Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple’s diversity chief out after outcry

nypost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 72 posts

Re: Apple’s diversity chief out after outcry

#61

Post by jamesrom »

hashberry wrote: post #52
Johnny555 wrote: post #38

I thought skin color didn't matter and it's what inside that matters? So skin color is the most important factor when determining diversity?

Yes, skin color does matter, read up on Critical Race Theory. To be colorblind is to be racist because it ignores the disadvantages one can't see due to one's own privilege. The theory states that inequality is due to racism and anyone who is part of the dominant race not only benefits from racism but unconsciously perpetuates it. This is why everyone is so sensitive, because this is what is taught in the humanities…

Serious question, if everyone was colourblind, what disadvantages would there be?

Re: Apple’s diversity chief out after outcry

#62

Post by danso »

minimaxir wrote: post #9

The article title is misleading as it implies causality. Per TechCrunch ( https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/16/apple-vp-of-diversity-and-... ): > Young Smith had been talking with Apple CEO Tim Cook about the next phase of her career and life since about a year ago, according to a source. Over the last few months, Apple has been searching for a successor to replace Young Smith. It’s not quite clear, however, when exactl…

Obviously it is wrong to assert causality without proof, but why is it wrong to imply causality if no other official explanation is offered? TechCrunch refers to an anonymous source who, for all we know, could be Tim Cook or any other Apple official wanting to reduce the embarrassment for the company and for Denise Smith, who had been at the company for 20 years and in the job for 6 months.

Yes, journalists are too quick to argue causality when there is only correlation. IMO, the burden more on the TC reporter to explain why she accepts her anonymous source's claim, which implies Apple was incompetent enough to hire someone for a highly publicized position who had planed to quit 2-3 months after getting the job, as opposed to being pushed out for not being wanted in the position, even if she had never made those controversial comments.

Harder to swallow is that if this really were the case, then why is an anonymous source pushing this angle. Why would Apple try to hide the innocuous explanation for Smith's departure?

Re: Apple’s diversity chief out after outcry

#63

Post by danso »

tscs37 wrote: post #46
yedava wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People can learn on the job and can become not 'bad', right? Or is it the case that some set of people have some innate quality that makes them always be bad at a job?

Some people don't understand computers at all. Teaching them to engineer software, for example, can be a long and expensive undertaking. Which these people might not be interested in since they are good in other things. I think it's not good to simply assume that you can insert any random person in a job and they'll "just become not bad" at it. And this is not restricted to any nationality, gender, etc, either, you c…

> Some people don't understand computers at all.

"Some people", as in, anecdotally? Or some groups of people? I don't think any diversity initiative calls for random people to be inserted into jobs.

Re: Apple’s diversity chief out after outcry

#64

Post by danso »

Johnny555 wrote: post #38

I thought skin color didn't matter and it's what inside that matters? So skin color is the most important factor when determining diversity?

Which diversity policies have you read that skin color is "the most important factor"? Certainly that's not the case at Apple.

Re: Apple’s diversity chief out after outcry

#65

Post by danso »

jamesrom wrote: post #61
hashberry wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, skin color does matter, read up on Critical Race Theory. To be colorblind is to be racist because it ignores the disadvantages one can't see due to one's own privilege. The theory states that inequality is due to racism and anyone who is part of the dominant race not only benefits from racism but unconsciously perpetuates it. This is why everyone is so sensitive, because this is what is taught in the humanities…

Serious question, if everyone was colourblind, what disadvantages would there be?

You mean, physically? Colorblindness probably wouldn't be a useful trait in this context as differences in skin color are usually seen as shades of darkness.

Re: Apple’s diversity chief out after outcry

#66

Post by tscs37 »

danso wrote: post #63
tscs37 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people don't understand computers at all. Teaching them to engineer software, for example, can be a long and expensive undertaking. Which these people might not be interested in since they are good in other things. I think it's not good to simply assume that you can insert any random person in a job and they'll "just become not bad" at it. And this is not restricted to any nationality, gender, etc, either, you c…

> Some people don't understand computers at all. "Some people", as in, anecdotally? Or some groups of people? I don't think any diversity initiative calls for random people to be inserted into jobs.

Not anecdottaly, provably.

>Or some groups of people?

I've deliberately not singled out any specific group of people but there is some evidence from Sociology and Biology studies that certain genetic or social groups of people will not have as much interest or understanding of computers.

Of course the social groups can "fix" this much easier, provided they have a desire to do so.

But again, not mentioning any specific groups specifically because it is not necessary. You can get the same results by replacing "computer skills" with any other skill or job and repeat to get the same results.

>I don't think any diversity initiative calls for random people to be inserted into jobs.

The assertion of the comment I responded to was that "People can learn on the job and can become not 'bad'" and asking if maybe there is something that makes some people bad at computers naturally, to which I responded as you have seen.

Re: Apple’s diversity chief out after outcry

#67

Post by gnicholas »

Simulacra wrote: post #60

I am a woman, and I work for a software company. We essentially hire by resume only, and we pay a service to scrub resumes and cover letters of anything that might reveal gender, race, or ethnicity. The outside firm does all of our interviews, whiteboards, etc. and only at the very end does the hiring manager get to meet the prospective employee, and say yes or no. To my knowledge, we've rarely said no, and we let th…

Why is there a need to scrub resumes if they're doing all the interviews/whiteboards/etc?

Also, you mention an office of 45% women and 40% minority. Is the split the same for your technical team?

Re: Apple’s diversity chief out after outcry

#68

Post by omegaworks »

dictum wrote: post #44
omegaworks wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* Why assume Group 2 has, or can produce, higher-valued thoughts ? * Why are there only three seats at the table? Diversity and inclusion is about analyzing and addressing systemic assumptions and the arbitrary, exclusionary constraints we put on ourselves as an industry. Contrived hypothetical scenarios fail to frame the real problem because those contrived scenarios are exactly what good policies push back against.

I don't see where the parent comment implies Group 2 is expected to produce "higher-valued" thoughts. Neither more diversity of thought between members of a group OR a single leaning, shared by all members of a group imply higher value.

The parent comment doesn't just imply that Group 2 has more valuable thought-diversity, they state it out right:

> In [Group 2's] case, diversity of thought is valued more than diversity of skin color.

Re: Apple’s diversity chief out after outcry

#69

Post by zaarn »

omegaworks wrote: post #68
dictum wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see where the parent comment implies Group 2 is expected to produce "higher-valued" thoughts. Neither more diversity of thought between members of a group OR a single leaning, shared by all members of a group imply higher value.

The parent comment doesn't just imply that Group 2 has more valuable thought-diversity, they state it out right: > In [Group 2's] case, diversity of thought is valued more than diversity of skin color.

No, that simply states that the diversity property of the thought is higher, not that the value property of the thought is higher.

And you claimed, quote, "Why assume Group 2 has, or can produce, higher-valued thoughts?"

Value of Thought and Diversity of Thought are two independent properties that can coexist independently.

Re: Apple’s diversity chief out after outcry

#70

Post by omegaworks »

zaarn wrote: post #69
omegaworks wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parent comment doesn't just imply that Group 2 has more valuable thought-diversity, they state it out right: > In [Group 2's] case, diversity of thought is valued more than diversity of skin color.

No, that simply states that the diversity property of the thought is higher, not that the value property of the thought is higher. And you claimed, quote, "Why assume Group 2 has, or can produce, higher-valued thoughts?" Value of Thought and Diversity of Thought are two independent properties that can coexist independently.

>Value of Thought and Diversity of Thought are two independent properties that can coexist independently.

Sure. But that's not what parent is claiming. Parent is claiming that the company that prefers to hire Group 1, values diversity of thought over diversity of skin color.

The assumption there is that Group 2 can't offer that same "diversity of thought." Parent doesn't consider whether "diversity of thought" actually follows from how parent defines Group 1, or that valuing "diversity of thought" in the way that it's claimed will make the company better.

Post reply on HN