4 ms·

> But the entitlement (“you’re gonna take the job I’ve been working towards for years and give it to a new ‘diversity’ hire!?”) is the problem, especially in th

> But the entitlement (“you’re gonna take the job I’ve been working towards for years and give it to a new ‘diversity’ hire!?”) is the problem, especially in the upper ranks. Thank you for pointing out this exact mindset. As a cis white man myself, if I was up against someone else for the same position and we were equally matched in all ways except the other individual was in the minority when compared against the overall make-up of the position's peers, then I would fully expect the company to pick the other individual over me. Diversity is valuable because different life experiences which provide a different perspective are valuable. Additionally, a company is far more likely to attract top talent from diverse pools if you have diversity in your company. (I just realized you said this in your original post! "If you want to hire talent over the next decade, your company’s leadership needs to resemble your prospective employees because they take it as a hiring signal.")

ironmagma 6y ago
> except the other individual was in the minority when compared against the overall make-up of the position's peers Problem: that's everyone. No one brings your unique viewpoint of life. Just because two people look the same doesn't mean a lick about their life experiences or who they are on the inside. Everyone at your company, wherever you are, is fundamentally a completely different person from you. If you want real variety, the way to do that is by interviewing people, not by looking at them.
- knightofmars 6y ago
  Would you say that the experience of the average cis gender white man is as unique as that of the average cis gender black woman? Or that the average cis gender white man would have the experiences required to have the perspective of the average cis gender black woman?
  - ironmagma 6y ago
    No one has the experiences required to have the perspective of another person; that would require having lived two lives. Everyone has exactly one perspective, and because no one lives the exact same life, that perspective is unique. There’s some kind of belief going around that there are some kinds of people who understand some things in a way no one else can understand. This is tantamount to the “God works in mysterious ways” argument - because we can’t come up with a real dimension to make a claim about, we say there is something magically unique about being poor, or being asexual, or any number of things. Sorry to say, but I don’t believe in magic. There are a few dimensions poor people are more optimized along, for example, maybe grit and resiliency, and there are rough correlations along the racial boundaries as well. But until you actually talk to a person, you’ll have no idea who they are.
    - knightofmars 6y ago
      I'm extrapolating here, but effectively you're arguing that diversity initiatives don't provide any value because everyone lives a unique life?
      - ironmagma 6y ago
        That’s not something I agree with at all. What was said was > in the minority when compared against the overall make-up of the position's peers What I am saying is that a company is using skin color or sexual orientation as the basis for knowing this is doing it wrong. Yes, I believe being different from your peers makes you a better hire. But that’s what you gain from the interview, not what is gained from the observation of someone’s appearance (diversity scorecard).
- wayoutthere 6y ago
  This is reductionist to the point of being insulting. The problem is that when you interview people, the way you look has an impact on how the interviewer perceives and is able to communicate with you (implicit bias). The flip side is that when you have a little difficulty finding common ground with a person, it challenges you to find a way to relate. Which means listening to their experiences. Which generally makes for better products. But what it means is that the interviewer often judges the wrong criteria, and most interviews are about how well you are able to communicate to your interviewer (and not the other way around). When people talk about “intersectionality” this is what they mean. You can be privileged in one way but disadvantaged in another. Some intersectionalities are visible, and some are not. The more dissimilarity in your experiences, the more problems you will have communicating. Working through those problems and learning from one another is an invaluable part of the process — if you can make it through the interview in the first place.
  - ironmagma 6y ago
    > The problem is that when you interview people, the way you look has an impact on how the interviewer perceives and is able to communicate with you (implicit bias). I have to disagree with your core point. If that were the real problem, blind orchestra auditions would be held up as the gold standard for hiring practices. As it is, people want it torn down. [1] Though I agree with the aspect of working harder to empathize being good for business. Again, that’s what the interview is for. If you want diversity, add a behavioral segment to your interview loop and use it as an opportunity to actually understand the person. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/arts/music/blind-auditions-orchestras-race.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/arts/music/blind-audition...
  - golemiprague 6y ago
    Who says it makes for better products? what is this statement rely on? Is nintendo gameboy a bad product? Is hiphop a bad product? is google search a bad product? Because they were all developed by a pretty homogenous group of people. And if intersectionality means you are priviliged in one way and disadvantaged in another way then why do we need intersectionality? Isn't it just the inherent state of any individual on this planet? What is the need to put this individual into some arbitrary categories of race or gender or whatever else that in fashion among the D&I crowd? Just assume each person has their own circumstances which you probably know nothing about rather than assuming some priviliges based on skin colour or whatnot.

ironmagma 6y ago

> except the other individual was in the minority when compared against the overall make-up of the position's peers Problem: that's everyone. No one brings your unique viewpoint of life. Just because two people look the same doesn't mean a lick about their life experiences or who they are on the inside. Everyone at your company, wherever you are, is fundamentally a completely different person from you. If you want real variety, the way to do that is by interviewing people, not by looking at them.

knightofmars 6y ago
Would you say that the experience of the average cis gender white man is as unique as that of the average cis gender black woman? Or that the average cis gender white man would have the experiences required to have the perspective of the average cis gender black woman?
- ironmagma 6y ago
  No one has the experiences required to have the perspective of another person; that would require having lived two lives. Everyone has exactly one perspective, and because no one lives the exact same life, that perspective is unique. There’s some kind of belief going around that there are some kinds of people who understand some things in a way no one else can understand. This is tantamount to the “God works in mysterious ways” argument - because we can’t come up with a real dimension to make a claim about, we say there is something magically unique about being poor, or being asexual, or any number of things. Sorry to say, but I don’t believe in magic. There are a few dimensions poor people are more optimized along, for example, maybe grit and resiliency, and there are rough correlations along the racial boundaries as well. But until you actually talk to a person, you’ll have no idea who they are.
  - knightofmars 6y ago
    I'm extrapolating here, but effectively you're arguing that diversity initiatives don't provide any value because everyone lives a unique life?
    - ironmagma 6y ago
      That’s not something I agree with at all. What was said was > in the minority when compared against the overall make-up of the position's peers What I am saying is that a company is using skin color or sexual orientation as the basis for knowing this is doing it wrong. Yes, I believe being different from your peers makes you a better hire. But that’s what you gain from the interview, not what is gained from the observation of someone’s appearance (diversity scorecard).
wayoutthere 6y ago
This is reductionist to the point of being insulting. The problem is that when you interview people, the way you look has an impact on how the interviewer perceives and is able to communicate with you (implicit bias). The flip side is that when you have a little difficulty finding common ground with a person, it challenges you to find a way to relate. Which means listening to their experiences. Which generally makes for better products. But what it means is that the interviewer often judges the wrong criteria, and most interviews are about how well you are able to communicate to your interviewer (and not the other way around). When people talk about “intersectionality” this is what they mean. You can be privileged in one way but disadvantaged in another. Some intersectionalities are visible, and some are not. The more dissimilarity in your experiences, the more problems you will have communicating. Working through those problems and learning from one another is an invaluable part of the process — if you can make it through the interview in the first place.
- ironmagma 6y ago
  > The problem is that when you interview people, the way you look has an impact on how the interviewer perceives and is able to communicate with you (implicit bias). I have to disagree with your core point. If that were the real problem, blind orchestra auditions would be held up as the gold standard for hiring practices. As it is, people want it torn down. [1] Though I agree with the aspect of working harder to empathize being good for business. Again, that’s what the interview is for. If you want diversity, add a behavioral segment to your interview loop and use it as an opportunity to actually understand the person. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/arts/music/blind-auditions-orchestras-race.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/arts/music/blind-audition...
- golemiprague 6y ago
  Who says it makes for better products? what is this statement rely on? Is nintendo gameboy a bad product? Is hiphop a bad product? is google search a bad product? Because they were all developed by a pretty homogenous group of people. And if intersectionality means you are priviliged in one way and disadvantaged in another way then why do we need intersectionality? Isn't it just the inherent state of any individual on this planet? What is the need to put this individual into some arbitrary categories of race or gender or whatever else that in fashion among the D&I crowd? Just assume each person has their own circumstances which you probably know nothing about rather than assuming some priviliges based on skin colour or whatnot.