Diversity quotas suck. Here’s why • Hacker News Board

Re: Diversity quotas suck. Here’s why

#61

Post by zaarn » Mon, Jul 30, 2018, 8:20 AM UTC

eesmith wrote: post #56

woodman wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But I can't wrap my head around what "diversity of thought" means, in any meaningful way. For that to be true, you'd have to be unaware of the fact that people can process data and reason through complex problems differently. > I assume 'diversity of thought' refers to expressed thoughts - our mind reading devices aren't that good. That is a poor assumption that requires the redefinition of the word "thought". Our…

> "people can process data and reason through complex problems differently" This was in the context of hiring, and I gave my operational definition - how does one apply 'diversity of thought' to the hiring process? > "Here is a complex problem that can be solved in more than one way - show your work." Presenting a solution, or an attempt at a solution, is an expression of one's thoughts. > "diversity of thought is ve…

Here is an example that I've mentioned in a top-level comment here; ask the candidate to design a calculator. Budget doesn't matter and they can do it software or phyiscal.

All that matters is that at the end the calculator is the most ideal one for you as the candidate. All the features you wish for and none of the downsides.

So you get a bit of paper to draw on and maybe write some short text.

Compare the results to what your team has drawn when they were hired (or you asked them separately).

Of course the comparison is still subjectively but ideally you pick the candidate with the most different calculator from the others.

That's better than coding tests since you can look at the result and it's independent of coding skill.

Similar tests are possible where you don't test coding skill but instead test if and how much a person thinks outside the box and what it looks like. This would better help to assemble diverse teams than a simple coding tests.

Another one would be to look for people that are contra to the current team. If you develop COBOL look for a developer that can do COBOL but hates it and would love to switch elsewhere. These kinds of people will make your team diverse since they can find problems more efficiently.

I think the problem there is that your diversity tests still only test for coding skills, which aren't as important when you consider that someone with a fresh and contra perspective to your current team could be much more helpful.

Re: Diversity quotas suck. Here’s why

#62

Post by ramblerman » Mon, Jul 30, 2018, 8:20 AM UTC

batiudrami wrote: post #35

fipple wrote: post #26

"Diversity" is just overrated completely, as a concept. The highest-performing company in America, Apple, has close to zero race or gender diversity, and if you peel back one layer, it has very little diversity of thought" as well. Why? Because the company was built to execute Steve Jobs' ideas. The more that any given executive could run an emulator of Steve Jobs' brain, the less of Jobs' time he required. "Ideas ar…

It makes me sad that you think diversity is overrated because there are corporations who get "great financial results" without it. Diversity is good because it is designed such that, as best we can, everyone has equal opportunities. While, as a white man the fact that I may have been overlooked in graduate programs because many engineering firms have quotas sucks, but it is one small impediment in a world which was b…

> affirmative action is the best we have

I think the problem with affirmative action in the gender space is that there is some evidence to suggest that a purely unbiased world would not be one where every industry had a perfect 50/50 split.

So when you approach the problem from the 'outcome' end, it's hard to know what outcome you should be aiming for.

Re: Diversity quotas suck. Here’s why

#63

Post by xtrapolate » Mon, Jul 30, 2018, 8:20 AM UTC

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #42

fipple wrote: post #26

"Diversity" is just overrated completely, as a concept. The highest-performing company in America, Apple, has close to zero race or gender diversity, and if you peel back one layer, it has very little diversity of thought" as well. Why? Because the company was built to execute Steve Jobs' ideas. The more that any given executive could run an emulator of Steve Jobs' brain, the less of Jobs' time he required. "Ideas ar…

I have never understood the point of view that diversity is unnecessary. Quite apart from the most diverse places I've worked having been by far the most enjoyable across my career. You say Apple has almost none, yet is doing great. So what? Lots of things that were or are shit have done well. Even things that are now illegal. Do you like discrimination? Every company the size of Apple should have people of all backg…

> "Do you like discrimination?"

I'd argue "diversity quotas" are the very archetype of discrimination.

Re: Diversity quotas suck. Here’s why

#64

Post by telltruth » Mon, Jul 30, 2018, 8:24 AM UTC

d--b wrote: post #22

Quotas are tough for people right now, but they serve a longer term role. Because of quotas, there is more diversity in tech. That's a fact. Some dumb-ass dudes may tell you: "oh you're here because of diversity quotas, not for your inherent quality", and it will be annoying for you. But the purpose of the quotas is that the next generation of students can look at the distribution and tell themselves: "oh, actually t…

Quotas are never good - regardless of whether it is for diversity or something else. Even when you are writing code and if you are doing quota for something, it's a signal that you have a crappy design and quotas is going to only make it more crappier. The solution to crappy design is to attack the root problem and make sure your algorithms are fair so there is no need to impose quota.

Re: Diversity quotas suck. Here’s why

#65

Post by xtrapolate » Mon, Jul 30, 2018, 8:27 AM UTC

matthewmacleod wrote: post #52

fipple wrote: post #26

"Diversity" is just overrated completely, as a concept. The highest-performing company in America, Apple, has close to zero race or gender diversity, and if you peel back one layer, it has very little diversity of thought" as well. Why? Because the company was built to execute Steve Jobs' ideas. The more that any given executive could run an emulator of Steve Jobs' brain, the less of Jobs' time he required. "Ideas ar…

This is an obvious false correlation. You have no evidence that Apple would not be even more successful were the engineering team more diverse.

> "This is an obvious false correlation. You have no evidence that Apple would not be even more successful were the engineering team more diverse."

This argument goes both ways. We also don't have concrete evidence proving that "diversifying the engineering team" will necessarily result in success.

Re: Diversity quotas suck. Here’s why

#66

Post by xtrapolate » Mon, Jul 30, 2018, 8:57 AM UTC

d--b wrote: post #22

Quotas are tough for people right now, but they serve a longer term role. Because of quotas, there is more diversity in tech. That's a fact. Some dumb-ass dudes may tell you: "oh you're here because of diversity quotas, not for your inherent quality", and it will be annoying for you. But the purpose of the quotas is that the next generation of students can look at the distribution and tell themselves: "oh, actually t…

> "Because of quotas, there is more diversity in tech. That's a fact."

Fair enough. Besides the obvious "diversification" of the company's populace, what other success factors can be directly attributed to quotas?

Re: Diversity quotas suck. Here’s why

#67

Post by ckastner » Mon, Jul 30, 2018, 9:01 AM UTC

toomanybeersies wrote: post #24

What I've always found odd is when a company advertises something like "we have 50% women on the programming team" when only 20% of the programming workforce is female. That's not really fair is it? The company is overly diverse if anything. In a way they're stealing women from the workforce of other companies. Diversity needs to happen from the ground up. Affirmative action is more effective and more appropriate the…

> What I've always found odd is when a company advertises something like "we have 50% women on the programming team" when only 20% of the programming workforce is female.

> That's not really fair is it? The company is overly diverse if anything. In a way they're stealing women from the workforce of other companies.

This was always a mystery to me as well. Unless you are expanding the workforce, it's a zero-sum game, so exhibiting a higher ratio merely means that someone else must have a lower ratio. Aiming for a higher ratio isn't empowering at all.

If a 50/50 ratio is to be meaningful, you have to fix the workforce ratio, first.

Re: Diversity quotas suck. Here’s why

#68

Post by gattilorenz » Mon, Jul 30, 2018, 9:05 AM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #58

gattilorenz wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, my point was exactly that discriminating is fine, if it means recognizing differences and providing equal opportunities (sure, that's not exactly what quotas do all the times, but it's what they are trying to do). You don't have to agree, of course. I wonder if you think that there is prejudice/discrimination that quotas are trying to fix (in a deeply flawed way, according to your view; in an imperfect but stil…

You do not have to remove opportunity from one person to grant it to another. They both can have the same opportunity, and then will compete between themselves naturally, which is as it should be.

Sure, I totally agree. In a perfect world, merit is enough and if you're black, gay, female, muslim, transgender, alt-right supporter or flat earther does not matter, as long as that does not pose a problem with what you're supposed to do (a flat-earther could be a great programmer, but I wouldn't hire him/her as an astronomer).

Sad truth is, it does not work this way atm, and fixing it is painfully hard for multiple reasons. Quotas try to do that in an imperfect way, sure. But I think it's good that someone is at least 1. acknowledging the problem 2. doing something practical to fix it.

So, concretely, how do you propose we fix prejudice and discrimination in this context? Because saying and knowing how it "should" be, does not magically make it happen...

[edit]: ..and unfortunately I don't think anonymous interview can be used everywhere.

Re: Diversity quotas suck. Here’s why

#69

Post by YeGoblynQueenne » Mon, Jul 30, 2018, 9:40 AM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #27

d--b wrote: post #22

Quotas are tough for people right now, but they serve a longer term role. Because of quotas, there is more diversity in tech. That's a fact. Some dumb-ass dudes may tell you: "oh you're here because of diversity quotas, not for your inherent quality", and it will be annoying for you. But the purpose of the quotas is that the next generation of students can look at the distribution and tell themselves: "oh, actually t…

Why do people care so much about what others look like in a field instead of doing what they're interested in? Perhaps that's the real issue at the root of all this.

>> Why do people care so much about what others look like in a field instead of doing what they're interested in?

That cuts both ways. Many people will not hire someone who "doesn't look the part" because they think that means they can't do the job.

Re: Diversity quotas suck. Here’s why

#70

Post by belorn » Mon, Jul 30, 2018, 3:10 PM UTC

batiudrami wrote: post #35

fipple wrote: post #26

"Diversity" is just overrated completely, as a concept. The highest-performing company in America, Apple, has close to zero race or gender diversity, and if you peel back one layer, it has very little diversity of thought" as well. Why? Because the company was built to execute Steve Jobs' ideas. The more that any given executive could run an emulator of Steve Jobs' brain, the less of Jobs' time he required. "Ideas ar…

It makes me sad that you think diversity is overrated because there are corporations who get "great financial results" without it. Diversity is good because it is designed such that, as best we can, everyone has equal opportunities. While, as a white man the fact that I may have been overlooked in graduate programs because many engineering firms have quotas sucks, but it is one small impediment in a world which was b…

If affirmative action is the best tool, why not make it into a general rule or law. At minimum why doesn't the government who love to talk about diversity implement it as a generally policy for their own hiring? A simple "if a government job title has less than X% compared to existing proportion of the population, then any new hiring must apply affirmative action to correct it".

One of the biggest problem with affirmative action is that it is always used in a discriminating way. If one were to sort the worst gender or race segregated profession guess how proportional affirmative action is being applied? A while back I took a list of the top 20 gender segregated profession here in Sweden and most of them were government employed, and there is no policy in regard to hiring procedures to address that. No one is even suggesting affirmative action to address the worst professions with 99%/1% and higher gender segregation.

To give some context for Sweden, 90% of the employed people work in a profession that is considered gender segregated. That is to say if you take a random employed woman or man there is a 90% chance that they work somewhere where the ratio is worse than 60/40. If affirmative action was only used to address gender segregation then 9 out of 10 new hiring should be using it.