4 ms·

> Sidenote, I appreciate your viewpoints to this complex subject and that we're able to discuss it calmly. These things can boil out of control even if you try

> Sidenote, I appreciate your viewpoints to this complex subject and that we're able to discuss it calmly. These things can boil out of control even if you try to be as gentle as possible. Likewise. > That's a fair example. Today? Likely not. The 1st generation however? I imagine plenty of women/etc felt resentment towards men for being unfairly chosen in the market. I'd imagine that's true too - however I can't quite understand why we'd know this, and then hold onto the same resentment if the tables are turned more fair now (not even that I'm arguing for it to be anywhere near as explicit as that was, we're talking about tipping factors and increments, not outright discrimination against a group). > I just mean that, the moment we stop choosing based on criteria that matter to the subject (skill/talent/etc), and instead choose on criteria that matter to a 3rd party subject (skin color/etc) Again, the argument isn't that we're selecting them based on that 3rd party characteristic though, but using that as a lens to the demonstrated skill/talent. To choose another characteristic - someone who went to an inner city school in a deprived neighbourhood getting a B+ vs someone who went to a private school getting an A-. The former far outperformed their relative expectation, and being within the same ballpark as the latter, would arguably make a better hire. But if we reserved it strictly to looking at "who comes out on top", then the latter could be the only rational choice, even if (given their position) they should have gotten an A+. > inherently be hiring less qualified individuals We can argue around this point, but I think it's important to draw it out: hiring someone isn't an absolute. "Qualified" isn't a definitive bar, but a spectrum that can be interpreted in different ways (at least for the vast majority of roles). > shoehorning more women into X field is really an effective approach Again, can we move away from implying this is some kind of forcing? We're not dragging underrepresented groups into these roles, but giving them organic opportunities. I honestly don't buy into the argument around "gender specific" roles - there are enough women who are interested in them already to show that isn't the case. We're literally trying to shift societal expectations - this can't be done in one generation, which is why I respectfully discount an anecdote on that timeframe for this. We have several hundred years of society deeming that certain roles are for men, and some are for women, and then... men go into male roles and women into female roles. Doesn't mean anything other than we've configured a system and it's behaving as expected, and there's enough exceptions to prove that those societal expectations are worthless, and if they were no longer there, there's the potential for us to be in a much different place (with more, much needed, talent). > So I think we'd need to be very sure that we're acknowledging the costs now and if they're worth a perceived gain in the future. I would again like to draw out my point that this isn't about gifting an unsuitable applicant a job over someone who is suitable. There might be costs, but there are also costs to perpetuating the notion that there are some jobs some people aren't supposed to be doing (both explicitly, and implicitly through having no role models doing them). My closing statement is therefore (based on my point above) - contextual recruitment that gives weight to the performance of underrepresented groups in technology (whilst still ensuring they're technically capable) is a net positive for the company, and the longer term recruitment pipeline.

mbrumlow 8y ago
> To choose another characteristic - someone who went to an inner city school in a deprived neighbourhood getting a B+ vs someone who went to a private school getting an A-. The former far outperformed their relative expectation, and being within the same ballpark as the latter, would arguably make a better hire. But that is not what you are doing. If it was simply that I am sure people would be more on board. But what you are doing is looking at their skin color and gender. Completely different. Seeing how we are talking about race and gender I can only assume you are suggesting that if somebody of a given race enters the room they must have come from the inner city -- sounds raciest to me. That being said, I am 100% helping the poor find their way. And guess what? With the exception of gender it still hits most of the race targets that have affirmative action today. The support for the disadvantaged, and truly underrepresented -- the poor people -- of America is what we should e focusing on. Unilaterally poor people have less access to good education, tools and supplies to learn anything. And the problem self balances! Whoever is poor gets a equally opportunity for help, and when they are not poor they don't get help! And as I have said many times today, and all the time. You fix these problems at the start of somebodies life, not at the middle. You have to go to poor areas (yes, that means monitory races in a lot of cases) and make sure single parents have extra support and access to computers and tutoring. You need to pour the money in to low income areas and pay teachers a competitive rate to get THE BEST teachers in to those schools. Further more you need classes that teach far beyond the basics. You need basic finances, subsidized savings accounts to teach personal finance. Lessons on delayed gratification. Nobody likes being left out because of their race or sex. You can't change it, and you are stuck with it. That was the entire point of civil rights movement. The second you start inspecting race or gender for programs you are taking steps backwards. You are causing segregation and passably resent by those who were passed over for not having the right bits, or color. And judging by some of the sentiment of some groups today, resentment and hate is exactly what you are left with when you base decisions on race and sex. I don't expect the rich to get mad because some poor kid got a job, made a company and is now rich. I mean I guess it could be happen, but that would be silly.
- wastedhours 8y ago
  2 things here, I think we've argued down a path by using too many examples. My broader point is around the use of context of performance in recruitment - that is most often done, as you've referenced, from the perspective of parental income over and above anything else. My points around race and gender are definitely not an insinuation that someone of a particular race is from a specific socioeconomic background or location either. And again, it's not about giving undue preference to someone solely based on their protected characteristics either - in relation to the original point about how we ensure a diverse culture in an organisation, you don't get there without appreciating the context of the groups, and how they've had to perform to get there, in said organisation. In the UK it's legal to use positive action with groups that have a record of low participation, and it's justifiable if your goal is to ensure a diverse workforce (which has been shown to improve the bottom line). I don't mean to just attack your argument, but I don't think "segregation and passably resent by those who were passed over for not having the right bits, or color" fits the points I've been making and feels like reactionary protectionism. If you agree contextual recruitment makes sense (which you have done), then you must appreciate that relative wealth isn't the only barrier stopping different groups entering the profession.

mbrumlow 8y ago

> To choose another characteristic - someone who went to an inner city school in a deprived neighbourhood getting a B+ vs someone who went to a private school getting an A-. The former far outperformed their relative expectation, and being within the same ballpark as the latter, would arguably make a better hire. But that is not what you are doing. If it was simply that I am sure people would be more on board. But what you are doing is looking at their skin color and gender. Completely different. Seeing how we are talking about race and gender I can only assume you are suggesting that if somebody of a given race enters the room they must have come from the inner city -- sounds raciest to me. That being said, I am 100% helping the poor find their way. And guess what? With the exception of gender it still hits most of the race targets that have affirmative action today. The support for the disadvantaged, and truly underrepresented -- the poor people -- of America is what we should e focusing on. Unilaterally poor people have less access to good education, tools and supplies to learn anything. And the problem self balances! Whoever is poor gets a equally opportunity for help, and when they are not poor they don't get help! And as I have said many times today, and all the time. You fix these problems at the start of somebodies life, not at the middle. You have to go to poor areas (yes, that means monitory races in a lot of cases) and make sure single parents have extra support and access to computers and tutoring. You need to pour the money in to low income areas and pay teachers a competitive rate to get THE BEST teachers in to those schools. Further more you need classes that teach far beyond the basics. You need basic finances, subsidized savings accounts to teach personal finance. Lessons on delayed gratification. Nobody likes being left out because of their race or sex. You can't change it, and you are stuck with it. That was the entire point of civil rights movement. The second you start inspecting race or gender for programs you are taking steps backwards. You are causing segregation and passably resent by those who were passed over for not having the right bits, or color. And judging by some of the sentiment of some groups today, resentment and hate is exactly what you are left with when you base decisions on race and sex. I don't expect the rich to get mad because some poor kid got a job, made a company and is now rich. I mean I guess it could be happen, but that would be silly.

wastedhours 8y ago
2 things here, I think we've argued down a path by using too many examples. My broader point is around the use of context of performance in recruitment - that is most often done, as you've referenced, from the perspective of parental income over and above anything else. My points around race and gender are definitely not an insinuation that someone of a particular race is from a specific socioeconomic background or location either. And again, it's not about giving undue preference to someone solely based on their protected characteristics either - in relation to the original point about how we ensure a diverse culture in an organisation, you don't get there without appreciating the context of the groups, and how they've had to perform to get there, in said organisation. In the UK it's legal to use positive action with groups that have a record of low participation, and it's justifiable if your goal is to ensure a diverse workforce (which has been shown to improve the bottom line). I don't mean to just attack your argument, but I don't think "segregation and passably resent by those who were passed over for not having the right bits, or color" fits the points I've been making and feels like reactionary protectionism. If you agree contextual recruitment makes sense (which you have done), then you must appreciate that relative wealth isn't the only barrier stopping different groups entering the profession.