3 ms·

Your experience is filtered through your own biases and preferences. There are incompetent people on both sides of the issue. the difference is that one side h

Your experience is filtered through your own biases and preferences. There are incompetent people on both sides of the issue. the difference is that one side has correctly identified a problem with how institutions choose people. The other side is screaming bloody murder that there's no problem at all and that we have to stop talking about the obviously inadvertent and innocuous inequities in our society and institutions.

Manuel_D 1y ago
Are the policies I've laid out not explicitly discriminatory? You realize that outright denial of employment on the basis of gender was one of the policies I listed. If your strategy is to simply tell people to disbelieve their own lying eyes... good luck with that. Not every inequity is the result of discrimination or bias. Should we strive to have a 50/50 gender split in murder convictions? A quota restricting murder convictions to 50% men would be an equitable policy but an explicitly unequal one as it'd require either men being let off or women being falsely convicted. If DEI was carried through policies like anonymizing resumes and interviews, I'd believe the claims about how DEI is about reducing discrimination. Instead, all the DEI program I've actually seen firsthand have either directly discriminated on th basis of protected class, or incentivize people to discriminate (e.g. bonuses tied to quotas).
- mpalmer 1y ago
  Yes I did in fact read your comment. Your kneejerk conclusion that I'm gaslighting you notwithstanding, you are presenting your personal observations as representative of some whole truth. I am challenging that. I'm involved in hiring at my company, which is fairly diverse compared to my perception of the average. There are no quotas, only intentional processes that ensure everyone gets a fair shake.
  - Manuel_D 1y ago
    As I said in my first comment, the nature of dog whistles is that some people use it innocently, without invoking the deeper context. > ...only intentional processes that ensure everyone gets a fair shake. Care to elaborate? The overtly discriminatory policies I listed above were supposedly just ensuring everyone gets a fair take. The language of "ensure everyone gets a fair shake," is no different than how my previous employers described our policy to restrict a segment of headcount to one gender. If you're interested in non-anecdotal evidence on tech hiring bias, here's a few studies tracking applicants submitted to companies and universities: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1418878112 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1418878112, the chart with the important data: https://www.pnas.org/cms/10.1073/pnas.1418878112/asset/fc20a04b-ec76-419f-8d45-0e4217b249ad/assets/graphic/pnas.1418878112fig01.jpeg https://www.pnas.org/cms/10.1073/pnas.1418878112/asset/fc20a... Study on sending resumes to SV tech companies: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3672484 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3672484, HN discussion on the paperhttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25069644 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25069644
  - raxxorraxor 1y ago
    Challenging that should not give you the ability to discriminate because any bias would apply to you in equal measure. > one side has correctly identified a problem There is no substance to this, you just believe your perspective to be superior. You could of course take a step back to let others take your place. Perhaps that would be convincing.

Manuel_D 1y ago

Are the policies I've laid out not explicitly discriminatory? You realize that outright denial of employment on the basis of gender was one of the policies I listed. If your strategy is to simply tell people to disbelieve their own lying eyes... good luck with that. Not every inequity is the result of discrimination or bias. Should we strive to have a 50/50 gender split in murder convictions? A quota restricting murder convictions to 50% men would be an equitable policy but an explicitly unequal one as it'd require either men being let off or women being falsely convicted. If DEI was carried through policies like anonymizing resumes and interviews, I'd believe the claims about how DEI is about reducing discrimination. Instead, all the DEI program I've actually seen firsthand have either directly discriminated on th basis of protected class, or incentivize people to discriminate (e.g. bonuses tied to quotas).

mpalmer 1y ago
Yes I did in fact read your comment. Your kneejerk conclusion that I'm gaslighting you notwithstanding, you are presenting your personal observations as representative of some whole truth. I am challenging that. I'm involved in hiring at my company, which is fairly diverse compared to my perception of the average. There are no quotas, only intentional processes that ensure everyone gets a fair shake.
- Manuel_D 1y ago
  As I said in my first comment, the nature of dog whistles is that some people use it innocently, without invoking the deeper context. > ...only intentional processes that ensure everyone gets a fair shake. Care to elaborate? The overtly discriminatory policies I listed above were supposedly just ensuring everyone gets a fair take. The language of "ensure everyone gets a fair shake," is no different than how my previous employers described our policy to restrict a segment of headcount to one gender. If you're interested in non-anecdotal evidence on tech hiring bias, here's a few studies tracking applicants submitted to companies and universities: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1418878112 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1418878112, the chart with the important data: https://www.pnas.org/cms/10.1073/pnas.1418878112/asset/fc20a04b-ec76-419f-8d45-0e4217b249ad/assets/graphic/pnas.1418878112fig01.jpeg https://www.pnas.org/cms/10.1073/pnas.1418878112/asset/fc20a... Study on sending resumes to SV tech companies: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3672484 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3672484, HN discussion on the paperhttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25069644 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25069644
- raxxorraxor 1y ago
  Challenging that should not give you the ability to discriminate because any bias would apply to you in equal measure. > one side has correctly identified a problem There is no substance to this, you just believe your perspective to be superior. You could of course take a step back to let others take your place. Perhaps that would be convincing.