3 ms·

> I would view it more as choosing to hire someone that knows how to program, or someone that seems bright but does not know how to program and hoping they will

by sago 12y ago

> I would view it more as choosing to hire someone that knows how to program, or someone that seems bright but does not know how to program and hoping they will develop some aptitude for it at a later date Do you really think that what is being advocated here is employing people who don't know how to program at all for programming jobs? I don't get that sense at all. I got the sense it is more, do you employ someone who has had advantages and has top-notch qualifications and day 1 skills, or someone who has struggled with fewer advantages, but still has pretty good (though not as good) qualifications and skills. At the point where someone suggests hiring people with fine arts degrees to write physics simulation code, because diversity, I agree the plot has been completely lost. But I think that is a bit of a strawman. And, because I haven't said this for a while, I'm kindof trying to play the economic argument here, because that is your focus. I'm not conceding my feeling that economic arguments can't be trumped by moral ones. Thanks for the second half of that response. Your examples feel wrong to me. But I can't say why. Which is often a sign that I'm relying on bias rather than reason. I'll muse on it. Good conversation, overall, thanks.

kbenson 12y ago
Do you really think that what is being advocated here is employing people who don't know how to program at all for programming jobs? I don't get that sense at all. I think we are far beyond the original scope of the article. When the discussion is about hiring people based on their potential because of how they would have been able to develop if privilege was normalized, then yes, I think that and equivalents is what it boils down to, because I don't think privilege does all that much after a person has identified their career and interests. I think it primarily affects the finding of that career and interest, through exposure and training. At the point where someone suggests hiring people with fine arts degrees to write physics simulation code, because diversity, I agree the plot has been completely lost. A bit more extreme than what I meant to imply. I guess it really comes down to what hiring based on potential really means. And, because I haven't said this for a while, I'm kindof trying to play the economic argument here, because that is your focus. I'm not conceding my feeling that economic arguments can't be trumped by moral ones. I've been trying to field the idea that the economic argument is the moral one. Or at least it may be, and I think it can't be immediately discounted as not being the moral one. Good conversation, overall, thanks. To you as well. I found it really productive, it gave me a lot to think about.

by sago 12y ago

kbenson 12y ago

Do you really think that what is being advocated here is employing people who don't know how to program at all for programming jobs? I don't get that sense at all. I think we are far beyond the original scope of the article. When the discussion is about hiring people based on their potential because of how they would have been able to develop if privilege was normalized, then yes, I think that and equivalents is what it boils down to, because I don't think privilege does all that much after a person has identified their career and interests. I think it primarily affects the finding of that career and interest, through exposure and training. At the point where someone suggests hiring people with fine arts degrees to write physics simulation code, because diversity, I agree the plot has been completely lost. A bit more extreme than what I meant to imply. I guess it really comes down to what hiring based on potential really means. And, because I haven't said this for a while, I'm kindof trying to play the economic argument here, because that is your focus. I'm not conceding my feeling that economic arguments can't be trumped by moral ones. I've been trying to field the idea that the economic argument is the moral one. Or at least it may be, and I think it can't be immediately discounted as not being the moral one. Good conversation, overall, thanks. To you as well. I found it really productive, it gave me a lot to think about.