7 ms·

> So the answer is yes? Companies should strive to be 50/50 men and women tech roles even though the ratio in the workforce is 80/20? The answer is: "No, I do

> So the answer is yes? Companies should strive to be 50/50 men and women tech roles even though the ratio in the workforce is 80/20? The answer is: "No, I do not see the obvious circular logic." The tech sector is 80/20 due to hiring bias in the population that defines the workplace demographic. It could be 0% women and your fallacious argument would still conveniently hold. And you follow that up with quotes of ...yourself. And commentary on your self-quoting. You don't seem to get that it's not that I don't comprehend your premise. It's that your premise, and by extension you, are being reprehensible and racist. You do not seem to understand that saying racist things is racist. And that you are racist. And reprehensible. For being so racist.

manfredo 6y ago
> The tech sector is 80/20 because of hiring bias in the population that defines the workplace demographic. And evidence of that is...? Graduates in the fields of study that feed into the tech workforce are 80/20 - why do we conclude that the industry is biased when it is representative of the population that chooses to go into tech? A valid response is to say that men and women's choices of study are the product of a biased society that pushes men into tech and women into other fields. But at this point, what we're saying is that tech is representative of the workforce, and the workforce is representative of the people that choose to try and go into tech. This is not one, but two layers of indirection and many are not of the opinion that broader societal trends that produce unequal rates of men and women choosing to work in technology should be counteracted with discrimination in the workplace to push this representation towards parity. You can say that "saying racist things is racist" all you want - my point is that putting opposition to affirmative action in the workplace under the category of racist informs me that your usage of the term "racist" largely equates to "people who have an opinion contrary to my own:, that discrimination in hiring is more disadvantageous than bullying or harassment in the workplace". This is a reductive strategy, and it's not unique to people who support diversity hiring. There are plenty of people who say, "discrimination on the basis of protected class like race and gender is illegal and racist - discrimination, regardless of the guise of 'diversity hiring' is reprehensible, full stop" and it's just as reductive. How would you respond to someone who said that quote to you? I'd probably write them off as being too entrenched in their view to have a meaningful exchange, and that is unfortunately the conclusion I'm left with here.
- omar_a1 6y ago
  Yes, underrepresentation of the population is literally the definition of bias. Unless you want to go with the tautological nonsense you're doubling down on. And you're once again insisting that racial slurs are just as bad as diverse hiring. Really vying for Grand Dragon, eh? I'm sure that if you just explain, once more, in even lengthier detail, how that totally isn't racist, it'll stop making you look like a reprehensible person!
  - manfredo 6y ago
    > Yes, underrepresentation of the population is literally the definition of bias. It's literally not. Men account for 90% of convictions for homicide and other serious forms of violence in the US, and the overwhelming majority of countries abroad. Is that evidence of overwhelming misandry and bias in criminal justice? There's been demonstration of some bias, IIRC men tend to get 40-60% longer sentences. But that's nowhere near enough to account for this disparity. The reality is men do commit more violence than women and the disparity of men in prison for violence so this overrepresentation of men is not the product of bias, but rather men's own decisions. Similarly, women make up the majority of professions like speech pathology, education, publishing with some of these over 90% female. Do we conclude that this is because of rampant bias against men? Perhaps, but in order to prove that we'd have to prove that these institutions prefer female applicants over male applicants. A non-bias explanation is that 90% of applicants are female, because 90% of people who want to go into these jobs are women. Not only is underrepresentation not evidence of bias, the lack of underrepresentation does not absolve a group of bias. For instance, say a tech company decided it wanted to have an engineering workforce representative of the general population with respect to gender. 20% of the applications it gets are from women, so the company randomly throws away 75% of the male applications to make it so that an equal number of people go on to the phone screen, and subsequent on-site. This produces an engineering workforce that is perfectly representative of the population's gender distribution. But it is overwhelmingly biased against men and in favor of women. Obviously real-world tech companies are rarely this extreme - I've personally only seen OKRs calling for 33% at most. The point is, force equal or closer-to-equal outcomes in spite of unequal decisions made by people often entails the creation of bias, rather than its elimination. Do you really think that a company can achieve 50% women in tech without biasing their interview process in favor of women? The only company that even gets close to 50/50 practices explicit quota hiring: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThoughtWorks#Hiring_and_diversity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThoughtWorks#Hiring_and_divers... Ultimately, at this point I think your conception that bias has a 1:1 relationship with representation relative to general population is fundamentally different from mine in a way that makes it difficult to productively explore the value of affirmative action in the hiring process.

manfredo 6y ago

> The tech sector is 80/20 because of hiring bias in the population that defines the workplace demographic. And evidence of that is...? Graduates in the fields of study that feed into the tech workforce are 80/20 - why do we conclude that the industry is biased when it is representative of the population that chooses to go into tech? A valid response is to say that men and women's choices of study are the product of a biased society that pushes men into tech and women into other fields. But at this point, what we're saying is that tech is representative of the workforce, and the workforce is representative of the people that choose to try and go into tech. This is not one, but two layers of indirection and many are not of the opinion that broader societal trends that produce unequal rates of men and women choosing to work in technology should be counteracted with discrimination in the workplace to push this representation towards parity. You can say that "saying racist things is racist" all you want - my point is that putting opposition to affirmative action in the workplace under the category of racist informs me that your usage of the term "racist" largely equates to "people who have an opinion contrary to my own:, that discrimination in hiring is more disadvantageous than bullying or harassment in the workplace". This is a reductive strategy, and it's not unique to people who support diversity hiring. There are plenty of people who say, "discrimination on the basis of protected class like race and gender is illegal and racist - discrimination, regardless of the guise of 'diversity hiring' is reprehensible, full stop" and it's just as reductive. How would you respond to someone who said that quote to you? I'd probably write them off as being too entrenched in their view to have a meaningful exchange, and that is unfortunately the conclusion I'm left with here.

omar_a1 6y ago
Yes, underrepresentation of the population is literally the definition of bias. Unless you want to go with the tautological nonsense you're doubling down on. And you're once again insisting that racial slurs are just as bad as diverse hiring. Really vying for Grand Dragon, eh? I'm sure that if you just explain, once more, in even lengthier detail, how that totally isn't racist, it'll stop making you look like a reprehensible person!
- manfredo 6y ago
  > Yes, underrepresentation of the population is literally the definition of bias. It's literally not. Men account for 90% of convictions for homicide and other serious forms of violence in the US, and the overwhelming majority of countries abroad. Is that evidence of overwhelming misandry and bias in criminal justice? There's been demonstration of some bias, IIRC men tend to get 40-60% longer sentences. But that's nowhere near enough to account for this disparity. The reality is men do commit more violence than women and the disparity of men in prison for violence so this overrepresentation of men is not the product of bias, but rather men's own decisions. Similarly, women make up the majority of professions like speech pathology, education, publishing with some of these over 90% female. Do we conclude that this is because of rampant bias against men? Perhaps, but in order to prove that we'd have to prove that these institutions prefer female applicants over male applicants. A non-bias explanation is that 90% of applicants are female, because 90% of people who want to go into these jobs are women. Not only is underrepresentation not evidence of bias, the lack of underrepresentation does not absolve a group of bias. For instance, say a tech company decided it wanted to have an engineering workforce representative of the general population with respect to gender. 20% of the applications it gets are from women, so the company randomly throws away 75% of the male applications to make it so that an equal number of people go on to the phone screen, and subsequent on-site. This produces an engineering workforce that is perfectly representative of the population's gender distribution. But it is overwhelmingly biased against men and in favor of women. Obviously real-world tech companies are rarely this extreme - I've personally only seen OKRs calling for 33% at most. The point is, force equal or closer-to-equal outcomes in spite of unequal decisions made by people often entails the creation of bias, rather than its elimination. Do you really think that a company can achieve 50% women in tech without biasing their interview process in favor of women? The only company that even gets close to 50/50 practices explicit quota hiring: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThoughtWorks#Hiring_and_diversity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThoughtWorks#Hiring_and_divers... Ultimately, at this point I think your conception that bias has a 1:1 relationship with representation relative to general population is fundamentally different from mine in a way that makes it difficult to productively explore the value of affirmative action in the hiring process.