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

Want to Solve Venture Capital's Diversity Problem? Start with Pension Funds

dot.la

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 118 posts

Re: Want to Solve Venture Capital's Diversity Problem? Start with Pension Funds

#71

Post by Avicebron »

malandrew wrote: post #58
bitcurious wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Diversity of viewpoints is essential for long term prosperity - it allows for a marketplace of ideas and limits blind spots. The first time this really clicked for me was when I dived deeply into the history of the First World War. If I could restate the root cause, it was complete failure by both the British and especially the Germans to envision a point of view different from their own. They each operated like they…

> Diversity of viewpoints is essential for long term prosperity Maybe the solution here is to develop a standardized test that measures diversity of viewpoint in a way that is blind to genetics.

Hey I agree, once we say "you're genetics give you a diversity of viewpoint" we are typecasting by genetics. Once we say, "you're genetics make you think this way" we are walking right down the path of eugenics....seem's wrong?

Re: Want to Solve Venture Capital's Diversity Problem? Start with Pension Funds

#72

Post by mullingitover »

john_moscow wrote: post #70
mullingitover wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like you're assuming that having an all-white workforce, absent the political blowback that this would cause, is some kind of competitive advantage? Am I understanding you correctly?

I am assuming that having workforce hired purely based on their ability to perform the job, would be a competitive advantage if the company was aiming at efficiency rather than playing games with investors (which is another long story). I am not saying anything about their race and I personally know many competent people from many races and ethnicities. Ironically, by interpreting my statement as an claim that such a…

> I am assuming that having workforce hired purely based on their ability to perform the job, would be a competitive advantage if the company was aiming at efficiency rather than playing games with investors (which is another long story)

Have you considered that the companies with diverse executive teams and boards did exactly that?

Can you point me to the list of companies where their lack of diversity at the executive and board members level has 'cost them dearly'?

Re: Want to Solve Venture Capital's Diversity Problem? Start with Pension Funds

#73

Post by lawnchair_larry »

TheGrim999 wrote: post #19
amluto wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> by being as racist as it's possible to be. Even if someone were to hire someone else solely because of the color of their skin, this would be nowhere near as racist as it’s possible to be. Hint: people are being killed because of the color of their skin right now. People in the US used to buy people in large numbers because of the color of their skin.

I know this will be hard to accept, but no matter how many people tell me that minorities are being killed because of the color of their skin, I've noticed that not a single one of these people ever include any facts or data to back up that claim. Sure, black people are killed by police. So are white people. So are people of every race. All the actual data I've seen is that black people are killed less frequently, in…

I too was fooled by this mind virus until I got curious recently and looked at the stats. I was surprised at what I found and I felt played. The whole thing is a massive lie, and a highly successful manipulation by groups with radical agendas, and the well-meaning masses that they have managed to zombify.

Re: Want to Solve Venture Capital's Diversity Problem? Start with Pension Funds

#74

Post by Avicebron »

perl4ever wrote: post #43
TheGrim999 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know this will be hard to accept, but no matter how many people tell me that minorities are being killed because of the color of their skin, I've noticed that not a single one of these people ever include any facts or data to back up that claim. Sure, black people are killed by police. So are white people. So are people of every race. All the actual data I've seen is that black people are killed less frequently, in…

"in proportion to the violent crime they commit" This comes across as tone deaf when people are talking about victims who were not committing violent crimes. For example, allegedly passing a counterfeit $20. Furthermore, the violent crime statistics exist in the context of people not being able to trust the police, and to the extent they do, the police not doing anything in response to shootings. So it's easy to see…

This is ridiculous trying to pin the prevalence of violent crime in some communities as the fault of the police. What evidence supports this?

Maybe you can say that violent crime is an offshoot of poverty, but a lot of poor communities don't have the same violent crime as others..so that's tenuous at best.

The big experiment would be to reduce the poverty of all groups and see what happens to violent crime, maybe then we don't need police and can have un-armed social workers. But until then, the correlation is community with high violence...incites violence from police, suspicion is then generated against that group. Simple statistics.

Re: Want to Solve Venture Capital's Diversity Problem? Start with Pension Funds

#75

Post by Avicebron »

malandrew wrote: post #50
john_moscow wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would dare say the causality is reversed here. Once your company reaches a certain size, NOT having a diverse executive team will very quickly get you labeled as racist and will cost you dearly. Nobody cares about a mom and pop bakery, but imagine the outrage in the media, if Apple or Google did not pick their executive teams based on the diversity constraints.

Not only that, for the time period when this study was done, the most successful businesses will be in cities where there is statistically a more diverse pool to draw from. Is the cause the diversity or is it that cities are generally hyper-competitive places that draw the most competitive people in society and filter out those that can't hack it. Your reason and my reason are just two possibilities of reversed causa…

China is a great example, very mono-cultural (relative to the US, I know there is different great diversity in China) and (personal experience) a bit racist or dismissive of Non-Chinese.

Yet they absolute crush it with almost everything they do? How do we square that circle and say well..if everyone just looked different we would be better off. Minus the white people, they shouldn't be around anymore.

Re: Want to Solve Venture Capital's Diversity Problem? Start with Pension Funds

#76

Post by lawnchair_larry »

mullingitover wrote: post #37
john_moscow wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would actually blame the corrective action for it. Companies are not personal, they are purely about managing business and risks. When you hire a person, you care for 2 things: 1. How likely will they perform their duties in a way that is profitable to the company? 2. How much will it cost to the company to fire them, if they turn out to generate loss. Some people may have a stereotype that people of certain backgr…

> Companies are not personal, they are purely about managing business and risks. Let's completely refute this notion: "Companies with more culturally and ethnically diverse executive teams were 33% more likely to see better-than-average profits. In McKinsey’s previous study—conducted with 2014 numbers—that increase had been 35%. At the board of directors level, more ethnically and cultural diverse companies were 43%…

You might want to read the actual study. It’s horribly mischaracterized everywhere.

Re: Want to Solve Venture Capital's Diversity Problem? Start with Pension Funds

#78

Post by adrianmonk »

tuna-piano wrote: post #9

What person from an underrepresented group wants to be chosen just because of their group status? Isn't that highly patronizing for someone who likely had worked hard to get to where they got? Do you want to be "pretty great for a xxxxx person!" or just "one of the best". Is this a lesson that people want their kids to learn? Doesn't this also lead discrimination actually being a rational (and maybe ethical) thing to…

> What person from an underrepresented group wants to be chosen just because of their group status? Isn't that highly patronizing for someone who likely had worked hard to get to where they got?

Your question rests on the assumption that that's actually how they feel about it.

If they are from an underrepresented group, then by definition there is some factor that works against them. (Or multiple factors.)

If you appropriately counterbalance that factor with another factor that works in their favor, then it shouldn't make them feel bad about themselves. Competing on a level playing field doesn't reflect negatively on someone. It doesn't undermine their confidence or cast doubt on their achievements.

Of course, this assumes the playing field is actually level. In theory it's possible to get this wrong. (You could apply either too little or too much correction. It's ultimately a quantitative question.) But my point is, to argue that someone would feel bad, you need to do more than say that correction has been applied; you also need to show that it is the wrong amount of correction.

> But if the top 90 of the 100 medical students are chosen and then 10 are chosen because of non-relevant factors (race, gender, etc)... doesn't it become rational (and maybe morally acceptable) to try and avoid choosing those lesser-qualified 10 for your life-or-death surgery?

What if the 90 were chosen in a process that is also not really entirely about their qualifications? Isn't this also a problem? Why focus only on the problems in choosing the 10?

Particularly as, when you get surgery, you're way more likely to get surgeon who is one of the 90. If this is the real concern, Amdahl's Law tells you to look first at the 90.

Re: Want to Solve Venture Capital's Diversity Problem? Start with Pension Funds

#79

Post by lawnchair_larry »

Avicebron wrote: post #75
malandrew wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only that, for the time period when this study was done, the most successful businesses will be in cities where there is statistically a more diverse pool to draw from. Is the cause the diversity or is it that cities are generally hyper-competitive places that draw the most competitive people in society and filter out those that can't hack it. Your reason and my reason are just two possibilities of reversed causa…

China is a great example, very mono-cultural (relative to the US, I know there is different great diversity in China) and (personal experience) a bit racist or dismissive of Non-Chinese. Yet they absolute crush it with almost everything they do? How do we square that circle and say well..if everyone just looked different we would be better off. Minus the white people, they shouldn't be around anymore.

Not to mention, anyone with half a brain that they are willing to use should already know that it’s absurd to think that 2 people with a different skin pigment have an advantage over 2 people with the same skin pigment. The willful delusion and mental gymnastics to justify reverse racism are a wonder to behold.

Re: Want to Solve Venture Capital's Diversity Problem? Start with Pension Funds

#80

Post by john_moscow »

Natsu wrote: post #46
TheGrim999 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you haven't noticed, that's been the goal for a long time now. People get accepted to college because of the color of their skin. People get better SAT scores now because of the color of their skin. Every major company has diversity boards which make sure to hire people based in the color of their skin. Hollywood and big business choose who to be in ads, movies, and other customer facing media because of the color…

It's weird that people act like this is the only solution to correct past injustice, too, when there's a much simpler racially-neutral method. You just help all disadvantaged persons equally. Inasmuch as any particular identifiable group is thereby disadvantaged, they're disproportionately helped by this neutral method. If only people of race X were poor, then helping all poor people would be isomorphic to helping al…

Because people who promote these policies have their own vested interest. The formula is always the same:

1. You pick a minority that suffers from something, compared to the majority. The minorities usually feel intimidated by the majority, and the viral/network effects within them are much stronger. Once you get them to back you, this directly translates to political capital.

2. You find a way to offer help to them, that is seen as beneficial at the first glance, but in the long run will not solve the problem. This entrenches them, making them dependent on your help.

3. You find a party that will pay for your policy. It needs to be a relatively large group with much weaker network effects. They also need to be wealthier than the minority, so you will be seen as a nuisance, rather than a real threat.

4. You use the "*ist" label to quickly shut up people criticizing your policy and pointing out its long-term inefficiency. Because most of the critics won't have a vested interest, they won't fight you till their political death. Instead, they will quickly retreat in fear of social media outrage against them.

Rinse and repeat. The minority continues to suffer, the silent majority is scared to criticize anything, the society becomes more and more polarized and divided.

Post reply on HN