5 ms·

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

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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y ago
      No, I will not be civil with someone saying, literally, that minorities are less genetically able to do certain jobs. Fuck off.
      - xamuel 8y 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!
        komali2 8y ago
        >"people less genetically able to do certain jobs tend to become minorities" This is a sidenote to my longer comment - I've never seen evidence, ever, of a genetic component to the ability to do a certain job, that surpasses a statistical margin of error.
        rosterface 8y ago
        That’s not true. Arguably all professional athletics require a very large genetic component. Good luck in the NBA if you’re 5’1” tall. I think the ability to accurately identify tones is also largely genetic, so professional musicians are probably on the list as well. My guess is that software development also has genetic mental requirements but there’s no definitive answer for that. Probably a lot of jobs have genetic components whether that’s cognitive speed, athletic ability, ability to focus, fine motor control, a particular enhanced sense...
        komali2 8y ago
        >Good luck in the NBA if you’re 5’1” tall. Sure, you're not wrong, but you've just stated an individual trait, not a population one. Try now to make the argument that someone is more "likely" to be pro NBA if they're of some arbitrarily chosen genetic background. You will run into the fact that 1. You will be totally unable to create rigid constraints for your genetic background, and 2. Statistical variance will be so high that you won't actually be generating useful information anyway (i.e. an effective predictor). So yea, maybe one couple of tall people could have a tall kid and of course the kid has a better chance at the NBA than a short kid (sort of maybe. He could end up a footsie god, it's happened before and we have no way of predicting when it will happen next), but they might have had a short kid despite their genetic factors so the point is moot. >My guess is that software development also has genetic mental requirements but there’s no definitive answer for that You may guess all you want but I carefully avoid any feelings that are not fact based and don't generate any useful planning or information for me so I disagree with this point. There's simply no evidence of this and I don't see how this information could be significant enough to have an effect on any decisions I make in life (for example, hiring decisions).
  - fromthestart 8y ago
    Is it really so outlandish to suggest that populations have diverged cognitively after tens-hundreds of thousands of years of separation? Or are you really that determined to pretend that all population differences just stop at the shoulders? The consistently different outward expression of genetic variation among populations is obvious - skin color, height, weight, fat proportion, hair type, eye color, predisposition to disease - everything is influenced by our genes. But you don't think you're performing Olympic level mental gymnastics in pretending that a structure as complex as the brain isn't deeply influenced by heritable genes? You cannot judge plausibility by convenience. Nature is cruel, and your outrage is inappropriate.
    - komali2 8y ago
      > Is it really so outlandish to suggest that populations have diverged cognitively after tens-hundreds of thousands of years of separation? Yes, actually, because civilization is only (barely) 10,000 years old, which is not many generations to develop "cognitive" difference. Take a newborn member of one population, plop it in one on the other side of the planet, and in 20 years they'll be indistinguishable from anyone else (minus whatever effects that society applies to the child due to differences in their appearance). I disagree the genetic heritage of an individual affects their cognitive ability in a way to overcome statistical error, with all the cognitive "noise" of society existing. It should therefore be disregarded.
      - fromthestart 8y ago
        Humans diverged long before the appearance of civilization. According to Wikipedia[1], the first homo sapien migration out of Africa began 300,000 years ago. >Take a newborn member of one population, plop it in one on the other side of the planet, and in 20 years they'll be indistinguishable from anyone else (minus whatever effects that society applies to the child due to differences in their appearance). Your point that all differences arise from societal treatment is debatable. There are adoptive population studies from the late 20th century where non-white infants adopted by white families were evaluated during adolescence and consistently showed measurable, significant differences SAT scores, for example. Of course, how much of that is still an effect of nurture neither of us can say. Ultimately it is still an open question, but, appropos to the article, the current political climate of the scientific establishment will unlikely allow for an unbiased study, or any study, into the subject.
- komali2 8y ago
  > 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? Very true. Nothing has changed about the facts of natural selection in biology. I'm not talking about biology, though, I'm talking about sociology, and I don't think the mechanisms that act on biology have much of anything to do with sociology. For example, we can demonstrate that natural selection can be totally annihilated by, for example, keeping people with birth defects alive with medicine. We can even develop entire industries around keeping these people "equal." One of these industries is Optometry. > 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? Since we are talking about sociology, the "mutation" is a result of society, not of biology (or anything to do with the individual, really), in which case yes, any aspect caused sociologically can be reversed/changed/altered sociologically. People born poor and thus lacking education can be given education, which both solves the problem for new "people born poor" while also "reversing" the detrimental effects of a lacking education in existent individuals (through nurturing them). I believe this method of nurturing or uplifting is not only morally superior to the concept of social darwinism (and I am happy to defend this point moralistically), but it is also better by all other traditional measures of society "success" - average happiness, productivity, technological advancement.
  - xamuel 8y ago
    Thanks for the answer. I think you touch on something with the Optometry example, and that example helped me to articulate a proto-idea I've been trying to get a finger on and haven't been able to grasp until now. To avoid unnecessary anguish, pretend there's a country called Foo. Natives of Foo are much less intelligent than the average human, and racists point to them as an example validating their racism. But imagine what's really going on is, the natives of Foo are all genetically disposed to have terrible sleep apnea, and that's what's causing their reduced intelligence. If we ask "Why on earth are natives of Foo less intelligent?", then we can follow that thread and eventually realize it's because they all have sleep apnea. Then we can give them CPAP machines and fix the problem. But if we dogmatically put our fingers in our ears and scream "everyone is equal!", then we have no hope of sorting the mess out. It would be as ludicrous as condemning optometry because we're afraid of hurting the feelings of people born with poor eyes. Thanks for the comments about sociology vs. biology. Pragmatically speaking, we need to figure out how we can change our society to legitimately incentivize this "uplifting" (it isn't free). Our current tactic seems to be to brainwash people about magic pixie dust qualities of diversity. This doesn't do anybody any favors, because the invisible hand of the market doesn't care about propaganda. Push it far enough and the whole job market will be made of shell company contracting agencies whose sole purpose is to take on "diversity liability".
- tomhoward 8y ago
  This position hinges on the giant assumption that "genetic mutations" are effectively the only important factor in one's life outcomes. It's a point of view I'm thoroughly familiar with as I've read/listened to plenty of material by Richard Dawkins et al, and spent a solid few years of my life subscribing to that deterministic/materialistic worldview. But, both for reasons of curiosity and personal need, it's a worldview I ended up researching deeply enough to progress beyond, and it turns out there's plenty of evidence that factors beyond one's genetic code are at least as important, and quite possibly vastly more so. Most importantly: genetic expression (epigenetics), which we already know can change during one's lifetime, and may be able to be changed far more significantly/rapidly, and have a far greater propensity to change one's life outcomes, than has been previously accepted. > 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? I don't suggest that but I think it's far less important than you assume. However I do suggest that a person can reverse a detrimental genetic expression if properly nurtured. I've spent about the last 8 years putting this hypothesis to the test and so far have been successful in overcoming multiple debilitating health conditions and dramatically improving my capabilities and outcomes in my professional and personal life. And yes, I'm fully cognisant that I am an n=1 self-evaluated anecdote, so my case is at-best suggestive, not conclusive. But I'm not alone in applying these theories and having these kinds of outcomes, and there is a growing body of scientific theory and research to provide a basis for these experiences/observations.
malvosenior 8y ago
> But there's nothing inherently preventing the poorer kid from doing just as good, if not better, a job. Maybe, maybe not. I say this as a poor person who often out competes people with much more privileged backgrounds. There are plenty of "stereotypical poor people" that will never be as good as those who grew up with healthy diets, education, parental supervision... Yes, I've done well but I was always in the top 1% of achievement, even when poor. People like me are already succeeding today and don't need any special "uplifting". Those that do will most likely never be at the level of their peers. If they could, they would already be there.
- chris_mc 8y ago
  Just because you didn't need uplifting doesn't mean others don't need it. Your "bootstraps" argument is such BS.
  - malvosenior 8y ago
    You did not refute any of my points. Do you really think lowering the barrier of entry for poor people then giving them on the job training will bring them to the level of people that are already high performing? Companies do not have the resources to make that happen as it would require decades of training, education, therapy, life adjustments... just to get to the same level as some people have coming through the door (including some poor people who were self driven).
    - chris_mc 8y ago
      HN is such a cesspool of ignorant fucks like yourself, get fucked and die.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - komali2 8y ago
      > Companies do not have the resources to make that happen as it would require decades of training, education, therapy, life adjustments... just to get to the same level as some people have coming through the door (including some poor people who were self driven). Well, then perhaps they'll be missing out on some of the advantages that you've listed as your own selling points - perhaps a stronger sense of entrepreneurship, problem solving, and hardiness? In any case, I disagree that the burden on businesses would be that significant. I've seen coding bootcamps churn out pretty decent frontend engineers in 3 months. Make it 6 and who knows what a company could do. Furthermore, I don't believe it is necessarily a company's job to solve, like, illiteracy. That would be the governments' job, and considering a higher literacy would drive a greater GDP (and make a better society), that should be an objective everyone strives for. To do that, we need people that have lived through those situations to find the best way to lift people out of bad situations. To do that, we need their perspective. To get their perspective, we need them working for us... which means we need diversity.

xamuel 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y ago
    No, I will not be civil with someone saying, literally, that minorities are less genetically able to do certain jobs. Fuck off.
    - xamuel 8y 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!
      - komali2 8y ago
        >"people less genetically able to do certain jobs tend to become minorities" This is a sidenote to my longer comment - I've never seen evidence, ever, of a genetic component to the ability to do a certain job, that surpasses a statistical margin of error.
        rosterface 8y ago
        That’s not true. Arguably all professional athletics require a very large genetic component. Good luck in the NBA if you’re 5’1” tall. I think the ability to accurately identify tones is also largely genetic, so professional musicians are probably on the list as well. My guess is that software development also has genetic mental requirements but there’s no definitive answer for that. Probably a lot of jobs have genetic components whether that’s cognitive speed, athletic ability, ability to focus, fine motor control, a particular enhanced sense...
        komali2 8y ago
        >Good luck in the NBA if you’re 5’1” tall. Sure, you're not wrong, but you've just stated an individual trait, not a population one. Try now to make the argument that someone is more "likely" to be pro NBA if they're of some arbitrarily chosen genetic background. You will run into the fact that 1. You will be totally unable to create rigid constraints for your genetic background, and 2. Statistical variance will be so high that you won't actually be generating useful information anyway (i.e. an effective predictor). So yea, maybe one couple of tall people could have a tall kid and of course the kid has a better chance at the NBA than a short kid (sort of maybe. He could end up a footsie god, it's happened before and we have no way of predicting when it will happen next), but they might have had a short kid despite their genetic factors so the point is moot. >My guess is that software development also has genetic mental requirements but there’s no definitive answer for that You may guess all you want but I carefully avoid any feelings that are not fact based and don't generate any useful planning or information for me so I disagree with this point. There's simply no evidence of this and I don't see how this information could be significant enough to have an effect on any decisions I make in life (for example, hiring decisions).
- fromthestart 8y ago
  Is it really so outlandish to suggest that populations have diverged cognitively after tens-hundreds of thousands of years of separation? Or are you really that determined to pretend that all population differences just stop at the shoulders? The consistently different outward expression of genetic variation among populations is obvious - skin color, height, weight, fat proportion, hair type, eye color, predisposition to disease - everything is influenced by our genes. But you don't think you're performing Olympic level mental gymnastics in pretending that a structure as complex as the brain isn't deeply influenced by heritable genes? You cannot judge plausibility by convenience. Nature is cruel, and your outrage is inappropriate.
  - komali2 8y ago
    > Is it really so outlandish to suggest that populations have diverged cognitively after tens-hundreds of thousands of years of separation? Yes, actually, because civilization is only (barely) 10,000 years old, which is not many generations to develop "cognitive" difference. Take a newborn member of one population, plop it in one on the other side of the planet, and in 20 years they'll be indistinguishable from anyone else (minus whatever effects that society applies to the child due to differences in their appearance). I disagree the genetic heritage of an individual affects their cognitive ability in a way to overcome statistical error, with all the cognitive "noise" of society existing. It should therefore be disregarded.
    - fromthestart 8y ago
      Humans diverged long before the appearance of civilization. According to Wikipedia[1], the first homo sapien migration out of Africa began 300,000 years ago. >Take a newborn member of one population, plop it in one on the other side of the planet, and in 20 years they'll be indistinguishable from anyone else (minus whatever effects that society applies to the child due to differences in their appearance). Your point that all differences arise from societal treatment is debatable. There are adoptive population studies from the late 20th century where non-white infants adopted by white families were evaluated during adolescence and consistently showed measurable, significant differences SAT scores, for example. Of course, how much of that is still an effect of nurture neither of us can say. Ultimately it is still an open question, but, appropos to the article, the current political climate of the scientific establishment will unlikely allow for an unbiased study, or any study, into the subject.
komali2 8y ago
> 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? Very true. Nothing has changed about the facts of natural selection in biology. I'm not talking about biology, though, I'm talking about sociology, and I don't think the mechanisms that act on biology have much of anything to do with sociology. For example, we can demonstrate that natural selection can be totally annihilated by, for example, keeping people with birth defects alive with medicine. We can even develop entire industries around keeping these people "equal." One of these industries is Optometry. > 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? Since we are talking about sociology, the "mutation" is a result of society, not of biology (or anything to do with the individual, really), in which case yes, any aspect caused sociologically can be reversed/changed/altered sociologically. People born poor and thus lacking education can be given education, which both solves the problem for new "people born poor" while also "reversing" the detrimental effects of a lacking education in existent individuals (through nurturing them). I believe this method of nurturing or uplifting is not only morally superior to the concept of social darwinism (and I am happy to defend this point moralistically), but it is also better by all other traditional measures of society "success" - average happiness, productivity, technological advancement.
- xamuel 8y ago
  Thanks for the answer. I think you touch on something with the Optometry example, and that example helped me to articulate a proto-idea I've been trying to get a finger on and haven't been able to grasp until now. To avoid unnecessary anguish, pretend there's a country called Foo. Natives of Foo are much less intelligent than the average human, and racists point to them as an example validating their racism. But imagine what's really going on is, the natives of Foo are all genetically disposed to have terrible sleep apnea, and that's what's causing their reduced intelligence. If we ask "Why on earth are natives of Foo less intelligent?", then we can follow that thread and eventually realize it's because they all have sleep apnea. Then we can give them CPAP machines and fix the problem. But if we dogmatically put our fingers in our ears and scream "everyone is equal!", then we have no hope of sorting the mess out. It would be as ludicrous as condemning optometry because we're afraid of hurting the feelings of people born with poor eyes. Thanks for the comments about sociology vs. biology. Pragmatically speaking, we need to figure out how we can change our society to legitimately incentivize this "uplifting" (it isn't free). Our current tactic seems to be to brainwash people about magic pixie dust qualities of diversity. This doesn't do anybody any favors, because the invisible hand of the market doesn't care about propaganda. Push it far enough and the whole job market will be made of shell company contracting agencies whose sole purpose is to take on "diversity liability".
tomhoward 8y ago
This position hinges on the giant assumption that "genetic mutations" are effectively the only important factor in one's life outcomes. It's a point of view I'm thoroughly familiar with as I've read/listened to plenty of material by Richard Dawkins et al, and spent a solid few years of my life subscribing to that deterministic/materialistic worldview. But, both for reasons of curiosity and personal need, it's a worldview I ended up researching deeply enough to progress beyond, and it turns out there's plenty of evidence that factors beyond one's genetic code are at least as important, and quite possibly vastly more so. Most importantly: genetic expression (epigenetics), which we already know can change during one's lifetime, and may be able to be changed far more significantly/rapidly, and have a far greater propensity to change one's life outcomes, than has been previously accepted. > 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? I don't suggest that but I think it's far less important than you assume. However I do suggest that a person can reverse a detrimental genetic expression if properly nurtured. I've spent about the last 8 years putting this hypothesis to the test and so far have been successful in overcoming multiple debilitating health conditions and dramatically improving my capabilities and outcomes in my professional and personal life. And yes, I'm fully cognisant that I am an n=1 self-evaluated anecdote, so my case is at-best suggestive, not conclusive. But I'm not alone in applying these theories and having these kinds of outcomes, and there is a growing body of scientific theory and research to provide a basis for these experiences/observations.

malvosenior 8y ago

> But there's nothing inherently preventing the poorer kid from doing just as good, if not better, a job. Maybe, maybe not. I say this as a poor person who often out competes people with much more privileged backgrounds. There are plenty of "stereotypical poor people" that will never be as good as those who grew up with healthy diets, education, parental supervision... Yes, I've done well but I was always in the top 1% of achievement, even when poor. People like me are already succeeding today and don't need any special "uplifting". Those that do will most likely never be at the level of their peers. If they could, they would already be there.

chris_mc 8y ago
Just because you didn't need uplifting doesn't mean others don't need it. Your "bootstraps" argument is such BS.
- malvosenior 8y ago
  You did not refute any of my points. Do you really think lowering the barrier of entry for poor people then giving them on the job training will bring them to the level of people that are already high performing? Companies do not have the resources to make that happen as it would require decades of training, education, therapy, life adjustments... just to get to the same level as some people have coming through the door (including some poor people who were self driven).
  - chris_mc 8y ago
    HN is such a cesspool of ignorant fucks like yourself, get fucked and die.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - komali2 8y ago
    > Companies do not have the resources to make that happen as it would require decades of training, education, therapy, life adjustments... just to get to the same level as some people have coming through the door (including some poor people who were self driven). Well, then perhaps they'll be missing out on some of the advantages that you've listed as your own selling points - perhaps a stronger sense of entrepreneurship, problem solving, and hardiness? In any case, I disagree that the burden on businesses would be that significant. I've seen coding bootcamps churn out pretty decent frontend engineers in 3 months. Make it 6 and who knows what a company could do. Furthermore, I don't believe it is necessarily a company's job to solve, like, illiteracy. That would be the governments' job, and considering a higher literacy would drive a greater GDP (and make a better society), that should be an objective everyone strives for. To do that, we need people that have lived through those situations to find the best way to lift people out of bad situations. To do that, we need their perspective. To get their perspective, we need them working for us... which means we need diversity.