Your stories don't cancel out, they add up: most DEI programs I've seen have discriminated against Asians at least as much as whites if not more.
That was my point, but I guess subtlety doesn’t work well on the internet.
and emit a photon and antineutrino?
(nerd alert...). https://www.nuclear-power.com/nuclear-power/reactor-physics/...
I don’t know or care who they invest with or if they own hotels
I posted a counter-example showing Indians systematically discriminate against non-Indians and shift almost all money to Indians across an entire, industry segment. So, they're no different.
Also, the intersectionality (DEI) proponents strictly focus on whites as the problem, but non-whites as the opposite, when non-whites do the same things structurally when in power and should be talked about the same way. That DEI proponents never treat non-whites as advantaged and whites as disadvantaged, even when company or industry data supports it, shows they're actually racists who are anti-white. They'll be inconsistent with their own principles to work against white people.
If called on it, like that whites can't get hired in company X or no power in industry Y, they start making excuses or denying a disadvantage or they deny that they even give advantages to non-whites like in this tthread. They certainly don't follow standard DEI or intersectionality principles to support shifting jobs or power to white people from the non-white majorities like they would if white people were the majority. We noticed the double standards. Their principles are therefore lies if specific groups can never benefit from them.
Often said. Rarely backed up by such data. Efforts to measure bias in tech has consistently shown preferences favoring women:
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/fc20a...
Study on sending resumes to SV tech companies: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3672484, HN discussion on the paperhttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25069644
Yet all the DEI programs I've seen firsthand have privileged women over men.
[0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001429212...
More positive bias than negative.
None of the DEI programs I've encountered have focused on age or disability. Only race and gender, mostly the latter.
"Here we report five hiring experiments in which faculty evaluated hypothetical female and male applicants, using systematically varied profiles disguising identical scholarship, for assistant professorships in biology, engineering, economics, and psychology."
If I create identically qualified black and white applicants and the latter are reviewed positively at 2x the rate as the former is not not evidence of racial bias?
The spirit of DEI initiatives is to balance out the racist-by-default policies and institutions. Which is why racists are losing their minds.
Anyone who thinks "you have to hire a certain amount/percentage of minorities" doesn't mean, by definition, that you will need to negatively impact _individual_ members of a majority hasn't spent any real time thinking about how it works. But the point is that it's worth it for society as a whole.
Who decided/determined this? You state it as if positive discrimination is a proven social good, yet I don't think it's so clear. There's still a ton of debate around it, and different western countries have difference stances on it. To me it still seems like an experiment with unclear/unknown long term value to society.
The "correct" answer isn't biasing evaluation pipelines, it's ensuring you have proportional representation in the pool of applicants.
But you don't in most cases. And a lot of that is because minorities, in general, have a less access to opportunities. By lifting up minorities individually, the goal is to raise them up at a systematic level. And the end goal of _that_ is so that they can/do have proportional representation in the pool of applicants. At which point, the biased treatment to get them there will no longer be necessary.
Admittedly, it's debatable as to whether that approach will work; but I haven't seen any other viable options put forth.
Personally, I believe in affirmative action, but it's become evident that it's incredibly unpopular, and the Supreme Court has rendered it actively illegal, so my personal opinion is moot and I know when to cede a losing battle.
What I was describing is literally the steps you would take if you wanted to ensure you have proportional representation in the pool of applicants.
You obviously need to bias your recruitment efforts, and more than slightly if you want proportional representation of applicants, but I believe it's absolutely essential you do NOT bias evaluations, hiring, or promotion of applicants. To do so actively undermines minorities in my opinion by stripping away their credibility by default.
One of the biggest things about the DEI discourse that puts me off is the dishonesty of it. Many, perhaps most, DEI advocates attempt to argue that policies like withholding executive bonuses if their org isnt X% women and Y% URM isn't discrimination. Heck, I've encountered one former co-worker argue that allocating a segment of headcout exclusive to women wasn't discrimination, because it's "extra" headcount. If I have 100 headcount and I prohibit men from 20 of them that's discrimination, but if I have 80 headcount and I add 20 "extra" heads exclusively available to women that's not discrimination, according to this former co-worker's logic.
It's one thing to advance a controversial policy and stand by it earnestly. It's another to advance a controversial policy while lying about it to people's faces. DEI is unfortunately often carried out via the latter fashion. And realistically, that's the only way it can be carried out under our present set of laws, because discrimination on the basis of race and gender are illegal nation-wide in the USA.
That's fair. But it's unfair to state it like _all_ DEI proponents aren't honest about it. Clearly, I'm saying just that and I _am_ a proponent of it.
It is like they want to apply the handbook of toxic middle management. If you want to create strive in your minions, provide benefits to one group while disadvantaging the other. They will hate each other more than they will hate you and you can reign supreme.
This is usually basic psychology or at least it is proved to work.
Universal humanism also empirically works better than what DEI proposes. DEI gratifies self-important people to elevate themselves and their ideas above others and little else. None of them would step back to be an example, so they are probably dishonest too.
If people dislike it, which many do, it is usually correct and not due some made up bias.
- Group 1 is doing well
- Group 2 is doing poorly, because the system works in favor of group 1
- We should NOT try to balance things (lift up group 2 at the cost of group 2) in the short term so that things are more balanced in the long term
- Because doing so would upset Group 1
See, the thing is... Group 2 is _already_ upset; and rightfully so. I'd rather see both groups of people somewhat upset then one group happy and the other _more_ upset. Honestly, that's pretty much a cliche description of what a compromise is.
You are completely free to provide benefits for the poorest as well.
If you see yourself in group 1, you are very free to take a step back. We both know you don't, you expect that from others.
Neither "balance" nor "long term goals" are in any way defined, you just use random discrimination, which is of course negative between a bunch of negative ideas.
You also draw lines between these group 1 + 2.
The entire young male community right now has circled the wagons around "woke" hatred, which is really funny, because they should see the media I grew up with! Imagine someone saying catching AIDS isn't a personal failing in the 80s! Yet the Golden Girls is considered top quality entertainment. But no, suddenly we have to pretend that the same people who insisted Rock N Roll was hypnotizing our children are suddenly correct that making a movie about a trans person will hypnotize our children into being trans?
The mountains of kids insisting that what "gamers" want is hypersexualized boobs with eyes is awful. They don't know history either, like when Mass Effect 2 was lampooned for giving it's "genetically perfect" female character extremely visible camel toe, and placing a cinematic camera up her butt crack.
Samus Aran is from 1986. And fucking Japan. GI Jane got so much hatred in the 90s. Why are we still doing this?
>I want my old son back
Then why don't you be the parent? Why don't you help your son understand the parts of right wing propaganda that are blatantly false? Why don't you help your son understand what women experience? Why don't you help him see the rhetorical trickery and lies of people like the Fresh and Fit podcast? Why don't you help him understand how to properly research controversial topics like that? Or help him understand how rhetoric in the News might not be an accurate narrative? Or have you ever talked to him about Gell-Mann amnesia?
I want my brother back from 30 years of indoctrination about how the reason he struggles is because of black people going to college, instead of him slacking off and not caring about school. When a Mainer who dropped out of community college flies the fucking Confederate battle flag in 2009, you don't get to blame DEI. I want him back from a century of indoctrination that kids would stop being shot at school if only it was easier to buy a rifle, or that my 65 year old mom who has no interest in being a cop should be made to carry a firearm to shoot one of her students.
Why is it always the democrat's fault for what republicans do?
On the contrary, I think there are numerous errors with multiple premises.
I spent 25 years in the industry and a dozen as a manager and I can tell you that straight up racism against black and latino people has been coddled and tolerated for a long time.
The solution isn't to say: we won't hire white people, but it is to say, we have to create teams that are heterogeneous (and doing what that takes).
Your personal anecdotes are not what makes up racism, writ large. And the fact that this has to be explained is, you know, the thing.
Probably the the most diverse place I worked at had no such quotas.
My point is there shouldn't be hiring quotas by race.
There are mountains of research and witnesses. What does your statement mean?
Also, maybe you weren't aware of how they made their hiring choice? People don't usually openly say they are doing it for racist reasons.
> My point is there shouldn't be hiring quotas by race.
I don't think DEI is implemented by quotas usually, nor is racism.
For example, I had a recruiter I relied on heavily. I realized that they only sent me white guys to interview (with one exception).
I have no idea why, but I know the recruiter found people through their own networks, and I bet those networks - usually formed from people we've gone to school with, worked with, socialized with, family, etc. - was white people, and that's who is added to the network. It's self-perpetuating - white people know white people. IIRC, AirBnB's founder knew someone at YC via their MIT fraternity - what do you think they probably looked like (I'm not criticizing AirBnB founders at all - they did amazing; for all I know they are big proponents of DEI)? (There are so many white people - ~60% of the population or ~200 million in the US - that you can spend your entire life without knowing anyone else.) And look around the office of your IT organization; if someone was black, what is the chance that they'd know someone who would help them get a job there?
One method of DEI in hiring is to require that a person from a minority is interviewed for every position (in IT, that includes women). By me requiring that, my recruiter was required to develop networks that included many minorities, and I hope those people - now in the network - got opportunities for other jobs too.
But if you have never seen racism against Latinos or blacks during hiring it is your eyesight that needs checking, my friend.
However, it is best for society to do this. Because it is best for society if all groups are starting from the same point; and that means we need to give a leg up to the groups that are currently being pushed down by the system.
The available talent pool is usually defined by the personal/professional networks of the people doing the hiring, and since the hirers are almost all white, so is the talent pool.
The point is to find more talent - much more - that is not in the current 'pool', to expand the networks.
> you need to negatively impact an individual from the majority to hire the individual from a minority.
The racist competition for survival is the hallmark of the propaganda of racists. It's just a fair competition - do you want minorities excluded from competing for the job? Do you want a handout?
When baseball in the US ended the color line, and allowed black and latino and other athletes to compete for the same jobs as white athletes, were they 'negatively impacting' some white athletes? I guess that's literally true, but do you really think they should have continued to receive 'affirmative action for white people', which is what hiring was and in many ways still is?
That won't solve the problem.
If most Minority-X are born poorer than Majority, then they will have access to a lesser set of opportunities. Less ability to do well in school. Less ability to go to college. Less ability to do well in college. Fewer contacts made through parents. The list goes on an on. And, because of that, the number of individuals in Minority-X that enter the workforce with the same experience and schooling as Majority is much lower. So the pool of people to choose from is skewed towards Majority.
The only realistic solution to this (that's been put forth/tried) is to artificially boost the ability of members of Minority-X to have access to opportunities. Which means there's more members of Minority-X going to school, and doing well, and to college, and so on, and so on. And once the pools start to even out, the artificial boosts are no longer necessary.
Just "expanding your network to people you don't normally interact with" isn't enough, because even the complete pool of _everyone_ that's qualified for a give thing is still biased toward the majority.
We need to expend the networks from the beginning of that pipeline to the end, not just when Corp Z is hiring senior engineers. Colleges need to expand their networks. There's research showing that plenty of disadvantaged kids who could go to elite schools don't apply simply because they don't know what the value is or which schools to apply to. They go to the local college in town.
And you also have a good point: Kids don't go to bad local schools because of a social network, but because the schools are underresourced. We need to boost the resources of those schools.
And that is tough to do unless the people in those schools have political power (for two reasons: For leverage, and because only the locals understand what they need). So political representation needs to be boosted.
And the ideal that all these things will happen doesn't often work out, and we can't ask these kids to wait for this ideal world - it will soon be too late. So we need to provide some artificial help so they can have resources and power and improve those schools, get access to good colleges, etc. ...
- The parents aren't there to help with schoolwork
- Nutrition is poorer (which leads to poorer learning)
- The parent's aren't as available for guidance
- etc
Now, to be very clear, none of this is "you're part of a minority, so it effects you". Rather, it's an impact of being poor; and minorities are more likely to be poor, so as more likely to be impacted. So the end result is the same, but it's not an automatic impact of being a minority, nor is it something that limited to minorities (just more likely for them).
Education works, I guess?
Maybe kids and others who disagree with you aren't indoctrinated, but form their own opinions, and the great majority have seen the research (in college) and the very obvious reality, and concluded there is discrimination. I don't know how you can say otherwise in the face of reality.
'Decades' ago there was even more open racism. It didn't take much education to say that white-only hotels and restaurants, and lynchings indicated there was racism.
Many people today, since 2016, openly embrace racism. What do you say to them?
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Do you mean, it's not changing faster because it takes a generation? The US has been addressing racism for many generations; the civil rights era - which was not the start of the issue - peaked in the 1960s. The US had the Abolitionist movement in the 19th century and maybe before. The US Civil War was in the 19th century.
Things like removing names from CVs are fairly effective at fighting bias.
It is not "as racist" because we didn't just magically arrive into this moment.
Maybe you didn't know what you were seeing? People don't often openly say, 'I'm not hiring them because they are black'. They don't necessarily think it; they think, 'I'm not as comfortable with this person' and 'I don't know how they'll fit into our team', without even realizing why.
DEI trains people to be aware of those feeling and thoughts and double-check them. Most people don't want to make decisions in that way and appreciate the training.
Exactly this. It's all about awareness.
IMO companies that enforce quotas are not really trying to fix the problem but just forcing the numbers to look good. Because quotas are not solving the mindset that causes this. It's a quick fix. Trainings and workshops are hard work but they actually improve people's self-awareness over time.
(edit: also to clarify I think what the Trump admin is doing - bribing to take a different political stance - and allowing monopolies - is bad)