Interviewing someone who is male and getting told that we can't hire them because they are male is gender-based discrimination.
Interviewing someone who is male and getting told that we can't hire them because they are male is gender-based discrimination.
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.
(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statements asserted as fact without citations by posters on HN; too often they turn out to be incorrect, incomplete, or out of date.)
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.
That was disproven. This is scientific racism/bio-essentialism. Let's not go there, it's an evil path.
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?