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

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#531

Post by Loughla » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 2:42 PM UTC

giantg2 wrote: post #496

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I can see pressure if the woman (or any first-of) is one of the first in their role/job to do well and represent their subgroup. This of course implies that there is a stereotype to overcome, which I see as a very small minority sentiment today. I didn't notice any stereotyping related to women in my classes. Also, in my masters courses the gender mix was probably 60% male 40% female. There is a lot at play, and ther…

And what you have done, I am willing to bet, is use your own individual experiences to draw conclusions for the wider world. My own personal experience is that this is almost never a good idea (see what I did there). This is not a values judgment, or meant to be hateful at all, really.

This paragraph reads as if you are saying, "I've never seen it, so it doesn't exist."

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#532

Post by KozmoNau7 » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 2:42 PM UTC

efaref wrote: post #292

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is absolutely a freedom. The really important thing here is that your freedom does not overrule the freedom of others. It's freedom of speech, not an obligation to listen to or agree with or condone what you say. As always, if your greatest argument for saying something is that you have the right to say it, maybe reconsider what you're about to say.

So "freedom of speech" is where you can say what you want, except that if you say the wrong thing to the wrong person, then there are potentially serious repercussions, up to and including imprisonment. I'm curious to know what not having freedom of speech would look like.

I'll repeat myself: "your freedom does not overrule the freedom of others."

Words can and do cause harm, just as actions can and do. You don't see very many people seriously arguing for "freedom of action", because that would be an utterly chaotic and brutal society, even worse than the extremes of feudalism or warlordism.

Actions have consequences, and words have consequences. Arguing that you cannot be held responsible for the words that come out of your mouth or text written by your hand, is completely ridiculous.

Often I see the very same people who argue fiercely for personal responsibility above all, turn around and argue for free speech absolutism, seemingly unaware of the absurd incompatibility of those two stances.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#533

Post by dbrueck » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 2:46 PM UTC

andrepd wrote: post #467

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 Well, is there?? Everybody I seem to interact with doesn't think so. Where are all those bogeymen chanting racism right away? Surely you can quote some sort of survey to back up your perception, right?

For starters, go search Twitter for 'George Floyd' - it's hard to find threads that /don't/ make it about racism to some degree or another. But even a cursory search on other sides yields oodles of results; here's some from just the first page or two of hits:

"Racism killed George Floyd" - https://www.americantheatre.org/2021/04/15/day-after-day-rac... "George Floyd murder exposes rotten racism in the US" - https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1190140.shtml https://coloradohealth.org/insights/good-health/racism-publi... https://www.amestrib.com/story/opinion/2021/04/01/opinion-ge...

There's pages and pages of this stuff. And beyond that there's layers of not-explicit-but-not-subtle positioning of incidents - if a cop (of any color) shoots a white person, it's a police shooting and usually doesn't go much further than the local news. If a cop (of any color) shoots a black person, it's national news and the victim's race is mentioned constantly. If racism is not being implied, what is the relevance of his race?

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#534

Post by klyrs » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 2:49 PM UTC

lazyasciiart wrote: post #146

klyrs wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the apolitical don't feel the need to discuss politics at work; they'll get on just fine. It's the political who will leave places they disagree with, accelerating polarization.

Plenty of people (from any point on the spectrum) identify as apolitical because they think their beliefs about the world are the neutral standard. They don't feel the need to discuss politics, but in their mind that doesn't cover things like that crazy story on the news about parents who were letting their daughter pretend to be a boy, or mentioning that their sister's wife is visiting.

Yes, yes, I hear what you're saying. Women who wear pants, black people who insist on getting paid for their work, or casually mention their white spouses, people who wear yarmulkes and turbans? Those apolitical people? Why should they feel the need to go anywhere?

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#535

Post by mensetmanusman » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 2:49 PM UTC

SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #481

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.

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?

I think mortality/danger is an interesting axis:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/187078/occupational-inju...

If, by being a man, you are 10x more likely to die from your job, and you are 10x more likely to die younger, should society compensate for your fewer hours lived?

If no, why would society decide to undervalue males?

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#536

Post by Const-me » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 2:52 PM UTC

Loughla wrote: post #513

Const-me wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and can be controlled by unfair external factors Are you sure about that? In Sweden, society is very gender-equal: they have paternity leave, very small paygap, about 50% of women in leadership position. Yet only 13% of Swedish engineers are women. I think if you eliminate all the external factors you’re talking about, you still won’t get anywhere close to 50% of female engineers, or 50% of male pediatricians, as l…

>you still won’t get anywhere close to 50% of female engineers, or 50% of male pediatricians, as long as people are free to choose a profession. And that's fair. My argument isn't that it needs to be split and completely equal. It's that the freedom to choose needs to be equal, and the playing field needs to be level, so that who is and who isn't in 'field a' is, in fact based on merit and not arbitrary classificatio…

> It's that the freedom to choose needs to be equal, and the playing field needs to be level

I agree. About race inequality, I think in the US the two main causes are public schools paid by local district taxes, and very expensive higher education.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#537

Post by kalleboo » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 2:52 PM UTC

andrepd wrote: post #461

hilbert42 wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"However, I fear the repercussions of offending others who do not have an open mind." You're dead right and it's damned terrible. I long for both formal and informal debates on many topics but without my opponents becoming annoyed or offended (as so often they do nowadays). These days it seems almost impossible to debate any subject without upsetting someone. I now long for the type of television programs that I reme…

> I now long for the type of television programs that I remember from my youth—talking heads discussing and debating serious topics. There are orders of magnitude more such content now than there was for instance 40 years ago. There's probably hundreds of hours of your favourite philosopher/economist/pundit's lectures/debates/speeches at your fingertips. Click-click and you literally begin to hear them talk in less t…

Of course with an abundance of content comes the issue of curation. Media used to be curated by people with sometimes lofty goals of trying to be highbrow, and having their journalism subsidized by classified ads. Now everyone has to be a tabloid. With an abundance of content also comes niche-ization, where to get a loyal audience you need to keep pandering to their pre-conceived notions. Debates between opposite sites these days get condemned by both sides.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#538

Post by varispeed » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 2:52 PM UTC

neither_color wrote: post #505

varispeed wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> join the conversation, bring your whole self to work, etc. This is a classic honeypot. They want to weed out people who have views that do not align with current PC status quo. One of the reasons is that no company wants to be associates with an employee who has views that could damage company image and lose money. They want your whole self, so they can discard you if they think you are a liability.

There is no social setting besides close friends and family(and therapy I suppose) where you should ever "be yourself." I never caught on to the trend that started with social media of blurting or tweeting out whatever you're thinking and for good reason. Now people are going back years scrubbing candid thoughts they had when they were teenagers while the naturally reticent have nothing to worry about.

> and therapy I suppose

In many countries therapists have a duty to break confidentiality for example if they think you have a intent to break the law. I knew people with drug problem who didn't go for a therapy out of fear the therapist will report them to the police.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#539

Post by ectopod » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 2:52 PM UTC

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #192

dr_dshiv wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say that this is a failure of philosophy in political leadership. Not that philosophy was ever paramount in politics, but it was at least expected in the highest classes. Everything devolves into tribalism without philosophy. It looks like people are discoursing, but they are really just signalling.

> It looks like people are discoursing, but they are really just signalling. I was looking to put words on my feeling about this, and you did it perfectly. I was wondering why suddenly so many people voiced the same engaged opinion, while I know for having discussed with them in private settings that they don't think deeply about society. Now I realize that's because they want to look like they belong to a certain ki…

I thought this was very insightful: https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27181

When choosing what to believe people ask “what is the social consequence of accepting the facts as they are?”

It explains the tribalism and the signalling and more besides.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#540

Post by sollewitt » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 2:56 PM UTC

dbrueck wrote: post #413

tstrimple wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why everyone keeps scoffing at the idea of calling some of these folks Nazis or racists. It's not hyperbole or an exaggeration. We did have a rally with a bunch of white nationalists exercising their "free speech" to chant "The Jews will not replace us" and they ended up murdering someone there. We had a National Security Advisor to the President of the United States promoting replacement theory. There a…

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…

Data on lifetime likelihood of death by cop in the US by ethnicity. https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793

It's very evident the US has strong implicit biases just from the Justice system. We could also look at incarceration rates, or sentencing disparities by ethnicity.

At some point saying "hey, we can't just _assume_ this is racist" _appears_ less like good faith debate and more like bad faith denialism.