3 ms·

It can be both. Humans are complex as are human institutions. Increasing representation won’t happen if we ignore human nature to hire people we know. Alexis

It can be both. Humans are complex as are human institutions. Increasing representation won’t happen if we ignore human nature to hire people we know. Alexis knows Michael, he trust him from a shared history of working together. Unfortunately, there have not been as many minorities in the settings where these types of relationships are formed. But steps like this will increase that over time. So yes. I am clear. 1. People hire friends and people they have a history with. 2. Many people’s social circle looks more like them than the rest of society. 3. The funnel of qualified people will be smaller if we lean into that reality. 4. Increasing the diversity of decision makers at all levels will instead leverage that tendency to broaden the funnel and provide opportunities to more people thus strengthening meritocracy.

luckylion 6y ago
> It can be both. Humans are complex as are human institutions. I mean, yes, sure, but really not if you're reducing everything into very simple explanations like "it's the white heterosexual men". You can't claim "well, things are complex" when your explanation runs head first into the wall, your explanation claimed that they are not, that they are simple: that was the explanation. It's a problem when this explanation falls apart on the very example it was used to explain. > Many people’s social circle looks more like them than the rest of society. Yeah, but not because of race, but because of class. Yale graduates will know more Yale graduates than mechanics. Race is probably somewhere on the list, but I'm quite sure that whatever they study, their political opinions/worldview and taste in music come before that, because that's what creates their social circles. This "we think the same, we talk the same, we have the same worldview, we grew up in similar environments, we're interested in the same stuff, we are in the same income-percent, but our skin tone is different, we are so diverse" thing just doesn't compute for me.
- digitaltrees 6y ago
  I am not reducing it in that way. I am saying that questioning whether michael is qualified is an oversimplification. Why is Alexis saying he wants a black candidate the only factor people look at when their ready to declare this an unmeritocratic act? Why do they get to reduce this situation to one factor and ignore who Michael is and what he has done? Claiming this is just about class ignores the reality of current circumstances of race and power in America and the arch of history. Class and race are tightly coupled in America by design.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    > Why is Alexis saying he wants a black candidate the only factor people look at when their ready to declare this an unmeritocratic act? Because that's what he said. If he had said something about wanting somebody that can bring the community together, fix reddit's problems etc etc and then they came up with Michael Seidel, that would've been much better optics. This way, the only stated criteria was skin color. People tend to assume that the only stated criteria is the only important criteria. > Why do they get to reduce this situation to one factor and ignore who Michael is and what he has done? Because it has no relevance to the question. He could be the greatest person for the job in the history of humanity. They're not arguing he's a terrible fit. They're suggesting he wasn't hired because he's great at what he does, but because he has the right skin color. > Class and race are tightly coupled in America by design. That's obviously bullshit. If it were true, you'd have an upper class that makes up 60% of the population. Surprising fact: you don't.

luckylion 6y ago

> It can be both. Humans are complex as are human institutions. I mean, yes, sure, but really not if you're reducing everything into very simple explanations like "it's the white heterosexual men". You can't claim "well, things are complex" when your explanation runs head first into the wall, your explanation claimed that they are not, that they are simple: that was the explanation. It's a problem when this explanation falls apart on the very example it was used to explain. > Many people’s social circle looks more like them than the rest of society. Yeah, but not because of race, but because of class. Yale graduates will know more Yale graduates than mechanics. Race is probably somewhere on the list, but I'm quite sure that whatever they study, their political opinions/worldview and taste in music come before that, because that's what creates their social circles. This "we think the same, we talk the same, we have the same worldview, we grew up in similar environments, we're interested in the same stuff, we are in the same income-percent, but our skin tone is different, we are so diverse" thing just doesn't compute for me.

digitaltrees 6y ago
I am not reducing it in that way. I am saying that questioning whether michael is qualified is an oversimplification. Why is Alexis saying he wants a black candidate the only factor people look at when their ready to declare this an unmeritocratic act? Why do they get to reduce this situation to one factor and ignore who Michael is and what he has done? Claiming this is just about class ignores the reality of current circumstances of race and power in America and the arch of history. Class and race are tightly coupled in America by design.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > Why is Alexis saying he wants a black candidate the only factor people look at when their ready to declare this an unmeritocratic act? Because that's what he said. If he had said something about wanting somebody that can bring the community together, fix reddit's problems etc etc and then they came up with Michael Seidel, that would've been much better optics. This way, the only stated criteria was skin color. People tend to assume that the only stated criteria is the only important criteria. > Why do they get to reduce this situation to one factor and ignore who Michael is and what he has done? Because it has no relevance to the question. He could be the greatest person for the job in the history of humanity. They're not arguing he's a terrible fit. They're suggesting he wasn't hired because he's great at what he does, but because he has the right skin color. > Class and race are tightly coupled in America by design. That's obviously bullshit. If it were true, you'd have an upper class that makes up 60% of the population. Surprising fact: you don't.