“Prescott explained that the company's dedication to inclusivity and diversity is motivated by a "selfish and practical" perspective. She believes that to create the best products for all consumers, they must be developed by a diverse team of individuals, according to a report from The Independent.”
I don’t agree. To create the best products for all consumers, they must be developed by a competent team with diverse skills and perspectives. Why are they so focused on the gender and race of a developer?
Because gender and race diversity brings different perspectives. You're so close!
But why does "diversity" only pertain to gender and race? I'll wager that there is more "diversity" between an Asian born and educated in the US and an Asian born and educated in China or an Asian born and educated in Japan or an Asian born and educated in India, than there is between him and a White person born and educated in the US. The same goes for White. There's "diversity" among Whites from the US and those from the UK or Australia or Sweden or France, etc. Why is "diversity" only pertaining to gender and race? There can be as much or more "diversity" among people of the same race than there is among people of different races.
As for "........ diversity brings different perspectives", this might matter when designing a GUI or working in HR or working in promotion and ads or customers relations, or designing a virtual assistance, etc. but "diversity" should have no bearing when it comes to designing chips, writing search algorithm or debugging software and many other jobs where "a different perspective" doesn't matter.
A company shouldn't hire a female that is good at debugging software because she might bring a different perspective into debugging software. A company should hire a female that is good at debugging software because she good at debugging software. However, if a female speciality is in designing virtual assistance and your company team in charge of designing a virtual assistance is all male, then adding a female to the team might just make the design better because of the different perspective she adds to the design.
Stop trying to justify your bigotry in word soup and just say it out loud! Diversity is fine, as long as it only includes differing white people.
If there's anything that gets to me, it's when bigots play the "We should only hire the best qualified people, based only on merit!" trope. Well, we've missed hiring millions of the best people for the job due to the exact embedded societal racism and sexism your beliefs prove.
“ On the face of it, sounds like something you'd hear on right-wing talk shows. Poor choice of words, when you read the article and realize that enacting policies of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion will benefit Apple Inc. in the long term through hiring and promotion based solely on merit, not race, class or religion. And that's practical, enlightened benchmark for sustainable growth.” - JP234 in the very first comment on this article
You’re arguing both sides here.
I can do that, too!
"Well, we've missed hiring millions of the best people for the job due to the exact embedded societal racism and sexism your beliefs prove."
That's the message. Admit that, or own your bigotry. Geez!
You post a lot but I can’t tell if you’re reading and comprehending other posters.
Also, you keep calling people bigots when there is no evidence they are. This is bizarre.
No evidence? I'm really interested in what you would classify as evidence of bigotry if you don't see any in this thread.
As I mentioned, you don’t seem to be comprehending. The post you quoted when I replied to you is absent any bigotry. My posts are absent any bigotry (as they are simply responding to your posts about that first quote) but somehow you feel it’s necessary to call me a bigot. As I said, bizarre.
EDIT: To be clear, you quoted Davidw and called him a bigot. There’s no bigotry in his post. In fact, he’s just asking some questions and presenting some examples.
Also, I didn’t say there was no bigotry in this thread so I don’t know where you came up with that.
EDIT 2: I just noticed your response to me pointing out that in your first post you advocate for hiring and promoting based only on merit, but in a later post you say hiring and promoting based on merit is a tired old trope used by bigots. Your response seems out of context.
Man, some bigots will say anything to deny or justify their bigotry. They should try reading Breitbart News, where at least the bigotry is open and unashamed.
Whatever point you think you have is utterly incomprehensible. Stop insulting people and practice expressing your opinions better.
“Prescott explained that the company's dedication to inclusivity and diversity is motivated by a "selfish and practical" perspective. She believes that to create the best products for all consumers, they must be developed by a diverse team of individuals, according to a report from The Independent.”
I don’t agree. To create the best products for all consumers, they must be developed by a competent team with diverse skills and perspectives. Why are they so focused on the gender and race of a developer?
Because gender and race diversity brings different perspectives. You're so close!
But why does "diversity" only pertain to gender and race? I'll wager that there is more "diversity" between an Asian born and educated in the US and an Asian born and educated in China or an Asian born and educated in Japan or an Asian born and educated in India, than there is between him and a White person born and educated in the US. The same goes for White. There's "diversity" among Whites from the US and those from the UK or Australia or Sweden or France, etc. Why is "diversity" only pertaining to gender and race? There can be as much or more "diversity" among people of the same race than there is among people of different races.
As for "........ diversity brings different perspectives", this might matter when designing a GUI or working in HR or working in promotion and ads or customers relations, or designing a virtual assistance, etc. but "diversity" should have no bearing when it comes to designing chips, writing search algorithm or debugging software and many other jobs where "a different perspective" doesn't matter.
A company shouldn't hire a female that is good at debugging software because she might bring a different perspective into debugging software. A company should hire a female that is good at debugging software because she good at debugging software. However, if a female speciality is in designing virtual assistance and your company team in charge of designing a virtual assistance is all male, then adding a female to the team might just make the design better because of the different perspective she adds to the design.
Consider this: an Asian born anywhere who is filling a role in an important STEM field is a role model for Asian kids making their way through primary and secondary education. So it's important to have Asians in those jobs and there are plenty already represented.
The same is true for females and for blacks and other minorities not yet well represented in STEM fields. So it's important to get people from underrepresented groups into those jobs so that they will be seen as role models for the upcoming generation of kids in those groups. Apple is taking a long view by trying to populate its workforce with a wider array of people from all groups. It's not simply about filling seats with 'the most qualified.' There's a much bigger picture to see here.
“Prescott explained that the company's dedication to inclusivity and diversity is motivated by a "selfish and practical" perspective. She believes that to create the best products for all consumers, they must be developed by a diverse team of individuals, according to a report from The Independent.”
I don’t agree. To create the best products for all consumers, they must be developed by a competent team with diverse skills and perspectives. Why are they so focused on the gender and race of a developer?
Because gender and race diversity brings different perspectives. You're so close!
But why does "diversity" only pertain to gender and race? I'll wager that there is more "diversity" between an Asian born and educated in the US and an Asian born and educated in China or an Asian born and educated in Japan or an Asian born and educated in India, than there is between him and a White person born and educated in the US. The same goes for White. There's "diversity" among Whites from the US and those from the UK or Australia or Sweden or France, etc. Why is "diversity" only pertaining to gender and race? There can be as much or more "diversity" among people of the same race than there is among people of different races.
As for "........ diversity brings different perspectives", this might matter when designing a GUI or working in HR or working in promotion and ads or customers relations, or designing a virtual assistance, etc. but "diversity" should have no bearing when it comes to designing chips, writing search algorithm or debugging software and many other jobs where "a different perspective" doesn't matter.
A company shouldn't hire a female that is good at debugging software because she might bring a different perspective into debugging software. A company should hire a female that is good at debugging software because she good at debugging software. However, if a female speciality is in designing virtual assistance and your company team in charge of designing a virtual assistance is all male, then adding a female to the team might just make the design better because of the different perspective she adds to the design.
Stop trying to justify your bigotry in word soup and just say it out loud! Diversity is fine, as long as it only includes differing white people.
If there's anything that gets to me, it's when bigots play the "We should only hire the best qualified people, based only on merit!" trope. Well, we've missed hiring millions of the best people for the job due to the exact embedded societal racism and sexism your beliefs prove.
“ On the face of it, sounds like something you'd hear on right-wing talk shows. Poor choice of words, when you read the article and realize that enacting policies of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion will benefit Apple Inc. in the long term through hiring and promotion based solely on merit, not race, class or religion. And that's practical, enlightened benchmark for sustainable growth.” - JP234 in the very first comment on this article
You’re arguing both sides here.
I can do that, too!
"Well, we've missed hiring millions of the best people for the job due to the exact embedded societal racism and sexism your beliefs prove."
That's the message. Admit that, or own your bigotry. Geez!
You post a lot but I can’t tell if you’re reading and comprehending other posters.
Also, you keep calling people bigots when there is no evidence they are. This is bizarre.
No evidence? I'm really interested in what you would classify as evidence of bigotry if you don't see any in this thread.
As I mentioned, you don’t seem to be comprehending. The post you quoted when I replied to you is absent any bigotry. My posts are absent any bigotry (as they are simply responding to your posts about that first quote) but somehow you feel it’s necessary to call me a bigot. As I said, bizarre.
EDIT: To be clear, you quoted Davidw and called him a bigot. There’s no bigotry in his post. In fact, he’s just asking some questions and presenting some examples.
Also, I didn’t say there was no bigotry in this thread so I don’t know where you came up with that.
EDIT 2: I just noticed your response to me pointing out that in your first post you advocate for hiring and promoting based only on merit, but in a later post you say hiring and promoting based on merit is a tired old trope used by bigots. Your response seems out of context.
Man, some bigots will say anything to deny or justify their bigotry. They should try reading Breitbart News, where at least the bigotry is open and unashamed.
Since I already you know can’t explain what part of Davidw’s post shows bigotry I’ll make it much easier for you and ask you point to a post of mine that shows any bigotry. It’s simple, just quote my comment that you think “proves’ I’m a bigot below here.
It would be nice if you could also explain how in one post you advocate for hiring based on merit and in a later post say that hiring based on merit is bigotry, but I figure that’s a long shot.
There is a famous Mark Twain quote about arguing that applies here.
I wonder if he even read anything you had to say. When someone counters a logical thought or question with a nasty and personal insult…Get the fuck out because it’s a trap.
The best products are those that the designers/engineers would want to use themselves. To make products for a diverse consumer population, it can be useful to have employees who share the preferences and needs of those customers. So long as that’s the sort of logic that motivates DEI, DEI is fine. The trap is to start treating jobs like cookies to be distributed fairly. Companies can and do fall into that trap, which is bad for everyone. Sounds like apple has the right motivation here.
Perhaps corporations could conduct interviews the way our Chicago Symphony Orchestra conducts auditions: blind. Selectors only hear the musician's instrument, no heel clicks coming in, no voices, no hint about anything but ability. Probably has something to do with why 70% of the strings are oriental, but it's absolute meritocracy, so I'm fine with it. Especially when I hear the orchestra play.
This doesn't work in fields where generations of people in a specific group haven't been inspired to follow a dream of being in that field, or worse, have been denied the opportunity to participate or become educated suitably to work in that field. Meritocracy only works if every potential candidate had been given the same opportunity to develop the needed skills or talents. It takes a generation, at least, to get to that point. In the interim companies like Apple are trying to place into these jobs and roles people who can be seen as role models to inspire others who come from the same underrepresented group (whether that be color, gender, religion, whatever). Apple also has initiatives in place to help schools deliver the education and tools needed by kids, so that we can hope to create a generation who all had a fair start. And then those blind auditions certainly could be applied.
radarthekat said: What you suggest needs to start in schools ignores the fact that school age children are very often influenced by role models they see in society. What’s missed by your stance is that it takes a generation to prime the pump for true equality.
What you and most of the off the wall left seem hell bent on ignoring is that men and women have different preferences. "True equality" is the worst kind of projecting. Stop trying to fix non-existant problems.
If you go back to the 1950s, where girls were taught home economics and boys were taught mechanics or carpentry in the American school system and at home, you found men out working after graduating and women waitressing or filling secretarial roles until they married. That was an extreme example of this preference you may think is inborn. In those days a female engineer would have been seen as an oddity, out of the ordinary.
Fast forward and women have bigger ambitions? Why? Did natural evolutionary forces, in just a few generations, suddenly kick in, ala Stephen J Gould's punctuated equilibrium theory? No. Society changed, more young girls were exposed to a more equal education and were taught that they 'could' choose a wider array of careers, and that it was acceptable to have career ambitions. As this transition proceeded, girls still saw that many fields were very much entrenched male domains, and it took some hutzpuh on the part of a female to break into those fields, to dare to compete with the boys, so to speak. It takes a generation, or two, for these types of barriers to fall and it takes role models.
So the world has not remained static since the 1950s, nor should we stop where we are now. There's still more work to be done by society before I think we'll be at the point where young girls see the full range of career opportunities as being viable options. It's true that women have a natural imperative, to create a family, and that certain careers demand a longer time in school to qualify and a longer commitment of years on the job to reach full mastery, but there are women who have opted to become doctors, a career path no doubt opened to their eyes via the nursing field. And those female doctors have found a way to balance both career and family ambitions, I hope. Role models within other STEM fields will show young girls that there's possibly a way for them to balance both a demanding career (once the domain of men) and the desire to have children (the natural imperative of women).
We won't truly know what the aggregate preferences of women are until society is structured to allow them to pursue their full array of ambitions without prejudice or constraint. Just as we didn't know in the 1950s how many career paths women would choose to pursue if they weren't conditioned in childhood to see motherhood and family as their overwhelmingly primary role.
One note: I've been living in The Philippines for the last six years, and this place shares a lot of similarities with America in the 1950s. Girls are taught that family is EVERYTHING. Society here works, except for the 40% stuck in abject poverty and the number of teenage mothers. When I say it works, I mean that people seem happy and smile easily. But they simply have no means to better their situation. Forces here keep them ignorant and humans make the best of what they have and size their dreams accordingly. As an American I cannot imagine in my worst dreams of hell living my life in their shoes, as I would bet that you, as a man, wouldn't want to be constrained in your life choices as girls were in the 1950s, a decade before laws we're changed to allow women the simple privilege of having their own bank account without a man co-signing to open it. Can you imagine?
In case you can't, watch this video that I spotted today. This is not me, not my YouTube channel. This is just one of the many YouTubers who show what life is like here. Extrapolate as needed.
Ah yes, the ad hominem - always the ultimate argument from the position of greatest strength.
How about instead of attacking people you discuss the ideas? If your ideas aren't crap then you don't have to constantly switch back to discussing people instead.
Because 'rules.' You don't get to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater and you don't get to spout obvious and blatant racism here. You can disagree with my judgement regarding what was on display in the post that resulted in the ban, but my role here requires that I make such judgements and enforce the rules. Otherwise AI should replace me, and they are free to do so at any time. My role here is unpaid, voluntary and at the discretion of the AI staff. If they disagree with any of my calls they can and should remove my moderator status, no hard feelings.
radarthekat said: What you suggest needs to start in schools ignores the fact that school age children are very often influenced by role models they see in society. What’s missed by your stance is that it takes a generation to prime the pump for true equality.
What you and most of the off the wall left seem hell bent on ignoring is that men and women have different preferences. "True equality" is the worst kind of projecting. Stop trying to fix non-existant problems.
If you go back to the 1950s, where girls were taught home economics and boys were taught mechanics or carpentry in the American school system and at home, you found men out working after graduating and women waitressing or filling secretarial roles until they married. That was an extreme example of this preference you may think is inborn. In those days a female engineer would have been seen as an oddity, out of the ordinary.
Fast forward and women have bigger ambitions? Why? Did natural evolutionary forces, in just a few generations, suddenly kick in, ala Stephen J Gould's punctuated equilibrium theory? No. Society changed, more young girls were exposed to a more equal education and were taught that they 'could' choose a wider array of careers, and that it was acceptable to have career ambitions. As this transition proceeded, girls still saw that many fields were very much entrenched male domains, and it took some hutzpuh on the part of a female to break into those fields, to dare to compete with the boys, so to speak. It takes a generation, or two, for these types of barriers to fall and it takes role models.
So the world has not remained static since the 1950s, nor should we stop where we are now. There's still more work to be done by society before I think we'll be at the point where young girls see the full range of career opportunities as being viable options. It's true that women have a natural imperative, to create a family, and that certain careers demand a longer time in school to qualify and a longer commitment of years on the job to reach full mastery, but there are women who have opted to become doctors, a career path no doubt opened to their eyes via the nursing field. And those female doctors have found a way to balance both career and family ambitions, I hope. Role models within other STEM fields will show young girls that there's possibly a way for them to balance both a demanding career (once the domain of men) and the desire to have children (the natural imperative of women).
We won't truly know what the aggregate preferences of women are until society is structured to allow them to pursue their full array of ambitions without prejudice or constraint. Just as we didn't know in the 1950s how many career paths women would choose to pursue if they weren't conditioned in childhood to see motherhood and family as their overwhelmingly primary role.
One note: I've been living in The Philippines for the last six years, and this place shares a lot of similarities with America in the 1950s. Girls are taught that family is EVERYTHING. Society here works, except for the 40% stuck in abject poverty and the number of teenage mothers. When I say it works, I mean that people seem happy and smile easily. But they simply have no means to better their situation. Forces here keep them ignorant and humans make the best of what they have and size their dreams accordingly. As an American I cannot imagine in my worst dreams of hell living my life in their shoes, as I would bet that you, as a man, wouldn't want to be constrained in your life choices as girls were in the 1950s, a decade before laws we're changed to allow women the simple privilege of having their own bank account without a man co-signing to open it. Can you imagine?
In case you can't, watch this video that I spotted today. This is not me, not my YouTube channel. This is just one of the many YouTubers who show what life is like here. Extrapolate as needed.
I applaud your excellent replies which reveals that you possess a vast amount of knowledge as well as the ability to reason, @radarthekat ;
Society here works, except for the 40% stuck in abject poverty and the number of teenage mothers
As it has always been, the primary threat to Democracy is poverty. —I recommend watching Hans Roslings TED-Talks, for insight into these fundamental issues—presented by arguably the greatest teacher of all time.
The guideline for publicly traded companies is to maximize profits. Anything else is illegal.
Now consider : Think Different —was this moto merely a PR-stunt? Or did Steve Jobs realize that what determines the success of —in the long run—is employee diversity, meaning the ability to think differently?
Thus, it is not about promoting Asians, females, etc., but about rectifying the mistakes that resulted in the present situation, which is so ubiquitous that it is difficult to recognize: The motivation for countering a monoculture of white males in the management of your company is not that the absence of equality is unfair to underrepresented minorities! —the reason is that it is idiotic to promote drone-like leadership!
And this—not coincidentally—applies equally to the profit-aspect as well as the emotional aspect of this male-made conflict.
radarthekat said: What you suggest needs to start in schools ignores the fact that school age children are very often influenced by role models they see in society. What’s missed by your stance is that it takes a generation to prime the pump for true equality.
What you and most of the off the wall left seem hell bent on ignoring is that men and women have different preferences. "True equality" is the worst kind of projecting. Stop trying to fix non-existant problems.
If you go back to the 1950s, where girls were taught home economics and boys were taught mechanics or carpentry in the American school system and at home, you found men out working after graduating and women waitressing or filling secretarial roles until they married. That was an extreme example of this preference you may think is inborn. In those days a female engineer would have been seen as an oddity, out of the ordinary.
Fast forward and women have bigger ambitions? Why? Did natural evolutionary forces, in just a few generations, suddenly kick in, ala Stephen J Gould's punctuated equilibrium theory? No. Society changed, more young girls were exposed to a more equal education and were taught that they 'could' choose a wider array of careers, and that it was acceptable to have career ambitions. As this transition proceeded, girls still saw that many fields were very much entrenched male domains, and it took some hutzpuh on the part of a female to break into those fields, to dare to compete with the boys, so to speak. It takes a generation, or two, for these types of barriers to fall and it takes role models.
So the world has not remained static since the 1950s, nor should we stop where we are now. There's still more work to be done by society before I think we'll be at the point where young girls see the full range of career opportunities as being viable options. It's true that women have a natural imperative, to create a family, and that certain careers demand a longer time in school to qualify and a longer commitment of years on the job to reach full mastery, but there are women who have opted to become doctors, a career path no doubt opened to their eyes via the nursing field. And those female doctors have found a way to balance both career and family ambitions, I hope. Role models within other STEM fields will show young girls that there's possibly a way for them to balance both a demanding career (once the domain of men) and the desire to have children (the natural imperative of women).
We won't truly know what the aggregate preferences of women are until society is structured to allow them to pursue their full array of ambitions without prejudice or constraint. Just as we didn't know in the 1950s how many career paths women would choose to pursue if they weren't conditioned in childhood to see motherhood and family as their overwhelmingly primary role.
One note: I've been living in The Philippines for the last six years, and this place shares a lot of similarities with America in the 1950s. Girls are taught that family is EVERYTHING. Society here works, except for the 40% stuck in abject poverty and the number of teenage mothers. When I say it works, I mean that people seem happy and smile easily. But they simply have no means to better their situation. Forces here keep them ignorant and humans make the best of what they have and size their dreams accordingly. As an American I cannot imagine in my worst dreams of hell living my life in their shoes, as I would bet that you, as a man, wouldn't want to be constrained in your life choices as girls were in the 1950s, a decade before laws we're changed to allow women the simple privilege of having their own bank account without a man co-signing to open it. Can you imagine?
In case you can't, watch this video that I spotted today. This is not me, not my YouTube channel. This is just one of the many YouTubers who show what life is like here. Extrapolate as needed.
I applaud your excellent replies which reveals that you possess a vast amount of knowledge as well as the ability to reason, @radarthekat ;
Society here works, except for the 40% stuck in abject poverty and the number of teenage mothers
As it has always been, the primary threat to Democracy is poverty. —I recommend watching Hans Roslings TED-Talks, for insight into these fundamental issues—presented by arguably the greatest teacher of all time.
The guideline for publicly traded companies is to maximize profits. Anything else is illegal.
Now consider : Think Different —was this moto merely a PR-stunt? Or did Steve Jobs realize that what determines the success of —in the long run—is employee diversity, meaning the ability to think differently?
Thus, it is not about promoting Asians, females, etc., but about rectifying the mistakes that resulted in the present situation, which is so ubiquitous that it is difficult to recognize: The motivation for countering a monoculture of white males in the management of your company is not that the absence of equality is unfair to underrepresented minorities! —the reason is that it is idiotic to promote drone-like leadership!
And this—not coincidentally—applies equally to the profit-aspect as well as the emotional aspect of this male-made conflict.
Long been a fan of the late great statistician Hans Rosling.
Comments
As it has always been, the primary threat to Democracy is poverty.
—I recommend watching Hans Roslings TED-Talks, for insight into these fundamental issues—presented by arguably the greatest teacher of all time.
The guideline for publicly traded companies is to maximize profits. Anything else is illegal.
—was this moto merely a PR-stunt?
Or did Steve Jobs realize that what determines the success of —in the long run—is employee diversity, meaning the ability to think differently?
Thus, it is not about promoting Asians, females, etc., but about rectifying the mistakes that resulted in the present situation, which is so ubiquitous that it is difficult to recognize: The motivation for countering a monoculture of white males in the management of your company is not that the absence of equality is unfair to underrepresented minorities!
—the reason is that it is idiotic to promote drone-like leadership!
And this—not coincidentally—applies equally to the profit-aspect as well as the emotional aspect of this male-made conflict.