I'm not using this data to treat people differently: If I'm alone at 3AM and you come out of nowhere, I wouldn't care if you were blue, green, black or white. I wouldn't trust anyone equally.
My point was, that one can understand how people think and stereotype given the data, as long as the data isn't corrupted.
But coming back to the data: Sure, the majority of people aren't criminals, but the few who are, belong to a certain category. I'm not talking absolute, I'm talking relative. I'm not talking "divine truth", I'm talking correlation.
And you can be a sunflower all you want, you can't deny it.
You can deny it if you want, but that doesn't make it any less true, and that doesn't solve the problems in urban areas, poverty, lack of education, etc.
So: One can either say it's not true and be liked by people as an open mind and non racist (that doesn't fix the root problems), or one acknowledges the problem and think about solutions (at the risk of being called names).
I do feature extraction and classification of data, can't go against such stats.
That's why I asked the commenter to put herself in their shoes: She's got a kid, between a 45 year old dude and a more usual nanny, she'll choose the nanny every single time (from the 60%).
To be closer to her experience: She'll do an ad, a couple comes, she'll acknowledge the guy and ask the woman how much experience she's had with kids .. While it's the guy who came for the job.
What are you saying here? People who suffer from discrimination should just learn to understand why they get stereotyped and be more tolerant about it? That's extremely self serving and entitled. If you're in a position of privilege, it's up to you to make the effort to treat everyone as fairly as you can. It's up to you to help break down the unfair boundaries that benefit you. It's your responsibility to do that. Otherwise you're tacitly helping to perpetuate those boundaries, and are therefore complicit in their existence.
They're saying that you shouldn't pretend problems don't exist if you want them fixed. Problems like poverty, crime rate, sentencing rate. They are real, they have real effects, they shouldn't be discounted. Arguing that most people aren't in jail is just a way of ignoring the problem.
She could hack it. In the 19th century. You mean to tell me that women back then had more rights than they do now ?
I am saying that if you are an exception, don't be surprised people assume you belong to the norm.
If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a dug, it's probably not a shark.
If someone has had to deal with 100 people from a certain category, and 2 of them were good at their stuff.. Do you think that the human mind will make up a rule based on those 2% who were good ?
That's statistics, that's what the odds are for. You calculate the odds, and make up your mind. You can be wrong, but you are more likely to be right.
If I present to you two games of lottery. One where you have 30% of winning. One where you have 0.1% of winning.. Don't tell me you'll choose the 0.1% game.
If you are in a class, and a kid comes and is presented to you as your teacher, don't tell me that your first reaction will be to embrace that and be totally confident in his abilities. Until the kid opens his mouth and proves himself.
Do you think Muggsy Bogues had it easy, with his 5 ft 3 in the NBA ?.
What do you think he had to overcome to even get a chance to talk with a coach.
People would laugh at him until he proved himself. And he expected to have to prove himself, he's a 5 ft 3 player after all, and it's not like we see them every day.
People who are good are an exception. Women in tech are an exception. Combine the two: Women who are in tech and who are good, and you got yourself a 3 sigma std or something.
Pull the records and make lists:
First list: Of all programmers.
Second list: Of all programmers, how many are good (list getting thin, right?).
Third list: Of all programmers, how many are men ?
Fourth list: Of all programmers, how many are women ? (that was is thinner than the above).
Fifth list: Of all programmers who are great, how many are women ?
Sixth list: Of all programmers who are great, how many are men ?
Now, some may say it's caused by discrimination .. But it's not. How many women are on technical anonymous forums about programming ?
Not that much. Nobody knows what anyone looks like, whether it's a dude or not.. But I'm willing to bet everything I have that most of the most members are men. And of those members, from those who are really good, almost none of them is a woman.
If there was a betting game with these odds, I'd play it.
If I'm going to get a new job, I won't expect people to trust me that I know my stuff(because the odds are that most people suck, it has nothing to do with me). I expect to be tested. I expect to earn their confidence. That's what "Earning your stripes" means. There's the word earning. Demanding it to be any other way is being a cry-baby.
When you go to an internet forum and your status is a Newbie, people don't expect you are an expert, and this in an anonymous world where no one can pull this bullshit discrimination whether based on gender or color.
When you talk with hackers, you have to earn their technical respect, whether you're a guy or a girl (if anybody was on a forum).
When you get to the army, you are expected to show your stamina and courage and prove yourself worthy. That's what initiation rituals are for. That's what "showing your scars" is for: Show us you belong here.
In any field, you frigging earn the respect, it's not handed to you. It has always been that way and I don't see dudes bitching about that.
Why don't we hear about that bullshit in teaching, medicine, etc ? Why don't we even think about women teaching ? Because there are a lot more women teaching than women coding and they didn't get there by some bullshit rule that says that 30% of chairs belong to women just because they basically are women. This* -allow someone to do something just because they belong to a minority- is the true face of discrimination.
I'd rather have a racist insult me because of where I'm from, than getting hired just because I'm from a certain country and they're too afraid to hurt my little ego (and the law protects my little, poor me, ego).
I've had interesting discussions with racists. I don't have a problem with them, at all. They're free to have their opinion of me, and they're free to hate my frigging guts. I'd have more respect for someone tell it to my face, than someone wanting to be cool by hanging out with a different nationality.
So you make a rule that forces businesses to hire a certain category is the real discrimination. The fact you're even talking gender means there's something shady in it.
So for these women (link article, and comment I replied to) being surprised people assume they're not into technical things, I think it's a little bit being thin skinned: Most women don't code. Someone might argue that most men don't, either, so I'll rephrase it (because people love getting into arguments): Of those who code, women are a minority. Any arguing on this point is wanting to please a minority by distorting the facts. I tell it straight, if anyone is hurt, sue me.
And it's getting trendy now. That girl who quit her job at GitHub. GitHub replacing their rug that says United Meritocracy of GitHub (which is weak and wimpy).
If there is anyone who loves women, it's me. I have 5 sisters whom I love and cherish. But I'm intolerant to bullshit. I'm intolerant to political correctness.
Now there are quotas to be respected in politics: 30% women. So if it's a 100 person membership, you'll have to make sure there are 30 women. So if there are some people you really like, you have to sacrifice them because you wouldn't be legal or something.
And if the number of men grows, you have to increase the number of women even though it adds no value, just to comply. This is wrong and I find it disrespecting to women.
Imagine you're a woman being used as a hole plug. We don't really need you, but we'll have you because we have to. I'd die of shame if I accepted.
Right, so negative discrimination is not important at all, because it's possible to overcome it if you are sufficiently talented? Bullshit! Everyone has to prove themselves in life, but if you make it harder for one group of people to earn respect than another, then that isn't fair at all. If you've had to put up with an unfair life, that doesn't mean it's bad for other people to complain about unfairness.
Anti-discrimination laws only demand fair treatment. Nothing more. Positive discrimination only happens if organisations choose to follow such a policy. Most organisations actually don't want horribly unqualified people, so it's not as big a deal as you make out.
In political arenas having a percentage quota of women actually makes more sense, because political bodies are supposed to represent the people and 50% of people are women. This is predicated on the notion that everyone is more inclined and better able to represent their own gender's perspective. It doesn't seem too controversial to me, it just seems like an extension of the ideas of proportional representation. Where I've seen it, these quotas are on the list of candidates that political parties nominate, not on the list of elected politicians. It's not that people can't vote in who they like, it's about who the party puts up for election, which is something regular people never have a say in anyway.
Cultural expectations are self-fulfilling prophecies. A hundred years ago, a lot of people had very low expectations about what women (or black people) were capable of. They were wrong, but it took a lot of time and effort to make that change. That is what political correctness is about. Political correctness demands superficial changes to how cultural expectation are expressed. It's a case of "fake it 'til you make it". Even if people deep down feel differently, they are asked to suppress it and treat individuals fairly. That way, the next generation of children grow up with a different view of the world than their parents. With each generation we take a step closer to fairness and equality. People like you know just enough to see that political correctness is superficial, but not quite enough to understand why. So you call it out as hypocritical bullshit, even though it has real, practical, achievable aims. Children pick up on the superficial values of the world around them, and that has a deep effect on them. Check out the Clark experiment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqvJp2gXJI0
My point was, that one can understand how people think and stereotype given the data, as long as the data isn't corrupted.
But coming back to the data: Sure, the majority of people aren't criminals, but the few who are, belong to a certain category. I'm not talking absolute, I'm talking relative. I'm not talking "divine truth", I'm talking correlation.
And you can be a sunflower all you want, you can't deny it.
You can deny it if you want, but that doesn't make it any less true, and that doesn't solve the problems in urban areas, poverty, lack of education, etc.
So: One can either say it's not true and be liked by people as an open mind and non racist (that doesn't fix the root problems), or one acknowledges the problem and think about solutions (at the risk of being called names).
I do feature extraction and classification of data, can't go against such stats.
That's why I asked the commenter to put herself in their shoes: She's got a kid, between a 45 year old dude and a more usual nanny, she'll choose the nanny every single time (from the 60%).
To be closer to her experience: She'll do an ad, a couple comes, she'll acknowledge the guy and ask the woman how much experience she's had with kids .. While it's the guy who came for the job.