3 ms·

"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 t

by 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.

by jqm 12y ago

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.