9 ms·

>Diversity in science is not just for optics. We need scientists from diverse backgrounds in all senses of the word—race, ethnicity, gender, class, ability, geo

>Diversity in science is not just for optics. We need scientists from diverse backgrounds in all senses of the word—race, ethnicity, gender, class, ability, geography, etc If you don't want science to be attacked politically, don't politicize science. We don't need to make sure that our scientists represent every color of the skin spectrum with a representative range of disabilities. We need objective, competent workers, with a diversity of scientific, not cultural views.

tomatotomato37 7y ago
I'm more concerned what they mean by diversity of ability. Is that just another term for physically disabled people, or are we seriously at the point where only having smart people in the sciences is offensive?
chris_mc 7y ago
>diversity of scientific, not cultural views Your cultural views can affect your scientific work. The imagination of children in America vs. China is different, people have different dreams and experiences, etc. I am constantly baffled by people like yourself who don't understand that cultural diversity IS diversity of ideas. Whether that culture comes from your location, race, upbringing, wealth, religion, or something else, any sort of diversity is good in business or other organization as it helps you think of new ways to innovate within your area of expertise.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- fromthestart 7y ago
  And I'm constantly baffled by people like yourself who have accepted that culture influences technical work, but are unable to draw the logical conclusion that certain cultures are therefore better predisposed to success in a given industry than others. You can't have it both ways. If we concede that culture influences ability, then we must accept that merit based hiring will inevitably result in disproportionate representation, and that hiring for the purpose of representation is very likely to have a negative impact on technical work.
  - komali2 7y ago
    I believe the difference is the concept of "uplifting." Given two people, one who had money and therefore lots of high-quality STEM education, and another who does not have money and struggling to acquire a STEM education while also dealing with poverty (and the poorer quality education that comes with it), yes, probably the rich kid will do better at their job sooner. But there's nothing inherently preventing the poorer kid from doing just as good, if not better, a job. Get them on the job, help them deal with the obstacles, and they're just another person, and across populations that means equally likely to "perform" or "succeed." Meanwhile, you also have the advantage of their unique cultural perspectives. You can have it both ways, the question is whether you take that information and say "fuck it, don't hire poors, they didn't get as good of an education and therefore will preform worse," or you say "if we invest time in this underrepresented culture, we may be exposed to markets we didn't even realize existed."
    - xamuel 7y ago
      That's a really interesting way of looking at things. How do you reconcile that with the notion of Darwinian evolution? Is it not true that individual organisms are born with small mutations which make them more or less suitable for an environment, and that over long time periods, the ones who are more suitable for an environment will flourish in that environment? Are you suggesting the individual could reverse a detrimental inherited mutation in his own lifetime (as opposed to the lifetime of his distant descendants), if properly nurtured?
      - chris_mc 7y ago
        Are you fucking saying that Darwinian evolution is the cause of underrepresented minorities in white collar jobs? What fucking planet are you from?
        xamuel 7y ago
        Please don't use foul language. I'm genuinely interested in komali2's answer. I'm not pulling some rhetorical trick or something. Please follow HN guidelines and give fellow commenters the benefit of the doubt. There are obviously many causes of under-representation of minorities, not least of which is that if they were more fully represented, then that would help them to pass their genes along and thus over a long period of time, they would cease to BE minorities to begin with.
BrainlingPdx 7y ago
Except that we are now seeing this is WRONG. Look at AI and machine learning. We are now finding algorithms that have implicit racial biases because the only people who worked on them were Asian and Caucasian. Not that the people working on them explicitly tried to write the algorithms with bias, they simply did because humans are BAD at projecting outside of their own experiences and what they see in the mirror. That's not politics, that's facts. You can get angry about it and yell "POLITICS POLITICS", but the fact is we are creating bias AI by not having representation at the table when those algorithms are being built. How many other parts of science, like disease research, can be affected by this? We don't know because we can't even have the conversation without people yelling about politicizing and SJWs.
- xamuel 7y ago
  What would it take for you to falsify your stance? If nothing can make you falsify it, then that's not science, that's pseudoscience. Unconscious bias entering AI is bad. But consider this scenario. Imagine for decades, there's been a chemical leak in Cleveland, which has been causing people there to become worse at math. An AI detects that people from Cleveland are worse at math. Do you just throw the data away because it must be subconscious human bias? If you do, you're throwing away a chance to discover the underlying cause (the leak)! Who knows what sort of things we've thrown away on the altar of "everyone must be equal, there can be no nuance"!
  - kaitai 7y ago
    This is a straw man argument. It's easy to find examples of algorithms that are biased -- let's just look at facial recognition. Sure, there are situations like what you describe, but are you going to argue then that dark-skinned women really must be men, or more manly, or something, just because Amazon's facial recognition algorithm has trouble with dark-skinned women? The parent is not making a "scientific" claim. They are making a workflow/process claim. It is not the case that all things are "science" or "pseudoscience". There are many other topics humans can discuss.
    - 7y ago
tzs 7y ago
> We don't need to make sure that our scientists represent every color of the skin spectrum with a representative range of disabilities. We need objective, competent workers, with a diversity of scientific, not cultural views In terms of getting science done, you are almost certainly right. However, if we want the results of science to be applied, rather than just remaining of academic interest, diversity among scientists might be important because the members of the general public and the politicians that represent them are probably more likely to listen to scientists who are like them.
- flukus 7y ago
  Two of the biggest science personalities of the last decade or two have been Neil Tyson and Michio Kaku, presumably you think replacing them with white men would have led to more acceptance of science given the ethnic distribution?

tomatotomato37 7y ago

I'm more concerned what they mean by diversity of ability. Is that just another term for physically disabled people, or are we seriously at the point where only having smart people in the sciences is offensive?

chris_mc 7y ago

>diversity of scientific, not cultural views Your cultural views can affect your scientific work. The imagination of children in America vs. China is different, people have different dreams and experiences, etc. I am constantly baffled by people like yourself who don't understand that cultural diversity IS diversity of ideas. Whether that culture comes from your location, race, upbringing, wealth, religion, or something else, any sort of diversity is good in business or other organization as it helps you think of new ways to innovate within your area of expertise.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
fromthestart 7y ago
And I'm constantly baffled by people like yourself who have accepted that culture influences technical work, but are unable to draw the logical conclusion that certain cultures are therefore better predisposed to success in a given industry than others. You can't have it both ways. If we concede that culture influences ability, then we must accept that merit based hiring will inevitably result in disproportionate representation, and that hiring for the purpose of representation is very likely to have a negative impact on technical work.
- komali2 7y ago
  I believe the difference is the concept of "uplifting." Given two people, one who had money and therefore lots of high-quality STEM education, and another who does not have money and struggling to acquire a STEM education while also dealing with poverty (and the poorer quality education that comes with it), yes, probably the rich kid will do better at their job sooner. But there's nothing inherently preventing the poorer kid from doing just as good, if not better, a job. Get them on the job, help them deal with the obstacles, and they're just another person, and across populations that means equally likely to "perform" or "succeed." Meanwhile, you also have the advantage of their unique cultural perspectives. You can have it both ways, the question is whether you take that information and say "fuck it, don't hire poors, they didn't get as good of an education and therefore will preform worse," or you say "if we invest time in this underrepresented culture, we may be exposed to markets we didn't even realize existed."
  - xamuel 7y ago
    That's a really interesting way of looking at things. How do you reconcile that with the notion of Darwinian evolution? Is it not true that individual organisms are born with small mutations which make them more or less suitable for an environment, and that over long time periods, the ones who are more suitable for an environment will flourish in that environment? Are you suggesting the individual could reverse a detrimental inherited mutation in his own lifetime (as opposed to the lifetime of his distant descendants), if properly nurtured?
    - chris_mc 7y ago
      Are you fucking saying that Darwinian evolution is the cause of underrepresented minorities in white collar jobs? What fucking planet are you from?
      - xamuel 7y ago
        Please don't use foul language. I'm genuinely interested in komali2's answer. I'm not pulling some rhetorical trick or something. Please follow HN guidelines and give fellow commenters the benefit of the doubt. There are obviously many causes of under-representation of minorities, not least of which is that if they were more fully represented, then that would help them to pass their genes along and thus over a long period of time, they would cease to BE minorities to begin with.

BrainlingPdx 7y ago

Except that we are now seeing this is WRONG. Look at AI and machine learning. We are now finding algorithms that have implicit racial biases because the only people who worked on them were Asian and Caucasian. Not that the people working on them explicitly tried to write the algorithms with bias, they simply did because humans are BAD at projecting outside of their own experiences and what they see in the mirror. That's not politics, that's facts. You can get angry about it and yell "POLITICS POLITICS", but the fact is we are creating bias AI by not having representation at the table when those algorithms are being built. How many other parts of science, like disease research, can be affected by this? We don't know because we can't even have the conversation without people yelling about politicizing and SJWs.

xamuel 7y ago
What would it take for you to falsify your stance? If nothing can make you falsify it, then that's not science, that's pseudoscience. Unconscious bias entering AI is bad. But consider this scenario. Imagine for decades, there's been a chemical leak in Cleveland, which has been causing people there to become worse at math. An AI detects that people from Cleveland are worse at math. Do you just throw the data away because it must be subconscious human bias? If you do, you're throwing away a chance to discover the underlying cause (the leak)! Who knows what sort of things we've thrown away on the altar of "everyone must be equal, there can be no nuance"!
- kaitai 7y ago
  This is a straw man argument. It's easy to find examples of algorithms that are biased -- let's just look at facial recognition. Sure, there are situations like what you describe, but are you going to argue then that dark-skinned women really must be men, or more manly, or something, just because Amazon's facial recognition algorithm has trouble with dark-skinned women? The parent is not making a "scientific" claim. They are making a workflow/process claim. It is not the case that all things are "science" or "pseudoscience". There are many other topics humans can discuss.
  - 7y ago

tzs 7y ago

> We don't need to make sure that our scientists represent every color of the skin spectrum with a representative range of disabilities. We need objective, competent workers, with a diversity of scientific, not cultural views In terms of getting science done, you are almost certainly right. However, if we want the results of science to be applied, rather than just remaining of academic interest, diversity among scientists might be important because the members of the general public and the politicians that represent them are probably more likely to listen to scientists who are like them.

flukus 7y ago
Two of the biggest science personalities of the last decade or two have been Neil Tyson and Michio Kaku, presumably you think replacing them with white men would have led to more acceptance of science given the ethnic distribution?