5 ms·

>diversity of scientific, not cultural views Your cultural views can affect your scientific work. The imagination of children in America vs. China is different

>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.
        chris_mc 7y ago
        No, I will not be civil with someone saying, literally, that minorities are less genetically able to do certain jobs. Fuck off.
        xamuel 7y ago
        Reverse the cause and effect. I am not saying "minorities are less genetically able to do certain jobs". Rather, I (and Charles Darwin) are saying "people less genetically able to do certain jobs tend to become minorities". That's Biology 101, or it would be if there was less politicization of science!

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.
      - chris_mc 7y ago
        No, I will not be civil with someone saying, literally, that minorities are less genetically able to do certain jobs. Fuck off.
        xamuel 7y ago
        Reverse the cause and effect. I am not saying "minorities are less genetically able to do certain jobs". Rather, I (and Charles Darwin) are saying "people less genetically able to do certain jobs tend to become minorities". That's Biology 101, or it would be if there was less politicization of science!