4 ms·

> As if seeking out the best of the best to collaborate with, independent of their checkboxes, was somehow undesirable The best of the best involves people fro

> As if seeking out the best of the best to collaborate with, independent of their checkboxes, was somehow undesirable The best of the best involves people from underrepresented groups. These policies exist to counteract the cronyism and “doesn’t look like me”-ism inherent to the way people make choices. We know people don’t hire and collaborate with the best of the best, because when looking for the best they see it easiest in people with similar backgrounds and perspectives as themselves. It’s a shame the culture war cooked your brain on this one.

parineum 5mo ago
> The best of the best involves people from underrepresented groups If there are no martian biologists because of systemic discrimination, why would the best if the best biologists include a martian. The argument defeats itself. I don't understand why people keep repeating this lie instead of the truth. The only way this makes sense is if you think the only way someone can be inspired by someone else is if they look the same.
- kennywinker 5mo ago
  You’re straw-manning your own misconception of the reason for inclusivity, not the reason I gave. Inspiring specific groups to follow a career path by showing them people on that path is “representation” not inclusivity. Representation matters because it’s easier (not impossible, as you suggest the argument is) to see yourself e.g. as a nurse or a teacher if you have seen male nurses or teachers succeeding. Representation matters, but not nearly as much as the opposite side of things - who gets opportunities. Which is what I was talking about. Btw one of the major groups that have benefitted from the dreaded “DEI” in universities has been white men. They are an under-represented group in many post-secondary settings.
  - parineum 5mo ago
    > Representation matters, but not nearly as much as the opposite side of things - who gets opportunities. You're acting like these things aren't intertwined. You can't adjust the lever of representation without affecting who gets opportunities. You can believe what you want about the merits of adjusting those levers but to pretend like you can limit your pool of people to a smaller group of people and not affect the apex of the talent pool is disengenous. Be honest and say you think it's worth it.
    - kennywinker 5mo ago
      > You can't adjust the lever of representation without affecting who gets opportunities. For sure they are intertwined. More inclusion = more representation, and vice versa. But you’re saying representation is pointless because people can enter fields they don’t see themselves represented in and I am saying i think representation is a (positive) side effect not the goal. You can argue that it’s pointless all you want but idgaf because to me it’s a side effect. > limit your pool of people to a smaller group of people and not affect the apex of the talent pool is disengenous I agree. Limiting your pool is a bad idea. That’s literally why inclusivity is a good thing. Because people self-limit the pool to people who look like them, and because other societal barriers limit the pool by excluding people. Actively acting to include people broadens the pool, it doesn’t limit it. If you think on the scale of an individual hire or grant, i guess i can see how it would seem like limiting the pool - but zoom out like two steps and you’d see that’s not true.
      - parineum 5mo ago
        > But you’re saying representation is pointless because people can enter fields they don’t see themselves represented in and I am saying i think representation is a (positive) side effect not the goal. What I actually think that I haven't said is that "representation" is a self defeating idea that encourages people to view themselves as different. > I agree. Limiting your pool is a bad idea. That’s literally why inclusivity is a good thing. Because people self-limit the pool to people who look like them, and because other societal barriers limit the pool by excluding people. Actively acting to include people broadens the pool, it doesn’t limit it. That's true, however, when the high end of the pool all looks a certain way because of systemic issues then the team built will tend to look that way and not be inclusive. Thise creating the team could have the best of intentions the outcome could very likely be the same as if they were discriminatory. People feel social and sometimes legal pressure to make sure it looks like they aren't discriminatory so, when they are choosing that last (few) member, they'll limit the pool of possibilities. The other half of what you said is logical though, that inclusion probably leads to a more diverse future but at the cost of the present. The cost of the present is the part you're pretending doesn't exist. > If you think on the scale of an individual hire or grant, i guess i can see how it would seem like limiting the pool - but zoom out like two steps and you’d see that’s not true. Every single hire is an individual hire.
DragonStrength 5mo ago
Sounds like your brain was cooked by sound bites over reason and statistics! Culture war indeed! In fact, we see this now in Silicon Valley where 80% of workers are foreign born. Not a representative group of Americans by any stretch, and we see a lot of negativity towards folks Silicon Valley will never interact with as a result. And who are the wealthy bigots? Not the richest people in the history of the world. No, those other bad folks in the poor states who deserve it. They aren't under-represented.
- kennywinker 5mo ago
  I’m afraid I can’t parse much of what you’re trying to convey. I can say that we’re talking about science granting right now, not silicon valley jobs. Nobody was talking about wealthy bigots, that’s all you.

parineum 5mo ago

> The best of the best involves people from underrepresented groups If there are no martian biologists because of systemic discrimination, why would the best if the best biologists include a martian. The argument defeats itself. I don't understand why people keep repeating this lie instead of the truth. The only way this makes sense is if you think the only way someone can be inspired by someone else is if they look the same.

kennywinker 5mo ago
You’re straw-manning your own misconception of the reason for inclusivity, not the reason I gave. Inspiring specific groups to follow a career path by showing them people on that path is “representation” not inclusivity. Representation matters because it’s easier (not impossible, as you suggest the argument is) to see yourself e.g. as a nurse or a teacher if you have seen male nurses or teachers succeeding. Representation matters, but not nearly as much as the opposite side of things - who gets opportunities. Which is what I was talking about. Btw one of the major groups that have benefitted from the dreaded “DEI” in universities has been white men. They are an under-represented group in many post-secondary settings.
- parineum 5mo ago
  > Representation matters, but not nearly as much as the opposite side of things - who gets opportunities. You're acting like these things aren't intertwined. You can't adjust the lever of representation without affecting who gets opportunities. You can believe what you want about the merits of adjusting those levers but to pretend like you can limit your pool of people to a smaller group of people and not affect the apex of the talent pool is disengenous. Be honest and say you think it's worth it.
  - kennywinker 5mo ago
    > You can't adjust the lever of representation without affecting who gets opportunities. For sure they are intertwined. More inclusion = more representation, and vice versa. But you’re saying representation is pointless because people can enter fields they don’t see themselves represented in and I am saying i think representation is a (positive) side effect not the goal. You can argue that it’s pointless all you want but idgaf because to me it’s a side effect. > limit your pool of people to a smaller group of people and not affect the apex of the talent pool is disengenous I agree. Limiting your pool is a bad idea. That’s literally why inclusivity is a good thing. Because people self-limit the pool to people who look like them, and because other societal barriers limit the pool by excluding people. Actively acting to include people broadens the pool, it doesn’t limit it. If you think on the scale of an individual hire or grant, i guess i can see how it would seem like limiting the pool - but zoom out like two steps and you’d see that’s not true.
    - parineum 5mo ago
      > But you’re saying representation is pointless because people can enter fields they don’t see themselves represented in and I am saying i think representation is a (positive) side effect not the goal. What I actually think that I haven't said is that "representation" is a self defeating idea that encourages people to view themselves as different. > I agree. Limiting your pool is a bad idea. That’s literally why inclusivity is a good thing. Because people self-limit the pool to people who look like them, and because other societal barriers limit the pool by excluding people. Actively acting to include people broadens the pool, it doesn’t limit it. That's true, however, when the high end of the pool all looks a certain way because of systemic issues then the team built will tend to look that way and not be inclusive. Thise creating the team could have the best of intentions the outcome could very likely be the same as if they were discriminatory. People feel social and sometimes legal pressure to make sure it looks like they aren't discriminatory so, when they are choosing that last (few) member, they'll limit the pool of possibilities. The other half of what you said is logical though, that inclusion probably leads to a more diverse future but at the cost of the present. The cost of the present is the part you're pretending doesn't exist. > If you think on the scale of an individual hire or grant, i guess i can see how it would seem like limiting the pool - but zoom out like two steps and you’d see that’s not true. Every single hire is an individual hire.

DragonStrength 5mo ago

Sounds like your brain was cooked by sound bites over reason and statistics! Culture war indeed! In fact, we see this now in Silicon Valley where 80% of workers are foreign born. Not a representative group of Americans by any stretch, and we see a lot of negativity towards folks Silicon Valley will never interact with as a result. And who are the wealthy bigots? Not the richest people in the history of the world. No, those other bad folks in the poor states who deserve it. They aren't under-represented.

kennywinker 5mo ago
I’m afraid I can’t parse much of what you’re trying to convey. I can say that we’re talking about science granting right now, not silicon valley jobs. Nobody was talking about wealthy bigots, that’s all you.