Slashdot Mirror
Intel Pledges $300 Million To Improve Diversity In Tech
AmiMoJo writes: Intel CEO Brian Krzanich announced plans to improve diversity not just at Intel, but in the wider tech industry. Krzanich wants "to reach full representation at all levels" of the company by 2020. For instance, Intel's workforce is currently four percent black; if the company were to adjust its numbers to reflect the number of qualified workers in the tech industry, that number would increase to about six percent.
To help address one of tech's underlying diversity problems — that there are fewer qualified women and minorities available to hire than there are white or Asian men — Krzanich pledged to spend $300 million over the next three years. According to the New York Times, much of that money will be allocated "to fund engineering scholarships and to support historically black colleges and universities."
"I have two daughters of my own coming up on college age," he said to the NYT. "I want them to have a world that's got equal opportunity for them."
To help address one of tech's underlying diversity problems — that there are fewer qualified women and minorities available to hire than there are white or Asian men — Krzanich pledged to spend $300 million over the next three years. According to the New York Times, much of that money will be allocated "to fund engineering scholarships and to support historically black colleges and universities."
"I have two daughters of my own coming up on college age," he said to the NYT. "I want them to have a world that's got equal opportunity for them."
If you don't understand the problem first, there will be no real solution later. Why don't we have "diversity"?
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
For instance, Intel's workforce is currently 4 percent black; if the company were to adjust its numbers to reflect the number of qualified workers in the tech industry, that number would increase to about six percent.
So what stopped them from hiring these qualified workers in the first place? Maybe there's more to the story?
How about hiring the best person for the job, and fits well with the rest of the team regardless of gender, race, religion, sexual preference, etc? If it happens to be someone who is white, hispanic, or black who cares?
What are we doing to combat the critical under representation of men in college?
No it means that you are currently positively discriminated.
If anything changes in hiring practices it's less positive discrimination and more active searching for candidates that are a minority. Instead of only actively searching for white and asian males because you happen to know candidates like that.
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
1. Profess shock 2. Start an investigation 3. Promise to do better 4. Apologize and abase yourself to every aggrieved group you can find 5. Throw some money at anything related, esp. self-appointed "community spokesmen"
Looks like Intel has hit stage 5.
Will those that have a sex change still meet the application criteria for the scholarship?
For instance, Intel's workforce is currently 4 percent black; if the company were to adjust its numbers to reflect the number of qualified workers in the tech industry, that number would increase to about six percent.
So what stopped them from hiring these qualified workers in the first place? Maybe there's more to the story?
A few things.
Intel is a global company, and I doubt black make up 6% of the global tech force.
Also, here in the US, their fabs are generally located in areas not known for a large black population..
Arizona, Oregon, New Mexico....
"I have two daughters of my own coming up on college age," he said to the NYT. "I want them to have a world that's got equal opportunity for them."
Yeah, I'm sure a couple of rich white girls whose father is the CEO of Intel are going to have all sorts of problems finding "equal opportunity" in the tech industry unless he acts quickly.
Do you have ESP?
Why don't Asian men count as a minority?
Except the reason why an ethnic groups is underrepresented in a a certain category of jobs is usually not that people of that ethnicity are not "actively sought after" but that they are underrepresented in the pool of potential candidates.
Any policy that seeks to actively influence the ethnical makeup of the people doing a certain job is discriminatory. Ethnicity or skin colour should not matter in any way when hiring.
Does he want bog-standard, shallow, progressive "diversity" - everyone looks different on the outside but diversity of thought or opinion is not tolerated while every member is assigned rigid roles based on mere appearance, or real diversity where no one cares about how to categorize group members into various victim classes?
The former is the standard, and the money is going to organizations that deal only in the former.
I'll bet they're outsourcing $300M of work o India and China. Best spin ever!
Maybe Googe wouldn't have a problem getting qualified people if they stopped pulling stupid shit like this.
Years ago, my placement office told me about interviewing for a certain company. One of the questions was "Hoe many diapers are sold in the US per year?"
There must be some industry organization that has the numbers or I could get it from annual reports of the diaper makers or find how many newborns from the Census.
Here's the answer that got someone hired because it showed how they "think":
"Well, there are 300 million people in the US and 10% are child bearing age. 10% of those have newborns. So, 3,000,000."
Well, then people who know how to bullshit and sound good get jobs - not facts.
Why did this company have such a BS hiring process?
Because one of their C-level PHBs read it in an inflight magazine and saw that Google and Microsoft does BS like this and if they're so successful, it's because of that.
Hiring wouldn't be so fucked up if PHBs would stop with the management ideas du jour, stop reading the business books on the NYT bestseller list and let their first lines pick the candidates that they want.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What is it about wanting to introduce more people into IT that gets people into a blind spitting rage? It doesn't have to be a zero-sum game guys.
Maybe its the gross unwelcoming attitude that puts people off.
Because a lot of people have worked damn hard to get somewhere and to build something. And all of that effort is being diminished to no small extent by this preferred treatment program.
If you work your ass of for 10 years, making sure to be the best, only to get passed by for a rookie on a "diversity" quota, wouldn't you get a little grumpy? That is why so many here are asking for the 'best candidate' treatment rather than the 'look how minority I am' treatment. That is why yet another of these "diversity" programs is viewed with no small amount of suspicion and apprehension.
Intel being Intel *might* be able to do something smart, but given the organizations that they have partnered with for the drive, it is very very unlikely that anything other than feminazi rabies will come out of it. And that sucks for everyone on the planet.
It is our physiology. If some gorilla FROM another tribe is eating leaves that you COULD eat, that means there are fewer leaves for your tribe
EVERY affirmative action program starts by separating the tribes and making sure everybody knows that everybody else is different.
I'm curious why this type of "diversity" drive only pops up in tech-related office jobs? Where is the drive in getting more men into child care jobs or social services? Why not more women in construction work? Why not more women in the army? Why not more women in sanitation, mining, welding, or fishing?
As it stands, it doesn't seem like diversity is the goal at all.
If you work your ass of for 10 years, making sure to be the best, only to get passed by for a rookie on a "diversity" quota,
Is that any different from working your ass off for 10 years, making sure to be the best only to get passed by because you're not a man? Is it possible for science to identify bias using a randomized, controlled trial?
Why yes!
http://blogs.scientificamerica...
So the thing is you're assuming everything is equal and therefore quotas are hurting men. The thing is that they're not equal and women are demonstrably being passed over in favour of men simply by vitrue of not being male.
So what do you think should be done. Unless you have a good rebuttal for that study, something is clearly messed up.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
More gynocentric gender-leveling behavior meant to destroy the male aggressive creativity of a company. A company and an industry gets what it deserves.
E Proelio Veritas.
Diversity is an even bigger scam than AGW.
Diversity pimps claim on one hand that you need different people, then claim there is no difference between the people. Then there is the faulty logic of what diverse companies look like. They claim that all companies should be x% these, y% those, and z% the others. Is it really more diverse to have 3 companies like that or is it more diverse to have 3 companies that are 100% of each group?
"I have two daughters of my own coming up on college age. I want them to have a world that's got equal opportunity for them."
--Intel CEO Brian Krzanich
Really? The CEO of Intel crying about a lack of opportunity for his kids? Absolutely disgusting!
I'll say it:
All other things (education, experience, interview, etc.) being equal or close enough between two candidates, one of them being a white male and the other being someone in a racial or gender minority class, yeah, I'm going to hire the person in the racial or gender minority class.
It isn't for a metric - it's because, all other things being equal as you stipulated, a person from a class not normally found in the field is likely going to have had to overcome obstacles and challenges on the way there that the other candidate has not.
Let's look at some reasons why the minority candidate who is otherwise equal to the non-minority candidate is the better pick:
1) In every single discussion of diversity in tech on Slashdot, people will trot out REASONS why minorities don't do well in tech: Black people don't do well because they get called out by their friends and families for acting white if they go to school. Women don't because they get called out by other women for being in such a nerdy profession. Etc. etc. etc. If that is true, then yes, I want the candidate who has demonstrated persistence and determination in the face of hostility. They will be use to adversity and overcoming it, and as a hiring manager I will want that in a candidate.
2) In every single discussion of diversity in tech on Slashdot, people will trot out BIOTRUTHS about women and minorities and why they are not well represented in tech. If that's true, then yes, I absolutely want the candidate who is exceptional and defies their biology to have somehow managed to be equal to the non-minority candidate. There's more potential for them to be exceptional in other ways, and as a hiring manager, I want exceptional people.
3) If everything else is equal, why NOT hire the candidate who will also improve an arbitrary metric? As a hiring manager, I want to not have to have people crawling up my ass telling me to do things just so the team looks better, and this would reduce one more thing people could crawl up my ass about.
So yeah, unless you're a fucking idiot, hire the atypical candidate when they are literally close enough to equal that flipping a coin would be the only "fair" way to determine who to hire. Duh?
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
Oh, and furthermore:
If conditions 1 and 2 above are actually true (I personally think it's racist/sexist bullshit, but those are arguments people trot out on the regular): 2 candidates being equal means to me that the white male candidate must be exceptionally lazy. After else, if whites and males are both socially and biologically more suited to working in the field in general, how then could a white male manage to not do a better job given equal education and experience?
The answer has to be either that white men aren't actually better or more suited to doing this stuff than other races or women OR that if they are, in this particular case, the white male candidate must either be defective or lazy.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
EXCEPT you will NEVER address WHY other fields of endeavor which are HUGELY 'underrepresented' by men or whites or whatever DO NOT GET THE SAME 'SCRUTINY'... (teaching, nursing, etc; and conversely, manual labor, garbage(ahem)persons, etc for wymns)
the VALID AND SALIENT point a number of the posters who are lumped together as whiny entitled white men are TRYING TO MAKE (AND SJW's avoid like the plague), is WHY it is valid to scrutinize, criticize and reverse-discriminate in THOSE fields, BUT NOT OTHERS which are HUGELY slanted 'the other way' ? ? ?
WHY ? (you will not answer)
IF (as a good little SJW), you are REALLY concerned about diversity, then WHY not concerned when that shoe pinches the other foot ? ? ? BECAUSE YOU DON'T really care about diversity, you care about looking like some holier-than-thou fucking saint...
as a progressive more radical than yo mama, I CAN NOT ABIDE this uber-PC horseshit... YOU ARE DESTROYING the progressive movement by this insane identity politics bullshit... WE ARE ALL CIRCLING THE SAME DRAIN, and all some entitled 'tards can beef about is they want a better seat for the apocalypse...
That's like telling people before they take a sip that you want to replace their fresh brewed coffee with Folger's Crystals and being surprised that they prefer real coffee. Why have a poor substitute when you can have the real thing?
n=127
I really do not understand how your analogy relates to my link to an article about sexism.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I know many people who support socialism. I have never met one that wanted to be the "horse" from Animal Farm.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Your logic is distinctly faulty. It probably means 1 and 2 being true, then you've found an edge case where the race/sex matched the generalisations of another set. What you've effectively said is that if all things are equal, then you discriminate against the while male for no other reason than "why not" (your given reasons of hardship etc. carry no real weight; all backgrounds can, and do have hardships they've overcome).. If you want to do it, fine by me, but don't kid yourself that this is ethically superior reasoning.
Well, you can see men being passed over because they're either white or women all over the place. Just look at all the diversity grants and allocated positions. That is not just a slight bias, that's outright enshrining it in policy.
But if as the study shows, women are being passed over simply because they're female then doesn't bias in grants simply serve to even up the odds so that there is no average disadvantage or advantage to being a particular gender?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
What a surprise...yet another company jumps on the politically correct bandwagon. It seems that the strategy is to jump out ahead of this "issue" rather than wait for some shake down artist like Al Sharpton to come knocking on your door.
The quotes around "issue" are intentional, indicating that there is no issue at all. The reason that there is a lower representation in Tech is simply that there are fewer applicants that are Black or female or from other minority groups. Simple as that. All you have to do is take a walk around a college campus and visit a CS101 class. What will you see? Predominantly white males and asians. Is that because colleges are discriminating against others in their CS programs? Of course not. It just means that those people chose to study other things.
If Intel wants to give money to historically black colleges that's great. I'm all in favor of that. But to suggest that it will fix some supposed problem is ridiculous. In typical American fashion, the solution to every problem is to throw more money at it. It rarely works. To blame companies for "not hiring enough people from group X" is certainly convenient, and probably popular in some circles, but in the end its not accurate.
Companies hire from the pool of labor that is available to them. To suggest that they are overlooking qualified people because of the color of their skin or their gender is absurd. It is nothing more than a thinly veiled racism/sexism charge to which there is no substantial evidence to support it.
Quite frankly, there is more evidence to support discrimination based on age or medical health than age or gender. Where is the outrage over that? Where are all the big companies promising to throw all sorts of money to address it? Crickets.
I have never met one that wanted to be the "horse" from Animal Farm.
That would be Boxer.
That is all.
Working your ass off for 10 years? Try 30 and fighting age discrimination. It has nothing to do with diversity, people of different cultures, genders, etc. If it's being supported by these companies it's all about increasing the labor supply so they can screw over their workers more easily for less money. For those of you who think otherwise, you're naive and supporting your oppressors' schemes. Employment becomes a zero-sum game if the pool of workers is growing faster than the number of open positions.
That is all.
Diversity as in, yet another Linux distro?
If you would be so kind as to listen to my experience as someone who went through a computer science program (and completed it with a degree) in the late 00s, I'd appreciate it. The one thing I learnt, is that computer science and tech is difficult, yet everyone wants to do it. I was fortunate enough to get into a relatively high end private university. However, at the start, computer science courses were absolutely filled to the brim with people. Males, females, different races, etc The majority were there to do things like make games and other basic things. They weren't in it to learn how computers work, to do low level stuff, etc. My courses were filled all the way up for computer science for 100 level courses. 35 people with a wait list. And do you know what happened after those 100 level courses were over and people just had things like writing sorting algorithms in C and programming in x86 and SPARC assembly that wanted to make games or some sort of app to get rich easy? They all bailed. The end of the program, I had courses that got cancelled because there weren't enough people there. The university I chose was different from the others, they had a more academic approach still and wanted to teach you how computers worked. It was academia and not a school to teach you how to get a job. And it was a bloodbath of people failing out of computer science. Men, women, Whites, Asians, Blacks, etc.They all bailed so hard when they realized things were not what they wanted. Ironically enough, by the end of the program, there were a significant amount of females left in my small sample size of a program, however, the White ones were nearly gone and all that were left were Chinese students from abroad and some local Asian females. To be completely honest, as a white male, I was in the minority by a huge margin. As mentioned in this thread, women are more than capable of sciences. They do very well in fields like biology. Tech is just not an easy field and people flee it like crazy. You have to keep up with things, it's always changing. If you learn biology, it takes a long time for things to change due to evolution. If you learn math, well it rarely changes. People don't go back and make addition obsolete. It has zero to do with women's ability in comparison to men or anything and it has to do with people just failing at the programs in general. Does no one remembers the whole "how can we get the next generation more into computer science?" thing that was going on years ago? Well, the solution was to lower the bar and make computer science into "write some Java applications, well it doesn't even work but here's a B" But that's not the case with computer science and tech in general. And that makes it a far more difficult field to get into, for everyone. Not just women. Not just minorities. But EVERY SINGLE PERSON. I think people are confusing maliciously denying certain people opportunities with the field being a difficult one that most will fail in, regardless of race, gender, etc. Proof of this is that this group of people generally is complaining that minorities don't have an advantage, yet Asian people are ahead in tech so far that universities like UCLA will shy away from admitting them because they already have too many. Which brings me to the next point that changing tech fields to be more accomodating to people who aren't up for the task is only going to leave us behind. We have places like Tokyo where the Japanese are literally breeding to make genetically superior babies and they're extremely competitive. We have places like Vietnam pushing computer science education from an extremely early age. The rest of the world is pushing people further and if they can't make it, tough. The West, specially the USA, feels compelled to lower standards and requirements to make things more accomodating. I took a course at public university just for extra eduction (and ironically enough my professor was another Asian Female), and I got to experience the watered down computer science programs that have been coming. In fact, I
People that sound the same on paper of course perform differently, the study assumes that there is zero correlation of performance with sex. Maybe if the "applications materials" demonstrated actual performance/productivity the study would have a point, but it sounds like it was a standard candidate for a standard job.
"I have two daughters of my own coming up on college age," he (Intel CEO Brian Krzanich) said to the NYT. "I want them to have a world that's got equal opportunity for them."
Just what does this bleeding heart liberal want? Equal Opportunity for his daughters, or affirmative action for a bunch of people who may not have earned it and are just coasting along on the liberal charity? Because you can't have both Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action, and this sure sounds more like Affirmative Action than Equal Opportunity.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
If you work your ass of for 10 years, making sure to be the best, only to get passed by for a rookie on a "diversity" quota,
Is that any different from working your ass off for 10 years, making sure to be the best only to get passed by because you're not a man? Is it possible for science to identify bias using a randomized, controlled trial?
Why yes!
http://blogs.scientificamerica...
So the thing is you're assuming everything is equal and therefore quotas are hurting men. The thing is that they're not equal and women are demonstrably being passed over in favour of men simply by vitrue of not being male.
So what do you think should be done. Unless you have a good rebuttal for that study, something is clearly messed up.
Bad article. The author condescendingly dismisses an argument, providing merely a link to her sister's article which claims the argument arises from media bias. The argument being:
From reading the comments on Sean Carroll’s post, most people who read this will have one of four reactions:
[snip]
4) Equally qualified women should be discriminated against, because they could go off and get pregnant.
I’m afraid the 4’s do exist, and from my experience they are not very willing to have their minds changed. (For a concise article that touches on why their argument is flawed, I’d recommend this piece by my sister, Shara Yurkiewicz.)
Her sister Shara is "disturbed" by people that claim actual differences between sexes is a legitimate reason to discriminate, going so far as to misstate #4s position. The argument I see is NOT that "equally qualified women should be discriminated against", it is that two people with equal education & experience, 1 being male & 1 being female are not equal. She goes on to define when she considers a preference to be discrimination (and fails to mention actual differences; thus validating the actual argument behind #4) and concludes with
The commenters claim that their views are grounded in the economic model we work within. That is fair, but – wrongly, I believe – there is nothing said of the normative, or "what ought to be."
"What ought to be" has and is said, but she disagrees due to being on the short end of the stick, and so her own bias as to how the world should be causes her to miss it. "What ought to be", in many people's eyes, is "The best of the best". Sometimes you have to compromise, but you always search for the best. Obviously for those that are not the best that is a horrible system to live in. So the author ignores it, effectively claims that is not a valid goal, and moves on to simplify the solution to everything being just
a shift in mindset about traditional gender roles.
But there is actual, real, research that shows women miss more work due to being a woman. Some of that no doubt is just a view of traditional gender roles, and so can be changed to some extent. But there are also real physical differences as well that will affect worth no matter how far you stick your head in the sand. So if you're looking for the "best of the best", you have to consider how much missed work will affect your hire's worth just like you consider their education, experience, attitude, cleanliness, credit history, & interpersonal skills.
The question the author should be asking & trying to answer is: What is HER "ought to be"; what is YOUR "ought to be"; and how do we reconcile them? Reading between the lines makes her "ought to be" just sound like any other argument presented by anybody else that has ever been on the short end of the stick: I deserve to have anything you have. So I'm inclined ignore it with "Tough shit."
To create diversity, first create inequality.
If you work your ass of for 10 years, making sure to be the best, only to get passed by for a rookie on a "diversity" quota,
Is that any different from working your ass off for 10 years, making sure to be the best only to get passed by because you're not a man?
The problem is that this sort of "correction" tends to push even more men into working for themselves, thus widening the income gap even more. If you're unable to get hired due to diversity practices the normal thing is to go into business for yourself, i.e. contract. At that point, as a contractor (LLC) the "employer" (now the purchaser) gains no value from discrimination, and will therefore buy for the best value they can get.
How do I know that it won't be a woman? As another poster pointed out below, a man and woman of equal competence and qualifications aren't really equal - the women in the group will tend to prioritise their family while the man won't, hence the man will offer slightly better value (more working hours, etc).
What people like you, I Kan Reed, AniMoJo, Dave420 and others cannot understand is that this cause you are supporting hurts women much more than men. Hell, I'm gainfully employed and I'm STILL doing business on the weekends. More men then ever are willing to jump into a startup while still employed elsewhere, thereby sacrificing ALL oif their time - I haven't met a single woman who is willing to sacrifice their family life, nevermind sacrificing all of their time.
So this "let's push men out of IT" issue simply means that the most motivated male IT workers will make even more, while only the lesser motivated females (the ones who need a scholarship and a round of applause before they'd even apply) are the ones in IT, thus furthering the perception that women shouldn't be in IT. You guys are destroying the cause of women everywhere, and all so that you can feel good about yourself. You should be working on convincing the most highly motivated women to enter; those women aren't looking for handouts in the form of affirmative action. Instead with this noise over making things easier, you're only attracting the dumbest and least motivated, like game "developers" who don't know how to program and have no intention of learning, or former scammers who referred to women as sluts when she was working the con as a pickup artist motivational speaker.
Because those are the people who are chasing away the bright women, not the men.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
People that sound the same on paper of course perform differently, the study assumes that there is zero correlation of performance with sex.
The gender of the applicants was assigned at random, so there was a guarantee of no correlation between gender and the potential performance of the candidate.
but it sounds like it was a standard candidate for a standard job.
Indeed and people who the employer assumed were female were routinely rated less well than those they believed were male. The study makes the belief uncorrelated with reality. This demonstrates very well that sexism is very much still a problem.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
EXCEPT you will NEVER address WHY
Well no. I don't address third world debt or the suppression of human rights in North Korea either. I also don't like rampant non-sequiteurs. I have a limited time to write posts and people here will only read posts of limited length. Therefore when someone makes a post about bias in IT, it makes sense for me to make a reply as on topic as possible. Now science isn't IT, but the fields are much closer than the ones you listed. So, I think the study is somewhat relevant.
Your post however not so much.
Anyway, I notice that instead of addressing the points (that there is an area where sexism against women demonstrably happens), you'd rather try to divert the attention to other places. You know that doesn't make that sexism disappear.
YOU ARE DESTROYING the progressive movement
It'sastonishing that you believe that a paper doing a randomized controlled trialcan be destroying the progressive movement. The paper is sound as far as I can tell. If you dont like the conclusions: tough. You are not entitled to your own facts.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
When you say the same obnoxious thing more than once, you've moved from troll to flaming asshole.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
improve on that and you probably have a better chance of increasing minorities participation in tech. I doubt however if parity with the population structure could ever be achieved and I do not think it makes sense.
So what you are saying is that the demonstrable discrimination against women should continue because it makes them more equal?
Do I understand you correctly?
If not, what do YOU suggest to end the discrimination?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
So what you are saying is that the demonstrable discrimination against women should continue because it makes them more equal?
Firstly, no, I did not. What I said was that the current/proposed practice would change the landscape far more than you can imagine (Law of unintended consequences, and such). The proposed changes which force men to either choose a different field or take a risk for more money in the same field is going to end up with the average male income in the field rising (some of those risks will pay off, the ones that don't won't be counted).
I also pointed out that by giving women an easier ride than the men get is going to result in getting only those women who are looking for an easy ride. We already have enough female game "developers" who don't know how to program but get a ton of attention and money via patreon nevertheless just for being female! We don't need any more of those types of people, regardless of gender.
Do I understand you correctly?
If not, what do YOU suggest to end the discrimination?
Secondly, there is no evidence that there is more discrimination in IT at this point in time than there was in the past in fields that were overwhelmingly male but are now female-dominated (such as Vetinary Science). Evidence of skewness is not evidence of discrimination. Faith-based reasoning has no place in a discussion such as this, and looking back over the posts that you and the rest of the people supporting your position, the only argument that gets made is the "god-of-the-gaps" argument, in that "There used to be more women in tech than now. It must be discrimination". Faith-based reasoning, in other words.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
I don't understand your reasoning:
Let's say something is done to increase the number of women. It could be either some sort of affermative action, or it could just be a natural end to descrimination.
In either case the number of women increases thereby making it harder for men. I don't see with the reasoning you gave how the precise mechanism matters. The law of unintended consequences would still apply regardless of the mechanism. As a result, an end to descrimination under that reasoning would lead to less equality.
You may have a point, but as you've described it so far, I don't buy it.
I also pointed out that by giving women an easier ride than the men get is going to result in getting only those women who are looking for an easy ride.
Except you're not giving women an easier ride. The default ride for women appears to be harder than for men. With an appropriate amount of prodding it could simply even it out so women only need the SAME qualifications as men to get the same job and salary, not higher ones.
Evidence of skewness is not evidence of discrimination.
No the evidence of descrimination was in that PNAS article I linked to earlier in the discussion. TL;DR: they faked a bunch of CVs and randomised the gender of the fake applicant. Female applicants were routinely rates as worse given the same qualifications as male ones. That is pretty solid evidence of descrimination.
looking back over the posts that you
Then you haven't looked very hard, frankly. I've posted the same link at least 3 times in the comments to this thread, including once in this particular chain. There's a link in one of the ancestors of your post!
So here it is again once more, but this time with feeling:
http://www.pnas.org/content/10...
SJW n. One who posts facts.
http://www.pnas.org/content/10...
I'm quite familiar with that repeatedly-posted link. Let me quote from my previous post which you have appeared to only lightly skimmed:
there is no evidence that there is more discrimination in IT at this point in time than there was in the past in fields that were overwhelmingly male but are now female-dominated (such as Vetinary Science).
In the sciences, unlike the religions, it is customary to present data with a fitment test; a frame of reference, if you will. That paper does not present any evidence that the so-called burden for women in IT today is any more or any less than the other fields in which women have persevered and dominated. As of writing, there is no evidence (well, not any science evidence) that women in IT face more discrimination than past women in Medicine, Law, Accounting and the Vetinary Sciences. FCOL, the paper you link to does not even examine IT subjects, only Biology, Chemistry and Physics.
Even worse (for your argument), the study appears to be of discrimination against women in a field that they are currently close to parity in - Biology is the one I'm looking at.
So perhaps you want to explain how, if discrimination is the reason for a lack of women in IT, that Biology with actual studied and reported gender discrimination as per your very own reference, manages to have so many women compared to IT? If women are discriminated against in Biology, then why aren't their numbers the same as IT? Your very own reference points to the fact that discrimination cannot be the sole, or even largely part of, the reason for a lack of women in IT.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
there is no evidence that there is more discrimination in IT at this point in time than there was in the past in fields that were overwhelmingly male but are now female-dominated (such as Vetinary Science).
So? Discrimination is bad. Just because it existed elsewhere and people have been able to overcome it doesn't mean that it's somehow OK.
That paper does not present any evidence that the so-called burden for women in IT today is any mor
Again, I don't see how that matters. The claim has been here repeatedly that the descimination doesn't exist. It demonstrably does.
Even worse (for your argument), the study appears to be of discrimination against women in a field that they are currently close to parity in - Biology is the one I'm looking at.
Even worse for my argument how? My argument is that descimination exists. A lot more women go into biology than men (the aprity you speak of does not exist at the top professorial levels by the way). And yet despite women being perfectly capable of being good biologists, they are still discriminated against because they are female.
My argument is this: GENDER BASED DESCRIMINATION EXISTS.
blah
You should try reading my posts rather than assuming meaning. I know you haven't been because you claimed I hadn't posted the link I posted earlier in the thread. You're now arguing against a completely different point that I wasn't making.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
there is no evidence that there is more discrimination in IT at this point in time than there was in the past in fields that were overwhelmingly male but are now female-dominated (such as Vetinary Science).
So? Discrimination is bad. Just because it existed elsewhere and people have been able to overcome it doesn't mean that it's somehow OK.
I never made that argument - I asked for a fitment test. Luckily, now I don't need to make that argument.
A lot more women go into biology than men (the aprity you speak of does not exist at the top professorial levels by the way).
That's the point exactly - the discrimination you are railing against seems to have no effect on the number of women who go into Biology, but yet you ascribe the lack of women in IT to the same discrimination? You have to ask yourself why is it that this discrimination puts women off IT but not off other fields.
You say "Discrimination is why women are not in IT
Your linked paper shows that discrimination doesn't put off women Biology
So there is some evidence, conveniently provided by yourself, that shows that women don't particularly find discrimination off-putting enough to leave the field in the numbers that they are leaving IT. You've made that point yourself.
You, and the other people reacting with faith-based reasoning, are blind to the harm you are doing to women's rights. Leave out the faith-based reasoning for once.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
I never made that argument - I asked for a fitment test. Luckily, now I don't need to make that argument.
Why did you ask for it? It's not relevant to the original argument. That was about whether discrimination exists at all, not whether it is, has been or will be worse elsewhere.
yet you ascribe the lack of women in IT to the same discrimination?
I'd appreciate it if you read my arguments rather than responding to what you believe I wrote. Otherwise there's not much point in me responding because it won't have much effect.
Seriously, read the chain of posts from here back to the top. That was never part of the discussion at any point until you brought it up.
Your linked paper shows that discrimination doesn't put off women Biology
No, it shows that they are routinely offered fewer jobs and at lower salaries than a man with equivalent qualifications.
You, and the other people reacting with faith-based reasoning, are blind to the harm you are doing to women's rights. Leave out the faith-based reasoning for once.
And you seem to engage in faith based reading: that is if you believe I wrote something then I did whether or not I actually wrote it.
So, I ask again:
Do you agree the study shows discrimination exists?
If descrimination is reduced, do you believe this will harm womens prospects?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I never made that argument - I asked for a fitment test. Luckily, now I don't need to make that argument.
Why did you ask for it? It's not relevant to the original argument. That was about whether discrimination exists at all, not whether it is, has been or will be worse elsewhere.
For the second time, I never made the argument that discrimination will be worse, or matters at all, elsewhere. I've already told you this. You've already read this. The argument that is getting put out around here is that discrimination is responsible for the low numbers of women in IT. The question you are avoiding answering is why does this discrimination not deter women in other fields? If women in other fields face discrimination (like your linked paper shows) but are still highly represented, then why is it a problem in IT?
That's why research studies are all done with a fitment test or a NULL hypothesis - you believe that X causes Y in area Z? Why does X not cause Y in area Z'?
How about this - I'll answer your questions at the bottom of this post if you can answer just a single two-part question here: Do you believe that discrimination causes low numbers of women in IT? If so, why do you believe that discrimination is the cause of low numbers of women in IT when discrimination hasn't caused low numbers of women in multiple other fields?
Go on, I'll wait.
So, I ask again:
Do you agree the study shows discrimination exists?
If descrimination is reduced, do you believe this will harm womens prospects?
To be answered when you answer the relatively simply question above (yeah, you're probably experiencing a little cognitive dissonance right now).
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
The argument that is getting put out around here is that discrimination is responsible for the low numbers of women in IT.
For the second time, no it isn't. The only person who has brought this up in this chain of comments is you. You seem desperate to have this argument.
But OK, let's say I'll bite on an offtopic diversion:
Do you believe that discrimination causes low numbers of women in IT?
I believe it's partly responsible, but not the sole factor.
If so, why do you believe that discrimination is the cause of low numbers of women in IT when discrimination hasn't caused low numbers of women in multiple other fields?
There are almost certainly a multitude of reasons. There's discrimination, and there's also strong socalisation against IT related fields. They are also fighting an uphill battle due to being underrepresented, much like there is terrible bias against men trying to go into primary education.
I doubt those are all the reasons however.
Either way, there's still gender based descrimination.
To be answered when you answer the relatively simply question above (yeah, you're probably experiencing a little cognitive dissonance right now).
Why would I be experiencing cognitive dissonance? All you've done is bring up off topic rants. Nonethelsee, I look forward to the answers you promised.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The problem with diversity in tech is in the human resources departments at tech companies. It's extremely hard to get a job as a minority, because of the screening and hiring practices: the life experiences of minorities often disqualify them for employment. There are plenty of minorities who have a genuine interest and that have tech related skills who never get opportunities in the field. The only way that there will be more diversity in tech is through minority entrepreneurship.
The lower rating does not contradict reality if life experience shows that a female will under-perform a male with the same qualifications. Of course that's using unreliable data, but it's also an untested belief that they will perform the same. It would be more convincing if the candidates already had 2 years experience in the same job with excellent recommendations, in the absence of solid information weaker assumptions gain importance
The argument that is getting put out around here is that discrimination is responsible for the low numbers of women in IT.
For the second time, no it isn't.
This is from the top of this thread (emphasis mine):
[...]What is it about wanting to introduce more people into IT[...]
[...]making sure to be the best only to get passed by because you're not a man?[...]
I read that statement of yours coupled with the grandparent, hence I reached the conclusion that you think that female under-representation in IT is due to discrimination. I know know you feel differently (see below) to what you actually said.
The only person who has brought this up in this chain of comments is you. You seem desperate to have this argument.
But OK, let's say I'll bite on an offtopic diversion:
Do you believe that discrimination causes low numbers of women in IT?
I believe it's partly responsible, but not the sole factor.
If so, why do you believe that discrimination is the cause of low numbers of women in IT when discrimination hasn't caused low numbers of women in multiple other fields?
There are almost certainly a multitude of reasons. There's discrimination, and there's also strong socalisation against IT related fields. They are also fighting an uphill battle due to being underrepresented, much like there is terrible bias against men trying to go into primary education.
I doubt those are all the reasons however.
But none of those reasons have any evidence, hence I consider it fine to dismiss them until evidence surfaces. You wouldn't think worse of me if I refused to believe in invisible pink unicorns unless some evidence was provided, so why ask me to believe that "socialisation", etc are reasons as well?
Either way, there's still gender based descrimination.
To be answered when you answer the relatively simply question above (yeah, you're probably experiencing a little cognitive dissonance right now).
Why would I be experiencing cognitive dissonance? All you've done is bring up off topic rants.
I apologise - I took your statements that discrimination is the cause of the lack of women in IT as just that - I no know that you don't believe that.
Nonethelsee, I look forward to the answers you promised.
As promised:
Yes all forms of discrimination exists. Gender-based is simply one of them. Due to lack of fitment tests or any frame of reference provided by the study you cite it is impossible to tell if the specific discrimination you are against matters at all in the grand scheme of things. Of all the discrimination that exists, it might be the least significant or the most, but we can't tell because the authors refuse to do a proper study that does provide a fitment test.
I don't believe that any demographic in particular will be harmed If discrimination is reduced. However, you did not propose to reduce discrimination - you said:
But if as the study shows, women are being passed over simply because they're female then doesn't bias in grants simply serve to even up the odds so that there is no average disadvantage or advantage to being a particular gender?
That isn't reducing discrimination, that's adding more, just in the opposite direction. And I believe, reasonably I think, that the proposed reverse discrimination will be more harmful to women than to men.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... VERSUS https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
Casteism
I doubt those are all the reasons however.
That's nice. Would you care to share what reasons you believe the reasons are?
Due to lack of fitment tests or any frame of reference provided by the study you cite it is impossible to tell if the specific discrimination you are against matters at all in the grand scheme of things.
Well, I'm sure it matters to whoever was discriminated against.
Of all the discrimination that exists, it might be the least significant or the most, but we can't tell because the authors refuse to do a proper study that does provide a fitment test.
What's with you attacking the authors? They set out to see if discrimination exists, something I believe they did pretty well. The paper doesn't attempt to address other questions because it's a single paper on a single topic, not an entire thesis.
That isn't reducing discrimination, that's adding more, just in the opposite direction.
Adding more in the opposite direction can serve to cancel out some of what exists.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I doubt those are all the reasons however.
That's nice. Would you care to share what reasons you believe the reasons are?
Well, it's your hypothesis, so you should bring the evidence (did you not yet see the parallels between your argument and the one for creationism?)
Due to lack of fitment tests or any frame of reference provided by the study you cite it is impossible to tell if the specific discrimination you are against matters at all in the grand scheme of things.
Well, I'm sure it matters to whoever was discriminated against.
Of all the discrimination that exists, it might be the least significant or the most, but we can't tell because the authors refuse to do a proper study that does provide a fitment test.
What's with you attacking the authors?
Where did I attack the authors? Most scientists doing an empirical test understand that the results are pointless without a frame of reference (I was a research scientist in academia for seven years). When reviewing, we do make statements like "The authors have omitted a small but critical portion of preparation of the study".
They set out to see if discrimination exists, something I believe they did pretty well.
And, believe it or not, there have been scientists in the past who've made this very same error - they set out to see if something (say radiation) exists, found it, published it and then got egg all over their faces when it was discovered that the radiation was simply background radiation.
The paper doesn't attempt to address other questions because it's a single paper on a single topic, not an entire thesis.
There is no other topic - the one that the researchers chose to look at was "discrimination in X", they did not have to measure discrimination in Y and Z, all they had to do was show us the comparison. They omitted to do so. Search for the measured discrimination for other human attributes and you'll discover why they omitted the fitment test.
That isn't reducing discrimination, that's adding more, just in the opposite direction.
Adding more in the opposite direction can serve to cancel out some of what exists.
If you believe that discrimination is as simple as vectors (i.e. they can cancel each other out) you better be able to provide some reference. There are tons of research that shows discrimination, self-identification, self-grouping, tribalism, etc are driven by very complex processes, not just in humans and not just by environment.
The problem you are facing (which is why I made a reference earlier to cognitive dissonance) is that you (say) that would like there to be no discrimination against women without recognising that the only way to get rid of innate discrimination against women would be to get rid of innate discrimination. But you stated that you don't want this - you want humans to retain a certain characteristic (the intrinsic ability to discriminate) but you also don't want them to exhibit this characteristic (ability to discriminate). Those are conflicting goals, even if you have to resolve the dissonance in your head by stating that it must be possible to have one without the other.
Maybe you are right - maybe it will be possible to take away characteristic X from humans while still leaving characteristic X. I've not seen any evidence that this is possible, so I don't think so. I've also not seen any pink unicorns either. And also, religious folk get annoyed by me too :-)
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Well, it's your hypothesis, so you should bring the evidence (did you not yet see the parallels between your argument and the one for creationism?)
Nope. You asked me a question, I provided a hypothetical answer. What's your answer to your own question?
Where did I attack the authors?
When you said: can't tell because the authors refuse to do a proper study that does provide a fitment test.
Which implies the authors are actively trying to impede something or other.
And, believe it or not, there have been scientists in the past who've made this very same error - they set out to see if something (say radiation) exists, found it, published it and then got egg all over their faces when it was discovered that the radiation was simply background radiation
I have no idea whay you're referring to. Background radiation is radiation. If they wanted to find radiation, they found it. So job well done, eh?
they had to do was show us the comparison.
No, you keep asserting this but that does not make it any less true. They set out to see id descrimination existed in area X. Then comparing it to descrimination in subject area Y has no bearing on whether it exists in subject area X.
If you believe that discrimination is as simple as vectors (i.e. they can cancel each other out) you better be able to provide some reference.
And if you believe it never works out like that then you also need to provide some evidence.
The problem you are facing...
That's nice, but that odd rambling has no bearing on reality:
without recognising that the only way to get rid of innate discrimination against women would be to get rid of innate discrimination.
Well, you totally made that up. I made no such claim.
But you stated that you don't want this -
Nope. Again I said nothing about what I do and don't want. I pointed out that haveing some descrimination in the opposite direction can cancel out some of the underlying discrimination.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Well, it's your hypothesis, so you should bring the evidence (did you not yet see the parallels between your argument and the one for creationism?)
Nope. You asked me a question, I provided a hypothetical answer. What's your answer to your own question?
I didn't pretend to know the answer. I do know what it is not, however. Falsifiability FTW :-)
Where did I attack the authors?
When you said: can't tell because the authors refuse to do a proper study that does provide a fitment test.
Which implies the authors are actively trying to impede something or other.
I accuse them of doing widely acknowledged poor research. That is not an attack.
And, believe it or not, there have been scientists in the past who've made this very same error - they set out to see if something (say radiation) exists, found it, published it and then got egg all over their faces when it was discovered that the radiation was simply background radiation
I have no idea whay you're referring to. Background radiation is radiation. If they wanted to find radiation, they found it. So job well done, eh?
they had to do was show us the comparison.
No, you keep asserting this but that does not make it any less true. They set out to see id descrimination existed in area X. Then comparing it to descrimination in subject area Y has no bearing on whether it exists in subject area X.
Then why did you compare it to IT? If you really believed that discrimination in Y has no bearing on X, then why did you drag it into X?
If you believe that discrimination is as simple as vectors (i.e. they can cancel each other out) you better be able to provide some reference.
And if you believe it never works out like that then you also need to provide some evidence.
I never said I believed that - all I did was say that there is overwhelming research that discrimination is much more complex than that. I didn't propose a opinion one way or another, just alerted you to the fact that there's a lot of research that contradicts your "simple as vectors" hypothesis. You can go ahead and read the research, but since I am not proposing a hypothesis (just rejecting yours) I need not provide any evidence. You propose the hypothesis, you provide the evidence.
I pointed out that having some descrimination in the opposite direction can cancel out some of the underlying discrimination.
Which you failed to provide evidence for. You spent the whole thread arguing that the research in area X should not be compared to area Y, so you now cannot supply evidence of discrimination in area X and say it applies to area Y without at least facing the possibility that you are holding two contradictory positions inside your head.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.