What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

If you think human outcomes follow a simple normal distribution in a just world, then you are making the exact prime mistake I already pointed out; which is dramatically, and I mean dramatically, over-simplifying the world. Seriously: read some Thomas Sowell. Nothing about this world or this universe is normally distributed.

> Are you asserting that history has been just? Think hard before you answer this one.

What is "just"? Think hard before you answer that one. Actually, read "The Quest for Cosmic Justice" and the "Intellectuals and Society" by Sowell. You'll find that the social justice version of justice is vastly different from what people have historically thought of as justice. It is also, in my estimation, far more unjust, unfair, harmful, and evil than the traditional view. It is an arrogant ideology based on a belief that one has the power to shape the world, and all of society within it, according to one's whims, rather than a proper respect for the fact that we are brief sojourners in a vast, complex, and powerful universe, and a planet filled with billions of complex individuals.

> Sure, like my dice example. Except the problem is, for my dice example to be wrong, you need to specify a reason why some dice roll differently than others,

You should read "Discrimination and Disparities" By Thomas Sowell, where he quickly crushes the normal distribution hypothesis for economic outcome. He shows through very simple examples, which are still dramatically over-simplifying the world, where there are multiple preconditions for success, and where missing even one precondition results in the same failure as missing all of them. This model alone completely disproves a normal distribution hypothesis, even in a world where the preconditions are distributed randomly. And, not to sound like a broken record, the preconditions are not distributed randomly or evenly in any way, not by nature or time themselves.

> I assert that these two groups would have roughly the same outcome in almost any measure.

Nice assertion, but do you even have any scientific data to back it up? And, even if it you did, and I actually can't find any by searching, it would simply provide evidence that your birthday modulo 2 likely doesn't impact economic outcomes. But we can, of course, find economic disparity everywhere for a thousand different reasons. Firstborns on average have higher IQs and better economic outcomes than all other-borns. There is not random economic outcome distribution even within the same household and within the same genetic pool: http://jhr.uwpress.org/content/53/1/123.short.

In a world of universal economic disparity, the burden of proof is on you to show why things she be different and how. But, like your leftist forebears, you have no proof, only words and religious beliefs packaged into an ideology.

> Can we explain it by intrinsic differences?

You can explain it a billion different ways. The question is: who is right, and how do you prove it? Read "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" by Sowell, and "Intellectuals and Race" while you're at it. You'll find plenty of explanations that have nothing to do with either racism or of innate genetic differences. It is proponents of CRT who need to prove themselves, but because they are in vogue culturally, they get away with their evidence-less assertions without any pushback.

> Slavery, the Greenwood bombing, segregation, Jim Crow, police slayings -- those are not hypothetical events dreamed up by "leftists" to account for racial disparity we observe.

It's good leftists didn't make them up, since leftists, namely, the democrat party, were primarily responsible for all of those things over the past 200 years. They didn't make it up because they mostly caused it! And again, correlation does not imply causation, such a basic statistical truism that CRT theorists love to ignore. Just because there was racism, even just because there still is racism, doesn't mean that racism is the primary cause of economic disparity, or, even a major cause at all! Sowell has written about multiple minority groups in different countries, who, despite being oppressed by real racism, and not the made up CRT kind, managed to prosper economically far above and beyond the majority population.

> Your train of pseudo-reasoning, like that of so many other racism-apologists, only works if you conveniently ignore the actual multi-hundred year history of actual racism that actually happened.

Go read "The real history of slavery" and "Conquest and Cultures" by Sowell. In fact, we are probably more educated on slavery than you are, judging from your performance in this debate. The only racists are people like you who think that the appropriate reaction to disparity is real, explicit racism against those with "privileged" skin color. But, really, you're just following a long tradition of the political left being racist.

I realize this conversation is a waste of time, but maybe one day you'll listen, educate yourself on reality, and develop a better-functioning moral compass.

Edit: I just want to take a moment to point out how unscientific you are with your statements, like: "Sure, like my dice example. Except the problem is, for my dice example to be wrong, you need to provide a reason why...."

I don't know what leftist education you paid for or in what university, but in a just world you deserve that loan forgiveness Biden is offering. Science is about making a hypothesis, and then, you yourself objectively gathering evidence that could either support or refute that hypothesis, and only then making a conclusion that is backed by your data. You, of course, did the opposite. You made a hypothesis, that economic outcomes between humans "should" be normally distributed, concluded it must be true, and, finally you put it on other people to disprove it. That's, anti-science! And, no, comparing human beings to six-sided dice is not scientific evidence. You might have missed that in your education as well.

Similarly, you assert that birthday modulo 2 has no impact on economic outcome, yet fail to provide any scientific evidence. Yours is a world of cult-like ideology and secular religion, where evidence is irrelevant, or an afterthought.

One of the first things I do when I get a new job is reach out to whoever I partner with on recruiting and spend significant time working with them to make sure they understand what I'm looking for and how to do initial screens if that's the recruiter's role in this company. I talk about diversity and how I approach it. For the first month or so at least, I ask the recruiter to show me as many resumes as possible and I give a paragraph or two of feedback on each one so they know what I did or didn't like about them.

I also expect that I'll be doing a fair amount of time searching LinkedIn myself, particularly at the beginning of the process, for the same reasons I give the recruiter solid feedback on resumes -- it helps them understand what I want out of my candidates. I also tend to pull in my team for sourcing sessions, because there's always someone on the team who knows a perfect candidate but didn't think to refer them.

If the company isn't paying me for a LinkedIn professional account with unlimited searches, I'm not gonna pay for it myself, mind you. In that case the amount of searching I can do is limited, but that's life.

Let's review what the original author said:

> I spent months waiting for a single person to apply who fulfilled the racial requirement. When no one did, I spent hours trying to find people on LinkedIn who I thought might count as black or Hispanic based on their name or resume.

"I spent months waiting." That's awfully passive, but I've had bad recruiters in the past, so I get the possibility. However, as I said, I would be annoyed if my company had a goal -- regardless of what it was -- and the recruiters weren't actually doing anything to help me reach it.

This was a conversation about far leftism. You wanted to link it to non-violence.

Take a long hard look at yourself.