4 ms·
> Certain demographics are less inclined towards certain jobs. This is true, but it isn't inherent to those demographics. I, as a male, was not inclined to bal
by auslegung 6y ago
> Certain demographics are less inclined towards certain jobs.
This is true, but it isn't inherent to those demographics. I, as a male, was not inclined to ballet dancer as a child. That's not because men aren't good at it, it's because in my culture, male ballet dancers were gay, and in my culture gay was one of the worst things a man could be. So if women are less inclined towards software jobs, is it because all, or at least most, women don't have what it takes? Or because their culture doesn't encourage girls to study that?
> Humans are not all equal in proclivities or even innate abilities.
This is such an obvious statement that it doesn't need stating and yet you do, so I'm hearing this as you intending to use it as proof that some demographics are not equal in proclivities or innate abilities, in which case see paragraph above.
> The proposed solution by diversity campaigners is usually some form of discrimination.
This may be true. An improperly considered "diversity initiative" can very much be "hire the insert_whatever_here so we have enough of those people around here", which can feel discriminatory to those who may be more qualified but weren't in the correct demographic, and can feel patronizing to those who may be less qualified but got the job because they were of a certain demographic. But just in case you or someone else takes this to mean we should give up on diversity initiatives, we shouldn't. Failure doesn't mean give up, it means iterate.
> An Asian male has a much, much higher bar to cross to go to university, get a tech job, or otherwise than any other group, for example.
... what?
> Equality of opportunity is a given, while equality of outcome is destructive and racist.
When I read this I hear that the equal opportunity is to be interviewed, but equal opportunity starts at birth. Actually before birth. Does Jeff Bezos' children and a child born into the foster care system have equal opportunity? No. You may argue that the child born into the foster care system has good enough opportunity, and that's the American dream, that anyone can rise above their adversities and make something of themselves. In this case it's a mixed bag. Some do, some don't. You can hear success stories from all kinds of people, but to me it's more significant to look at the people who haven't and won't "make something of themselves" and see if there are patterns. Are certain demographics over-represented in this group of people who aren't "making something of themselves"?
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago> ... what? Medical school admissions are the strongest example of this trend. Given the same MCAT score and GPA, Asian people are accepted at a rate significantly lower than average and something like half as often as the most favored groups. (https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/new-chart-illustrates-graphically-racial-preferences-for-blacks-and-hispanics-being-admitted-to-us-medical-schools/ https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/new-chart-illustrates-graphic...)
- lmm 6y ago> That's not because men aren't good at it, it's because in my culture, male ballet dancers were gay, and in my culture gay was one of the worst things a man could be. So if women are less inclined towards software jobs, is it because all, or at least most, women don't have what it takes? Or because their culture doesn't encourage girls to study that? Does that matter, at the company-doing-an-interview stage? Should a ballet troupe lower the bar for men to somehow "make up for" a culture that pushed out men who could have become talented ballerinos in a more just world? IMO that would be a lose-lose approach: bad for audiences, bad for ballerinos. And what if it's not cultural, but a genuine difference in preference? Aiming to ensure men have an equal opportunity to do ballet is a noble goal. Aiming to ensure an equal number of men do ballet, whether they want to or not, sounds like a totalitarian dystopia. > But just in case you or someone else takes this to mean we should give up on diversity initiatives, we shouldn't. Failure doesn't mean give up, it means iterate. How much harm would these initiatives have to do before you'd say we should step back? When it's clear that some people are not getting a fair chance, of course we should step in. But this space is badly in need of something akin to the Hippocratic oath: first, do no harm.
- 0xy 6y ago>Does Jeff Bezos' children and a child born into the foster care system have equal opportunity This is a bad example that works against you, because the data says that wealth tends to evaporate to 0 after 3 generations, or even sooner. Elon Musk came from South Africa from nothing. Will his children achieve the same height of success? Not a chance. >what? All of the Ivy Leagues consider race as part of admission in order to boost underrepresented groups artificially. This means Asian males have the highest bar to cross, while an underrepresented individual has the lowest bar to cross. This is inherently racist. >But just in case you or someone else takes this to mean we should give up on diversity initiatives, we shouldn't. Failure doesn't mean give up, it means iterate. Are you saying that just because your "diversity program" is explicitly and openly racist against Asians and other groups, you should double down? >So if women are less inclined towards software jobs, is it because all, or at least most, women don't have what it takes? That's a classic strawman argument. I've personally mentored and hired more than a dozen women. No, it means women are less inclined towards software pathways. Same reason men are less inclined towards being a beautician or in HR. To even propose the idea that everyone is inherently the same is racist and sexist. You're tearing down entire identities.