5 ms·

Maybe some of the negativity comes from the idea that people should have to be included in an endeavor regardless of ability? (Of course there are also no shor

by jqm 12y ago

Maybe some of the negativity comes from the idea that people should have to be included in an endeavor regardless of ability? (Of course there are also no shortage of plain old misogynists and bigots.)

pron 12y ago
> Maybe some of the negativity comes from the idea that people should have to be included in an endeavor regardless of ability? Who says that? All "we" are saying is that what some perceive as "ability" is, in fact, a combination of talent with a lot of privilege, luck and encouragement by society (of course, some people beat the odds but those are the exception, not the rule). There is no shortage of talent in any group, and ability should therefore be nurtured by removing some very powerful discouraging factors.
- jqm 12y ago
  "Who says that?" Oh, there are people who feel that inclusion should take place regardless of ability. And there are people who are paranoid that when others talk of inclusion, this is what they might mean... "There is no shortage of talent in any group..." (we are still talking about specific talent no?) Are you sure about this? Because I'm not so sure that we natively are all exactly equal in all abilities. Automatically assuming because a person is a member of some group they necessarily don't have abilities is where we fall down. Bigotry I think is simply a crude average without room for exception. I'm not arguing that luck and privilege don't play a very important role. Which I agree, is not fair, and steps should be taken to remedy the situation. Also I'm not so sure that those who enter tech actually are "lucky" to be in the field. It could be some people are just perceptive or wise enough to stay out. Sometimes after a few hard days of coding (and the associated mental twerk), I'm positively convinced of it.
  - pron 12y ago
    > Oh, there are people who feel that inclusion should take place regardless of ability. I don't think so. If you're referring to affirmative action, then that's not some sort of "pity inclusion", but an important step in fixing biases by creating role models (biases need to be fixed from both "ends": education at a young age alongside with assisted creation of role-models). So affirmative action isn't the desired inclusion, but one part of starting the "fixing" mechanism, and it's a temporary measure until true inclusion catches on. > Because I'm not so sure that we natively are all exactly equal in all abilities. Of course not. But innate talent averages across "races" (there's no clear definition of the word) and both sexes would come out to having differences that are far below personal innate differences, as well as far below group differences that are a result of cultural bias. So even the most statistically oriented mind would find no good objective justification for discrimination. > Also I'm not so sure that those who enter tech actually are "lucky" to be in the field. The question whether tech is a "good" field to be in is rather subjective. What is objectively true, however, is that tech holds a lot of power in our society. Groups that are excluded from tech are excluded from this source of power. Not incidentally, the same groups are marginalized from most other seats of power.
SwellJoe 12y ago
I think that built into that assumption is the belief that people of color or women or whatever or someone from a poor background who have the necessary abilities don't exist. In other words, it's working backward from a faulty indicator: There are very few women in tech, which proves there are very few women who are capable of being good engineers. Likewise, there are several times more black men in prison per capita than white people, thus black men commit crimes at a rate much higher than white people. There is some evidence that people actually process information this way, even though it is a logical fallacy, or at the very least is operating on correlation as though it is causation. In case anyone was wondering: Both of those examples are false, and are provably false, based on research from a variety of fields. In short: The negativity probably stems from a misogyny and bigotry, without being aware of the misogyny or bigotry.
- pron 12y ago
  > The negativity probably stems from a misogyny and bigotry, without being aware of the misogyny or bigotry. There's a name for that unconscious discrimination: sexism.

by jqm 12y ago

pron 12y ago

> Maybe some of the negativity comes from the idea that people should have to be included in an endeavor regardless of ability? Who says that? All "we" are saying is that what some perceive as "ability" is, in fact, a combination of talent with a lot of privilege, luck and encouragement by society (of course, some people beat the odds but those are the exception, not the rule). There is no shortage of talent in any group, and ability should therefore be nurtured by removing some very powerful discouraging factors.

jqm 12y ago
"Who says that?" Oh, there are people who feel that inclusion should take place regardless of ability. And there are people who are paranoid that when others talk of inclusion, this is what they might mean... "There is no shortage of talent in any group..." (we are still talking about specific talent no?) Are you sure about this? Because I'm not so sure that we natively are all exactly equal in all abilities. Automatically assuming because a person is a member of some group they necessarily don't have abilities is where we fall down. Bigotry I think is simply a crude average without room for exception. I'm not arguing that luck and privilege don't play a very important role. Which I agree, is not fair, and steps should be taken to remedy the situation. Also I'm not so sure that those who enter tech actually are "lucky" to be in the field. It could be some people are just perceptive or wise enough to stay out. Sometimes after a few hard days of coding (and the associated mental twerk), I'm positively convinced of it.
- pron 12y ago
  > Oh, there are people who feel that inclusion should take place regardless of ability. I don't think so. If you're referring to affirmative action, then that's not some sort of "pity inclusion", but an important step in fixing biases by creating role models (biases need to be fixed from both "ends": education at a young age alongside with assisted creation of role-models). So affirmative action isn't the desired inclusion, but one part of starting the "fixing" mechanism, and it's a temporary measure until true inclusion catches on. > Because I'm not so sure that we natively are all exactly equal in all abilities. Of course not. But innate talent averages across "races" (there's no clear definition of the word) and both sexes would come out to having differences that are far below personal innate differences, as well as far below group differences that are a result of cultural bias. So even the most statistically oriented mind would find no good objective justification for discrimination. > Also I'm not so sure that those who enter tech actually are "lucky" to be in the field. The question whether tech is a "good" field to be in is rather subjective. What is objectively true, however, is that tech holds a lot of power in our society. Groups that are excluded from tech are excluded from this source of power. Not incidentally, the same groups are marginalized from most other seats of power.

SwellJoe 12y ago

I think that built into that assumption is the belief that people of color or women or whatever or someone from a poor background who have the necessary abilities don't exist. In other words, it's working backward from a faulty indicator: There are very few women in tech, which proves there are very few women who are capable of being good engineers. Likewise, there are several times more black men in prison per capita than white people, thus black men commit crimes at a rate much higher than white people. There is some evidence that people actually process information this way, even though it is a logical fallacy, or at the very least is operating on correlation as though it is causation. In case anyone was wondering: Both of those examples are false, and are provably false, based on research from a variety of fields. In short: The negativity probably stems from a misogyny and bigotry, without being aware of the misogyny or bigotry.

pron 12y ago
> The negativity probably stems from a misogyny and bigotry, without being aware of the misogyny or bigotry. There's a name for that unconscious discrimination: sexism.