General > General Technical Chat

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion

<< < (54/76) > >>

james_s:
I think a meritocracy is a noble goal, and we must simply accept that luck will always play a part. No matter what system one has there will always be a luck component. Sometimes a person will do everything right and things still won't work out, other times someone ends up in the right place at the right time and something falls into their lap, that's just part of life. Some people are born smarter, some better looking, some in better locations, some have better personalities and make friends with the right people, there's no way to change any of that, it just is.

pcprogrammer:

--- Quote from: james_s on August 23, 2022, 04:31:02 pm ---Nobody pushed gender specific toys on me as a kid. I wasn't interested in most toys, instead I was fascinated by lightbulbs and electricity since my earliest memories, in fact my first word was "light" and I still to this day tend to look up and see what sort of lights are in a room. I also naturally gravitated toward machines, cars, trains, airplanes, engines, I think it's obvious that some people are hardwired to have an interest in some things over others.

--- End quote ---

I don't remember that much of my early years, but do know that I also had an interest in electrics. Maybe because my dad was an electrician and we got all kind of technical toys at some point. One recollection will shock most parents nowadays if it would happen. My brother and I were playing around a bit with small metal rods, wires and here it comes and extension lead. I was poking with a metal rod in one of the holes, while my brother stuck a bit of wire in the other hole. We were sitting on an insulated surface, so no problem so far. Until my brother touched me with the wire. Definitely not a nice feeling, but it did not drive me away from the field :-DD

pcprogrammer:

--- Quote from: james_s on August 23, 2022, 04:46:21 pm ---I think a meritocracy is a noble goal, and we must simply accept that luck will always play a part. No matter what system one has there will always be a luck component. Sometimes a person will do everything right and things still won't work out, other times someone ends up in the right place at the right time and something falls into their lap, that's just part of life. Some people are born smarter, some better looking, some in better locations, some have better personalities and make friends with the right people, there's no way to change any of that, it just is.

--- End quote ---

Only when back stabbing is called a skill then meritocracy was there to help many to the top. There are lots of people that force their luck. This too is a lesson learnt from history. How did some become kings in the first place and only held on with firm ruling. Most often over the backs of many good people.

How many managers only skills are a loud voice or a brown nose for that matter. Also a way to work yourself to the top.

If it was really about some technical skills alone, many of us would be the millionaires.

fourfathom:

--- Quote from: tom66 on August 23, 2022, 04:35:57 pm ---I guess a really good question is while it is pleasant to believe a meritocracy exists, we have to accept a huge amount of where people get in life is just damn luck.
--- End quote ---
This is hugely true, and those of us who have been lucky should never forget it. 

Engineering-related: I have friends who are probably smarter than me, and have worked harder than me in the same sector, but their companies/products crashed and burned while mine was a spectacular success.  The difference was marketing, sales, particular market niche, backing, timing, and a very large amount of luck.  I had very little to do with any of that -- I was given the task of building a team and developing a product.  I am quite proud of the job we did -- we definitely weren't the weak link in the chain.  But a chain we were.

I was talking with a friend the other day about the effects of technology, and how good ideas can have bad results.  I reminded him that we live in a chaotic world, and told him about the Ray Bradbury story "A Sound of Thunder", where a time-traveler to the age of dinosaurs accidentally steps on a butterfly, resulting in huge changes in the present. (On the same topic, "The Simpsons" has a funny episode where Homer, while attempting to repair a toaster, accidentally creates a time machine.)

I then pointed out that every day we are (virtually) stepping on butterflies.  You never know exactly what's going to happen as a result of your action (or inaction).  Of course this doesn't mean that we should do obviously stupid things, and the saying "You make your own luck" is to some extent true.  But it's all a bit humbling.

tpowell1830:

--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on August 23, 2022, 04:07:01 pm ---I wonder how large part of the objection to D-E-I is that it is never discussed, just adopted as axiomatically correct.

For whatever reason, it seems that people are adopting ideas and concepts and completely rejecting any kind of examination of them.

We will never be able to discuss say intersectionalism or the difference between equity and equality, because the willingness to examine the concepts is an even worse offense than simply rejecting them.  (Intersectionalism is related here because it is precisely the origin for equity replacing equality; and many of its proponents openly admit that they believe meritocracy, any kind of individual merit based systems, are their biggest enemy, worse than any oppression per se.)
--- End quote ---

As I have watched various arguments on this topic, it seems that when the term 'equity' is used, it means equality of outcome. This gets stuck in my mind because it goes flatly against 'equality', in my mind equality of opportunity. Equality of outcome automatically supersedes the tenet of merit, in the case of job performance.


--- Quote ---To simplify a bit, it is easier to be a bigot, because then only your values differ from those of the D-E-I proponents.  If you demand meritocratic treatment, equality among individuals, and reject tribality, you violate their entire ideological basis, and are therefore a worse enemy.

For the same reasons I value diversity, I value discussions and arguments over important matters.  I know that if I was a ruler, I would be a despot; and that if I only explain how I see things, and let the majority rule (you know, democracy), then the results are likely to be better because the extremes tend to be "filed off" and something that a big majority can accept, will be done.  (Roughly speaking; power and money having such strong corruptive tendencies, and whatnot.)

Therefore, I find this rejection of rational, critical discussion about such core tenets and axioms, a deadly risk.

Companies and most organisations tend to have a hierarchical structure, which makes them at the same time more and less vulnerable.  More, because only a small number of executives need to be swayed, to sway the complete company.  Less, because if you have good executives (meaning hungry for money and power, but still team players and somewhat controllable by the board or owners so they won't simply sell the company for their personal benefit), they will be swayed more by commercial reality than the social one.  I know very few executives outside Finland, so I don't know where on that swayability spectrum typical ones lie, and it would be interesting to hear your views.

--- End quote ---
Money is not evil, but the love of money and power often corrupts.

There is(was) a reason for the heirarchy being setup this way and it was to support the company to move forward into stability in the business world and to fend off issues that might trip up the company in making a profit, you know... capitalism, the system that allowed everyone involved to be pulled out of the wretchedness of starvation and poverty. IMO, this dystopia of DEI and other destructive ideologies that are now popping up, may topple capitalism and there will be mass famine in the world, which leads to wars and destruction. History teaches this, but we are doomed to repeat, seems like.

Don't get me wrong, in the true sense of inclusiveness and diversity, I totally agree and practice same, but not at the cost of 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater'. As far as 'equity' is concerned, change it to equality, as in equality of opportunity and we could start making some headway into solving some of the issues.

Since I am somewhat conscientious, which means that I lean a bit to the right, my ideas are shouted down by the ones who are arguing these ideologies. I have leaned more and more this way over the years, seems like most everyone will eventually move a little more to the right as they age and see the reality of the consequences of bad decisions, based on ideology. Doesn't make me all knowing, it just means that I have noticed that I benefit more as I have gotten older by practicing this axiom as my POV has changed. This places me back to my previous statement about everything boils down to individual merit being the way forward.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod