Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Tue Sep 17 17:35:10 2019

Utopia Talk / Politics / Sebs people: discrimination is positive
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Jun 19 10:53:55
http://mob...ven/status/1140953221822853120
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Jun 19 10:55:09
In reference to a research university banning all male job applicants.
EuropeanPussy
Member
Wed Jun 19 11:48:18
Europe is progressive:

http://www...-for-women-for-the-time-being/


TU/e vacancies for academic staff exclusively for women for the time being
June 17, 2019

TU/e is opening up vacancies for permanent academic staff exclusively to women in the first six months of recruitment.





Through its new Irène Curie Fellowship program, TU/e is opening up vacancies for permanent academic staff exclusively to women in the first six months of recruitment. For the next year and a half, this will apply to 100 percent of vacancies, after which the university will review the percentage covered by the scheme each year. The measure is intended to achieve a better gender balance. In the coming years, the university will have some 150 positions to fill.

Starter package
Under this scheme, female newcomers will receive an extra starter package specifically tailored to them. For each new Fellow in this program, the TU/e Board will make an additional 100,000 euros available they can use for their own research line, along with a special mentoring program for this new intake.

A big step forward
“We attach great importance to equal respect and opportunities for women and men,” explains Rector Frank Baaijens of TU/e. “And it has long been known that a diverse workforce performs better. It leads to better strategies, more creative ideas and faster innovation. That’s why we’ve had measures in place for years to increase the low percentage of women among our academic staff, but we’re progressing too slowly. We’re aware that we are suffering from an implicit gender bias. We are now using the fact that plans to expand our academic staff considerably in the coming years can be used as a means to make a big step forward in one fell swoop.”

Minimum of five years
This week, the TU/e Board decides to start the Irène Curie Fellowship program on 1 July. This will run for at least five years. During that time, the university will have over 150 permanent vacancies to fill. Whether or not all of these will fall under the program is yet to be seen. However, for the first year and a half, it is set at 100 percent. After that, the program will be evaluated annually and the percentage will be adjusted if necessary.

50 percent of new assistant professors
Vacancies for which a good female candidate has not been found within six months will be reopened outside of the program. Nevertheless, it will remain the case that the application committee must nominate at least one female candidate and one male candidate. All in all, TU/e wants at least half of all newly-appointed assistant professors to be women. The minimum for associate professors and full professors will be 35 percent.

The measure has been checked against European legislation. It allows to target recruitment from among underrepresented groups.

Irène Curie
Irène Curie (1897-1956) won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1935 and was an active advocate for women’s rights in education and science. Irène Curie was the daughter of the equally famous scientist Marie Curie, the first female Nobel Prize winner. Baaijens: “Irène Curie is a symbol for the next generation of female academics that we want to attract.”
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Jun 19 12:41:17
http://plu...7S9bTOuIjDtM6Nlf09_jJcEg_gLBkw

Raping white women is ok because negroes need reparations -seb
Rugian
Member
Wed Jun 19 13:34:19
When Elizabeth Warren talks of reparations, I didnt think this was what she meant.

Hide your wives and daughters, white people.
Seb
Member
Thu Jun 20 08:49:26
Seems pretty extreme and surprised it is legal.

"I like to be fucked up the ass by a donkey" -Sam

See, we can all do this. It's really clever and sophisticated.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jun 20 11:21:29
This is legal in Sweden as well, explicitly stated as being legal if the goal is to reach equality between men and women. An extreme country.
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Jun 20 11:51:00
"Seems pretty extreme and surprised it is legal. "

This is the first intelligent thing youve said in about 7 years.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Jun 26 08:00:07
Seb
In light of the other thread. Do you think "positive" discrimination should be illegal as a matter of principle, or do you think this specific instance is extreme and shouldn't be legal?
Seb
Member
Wed Jun 26 08:47:05
Nim:

Define positive discrimination
Seb
Member
Wed Jun 26 08:51:01
Also, if you think this relates to anything I said in the other thread you are illiterate or innumerate.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Jun 26 11:43:35
Lets go with the wording of the Swedish law:

”This regulation does not forbid (discrimination) rewarding members of one sex over the other if the goal is to achieve equality between men and women”

The regulation forbids discrimination, with this exception. i.e all things equal it would be ok to select based on sex, but just sex in the Swedish law.

I referenced this thread in the other thread, the subject matter is the same ”discrimination”, admission policies etc. doesn’t make you illiterate, maybe completely retarded if you think there is no relation. At any rate I was just interested to understand your position here, are you against selecting based on sex (intrinsic characterstics and irrelevant), even if the goal is to achieve equal outcomes?
Seb
Member
Wed Jun 26 11:54:44
Nimatzo:

The subject matter is not the same.

In the other thread, we were discussing a specific individual who had undertaken a specific action which a university had reasonably determined made him unfit of an offer.

I then demonstrated how the different success rates of applicants from different racial backgrounds could be explained as a consequence not of their racial identities but of objective circumstances in individual cases which might be correlated with race. Which clearly isn't discrimination.

I don't think we can get into a discussion about discrimination (positive or otherwise) until we have a shared understanding of what discrimination is.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Jun 26 12:25:35
No, everyone else got over the individual case and told you what they were talking about was something broader. You kept talking about the dude. You seem old enough that we don’t need to tell you twice.

Discrimination, would be to select based on irrelevant characteristic, like sex, skin color, hair color, ethnicity, intrinsic or not. Things that irrelevant for admission to a university, I think you agree. This is a superior definition than one that relies on ”intrinsic characteristic”, which would include behavior, something I think we should be able to discriminate based on, again I think you would agree.

But my question was straight forward and anchored in current Swedish legislation. If you have two candidates and you won the lottery, the only difference is their sex. Should it be legal to reward the male applicant for a nursing job? The female for the engineering position?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Jun 26 12:46:13
But listen, I am genuinely curious, what is your definition of discrimination?

Seb
Member
Wed Jun 26 13:16:27
No. Sam kept trying to claim this was an example of positive discrimination.

And you and some other people decided to try and make that point, and then failed to establish any evidential basis for this by falling to understand conditional probability.

"Things that irrelevant for admission to a university"

What is irrelevant for who goes to university and who gets to decide that?

(When you say behaviour is intrinsic, no, I don't agree. A preponderance to behave in a certain broad ways - e.g. risk tolerance might be influenced by intrinsic elements like genes - but is unlikely to be wholey or even predominantly so and is demonstrably strongly environmental as we definitely have the capability to learn, so is a perfectly reasonable thing to judge someone over fairly).

Your question isn't worth discussing until we are very clear about what you mean by discrimination, and so far you appear to be clinging to the idea that the scenario I outlined in the other thread was discrimination, which means you and I clearly don't have a common understanding (or to put it another way, you are illiterate, innumerate, or just wrong).


Seb
Member
Wed Jun 26 14:21:59
A question for you Nim:

If two candidates for a job meet the objective criteria set out prior to a job being advertised for a job such that the difference between them on the criteria in question is insignificant, would it amount to unreasonably unfair discrimination for the employer in that instance to prefer a candidate on the basis of their gender in order to move towards a statistical parity in their workforce overall? And if so should we have a law against it



jergul
large member
Wed Jun 26 14:53:02
Seb
I know it is for Nimi, but there is a correct answer to that question.

A job advertisment needs to clearly specify the criteria is has for a successful applicant and how factors will be weighed.

The wording should be clear and transparent and be the basis for any challenges to its legality.

The stock phrase used here is along the lines of "we want our workplace to reflect the diversity of Norwegian society and encourage women and ethnic minorities to apply".

It ultimately is all about transparency.
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Jun 26 15:46:32
"would it amount to unreasonably unfair discrimination for the employer in that instance to prefer a candidate on the basis of their gender in order to move towards a statistical parity "

If its illegal to discriminate on gender, it is.
Seb
Member
Wed Jun 26 17:46:18
Jergul:

I'm not sure that answers the question.

I'm assuming already the job ad published a set of objective criteria

You have two candidates that after sift and final stage interview are found to be insignificantly different according to scores.

Seb
Member
Wed Jun 26 18:00:51
Sam:

If both candidates have performed equally well against the criteria published, what criteria are reasonable ones to use?

It seems to me to introduce any new criteria would potentially be unfair to the candidates as they didn't have the opportunity to demonstrate whether they met that criteria.

So ethically speaking, determining a preference based on desiring the firm to have a diverse workforce is, under that circumstances, reasonable. It can't be said to be discriminatory because there is clear evidence both candidates preformed equally to objective criteria on a level playing field. If one candidate had clearly performed better than the other, they'd have got the job.

But if there is only one position available, then choosing to pick in such a way as to move towards a workforce that's more representative of society can't be demostrated to be motivated by prejudice. Nor can the candidate that lost out legitimately say they *ought* to have got the job.

Anything else, other than a coin toss, is going to be unfair on the individuals. But statistically speaking, choosing the pick that moves you closer to representation if all other things are equal is a pretty valid way to do things.

Forwyn
Member
Wed Jun 26 18:29:36
i.e. the thread title is 100% true, with the caveat that it "moves you closer to representation"
Seb
Member
Thu Jun 27 02:05:48
There's a big difference between deciding to pick the candidate you have a shortage of in the event you have two tied candidates and saying "we will only hire women" Forwyn.

I don't think one of two equally qualified candidates can sensibly say "no, it's not fair, you should have made the final choice between us by a different arbitrary criteria!"




Forwyn
Member
Thu Jun 27 02:44:00
The distinction is arbitrary, as you are still using a protected class characteristic as a factor of distinction between two candidates.

But you at least recognize the criterion themselves are arbitrary, so it's a start.
Seb
Member
Thu Jun 27 02:54:47
Forwyn:

So I'm your mind, sex separated sports are also discrimination?
Seb
Member
Thu Jun 27 02:55:22
(i.e. I think you are focusing to much on the legislative framework than the moral and ethical framework).
Seb
Member
Thu Jun 27 02:59:55
Or to put it another way, no, clearly the distinction is not arbitrary as an employer running this system will likely employ as many men as women if both men and women are equally likely to meet pre published criteria; whereas in the former case no male applicant can even apply.

So to my mind they are very, very different.


jergul
large member
Thu Jun 27 03:30:56
Seb
The answer was in the stock quotation.

The EU does accept a desire for diversity as an objective hiring criteria.

Objective does not equal non-arbitrary. "Qualified canditates will role two dice. Those rolling 9 will be hired" is an objective, but arbitrary hiring method.

Seb
Member
Thu Jun 27 04:23:58
Jergul:

The choice of a dice roll as a criteria is arbitrary, even if the score is objective.

When I said objective criteria I meant things like "a successful candidate will be able to demonstrate X years of experience with y" etc.


The point is, two candidates having scored equally by the recruitment panel to a set of criteria amenable to objective assessment, rather than subjective e.g. "I think this person feels right for us".

Yes, I know the law allows it but I'm attempting to demonstrate - irrespective of the law - why this isn't hypocrisy as our resident mouth breathes think this is equivalent morally and legally to bring allowed to hang up a sign saying "no Blacks or Irish".

I actually think the OP case may be technically legal but not what the framers intended and might be challengable by a court.



jergul
large member
Thu Jun 27 04:33:26
Seb
It is likely legal because of an overriding objective criteria: "Our workplace shall reflect the diversity of society"

The legal counterargument is that the criteria does not achieve that objective and that a focus on mere gender unbalances is too narrow in scope and discriminates against other under represented groups.

There is scope (and lots of it) for employer discretion in any hiring process.

Of qualified candidates, we will hire the person willing to accept the lowest pay would be a challenge I might put to other posters here.

Why is that ok?
Seb
Member
Thu Jun 27 06:40:58
Jergul:

I suspect that a primary school that decided to only hire male teachers for 18 months because it's staff was 90% female would have issues.

It seems particularly extreme and blunt so I'd be surprised if there aren't other laws that would come into play.

But this isn't really an area I want to delve into.


jergul
large member
Thu Jun 27 08:10:55
The devil is in the details. The OP case seems to be properely designed (but might still be vulnerable to legal challenges from other underrepresented groups).

A qualified male immigrant in a wheel chair would have better success challenging it I think.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jun 27 08:35:22
Seb
"Your question isn't worth discussing"

It isn't a topic for discussion dumb dumb, I simply asked you to explain to me how YOU define "discrimination". You had one job! Which you dodged because you can sense the walls are collapsing.

This is what you said in the other thread:

"They aren't discriminating in this case. The action they are marking him down on is a particular and specific action, not a fundamental characteristic he cannot change."

Regardless how you feel about behavioral genetics, you laid the ground works for what you think DOES constitute "discrimination".

You went on to say:

"The offered a place - then rescinded the offer when they found out about the post, so there's very strong evidence that his rejection has nothing at all to do with his race, sex or any other intrinsic characteristic."

Do you Believe these above statements as a matter of >principle< i.e it is NEVER right? OR do you think there are instances where it is ok to select based on intrinsic characteristics you can't change?

FORGETT about the specific cases, the specific cases are interesting as a means of getting to some bedrock of principles.

jergul
large member
Thu Jun 27 09:28:51
" it is unlawful to discriminate against a person because they have one of the "protected characteristics", which are, age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation."it is unlawful to discriminate against a person because they have one of the "protected characteristics", which are, age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.

"In accordance with Article 141(4) of the Treaty, with a view to ensuring full equality in practice between men and women in working life, the principle of equal treatment does not prevent Member States from maintaining or adopting measures providing for specific advantages in order to make it easier for the under-represented sex to pursue a vocational activity or to prevent or compensate for disadvantages in professional careers."

^Bedrock principles.
jergul
large member
Thu Jun 27 09:31:25
Nimi
The assumption you may want to attack is the following:

Any underrepresentation of any group in society is due to implicit discrimination.
Seb
Member
Thu Jun 27 10:04:28
Nim:
You don't get to task me with jobs. You are suffering a delusion of grandeur again.

In the previous thread you argued:

"Glenn Loury has an entire piece on it. If you are are black and top 20% you have over 50% chance to get in to Harvard, if you are Asian and top 20% you only have 5% chance.

What admission process explains this? Ultimatly we will see what the American judiciary has to say about it. Previously seb has said he thinks positive discrimination is ”extreme” and he is surpised it was legal, this was in Netherlands (and in Sweden). Just, does he doubt that this is going on in other progressive strongholds, or that many people see this as a legitimate strategy?"

I outlined how neither the original case nor even the results were obviously explained by positive discrimination.

You initial question here to me continued your evident confusion.

"Do you Believe these above statements as a matter of >principle< i.e it is NEVER right?"
Could I believe that as an absolute principle and think sex segregated sports are ok? Or that a theatre company can audition only men or women for a respective role?
What makes you think I would take such an extreme view?
Forwyn
Member
Thu Jun 27 10:37:21
"So I'm your mind, sex separated sports are also discrimination?"

There are proven and measurable differences between men and women in every physical sport in the history of the world.

Not really sure how this detracts from the arbitrary assertion that candidates must be discriminated against to ensure some number out of the ether, like 50/50.

Note that this only typically occurs in certain fields, i.e. education and tech - not garbage picking and firefighting
Seb
Member
Thu Jun 27 10:44:28
Forwyn:

"There are proven and measurable differences between men and women in every physical sport in the history of the world."

Yes. That's why you can do it. But is it discrimination in your mind?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jun 27 11:36:31
I can "task" you with anything I want here, it is discussion forums so usually my "tasks" acompleted with words. You are free to dodge and not answer of course, but you can pretty much count on "tasks" if you choose to engage. Not exactly rocket science, is it?

>>What makes you think I would take such an extreme view?<<

Because you repeatedly stated these "intrinsic" characteristics, in the other thread, as the kinds of qualities the dude wasn't discriminated on, thus it not counting as discrimination. Intrinsic, your choice of words, poor choice of words, despite how you feel. And in this thread you thought this was extreme, intead of assuming, I asked.

>>sex segregated sports are ok?<<

Because it is a relevant characteristics to select and segregate sports on. Essential and intrinsic differences exist between men and women when it comes to physical traits, it would disadvantage women, unequivocally. The same can not be said about cognitive traits between men and women, where the largest difference is in interest.

To summarize what I understand your position to be so far.

"Sometimes it is OK to discriminate based on intrinsic chracteristics, sometimes it isn't."

Fair enough? I am sure there is more we can get to, if you are ok with "tasks".

So I return your question. How do we decide and who gets to decide when it is ok to discriminate based on race, sex and ethnicity and when it isn't?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jun 27 11:47:54
>>But is it discrimination in your mind?<<

Is sex a relevant trait to select on in order to achieve fairness between competitors?
Seb
Member
Thu Jun 27 12:22:43
Nim:

Canute famously commanded the tide. I don't propose to reteach lessons from the dark ages. Like I said: delusion.
Seb
Member
Thu Jun 27 12:30:41
Nim:

"Because you repeatedly stated these "intrinsic" characteristics, in the other thread, as the kinds of qualities the dude wasn't discriminated on"

1. Yes, in the context of Sam repeatedly saying that the individuals treatment was unfair and somehow linked to "positive discrimination". Which it clearly wasn't.

2. Even to overlook point 1, why would pointing out that in this case there was no discrimination imply the proposer believed discrimination in any circumstance is always wrong?

"Because it is a relevant characteristics to select and segregate sports on."

Ok. To move the socratic dialogue on I'll not ask to to be explicit about why it is relevant. But I could then ask why sex differentiated sports is ok, but it would be considered wrong to blanket exclude women from roles that involve upper body strength?


There's a really obvious answer to all of this by the way. It's kinda painful watching you and Forwyn crawl blindly towards it.
Seb
Member
Thu Jun 27 12:31:13
"Is sex a relevant trait to select on in order to achieve fairness between competitors? "

Oh, so very nearly there.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Jun 27 13:09:10
"But is it discrimination in your mind?"

Discrimination isn't a bad word. Discrimination backed by proven science is just picking apples for your apple pies instead of oranges.

Discrimination based on arbitrary measures of representation when you're simultaneously arguing that there are no proven cognitive differences between the relevant groups is asinine.

"it would be considered wrong to blanket exclude women from roles that involve upper body strength"

The clear answer is to set gender-neutral standards, and candidates who meet them advance, regardless of sex. There will always be exceptional women who can play with the boys.
Seb
Member
Thu Jun 27 14:01:49
Forwyn:

Ok, so we've established I think that focusing on the word discrimination isn't that helpful.

So to pull it back to a hypothetical, two individuals who are objectively equal by the criteria set out - does science tell us which one to select?

Forwyn
Member
Thu Jun 27 14:06:59
There will always be criterion to measure that don't involve genitals, and no two candidates will be perfectly equal in education, experience, and social compatibility.
jergul
large member
Thu Jun 27 15:41:20
Objectively equal means both candidates meet the criteria set (alternately fail to meet criteria in similar ways).






Forwyn
Member
Thu Jun 27 16:23:43
Equal by the criteria does not mean equal. Two candidates meeting the 3-year experience criteria are not equal when one is at 4-years and the other 8.
jergul
large member
Thu Jun 27 16:41:22
Forwyn
That is where you would be incorrect. Meeting criteria is binary. Either a candidate does, or does not.

Weighing after that will always be arbitrary and of less importance than meeting other priorities an organization might have.
Seb
Member
Thu Jun 27 17:20:48
Forwyn:

Ah but you are neglecting resolution of ability to measure.

You do a sift, you do an interview.

Two candidates are scoring equal and the panel doesn't decisively feel one is better than the other. This is very normal.

You can set another criterion, but having not collected information with regards to how each candidate meets that criterion, that criterion would not really allow you to distinguish the individuals fairly.



Forwyn
Member
Thu Jun 27 17:57:59
"Weighing after that will always be arbitrary and of less importance than meeting other priorities an organization might have."

Are you suggesting that genitals are less arbitrary than more experience beyond bare minimums?
Seb
Member
Thu Jun 27 18:04:46
Forwyn:

Is the only thing that distinguishes men and women genitals?
Forwyn
Member
Thu Jun 27 18:05:40
Are you on record supporting the existence of cognitive differences in the workplace?
jergul
large member
Thu Jun 27 18:55:25
Forwyn
That would depend on the wording of the job advertisment.

If it specifies that gender is a criteria, then it would by definition not be arbitrary.

The legality of such a criteria could be challenged of course, but that is a different issue.

Without gender being specified, then it would be exactly as arbitrary as say over qualification, or personal chemistry demonstrated at the job interview.
jergul
large member
Thu Jun 27 19:06:45
Most debates in this forum seems to rotate around difficulties with axioms.

If gender is specified as a criteria, then it is axiomatic to weigh it as heavily as the criteria wording specifies it should be weighed.

If not specified as a criteria, then arguing to hire an applicant on the basis of his or her gender is exactly as relevant as making other hiring arguments not based on meeting specific criteria.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Jun 27 20:09:12
You're seriously arguing that extra experience is as arbitrary as whether or not the candidate has testicles.

rofl.

That's fine, just be aware that it cuts both ways.
Seb
Member
Fri Jun 28 02:03:04
Forwyn:
"Are you on record supporting the existence of cognitive differences in the workplace?"

Hmm. Is that the only thing that comes to mind Forwyn?

Do you think a women developing a wearable
fitness device and app is more or less likely to forget to make adjustments for pregnancy and/or period?

And is that because of cognitive differences?

jergul
large member
Fri Jun 28 03:27:57
Forwyn
Arbitrary generally cuts only one way. In favour of the testicles. With all kinds of unformulated, but illegal assumptions to justify choosing dick.

Which is why it is important to formulate criteria properely and include greater workplace representation as one of the hiring criteria.

It instructs the hiring comittee on how to proceed and avoids arbitrary decisionmaking.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Jul 05 06:18:18
>>There's a really obvious answer to all of this by the way. It's kinda painful watching you and Forwyn crawl blindly towards it.<<

**I Think you should asnwer this first Before continuing, because if the answer is no or you don't answer then this is where we stop.**

^This^ is not a socratic dialogue, or even a dialogue, it sounds like you think are holding a lecture. So, are you even amenable to changing your opinion and being wrong on this topic?


>>why would pointing out that in this case there was no discrimination imply the proposer believed discrimination in any circumstance is always wrong?<<

I simply asked a question in order to understand your position. What I implied is not as relevant as the fact that I corrected my understanding and re-summarized your position after you answered.

>>Ok. To move the socratic dialogue on I'll not ask to to be explicit about why it is relevant.<<

I explained why in the next sentence.

>>But I could then ask why sex differentiated sports is ok, but it would be considered wrong to blanket exclude women from roles that involve upper body strength?<<

Because in sports atheletic ability is the first and foremost selection criteria, but roles that "involve" atheletic ability (it isn't just upper body strength, it is just the largest difference) also involve other traits that are relevant for the role. In sport you can not get around the huge difference, which is between 10-40% at the elite level. And the competition level between sports and roles that involve physical ability are very different. It means that the selection criteria in sports isn't fixed e.g you must do 10 pull ups or run 3 km in 9 minutes. You are eliminated based on the ability of your competitors. Athletes are at the extreme end (roles are not) and the extreme ends of physical ability in the human race taken together, you virtually only find men.

Sports is not a great comparison, it is a completely segregated field, universities are not. Additionally the differences in cognitive abilities are almost zero and neither of us are proposing segregation at universities as a way to achieve fair competition.

>>Oh, so very nearly there.<<

You didn't answer the question. Is sex a relevant trait to select on in order to achieve fairness between competitors*?

*jobs and University admission.

I Think I have answered all your questions.

So, I ask the questions you forgot to answer:

To summarize what I understand your position to be so far.

"Sometimes it is OK to discriminate based on intrinsic chracteristics, sometimes it isn't."

How do we decide and who gets to decide when it is ok to discriminate based on race, sex and ethnicity and when it isn't?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Jul 05 06:36:04
>>jergul
large member Thu Jun 27 09:31:25
Nimi
The assumption you may want to attack is the following:

Any underrepresentation of any group in society is due to implicit discrimination.<<

If you had been paying attention the last 3-4 years you would have heard me do that on several occasions. Did you forget the github study? Or the implicit bias "studies"? We have done this several times, my analysis of where we end up:

If I agree with it, it is so self-evident that any evidence will do.

If I disagree with it, we have to be skeptical and apply scientific rigor. Empirical nihilism.

When seb Thinks implicit bias tests are valid because "we can contruct a phenomenology" lol :), or the github study because he found his "evidence" in 20000 samples on a sample size of several millions, we are not playing by the same rules book.

I don't think you still understand my intention. Unlike you and seb I am not proposing any social policy, I am undermining the ones you propose and support with contradictory evidence. You could still be correct, you have just not provided good evidence for it.
jergul
large member
Fri Jul 05 07:15:36
Nimi
I was actually trying to guide you towards asking your socratic questions a bit more constructively.

You actual agenda is of course well-known as you have made no secret of your ideological leanings.
jergul
large member
Fri Jul 05 07:19:13
My approach is precautionary incidentally. While not possible to prove with scientific rigour, a precautionary approach suggests there is enough grounds to suspect A is the case and that countermeasures should therefore be enacted.
jergul
large member
Fri Jul 05 07:22:52
In this case: Implicit dicrimination is probably taking place and countermeasures should therefore be enacted.

There is no real downside for as long as qualification standards are maintained and there are several upsides to supporting greater diversity even if gender imbalances were not initially caused by implicit discrimination.
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 05 07:52:42
Nim:

Ok, so your kinda there: the principle is fairness.

So if you have two individuals who have, within the framework of the external competition performed indistinguishably, can it really be said to be unfair to select the one that best moves the overall workforce to reflect the balance of society?

Inventing new criteria is unfair as neither candidate was able to make the case that they met that criteria.

Flipping a coin at random isn't that fair either - and amounts to the same thing. If you are over on men, next time you might be over on women. Pot luck.

Systemically, it's fairer overall.

So the policy I outlined doesn't seem to me to be unfair discrimination unless you argue that men *ought* to be over represented. But in this case, the employer first determined both candidates were equally valid for the role.









Seb
Member
Fri Jul 05 07:58:28
Also, I used to think as you did, and have changed my mind having seen so many examples of how things are explicitly and implicitly stacked.

I find your arguments a bit tired because I used to hold them myself and have over time convinced myself that while theoretically perfect they don't reflect the reality of a world that is far more complex.

It's the "spherical cow in vacuum" problem.

So to answer your question, yes, I can be pursuaded but you will need to come up with things that are fundamentally better than attempts at a purely theoretical framework that ignores or denies reality.

Given that your basic approach is to simply not recognise the obvious structural sexism and racism and make unevidenced and unconvincing hand waving explanations about how these might all be explained by "natural" causes and (contrary to standard scientific process) demanding these be taken as the null hypothesis and definitively ruled out before bias be considered; you just ain't trying hard enough.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Jul 05 08:15:06
jergul
Having Reading what you just wrote I would like to revise my earlier statement.

If I agree with it, it is so self-evident that *even a hunch will do*.

If I disagree with it, we have to be skeptical and apply scientific rigor.
jergul
large member
Fri Jul 05 08:21:14
Nimi
What are you on about now?
jergul
large member
Fri Jul 05 08:25:20
What you are doing is assuming equality in the face of inequality when it would be a lot more reasonable to assume inequality in the face of inequality.

There is overwhelming evidence that supports inequality being based on structural discrimination and not so much evidence that suggests we are living in perfect meritocracies where inequality is a mere function of variations in merit.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Jul 05 08:47:04
Seb
So your position is so indefensible that you will not even attempt to explain or answer any questions.
jergul
large member
Fri Jul 05 09:03:34
Nimi
You do not really have any questions once the assumption of merit is discounted.

Do you have any particular reason to believe that merit is the sole reason behind gender inequality?
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 05 09:07:22
Nim:

I think I've answered them quite clearly actually.
jergul
large member
Fri Jul 05 09:20:53
Seb
You are supposed to respond like the Sophists did. Otherwise, the Socratic method does not work.
McKobb
Member
Sun Jul 07 14:26:23
There is difference between a hand up and a hand out.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Jul 08 03:00:34
Jergul
You think having a hunch is enough to deploy counter meassures to (percieved) problems, because your standards of evidence is ”suspicision” that aligns with what you already believe. Normally when nominally educated people suspect things, they do research and gather evidence.

You fail (among other things) the 101 of solving mechanical problems, let alone more complex problems in the domain of human behavior.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Jul 08 03:23:25
I am thinking that there should be no good reason why western women fail where Iranian and Kurdish women succeed. I know the statistics, but I have also mentored 1 girl with an engeering degree from each background now. Both have given me the ”but I’m a women in a male dominated field”, dispelling that gave them confidence. So from my POV I am undoing the harm that people like you and seb are spreading, 1 girl at a time.
Seb
Member
Mon Jul 08 03:27:18
Nim:

Yes, but equally no wise man sets out to gather extensive evidence the world is round. I mean, have you personally measured the curvature of the earth?

The evidence is overwhelming. There isn't a shortfall of evidence of systemic and systematic discrimination against women.
jergul
large member
Mon Jul 08 08:02:01
Nimi
I think that evidence should support such actions before they are implemented, but there is no absolute proof criteria.

So in fact very close to a problem solving approach one might use in mechanical engineering.

Nice to see engineers humouring you btw. It would meet expectations to see women bringing a greater degree of social skills into engineering sciences.

Perhaps you might one day achieve their level of education.
jergul
large member
Mon Jul 08 08:08:35
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
Seb
Member
Mon Jul 08 09:14:50
"Iranian and Kurdish women succeed. I know the statistics, but I have also mentored 1 girl with an engeering degree from each background now"

Ah, and because Barak Obama was president, there is no racism in America.

You say you are undoing harm by giving people back the confidence *you* take away by telling women they aren't fit for engineering in the first place unless they are exceptional. How many mediocre men persist despite finding it hard in pursuing an engineering profession to which they are perfectly able to turn their hand to; vs women who give up because you've told them that they are unlikely to be good at it due to their poorly evolved brains.
obaminated
Member
Mon Jul 08 10:43:08
I like how seb cant admit that discrimination is bad no matter who benefits from it. He literally cant do it.
Seb
Member
Mon Jul 08 10:55:50
Obaminated:

I don't agree with the premise that the policy I outlined *is* discrimination on the grounds of sex (after all, if the workforce is unbalanced it ought to change in balance over time, and if both candidates meet the criteria they cannot reasonably claim they *ought* to have got the job and would have definitely done so were it not for their sex, race or gender - their *fitness* for the role isn't being assessed on the basis of their gender); and I don't think you are using the word consistently and correctly. And of course in some areas it is reasonable to assign someone a job on the basis of their sex (e.g. actor or actress for a specific role) so it would be absolutely stupid to claim that it is universally bad to give jobs on the basis of sex.

As Nim eventually got to, the issue is about fairness.

If you've failed to appreciate that I've been asking you to clarify your thoughts, that's a testament to your inability to think clearly about the issues you are trying to discuss.


Sam Adams
Member
Mon Jul 08 10:59:58
"by telling women they aren't fit for engineering in the first place unless they are exceptional."

No one should be in engineering unless they are exceptional. Seb is a good example of this. His mediocre mind was not up to stem, and was correctly shunted over into some meaningless sjw position.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Jul 08 12:07:25
More Iranian women study STEM in Iran than Swedish women in Sweden. For some reason being a woman in one of the most patriarchal countries does not stop them from studying STEM.

Obama? Racism? In AMERICA?

This is the spray and pray method of the socratic dialogue :)
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Jul 08 12:24:12
Probably because the west has become so soft, rich, and complacent that more westerners think they get jobs or welfare even if they go into some worthless fuzzy field.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Jul 08 12:31:12
For sure, there are more options in the west to study and then to actually make a living on. STEM is a solid choice regardless of where you are and it gives you the option of going elsewhere. Nowhere does the patriarchy matter for female choice of education.
Seb
Member
Mon Jul 08 12:49:42
Sam Adams:

"No one should be in engineering unless they are exceptional."

Where everyone is above average! I suspect your definition of exceptional is rather lower threshold than mine. That would certainly fit with the facts.
Seb
Member
Mon Jul 08 12:52:16
Nimatzo:

"More Iranian women study STEM in Iran than Swedish women in Sweden."

And what does that prove, exactly? Does it follow that Iran is just like Sweden but a bit more sexist?

Women used to make up the majority of the UG computer scientist students in the west until the early 80's.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Jul 08 12:53:45
seb
>>women who give up because you've told them that they are unlikely to be good at it due to their poorly evolved brains.<<

No no, you have a poorly evolved brain is what I have said, about women and men I have pointed to evidence suggesting large differences in interest. This is a barely literate summary of my position. Tsk tsk tsk.
Seb
Member
Mon Jul 08 12:54:14
Bottom line, the fact you've tutored some female engineering students doesn't mean your views are not sexist; nor does it prove that sexism doesn't exist nor cast doubt on the copious evidence that it does in fact.

Your argument is akin to the people who argue that a black man being president means that racism is over in the US. This isn't hard to understand Nim.
Seb
Member
Mon Jul 08 12:58:58
Nim:

"No no, you have a poorly evolved brain is what I have said, about women and men I have pointed to evidence suggesting large differences in interest."

Well, if that is the case, then you are making the very strong case for outreach programmes of the kind you vigorously support Damore criticising.

If male and female brains are equally well adapted to engineering, but women have lower interest, then it is a business no brainer for firms to aggressively attempt to promote women in STEM to increase their workforce. Indeed, it flips Damore's argument on it's head: if there are equal numbers of exceptional women, but your workforce isn't sex balanced, that means you are hiring men from lower down the distribution when you could be hiring women higher up the distribution if only you can get them to train and apply.

Alternatively, yes, you are indeed arguing that women in general have brains that are poorly evolved for engineering.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Jul 08 12:59:47
You really are breaking my heart now, your approval is the only thing that has kept me going since Hot Rod died.

Jesus christ you are certified retarded :)
Seb
Member
Mon Jul 08 13:00:53
Sad that Nim doesn't understand the implications of his own argument. There is undoubtedly an evolutionary basis for this of course, because all behavior must be explained by genetics.
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Jul 08 14:40:28
No one claims that all behaviour is genetic.

Seb however does argue that no behavior is genetic.
Seb
Member
Mon Jul 08 17:17:32
Sam:

Nim literally posted a set of precepts for evolutionary psychology that did indeed state that as an axiom.

Nim:

So, which is it then: women have poorly evolved brains for STEM subjects, or it makes perfect sense for companies to heavily promote females in STEM subjects?
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Jul 08 19:34:07
Seb can not contemplate a middle ground where everyone competes on merit instead of special treatment for his special classes?

Remember a few years ago when seb said he didn't believe in special classes. Lol you proved yourself a liar with that one real quick.
Seb
Member
Tue Jul 09 06:59:39
Sam can't read.

I've explicitly stated they compete on merit. What I outlined only comes into play if both are score equally.
Seb
Member
Tue Jul 09 07:00:31
Spot the motivated reasoner.
Sam Adams
Member
Tue Jul 09 09:54:42
"I've explicitly stated they compete on merit."

Obviously not, or you wouldn't have spent 50 posts trying to weasle up reasons to give ladies an advantage or "promote" thhem.
Seb
Member
Tue Jul 09 10:09:16
Sam:

The fact I keep needing to explain the same simple point again and again is a function of your stupidity, nothing more.

It surprises me how hard it is for you to grasp a simple point.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Jul 09 10:33:43
I do not sign off on the summary you have made of my position. Finally you do this, thanks. You failed the task, I understand your position better than you do mine.

show deleted posts
Bookmark and Share