Untitled topic • Hacker News Board

Re: undefined

#31

Post by zimablue » Wed, Nov 21, 2018, 11:40 AM UTC

k___ wrote: post #17

zimablue wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Works" according to what definition of working? Works to create a gender balance that you assume a priori is "correct" with any deviation being down to evil discrimination? Or do you have some more interesting definition?

A cursory google search that took 30 seconds. FT: Diversity bring boost to profitability: https://www.ft.com/content/1bc22040-1302-11e7-80f4-13e067d50... McKinsey: Why Diversity Matters https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our... Academic paper based on multiple case studies: https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/SHR-10-2017-... It is head-smackingly obvious that a wide variety of experi…

So you've picked a metric "profitability".

First one paywall, third one no evidence, second one correlation causation. It's head smackingly obvious that the most profitable companies tend to be the largest/most publically visible, and the most vulnerable to lobbying for quotas, and with the most ability (since their profit is based on being a big boy who can extract rent) to implement whatever is socially desired at the time.

Take tech, look at the most profitable companies, they're also the biggest, they're also the most lobbied.

Per your final comment, the job of senior executives is not always, (or even normally?) focussed on market research/product. Old Apple being the famous exception.

There's gap between your prose and how watertight the evidence you presented is.

Re: undefined

#32

Post by wongarsu » Wed, Nov 21, 2018, 11:45 AM UTC

mikekchar wrote: post #25

The CS department at my university (back in the stone age when I went there) had a policy to have equal number men and women in tenured positions. As this was the 1980s, it was a fairly progressive move. They had a really hard time finding qualified women willing to take the post, though. As there were so few women in the field, the demand for them was overwhelming and there were much more reputable institutions than…

I was part of my university's hiring process for cs professors a few times. Half the time there wasn't a single female applicant. If there was a female applicant, based on the objective measures considered (papers, grants, teaching awards etc) the female applicant always landed in the lower third, the ones that get sorted out quickly. Needless to say, I haven't witnessed a woman being hired, it just never appeared as the sensible choice.

Hiring women is really hard if the hiring pool is too one-sided.

Re: undefined

#33

Post by belorn » Wed, Nov 21, 2018, 11:51 AM UTC

threeseed wrote: post #4

There has been a staggering amount of research over the decades on this topic. And there are countless real world examples in particular within business and politics which support the conclusions of the research. Simply that quotas work and encouragement doesn't. So thank you anonymous guy for trying to prove the opposite with no facts or evidence. And maybe in a century or so when we have eradicated systemic sexism…

If the research and conclusions are that clear, lets make it a law. To give that some perspective with Swedish data; 87.4% of men and 87.6% of women has a professions position that is gender segregated. Out of the top five worst offenders four is dominated by women. In higher education there one program that is currently fully dominated by a single gender and that one is 100% women.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if a law demand gender quotas for those ~90% of work places. If we assume a linear distribution where the average work place has a gender ratio of 80:20, about 18% of every employed person in Sweden would then get their job through the gender quota law which is then about a half million women and men. That would make for a fascinating social experiment.

Re: undefined

#34

Post by raxxorrax » Wed, Nov 21, 2018, 11:51 AM UTC

erdaniels wrote: post #2

This should not only apply to gender but also to race and ethnicity. I’ve seen too much white, male dominated positions of responsibility beyond an individual contributor. This requires managers to be the ones that promote from within and recognize good skills among any kind of person on their team while keeping in mind their backgrounds and how that may affect their perception.

because there are so many examples in history that tell us that these kind of messures lead always to perfect success stories.

Re: undefined

#35

Post by zimablue » Wed, Nov 21, 2018, 12:41 PM UTC

erdaniels wrote: post #2

This should not only apply to gender but also to race and ethnicity. I’ve seen too much white, male dominated positions of responsibility beyond an individual contributor. This requires managers to be the ones that promote from within and recognize good skills among any kind of person on their team while keeping in mind their backgrounds and how that may affect their perception.

Wealth, class and attractiveness too right? Then we can work on height, personality type and start breaking ethnicity into appearance, genetics, accent, place of birth, place where you grew up, same for your parents. Make sure we're equalized across all of those then we can go back and iterate on more fractions.

Re: undefined

#36

Post by lupinglade » Wed, Nov 21, 2018, 2:35 PM UTC

mjevans wrote: post #6

have_faith wrote: post #3

The article doesn't seem to say much beyond the heading. How do you reconcile being anti positive discrimination, wanting more women in various fields, not having a goal as to what number is enough and not understanding when any of the various sides involved will be happy with the result. Will the author be happy if women are only promoted because of their talents but an imbalance is achieved as a result?

Seek out the negative aspects of a given thing as a profession, as well as the positive ones. Make the profession desirably by decreasing the bad and increasing the good; for everyone, fairly.

Exactly. The current approach seems so backwards. Yes, don’t discriminate in either direction - choose based on real value, based on skill, experience or potential. This inverse descriminarion is just as bad, if not worse. It may be necessary for a temporary rebalance, but after that it needs to go away. Just like all the skin color Emoji, what in the world? All they do is promote racism and highlight skin color as a key difference. Why aren’t there Emoji for different eye color , hair color and all combinations? A blended color is far better.