I don’t see why you need legal protections. A diversity of thought can bring value. If the manager said, “We currently only have staff with public sector experience. We don’t have headcount for more folks. But let me know if you have someone with private sector experience. They are extremely rare, and could really open up the way we solve the problem.”
Hmm. I see what you are saying, but it totally discounts the value of diversity of thought.
For example, there is an optical illusion where people see the top line as shorter:
<——>
>—-<
However, they are the same length. (The illusion is more pronounced with hand drawn lines.)
Everyone falls for this illusion across all countries and cultures, so much so that folks hypothesized it is affected by our biology. Well, until some anthropologist showed it to some African tribesman. It turns out they were not susceptible to that form of illusion at all. It is unclear why.
My point is that if something as simple estimates of a length of line can benefit from diversity of thought, imagine how many other “obvious” yet wrong assumptions people make. And that is why it is valuable to include people of different genders, races, abilities.
Just like it is okay to pass on a yet another Python developer, maybe it is okay to pass on yet another person who assumes the top line is shorter.
Look, I don’t like the idea of quotas, either. But I also don’t like working at place where everyone is the same.
The illusion you refer to is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCller-Lyer_illusion but the "Variations in perception" section mentions the African tribesmen finding that you are using to support your point was contradicted by later research.
(This sort of thing is why I distrust many statements asserted as fact without citations by posters on HN; too often they turn out to be incorrect, incomplete, or out of date.)
I appreciate that link. It seems subsequent research did not contradict it. I am open to changing my mind, but in the section about perception, it lists numerous studies that found differences between populations. It does not appear the differences have been definitively explained. I’m not sure how you concluded that either the research or my point were contradicted, but again, I’m open to the being wrong. I often am.
The real problem is the assumption race or gender are not only accurate proxies for diversity of thought (they’re not), but that they’re actually better proxies than just looking for diversity of thought directly.
You want more people from poor backgrounds so that you can take into account lower socioeconomic viewpoints? Well, the modern DEI answer to that is hire a black person. The correct answer is to hire someone that grew up poor.
Yes. You make a good point. I would fully support a system that account for diversity of thought directly. That’s hard to do. Your suggestion of means testing applicants is interesting. Do you have others?
>Everyone falls for this illusion across all countries and cultures, so much so that folks hypothesized it is affected by our biology. Well, until some anthropologist showed it to some African tribesman. It turns out they were not susceptible to that form of illusion at all. It is unclear why.
That was disproven. This is scientific racism/bio-essentialism. Let's not go there, it's an evil path.
Ah. I don’t see where it was disproven. The Wikipedia article about it seems to indicate the difference in perception between various populations was further substantiated.
My contention nor original researchers, so far as I can tell, claimed the difference was based on race or biology. It looks like they thought it had to do with the presence of rectilinear buildings, thus cultural.
Some subsequent research did hypothesize eye pigmentation played a role and that was disproven. However, as far as I can tell, different groups of people have differing abilities to perceive illusions.
Moreover, my fundamental point was that culture affects thought, and a variety of thought is valuable. Do you dispute either of those points?
No, there’s absolutely no proof that racial diversity directly benefits a company. I searched HARD for the evidence. Lots of articles claim it is true but purposely mistake correlation for causation.
People often cite the 2019 McMinsey report as evidence that racial diversity improves company performance. However, when you dig into the details Asian representation is positively correlated with company performance, but Black and Latin representation is negatively correlated. The Asian positive correlation was so strong that on the whole, lower White representation was positively correlated with company performance. That's the supposed benefit of diversity, but media outlets rarely report on the negative correlation of non Asian minorities.
To be clear, I don't at all endorse the idea that Black and Latin representation negatively affects company performance. This is a textbook lesson of "correlation does not imply causation". These disparities are reflective of differences in education outcomes and employment between these groups, not that hiring an otherwise identical Asian is better than an equally qualified Black or Latin candidate.
A thing that scares me in the current environment is that I agree with the idea, but I've seen it fail rather comically.
I think the catch is that diversity of thought itself, tells you nothing. You have to be accepting of different viewpoints. This sounds obvious, of course, but a lot of people seem to be weaponizing their being different as a way to overrule previous thoughts. This isn't diversity of viewpoints, this is replacing viewpoints.
This is most easily seen when a crowd is constantly correcting another. Not seeking to understand. Not adding details. Correcting and admonishing.
To directly answer your question, yes, that phrasing would likely bother me. "Let me know if you have someone that you are convinced could help us." That alone should be good enough. If there is a specific skillset, that is a different matter. (Note, I don't think I'd be bothered to the point of offense.)
If the goal is diversity of thought, why select based on physical characteristics instead of asking question about areas of thought that are underrepresented in the company? If the company has no communists, shouldn't you look for communists instead trying to link that thought pattern with a physical attribute? And does this purported desire for diversity of thought extend to all types of thoughts or just a narrow range? Is an entire rainbow of thought welcome or just some range of shades of purple?
Because the goal of DEI is not to hire based on diversity of thoughts. Else the places in the world where DEI was the dominant philosophy (university professors especially in the humanities) would have the highest diversity of thought. But in reality they are simply echo chambers.
Would that offend you in the same way?