8 ms·

> This may have been the case decade(s) ago, but I think the climate is very different now. I don't. I've met many incompetent white males in over their heads.

fiblye 8y ago
I’ve met many incompetent people who don’t belong at their job. Race and gender isn’t related.
- OpieCunningham 8y ago
  Good. Then we're in agreement that hiring for diversity is of no detriment. Incompetent white people are hired because of subconscious bias and incompetent people of color are hired because of diversity goals. We've achieved equality.
  - fiblye 8y ago
    I think anyone who hires purely for race or appearance or physical diversity is absolutely incompetent. Having a fully conscious bias that intentionally hiring people physically different from you just because they’re physically different is pure, undiluted incompetence at the highest level and absolutely against equality since it gives preference to specific groups. In that sense, yes, we’re in full agreement and you intentionally warping my obvious meaning to guilt me into your line of thought won’t work.
    - OpieCunningham 8y ago
      > In that sense, yes, we’re in full agreement and you intentionally warping my obvious meaning to guilt me into your line of thought won’t work. The problem with your conclusion here is that I absolutely agree that people can be incompetent regardless of race or gender. Indeed: that was the entire point of my comment you were responding to. As that was the entirety of your statement, to which I pointed out our agreement, I fail to see how I intentionally warped it. That you ALSO meant: it is therefore not necessary to take any action to counter racism, is not "obvious" in your original statement. Clearly I was unable to read your mind when I replied to you.
  - OpieCunningham 8y ago
    > absolutely against equality since it gives preference to specific groups Clearly we disagree significantly. But I mean, really: When reality is not equal, preference must be given to achieve equality. This is just obvious.
    - manfredo 8y ago
      So my company's diversity policies are bad? Women account for 20% of computing graduates, but 39% of our new grad hires in computing roles The resukts of our hiring process are very unequal, women are hired at twice the rate. And not only are we not giving preferences equate this imbalance, we are actually deliberately employing discrimination to exacerbate it.
  - manfredo 8y ago
    > We've achieved equality Many would debate this. At my company our new grads hired last year were 39% women while ~20% of graduates in computing related fields were women. The percentage of applicants were even lower than that. Some disagree that continuing to apply affirmative action in spite of a proportional overrepresentation of nearly 2x is equality. Granted others view things in terms of relationship with the total population, so it's not like there's one right answer here.
    - OpieCunningham 8y ago
      Many might debate it in those terms, but generally I won't because using statistics such as you've provided cannot produce a definitive argument for either side. If 20% of graduates are women, is that because of subconscious bias favoring men in admissions or grading? Or because of subconscious bias favoring boys in elementary school towards STEM? Or because of subconscious bias in society saying boys work and girls take care of the home? Etc. Unless the answer is "No" to all of these, then 39% women in a workplace cannot be considered evidence of either equality or inequality. However, until we have some means of determining that women are genetically predisposed to disfavor STEM (and these genetics are clearly not confused with the impact of societal child rearing), we do have a statistic we can use: roughly 50% of humans are women. Get back to me after 100 more years of progress towards equalizing race and gender through actions designed to fight subconscious bias, and then we can look at what your hiring percentages are vs. graduate percentages, and whether those actions are still necessary or sufficient.
      - manfredo 8y ago
        > If 20% of graduates are women, is that because of subconscious bias favoring men in admissions or grading? I'm not sure I follow. At most American universities students don't declare their major until after they are admitted. Usually not until their second year. Women already outnumber men in university by a substantial margin. Women make up 60% of students in American universities. There are some Universities focused explicitly on engineering, but many of those actually favor women substantially. Massachusetts Institute of Technology and CalTech for instance admit women at over twice the rate of men: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/03/13/want-an-edge-in-college-admissions-see-the-schools-where-women-and-men-have-an-advantage/?utm_term=.4e433fc8ce51 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/03/1... I really don't see the much support for the argument that universities are discriminating against women. In fact, there's substantial evidence of the opposite.
Reedx 8y ago
That's the Peter Principle, and it applies to everyone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle
mamurphy 8y ago
There are tons of people over their heads, everywhere, of all races and sexes. But as the other person who replied to you noted, people now are openly stating that they want to avoid hiring white males. >Sadly I've had to bring up my genetic background recently as a pure survival mechanism because people keep telling me to my face that they don't want to hire white men so I need to let them know I'm not white so I don't get instantly filtered out. In recent times, I have not heard that more frequently about any other race/sex combination. To me it's undeniable that the hiring climate has changed drastically.
- OpieCunningham 8y ago
  You were stating that "things have changed" in response to my statement that white males are often hired because of subconscious bias. That there are recent diversity hiring programs does not mean that white males are no longer hired because of subconscious bias. Clearly, diversity hiring programs are new things that did not exist decades ago.
  - mamurphy 8y ago
    Ah, to be clear: Subconscious biases still exist to some degree. In recent years, in government and large corporations, diversity hiring goals have completely dominated the hiring process compared to subconscious biases. I don't think you agree with that statement; if you did, would you think that it is a good result? I don't. I don't think the solution to past unfairness is to tilt the see-saw in the other direction, creating more unfairness. You replied to another poster: >Good. Then we're in agreement that hiring for diversity is of no detriment. Incompetent white people are hired because of subconscious bias and incompetent people of color are hired because of diversity goals. We've achieved equality. I disagree strongly, and I somewhat agree with that poster's response to you. To me, equality means equality of process. To reclaim a phrase: equal opportunity -- not equal results. All bias is bad and should be fought against. Anti-bias training, examining disproportionate results to see if bias was an underlying cause, and race/sex-blind hiring, all are possible steps in the right direction. To correct for subconscious bias for white males with conscious bias against them hardly seems the path towards equality.

fiblye 8y ago

I’ve met many incompetent people who don’t belong at their job. Race and gender isn’t related.

OpieCunningham 8y ago
Good. Then we're in agreement that hiring for diversity is of no detriment. Incompetent white people are hired because of subconscious bias and incompetent people of color are hired because of diversity goals. We've achieved equality.
- fiblye 8y ago
  I think anyone who hires purely for race or appearance or physical diversity is absolutely incompetent. Having a fully conscious bias that intentionally hiring people physically different from you just because they’re physically different is pure, undiluted incompetence at the highest level and absolutely against equality since it gives preference to specific groups. In that sense, yes, we’re in full agreement and you intentionally warping my obvious meaning to guilt me into your line of thought won’t work.
  - OpieCunningham 8y ago
    > In that sense, yes, we’re in full agreement and you intentionally warping my obvious meaning to guilt me into your line of thought won’t work. The problem with your conclusion here is that I absolutely agree that people can be incompetent regardless of race or gender. Indeed: that was the entire point of my comment you were responding to. As that was the entirety of your statement, to which I pointed out our agreement, I fail to see how I intentionally warped it. That you ALSO meant: it is therefore not necessary to take any action to counter racism, is not "obvious" in your original statement. Clearly I was unable to read your mind when I replied to you.
- OpieCunningham 8y ago
  > absolutely against equality since it gives preference to specific groups Clearly we disagree significantly. But I mean, really: When reality is not equal, preference must be given to achieve equality. This is just obvious.
  - manfredo 8y ago
    So my company's diversity policies are bad? Women account for 20% of computing graduates, but 39% of our new grad hires in computing roles The resukts of our hiring process are very unequal, women are hired at twice the rate. And not only are we not giving preferences equate this imbalance, we are actually deliberately employing discrimination to exacerbate it.
- manfredo 8y ago
  > We've achieved equality Many would debate this. At my company our new grads hired last year were 39% women while ~20% of graduates in computing related fields were women. The percentage of applicants were even lower than that. Some disagree that continuing to apply affirmative action in spite of a proportional overrepresentation of nearly 2x is equality. Granted others view things in terms of relationship with the total population, so it's not like there's one right answer here.
  - OpieCunningham 8y ago
    Many might debate it in those terms, but generally I won't because using statistics such as you've provided cannot produce a definitive argument for either side. If 20% of graduates are women, is that because of subconscious bias favoring men in admissions or grading? Or because of subconscious bias favoring boys in elementary school towards STEM? Or because of subconscious bias in society saying boys work and girls take care of the home? Etc. Unless the answer is "No" to all of these, then 39% women in a workplace cannot be considered evidence of either equality or inequality. However, until we have some means of determining that women are genetically predisposed to disfavor STEM (and these genetics are clearly not confused with the impact of societal child rearing), we do have a statistic we can use: roughly 50% of humans are women. Get back to me after 100 more years of progress towards equalizing race and gender through actions designed to fight subconscious bias, and then we can look at what your hiring percentages are vs. graduate percentages, and whether those actions are still necessary or sufficient.
    - manfredo 8y ago
      > If 20% of graduates are women, is that because of subconscious bias favoring men in admissions or grading? I'm not sure I follow. At most American universities students don't declare their major until after they are admitted. Usually not until their second year. Women already outnumber men in university by a substantial margin. Women make up 60% of students in American universities. There are some Universities focused explicitly on engineering, but many of those actually favor women substantially. Massachusetts Institute of Technology and CalTech for instance admit women at over twice the rate of men: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/03/13/want-an-edge-in-college-admissions-see-the-schools-where-women-and-men-have-an-advantage/?utm_term=.4e433fc8ce51 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/03/1... I really don't see the much support for the argument that universities are discriminating against women. In fact, there's substantial evidence of the opposite.

Reedx 8y ago

That's the Peter Principle, and it applies to everyone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle

mamurphy 8y ago

There are tons of people over their heads, everywhere, of all races and sexes. But as the other person who replied to you noted, people now are openly stating that they want to avoid hiring white males. >Sadly I've had to bring up my genetic background recently as a pure survival mechanism because people keep telling me to my face that they don't want to hire white men so I need to let them know I'm not white so I don't get instantly filtered out. In recent times, I have not heard that more frequently about any other race/sex combination. To me it's undeniable that the hiring climate has changed drastically.

OpieCunningham 8y ago
You were stating that "things have changed" in response to my statement that white males are often hired because of subconscious bias. That there are recent diversity hiring programs does not mean that white males are no longer hired because of subconscious bias. Clearly, diversity hiring programs are new things that did not exist decades ago.
- mamurphy 8y ago
  Ah, to be clear: Subconscious biases still exist to some degree. In recent years, in government and large corporations, diversity hiring goals have completely dominated the hiring process compared to subconscious biases. I don't think you agree with that statement; if you did, would you think that it is a good result? I don't. I don't think the solution to past unfairness is to tilt the see-saw in the other direction, creating more unfairness. You replied to another poster: >Good. Then we're in agreement that hiring for diversity is of no detriment. Incompetent white people are hired because of subconscious bias and incompetent people of color are hired because of diversity goals. We've achieved equality. I disagree strongly, and I somewhat agree with that poster's response to you. To me, equality means equality of process. To reclaim a phrase: equal opportunity -- not equal results. All bias is bad and should be fought against. Anti-bias training, examining disproportionate results to see if bias was an underlying cause, and race/sex-blind hiring, all are possible steps in the right direction. To correct for subconscious bias for white males with conscious bias against them hardly seems the path towards equality.