New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity • Hacker News Board

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#481

Post by SamoyedFurFluff » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 1:49 PM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #433

Loughla wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to get too far into a debate about this, as we're well off the path of the article now, but I'm genuinely not sure if you've thought of this. Your argument: >the discrepancy comes from the types of jobs that men and women are in. only comes down to just being a moving the goal posts sort of thing from disparity in pay to disparity in expectation and opportunity for young men versus women. It's not a compelling ar…

> it points to a theory that societal norms serve to re-enforce the expectation of taking jobs in lower paying fields on women versus men. That’s one theory. Another is that women and men in the aggregate don’t choose the same careers in exactly even proportions.

But then why do those careers earn less money? Why is it that it just so happens that every job that is more likely for women to work also is paid less?

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#482

Post by krageon » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 1:51 PM UTC

yerwhat01010 wrote: post #235

pjc50 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Upthread: "why won't people treat each other's political reviews with respect in the workplace" This comment: "insane, dangerous garbage and it should not be tolerated"

HN isn't the workplace.

No, but what was described is ironic.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#483

Post by jcadam » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 1:51 PM UTC

livinginfear wrote: post #80

I consider myself a very politically informed person. I'm not a politically active person however, largely for the reasons mentioned in the article. I considered myself a liberal by the standards of the time I grew up in. My views on some social issues, particularly 'free speech', are considered a conservative now. I am one of the people the article is concerning who will not publicly voice their political opinions i…

HR departments are also being given the false impression that their latest "initiatives" have near-universal support because they only hear words of praise from the usual politically outspoken set. Everyone else keeps their mouths shut.

A large number of employees are in a "quiet seething" mode and are becoming increasingly disengaged from workplace culture (i.e., "I don't want to get to know any of you. I just want to do my work and clock out").

On the bright side, remote work helps with this.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#484

Post by SketchySeaBeast » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 1:52 PM UTC

giantg2 wrote: post #460

Loughla wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously that is the case. It would be startling if adults chose careers in exactly even proportions, regardless of their gender, age, ethnicity, or whatever. BUT, based on human developmental theory and how people make decisions, no choice is truly random. Therefore, there must be a reason for those choices. Your theory offers no explanation other than random chance, from what I can tell. Identifying inputs and out…

I think the main issue was with the "expectation" part. It carries an insinuation of being forced, or socially shunned, etc. There are choices being made, and choices aren't random. I don't really see expectations that a woman take a lower paying job playing into that very much. I can see more pressure on the other side - like for the man to pay for everything on dates, support their family, etc, with the resulting l…

I'm assume you're male because you're coming at it from that perspective. Do you believe there is no pressure when you're one of the few women in an engineering course? There's a lot at play here, and focusing on your slice may prevent you from seeing the whole.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#485

Post by giantg2 » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 1:52 PM UTC

Loughla wrote: post #459

giantg2 wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is basically my point. If you have a srated goal of getting to 1.00 v 1.00 with that metric and focus on the individuals in the same jobs, then you will never get there. It's a mismatch between policy and intent. Using the goal post analogy, there taking their shots at the sideline without realizing where the goal really is. The posts haven't moved, they just see a mirage in another place. "...points to a theory…

I'm afraid you've missed my point. Obviously no one is forcing individual people into one career or another. Never in my life has someone held a gun to my head and said, "pick a job in education, because I say so." But, society as a whole, places expectations on some groups, but not others. Whether those expectations are to be the caregiver or big tough man who provides for the family. Therefore, career choice, and t…

"Therefore, career choice, and the pay outcomes, are not truly based on merit or ability, and can be controlled by unfair external factors. Further, what this means is that the playing field is not level. Some people will have advantages, just because of how they were born - which is the issue we started with."

I could be a doctor, or a lawyer, or some other high paying powerful job, but I chose not to. Does that have anything to do with my gender? Why am I not being paid on my merits and abilities eventhough I chose not to take those paths in life?

The idea that the pay is based on someone's innate abilities or merits is insane. You get paid for your output/outcomes in the job that you work. There is not some unfair external factor based on how someone is born (you can choose your gender). There are people of all backgrounds in every job. If you're claiming some inherent characteristic at birth is fatalistic in determining one's outcome, you are greatly mistaken. Sure, you can be born with intelligence or physical abilities that can make it easier to get to some high paying professional or sports job, but there are plenty of people born with less who work harder to make up for that and are successful.

People choose work because they are driven by money (which your argument focuses on). Other people choose work on if it's their passion. Or they might want to make the world a better place. Assuming it's all about money is a huge mistake.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#486

Post by tstrimple » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 1:54 PM UTC

zxzax wrote: post #475

dbrueck wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Applying those labels to people who are objectively and overtly acting that way is not the problem. The problem is that way too often people are assuming it's there. It's a presumption of intent, "racism is one possible explanation for your viewpoint, therefore I somehow /just know/ that you are a racist person". Example: every recent white-cop-shot-a-black-person incident in the U.S. Not only is there widespread ass…

>Not only is there widespread assumption of racism being the motivation (despite little or no evidence of that) It's hard to say what all the issues of individual motivation are in every case, but there is evidence that racism plays a factor. [0] It may not be because of overt racism, the officers involved don't have to attend klan rallies for other racially biased policies like redlining to have a broad effect on po…

Cooperation is no guarantee that you won't be extra-judiciously murdered without consequences either. We have plenty of examples like Philando Castile to put the myth of "just cooperate" to rest.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#487

Post by msg3 » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 1:54 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #334

krapp wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The issue of calling someone "a liar / cheat" if they're not belongs to libel. Same way yelling fire in a crowded cinema is a public safety issue. >Expression of ideas is neither, and should not have "consequences". Both libel and inciting imminent lawless action are expressions of ideas, that term is so vague as to be all-encompassing. And the latter example has been upheld by the Supreme Court as protected free sp…

> Both libel and inciting imminent lawless action are expressions of ideas, that term is so vague as to be all-encompassing. And yet courts all over the world are able to separate them from "expression of ideas" (here in Europe e.g. where we have and use libel laws). It's not that hard either, unless we specifically go for edge case. "X is a thief" can be libel. "The climate is in danger/is not in danger and we shoul…

> "The climate is in danger/is not in danger and we should or shouldn't do so and so" is an expression of an idea, and can't be libel.

If I was an employee of a climate action advocacy group, wouldn't publicly stating that the climate is not in danger cause harm to my employer? Should they be forced to continue employing me despite that harm?

Again, I'm not advocating that this person should be fired, but it feels like overreach to say that it shouldn't be possible for someone to be fired for what they say.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#488

Post by zozbot234 » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 1:54 PM UTC

Loughla wrote: post #472

zozbot234 wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to answer because I'm not sure what you're asking, or why you are confused. The first and second sentence are describing libertarians' understanding of freedom as a value, and how this connects with "preserving existing values" to use GP's phrasing. It's quite wrong to say that sexual orientation "was not part of our culture in the past", as GP contends (unless you mean a quite remote past). If anything, it…

So, maybe I'm overthinking. Those two sentences read as if personal liberty is important, but LGBT marriage somehow impact others' personal freedoms. This is based on my knowledge that conservatives tend to be anti-lgbt marriage rights. Maybe it's the grouping of conservatives and libertarians together. Maybe that's where my head gets lost.

Well, in the United States LGBT marriage was instated via an application and extension of customary law, not any statute from Congress or even any overt politics. I see this as being quite compatible with conservative and libertarian values, seeking to remove undue interference from personal lives as much as possible. I'm not sure why you would disagree. Progressive activists may see the political process as the only way of achieving "positive" change, but that's a short-sighted point of view.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#489

Post by stickfigure » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 1:56 PM UTC

creata wrote: post #454

nostromo wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it points to a theory that societal norms serve to re-enforce the expectation of taking jobs in lower paying fields on women versus men. That’s one theory. Another is that women and men in the aggregate don’t choose the same careers in exactly even proportions.

> Another is that women and men in the aggregate don’t choose the same careers in exactly even proportions. That's not a theory, that's just restating the question! Why is the distribution the way it is, and should we make efforts to change it?

Maybe, but I still think there's an important point in there.

We (society) do a lot of handwringing about CEO and engineering jobs, but these aren't even remotely the most gender-asymmetric careers out there.

According to [1], "Locomotive engineers and operators" are 92.3 percent male. I'm willing to bet that if you can "fix" that problem - or even conclusively identify the cause - gender imbalance issues in other fields will be less contentious.

[1] https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#490

Post by krageon » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 1:58 PM UTC

thrwyoilarticle wrote: post #344

emerged wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I simply unfriended everyone online who virtue signals and/or engages in hostile politics. That includes some family members. If asked, it’s simple enough to explain calmly and honestly.

That sounds a lot like you restricting the viewpoint diversity of your social circle.

Sure, but then again viewpoint diversity isn't a universal good to be chased at the expense of everything else :)