4 ms·

I've often heard this claim touted - that people hired via DEI initiatives are incompetent or cannot do their job - do you have any statistics showing it? It al

I've often heard this claim touted - that people hired via DEI initiatives are incompetent or cannot do their job - do you have any statistics showing it? It always sounded to me like an "obvious conclusion" that was never proven, just assumed to be true, but I'm interested to see how the numbers play out, if any exist.

krageon 2y ago
Having been part of many such hiring initiatives, it hasn't ever panned out in any of my data. It means that everyone needs to be less of a shithead (because folks are no longer broadly homogenous), which makes everything a lot more bearable. The work is the same, but the people are better to each other. It's not that surprising everything ends up working better a year or two later.
throw3638 2y ago
Well, president mentioned some time ago "pregnancy flight suits" for fighter jet pilots. I have no data how pregnancy and 10G are compatible. Also there are no physiological differences. So I guess you are right!
- Urist-Green 2y ago
  The truth is less exciting. The flight suits are for air crew. The air force has a wide array of craft that need plenty of crew on board that will not go through the stresses of fighter combat.
  - throw3638 2y ago
    Or more likely they will never get deployed.
myrmidon 2y ago
> that people hired via DEI initiatives are incompetent or cannot do their job I think this is a strawman. The argument would be that if you hire for diversity, you are no longer hiring for capability first (which is much harder to refute than the straw-man "all DEI hires are incompetent"). You could make an argument for DEI-hiring being possibly helpful against nepotism, though. Personally, I think that DEI efforts (especially quota-driven hiring) just paper over underlying problems while being actively unethical on their own (discriminating against the majority, basically).
- pyrale 2y ago
  > The argument would be that if you hire for diversity, you are no longer hiring for capability first That claim is also hard to prove in the first place, but apparently people can just peddle it, and expect other people to do the hard work to debunk it. Usually, whenever you start asking people to justify that claim, you end up with an anecdote or two and, if you point out that anecdotal data don't make a point, personal attacks.
  - throw3638 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - Moomoomoo309 2y ago
      See, this is exactly what I was referring to. It's "obvious" that these things happen as a result of DEI, but you provide no evidence for it. Some anecdotes, sure, but I want to see how it plays out broadly - I'm sure there are cases where it's good and cases where it's bad if you just pick anecdotes from the data! I also think calling out censorship for this is lazy, to be honest. I really doubt a topic as contentious as DEI has no useful data to prove your point.
      - throw3638 2y ago
        You assume we are having some sort of discussion. Like I say sken rational argument, you say something back, than I refute it... Nobody gets cancelled, or death threats... > want to see how it plays out broadly - I'm sure there are cases where it's good Old promise for DEI was to improve efficiency by unlocking potential in groups that could not work. Are there some data to suggest it is working? All I see is move from "equality" to "equity" bcos some people are just lazy.
  - sorasoraflora 2y ago
    That claim seems the more intuitive understanding - if candidates are judged entirely by capability and fit for a role, then background wouldn't factor in. If diversity tips the scales toward a candidate that would have been otherwise passed over then ability is no longer the highest priority. If this understanding is flawed, could you explain how?

krageon 2y ago

Having been part of many such hiring initiatives, it hasn't ever panned out in any of my data. It means that everyone needs to be less of a shithead (because folks are no longer broadly homogenous), which makes everything a lot more bearable. The work is the same, but the people are better to each other. It's not that surprising everything ends up working better a year or two later.

throw3638 2y ago

Well, president mentioned some time ago "pregnancy flight suits" for fighter jet pilots. I have no data how pregnancy and 10G are compatible. Also there are no physiological differences. So I guess you are right!

Urist-Green 2y ago
The truth is less exciting. The flight suits are for air crew. The air force has a wide array of craft that need plenty of crew on board that will not go through the stresses of fighter combat.
- throw3638 2y ago
  Or more likely they will never get deployed.

myrmidon 2y ago

> that people hired via DEI initiatives are incompetent or cannot do their job I think this is a strawman. The argument would be that if you hire for diversity, you are no longer hiring for capability first (which is much harder to refute than the straw-man "all DEI hires are incompetent"). You could make an argument for DEI-hiring being possibly helpful against nepotism, though. Personally, I think that DEI efforts (especially quota-driven hiring) just paper over underlying problems while being actively unethical on their own (discriminating against the majority, basically).

pyrale 2y ago
> The argument would be that if you hire for diversity, you are no longer hiring for capability first That claim is also hard to prove in the first place, but apparently people can just peddle it, and expect other people to do the hard work to debunk it. Usually, whenever you start asking people to justify that claim, you end up with an anecdote or two and, if you point out that anecdotal data don't make a point, personal attacks.
- throw3638 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - Moomoomoo309 2y ago
    See, this is exactly what I was referring to. It's "obvious" that these things happen as a result of DEI, but you provide no evidence for it. Some anecdotes, sure, but I want to see how it plays out broadly - I'm sure there are cases where it's good and cases where it's bad if you just pick anecdotes from the data! I also think calling out censorship for this is lazy, to be honest. I really doubt a topic as contentious as DEI has no useful data to prove your point.
    - throw3638 2y ago
      You assume we are having some sort of discussion. Like I say sken rational argument, you say something back, than I refute it... Nobody gets cancelled, or death threats... > want to see how it plays out broadly - I'm sure there are cases where it's good Old promise for DEI was to improve efficiency by unlocking potential in groups that could not work. Are there some data to suggest it is working? All I see is move from "equality" to "equity" bcos some people are just lazy.
- sorasoraflora 2y ago
  That claim seems the more intuitive understanding - if candidates are judged entirely by capability and fit for a role, then background wouldn't factor in. If diversity tips the scales toward a candidate that would have been otherwise passed over then ability is no longer the highest priority. If this understanding is flawed, could you explain how?