about is fundamentally different from the one the startup industry is aiming for. Diversity metrics are fairly commonplace, as is political homogenisation and suppression of alternative views. This leads me to believe that these companies are not in fact pursuing the kind of diversity (that of ideas/perspectives) that you are championing. They instead seem to be pursuing a kind of demographic equality of outcome where for any % of the populace, that same % should be represented in technology jobs. I find your idea of diversity a lot more defensible than the industry one.
    - scarejunba 8y ago
      This hasn't been my experience, at least in SF. The so-called political monoculture is heavily reason-driven, inclusive, and expressive. This might mean that people whose views are exclusive are excluded from evangelizing those views. The reasons for those are better expressed by Karl Popper's essays on the tolerance of intolerance. So you can't be against gay marriage or sex before marriage, and be for the suppression of expression. But that's a good thing for the reasons that Karl Popper brings up.

sj3k 8y ago

Diversity is good for business! I think you may find these articles interesting. https://hbr.org/2018/01/how-and-where-diversity-drives-financial-performance https://hbr.org/2018/01/how-and-where-diversity-drives-finan... https://hbr.org/2016/11/why-diverse-teams-are-smarter https://hbr.org/2016/11/why-diverse-teams-are-smarter

djschnei 8y ago
Then we don't need to social engineer it. Or worse, mandate it. Both of those strategies ALWAYS have negative side effects.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  Do businesses always behave perfectly rationally?
  - djschnei 8y ago
    Farrrrrrr from it. Humans don't behave perfectly rationally. Humans often behave badly, in fact. I think you'd agree businesses are just humans (as are governments). That means they get all the beautiful and ugly traits we bring to them. That's why a strong legal framework to prevent business/other humans from using coercion against you and I is a great idea! That is what government is for!
    - emodendroket 8y ago
      So then it doesn't follow that there is no need for intervention simply because it is in businesses' rational interest to promote diversity.
emodendroket 8y ago
Maybe it is and maybe it isn't, but I don't argue on these grounds because it's not the reason I think what I think and it would not change my opinion if the research broke the other way.

wastedhours 8y ago

> due to culture they avoid it And do you know one of the best ways to change the culture? Get more people from different backgrounds in the room. > Creating groups of people by what I consider irrelevant details > ensure that children who are interested in STEM can follow it, regardless of gender People massively underestimate the importance of role models and empathy in career decision making. At some point you need to jump start it and use contextual signs to plot future potential. We're not talking about a C grade Person being chosen over an A+ Person, but if you have an A+ grade Person and an A- grade Person, and the latter is from an underrepresented group, then taking into consideration the context of the latter entering an industry that's seen as "not for them" based on the demographic of those inside of it already, can imply they have greater potential for success. I'm expecting this line of argument to get me downvotes on HN, but contextual recruitment, and that increasing levels of diversity on all teams being a good thing (even if it means, within a few percentage points, hiring for potential than current expertise), is a fairly uncontroversial thing in the world of recruitment.

yourbandsucks 8y ago
I'd say if you have two people that are in the same ballpark technically but one is from a disadvantaged background, that one probably showed more grit to get where they are and will be a better producer. So I'm with you there. But that's still about hiring the best person. What I can't get behind is the idea that making blatant 'diversity hires' is going to fix broader societal problems.
- wastedhours 8y ago
  Again, someone makes a much better TL;DR of my point :) I'd say though that your second point is actually part of the first, the desire to look for and help those from disadvantaged backgrounds is really just a sourcing strategy to find that "best person". Quota filling and box ticking isn't good for anyone and that's a BS strategy any way you look at it. But if you're in it for the right reasons and the candidate's in the right ballpark, is capable, and can also serve as a role model to attract more people like them - it's a win-win. Especially in tech, recruitment pipelines across the board are so screwed if we only limit ourselves to attracting white, middle class, men as the need for knowledge workers booms. Just to fill future jobs we're going to need people from across the spectrum to feel as they though should be heading for those roles.