5 ms·

I read the “evidence”. Executives get bonuses based on hitting certain targets. Those targets now include DEI, IN ADDITION TO safety and quality which are still

I read the “evidence”. Executives get bonuses based on hitting certain targets. Those targets now include DEI, IN ADDITION TO safety and quality which are still listed first. Furthermore, the evidence comes from a guy on Twitter who is primarily concerned with raging against “Leftists”. I think we can safely ignore this evidence

cubefox 3y ago
> I read the “evidence”. Executives get bonuses based on hitting certain targets. Those targets now include DEI, IN ADDITION TO safety and quality which are still listed first. Still, making DEI any priority implies that there will be some tradeoff. You can't simultaneously optimize for two different quantities without compromises. As a the thread shows, DEI has a significant effect on hiring. > Furthermore, the evidence comes from a guy That doesn't matter when the information is accurate.
- bavent 3y ago
  It does matter who it comes from because what someone doesn’t say is as useful as what they do say. If his critique of Boeing was more than just “DEI bad” I would be more inclined to take him seriously, but the dude clearly has an agenda and those with agendas tend to omit more information than they communicate
  - cubefox 3y ago
    That's not a good counterargument! There is a clear reason why DEI hiring is bad: It comes at the cost of merit based hiring. That can't be simply dismissed with DH1 [1]. [1] https://paulgraham.com/disagree.html https://paulgraham.com/disagree.html
    - DandyDev 3y ago
      It absolutely does not have to come at the cost of merit based hiring. When you want to focus on DEI in hiring, you can pick the following trade-offs: - Take more time finding suitable candidates - Invest money in external recruiters - Lower the bar Only in the last case does it come at the cost of merit
      - cubefox 3y ago
        In the first two cases as well, because if you take more time and invest more money for search, in expectation you find more qualified people without optimizing for the DEI tradeoff. We can't compare "DEI + more search" with "no DEI". We have to hold the amount of search constant for an objective comparison.
        DandyDev 3y ago
        I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. The comparison is simple: given that you want to hire a fixed number of people and you don’t want to lower the bar (hire based on merit), you can either not invest in DEI or spend extra time/money on getting diverse hires without lowering the bar.
        cubefox 3y ago
        No that's the wrong comparison. - Either you do not spend extra money/time in finding hires. Then you find better ones if you don't optimize for DEI. - Or you do spend extra time/money in finding hires. Then you also find better ones if you don't optimize for DEI.
        DandyDev 3y ago
        Disagree. You’re assuming that the quality of hires is limitless. In practice it doesn’t work like that. Unless you have a good reason to want the next Einstein or even Jeff Dean, you can hire a more that good enough person with limited time and resources and even a diverse and good enough person if you throw in some extra time and/or resources.
        cubefox 3y ago
        The assumption is that more competent hires do a better job on average. Aerospace is not an easy field, but even in much more simple jobs competence matters.
    - bavent 3y ago
      You’re assuming I agree that all ad hominem arguments are bad. You cannot separate a person, where their beliefs have no sway over their arguments and they are perfectly logical. That’s like physics 101, imagine a perfect sphere kind of thing. I cannot take an argument in good faith when the person is presenting it in bad faith - even if I agree with it (which I sort of do, I think DEI stuff is mostly worthless, I just don’t think it’s why Boeing sucks).
      - cubefox 3y ago
        The accusation of "bad faith" is either unsubstantiated or irrelevant or both. It's basically saying "I don't like your arguments, therefore I'm allowed to dismiss them by declaring them to be 'bad faith' arguments." That neither shows that the "bad faith" accusation is justified nor that the arguments in question are wrong. It's not a counterargument. It's just a mixture of ad hominem and mere contradiction. To reiterate: "There is a clear reason why DEI hiring is bad: It comes at the cost of merit based hiring." That's the argument. The "bad faith" stuff is irrelevant.
        bavent 3y ago
        I think it’s relevant, and you are basically saying you don’t like my argument therefore it’s wrong too.
        cubefox 3y ago
        Even if the bad faith accusation is relevant, which you haven't argued for, you also haven't given a reason to think it is true.
        bavent 3y ago
        Yes I have. He is clearly against DEI and his entire post was about how DEI is bad and why things are bad. He is ignoring any of the other myriad things that could also be the causes of why Boeing sucks, even though he must be aware of them.

cubefox 3y ago

> I read the “evidence”. Executives get bonuses based on hitting certain targets. Those targets now include DEI, IN ADDITION TO safety and quality which are still listed first. Still, making DEI any priority implies that there will be some tradeoff. You can't simultaneously optimize for two different quantities without compromises. As a the thread shows, DEI has a significant effect on hiring. > Furthermore, the evidence comes from a guy That doesn't matter when the information is accurate.

bavent 3y ago
It does matter who it comes from because what someone doesn’t say is as useful as what they do say. If his critique of Boeing was more than just “DEI bad” I would be more inclined to take him seriously, but the dude clearly has an agenda and those with agendas tend to omit more information than they communicate
- cubefox 3y ago
  That's not a good counterargument! There is a clear reason why DEI hiring is bad: It comes at the cost of merit based hiring. That can't be simply dismissed with DH1 [1]. [1] https://paulgraham.com/disagree.html https://paulgraham.com/disagree.html
  - DandyDev 3y ago
    It absolutely does not have to come at the cost of merit based hiring. When you want to focus on DEI in hiring, you can pick the following trade-offs: - Take more time finding suitable candidates - Invest money in external recruiters - Lower the bar Only in the last case does it come at the cost of merit
    - cubefox 3y ago
      In the first two cases as well, because if you take more time and invest more money for search, in expectation you find more qualified people without optimizing for the DEI tradeoff. We can't compare "DEI + more search" with "no DEI". We have to hold the amount of search constant for an objective comparison.
      - DandyDev 3y ago
        I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. The comparison is simple: given that you want to hire a fixed number of people and you don’t want to lower the bar (hire based on merit), you can either not invest in DEI or spend extra time/money on getting diverse hires without lowering the bar.
        cubefox 3y ago
        No that's the wrong comparison. - Either you do not spend extra money/time in finding hires. Then you find better ones if you don't optimize for DEI. - Or you do spend extra time/money in finding hires. Then you also find better ones if you don't optimize for DEI.
        DandyDev 3y ago
        Disagree. You’re assuming that the quality of hires is limitless. In practice it doesn’t work like that. Unless you have a good reason to want the next Einstein or even Jeff Dean, you can hire a more that good enough person with limited time and resources and even a diverse and good enough person if you throw in some extra time and/or resources.
        cubefox 3y ago
        The assumption is that more competent hires do a better job on average. Aerospace is not an easy field, but even in much more simple jobs competence matters.
  - bavent 3y ago
    You’re assuming I agree that all ad hominem arguments are bad. You cannot separate a person, where their beliefs have no sway over their arguments and they are perfectly logical. That’s like physics 101, imagine a perfect sphere kind of thing. I cannot take an argument in good faith when the person is presenting it in bad faith - even if I agree with it (which I sort of do, I think DEI stuff is mostly worthless, I just don’t think it’s why Boeing sucks).
    - cubefox 3y ago
      The accusation of "bad faith" is either unsubstantiated or irrelevant or both. It's basically saying "I don't like your arguments, therefore I'm allowed to dismiss them by declaring them to be 'bad faith' arguments." That neither shows that the "bad faith" accusation is justified nor that the arguments in question are wrong. It's not a counterargument. It's just a mixture of ad hominem and mere contradiction. To reiterate: "There is a clear reason why DEI hiring is bad: It comes at the cost of merit based hiring." That's the argument. The "bad faith" stuff is irrelevant.
      - bavent 3y ago
        I think it’s relevant, and you are basically saying you don’t like my argument therefore it’s wrong too.
        cubefox 3y ago
        Even if the bad faith accusation is relevant, which you haven't argued for, you also haven't given a reason to think it is true.
        bavent 3y ago
        Yes I have. He is clearly against DEI and his entire post was about how DEI is bad and why things are bad. He is ignoring any of the other myriad things that could also be the causes of why Boeing sucks, even though he must be aware of them.