Nobel Prize: We will not have gender or ethnicity quotas – top scientist(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Nobel Prize: We will not have gender or ethnicity quotas – top scientist
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-58875152
111 comments
> I can understand the rationale behind quotas
I can't. When I hire a removal company the work will be carried out by strong men. Would this company benefit from "diversity"? Should they be hiring more women or disabled people to carry out this work? Would people from different ethnic backgrounds contribute to a more effective team? I doubt it would make any difference at all. But, of course, nobody is talking about jobs like this because they aren't considered desirable.
I question the premise that "diversity" is even a good thing. Where is the evidence that it is? What is it better for? Efficiency? Productivity? Happiness? Just give me one concrete piece of evidence that it's a good thing. I see efficient teams composed of very similar people all the time and I don't see how they would be improved by diversity.
So no, I don't think it's rational at all. Rather, people have been conditioned now to look at people's skin colour, sex, age etc. and be embarrassed if everyone around them is "the same". But this is identical to racism/sexism/ageism etc. It's the very thing we were trying to get away from and it's completely irrational.
I can't. When I hire a removal company the work will be carried out by strong men. Would this company benefit from "diversity"? Should they be hiring more women or disabled people to carry out this work? Would people from different ethnic backgrounds contribute to a more effective team? I doubt it would make any difference at all. But, of course, nobody is talking about jobs like this because they aren't considered desirable.
I question the premise that "diversity" is even a good thing. Where is the evidence that it is? What is it better for? Efficiency? Productivity? Happiness? Just give me one concrete piece of evidence that it's a good thing. I see efficient teams composed of very similar people all the time and I don't see how they would be improved by diversity.
So no, I don't think it's rational at all. Rather, people have been conditioned now to look at people's skin colour, sex, age etc. and be embarrassed if everyone around them is "the same". But this is identical to racism/sexism/ageism etc. It's the very thing we were trying to get away from and it's completely irrational.
I think a big problem is that places with deep rooted problems see quotas as a simple way to fix the complicated problem they have, and so implement quotas in a stupid way.
It plainly isn't possible to implement without discrimination. Some argue that this is good discrimination. It is also noteworthy that only desirable jobs get quotas like this.
> I think that equality of outcome not only will not solve the problems that our societies have, but exacerbate them.
As should be obvious to anyone who has studied the history of communism.
As should be obvious to anyone who has studied the history of communism.
Yes, communism definately proved that focus on strict equality of outcome economically is disastrous. It just made everyone equally poor.
It's a good question if that applies to things like affirmative action or minority quotas. Will that also act as a disincentive? I suspect probably, but to a much more limited extent. I don't know the answer though.
It's a good question if that applies to things like affirmative action or minority quotas. Will that also act as a disincentive? I suspect probably, but to a much more limited extent. I don't know the answer though.
It's one step towards gender equality; if you use quotas to award different population groups equally, it will on the one hand normalize them for everyone else, and may inspire others to try on the other hand.
If the top of whatever Nobel prizes are handed out for remains white men, nobody that doesn't fit that category will feel like they have a chance.
Anyway, it's one strategy; the other, and IMO more important one, is to give everybody equal access to education and the sciences. This is a governmental issue, who should be paying for everyone's education, transport to said education, and if need be, housing near said education. And of course strict anti-discrimination and anti-elitism laws. Breaking up concepts of 'class' should also be a thing, since right now, working class people will be less inclined to go to university for example.
I've been lucky in that regard; grew up 'working class', but thanks to the at the time government policies of giving out stipends for education I got college educated and a career in software development, moving up to middle class. It's a great example of social mobility, and I think everyone should have that opportunity.
But after my education, the government pulled up the ladder behind me. First by changing the scholarship rules so that after a certain age you are no longer entitled, making it harder for people to go from college to university for example. Then they changed it so it's 100% a loan, which on the one hand makes people less inclined to start a higher level education, and on the other it starts their career with tens of thousands of debt, making it harder to e.g. buy a house and start a family alongside their career.
I mean there's voices going up to undo those changes now, but it's been years under this shitty system and damage has already been done.
It's stupid as well, because it's a relatively small cost at great benefit - it doesn't make financial sense. Say an education costs the government 50.000 per person. That is repaid in income taxes alone within 3-5 years.
edit: well this comment meandered a bit.
If the top of whatever Nobel prizes are handed out for remains white men, nobody that doesn't fit that category will feel like they have a chance.
Anyway, it's one strategy; the other, and IMO more important one, is to give everybody equal access to education and the sciences. This is a governmental issue, who should be paying for everyone's education, transport to said education, and if need be, housing near said education. And of course strict anti-discrimination and anti-elitism laws. Breaking up concepts of 'class' should also be a thing, since right now, working class people will be less inclined to go to university for example.
I've been lucky in that regard; grew up 'working class', but thanks to the at the time government policies of giving out stipends for education I got college educated and a career in software development, moving up to middle class. It's a great example of social mobility, and I think everyone should have that opportunity.
But after my education, the government pulled up the ladder behind me. First by changing the scholarship rules so that after a certain age you are no longer entitled, making it harder for people to go from college to university for example. Then they changed it so it's 100% a loan, which on the one hand makes people less inclined to start a higher level education, and on the other it starts their career with tens of thousands of debt, making it harder to e.g. buy a house and start a family alongside their career.
I mean there's voices going up to undo those changes now, but it's been years under this shitty system and damage has already been done.
It's stupid as well, because it's a relatively small cost at great benefit - it doesn't make financial sense. Say an education costs the government 50.000 per person. That is repaid in income taxes alone within 3-5 years.
edit: well this comment meandered a bit.
> nobody that doesn't fit that category will feel like they have a chance
Well, that's certainly true for people who are sexist (think that just because someone is a different sex, they are fundamentally different and cannot be a role model) and know no history (Marie Curie is the most distinguished Nobel prize winner).
Well, that's certainly true for people who are sexist (think that just because someone is a different sex, they are fundamentally different and cannot be a role model) and know no history (Marie Curie is the most distinguished Nobel prize winner).
>remains white men, nobody that doesn't fit that category will feel like they have a chance.
Ah yeah...let's test your borderline racist expression:
-David Jay -> US
-Ardem Patapoutian -> Libanon
-Syukuro Manabe -> Japan
-Klaus Hasselmann -> Germany
-Giorgio Parisi -> Italy
-Abdulrazak Gurnah -> Zanzibar
-Maria Ressa -> Philippines
-Dmitry Muratov -> Russia
And so on....i don't see the "only white men can win the price" here.
Ah yeah...let's test your borderline racist expression:
-David Jay -> US
-Ardem Patapoutian -> Libanon
-Syukuro Manabe -> Japan
-Klaus Hasselmann -> Germany
-Giorgio Parisi -> Italy
-Abdulrazak Gurnah -> Zanzibar
-Maria Ressa -> Philippines
-Dmitry Muratov -> Russia
And so on....i don't see the "only white men can win the price" here.
[deleted]
Short analysis;
3 out of those 8 are non-white (note: Lebanese are white).
One is however Japanese, who are maybe not in any context considered discriminated against, rather they are revered.
So you're left with Abdulrazak Gurnah and Maria Ressa as "ethnic minorities" for which AA sometimes makes sense.
Still, 2 out of 8 is actually pretty good. It shows that you don't have to force this issue. IMHO 25% is solid.
A bigger concern is maybe that there are so few women.
3 out of those 8 are non-white (note: Lebanese are white).
One is however Japanese, who are maybe not in any context considered discriminated against, rather they are revered.
So you're left with Abdulrazak Gurnah and Maria Ressa as "ethnic minorities" for which AA sometimes makes sense.
Still, 2 out of 8 is actually pretty good. It shows that you don't have to force this issue. IMHO 25% is solid.
A bigger concern is maybe that there are so few women.
"(note: Lebanese are white)."
Based on what? Is there an official colour palette you know about? Or is it based on their skull measurements?
It's quite amazing how fast we're walking back to all the racist theories for the 18th and 19th century ... but somehow this time for Good?
This american obsession about race would be less insufferable if it at least didn't seem crafted by a four years old. There's white, black, brown, and yellow. People from a colour are all the same. Somehow that's the basis to explain everything.
I mean, at least the horoscope has twelve signs, that's three times as much nuance ...
Based on what? Is there an official colour palette you know about? Or is it based on their skull measurements?
It's quite amazing how fast we're walking back to all the racist theories for the 18th and 19th century ... but somehow this time for Good?
This american obsession about race would be less insufferable if it at least didn't seem crafted by a four years old. There's white, black, brown, and yellow. People from a colour are all the same. Somehow that's the basis to explain everything.
I mean, at least the horoscope has twelve signs, that's three times as much nuance ...
Thank you very much for that comment, it's exactly what i try to express, the focus on skin-color is as racist as it can get.
Abdulrazak Gurnah and Maria Ressa
Neither of whom won science or economics prizes, which is what is being discussed in the article.
Neither of whom won science or economics prizes, which is what is being discussed in the article.
Do we just forget Syukuro Manabe (physics)? Or has he just not the right hue to count as diverse?
Or Ardem Patapoutian (also physics) not black enough for being a north African?
With your logic there is no Asian who won the Literature price...whats even the point here?
Or Ardem Patapoutian (also physics) not black enough for being a north African?
With your logic there is no Asian who won the Literature price...whats even the point here?
I think you're replying to the wrong person. My argument is that holding up the fact that a black person and a woman won the 'not-science' prizes cannot be used as proof of diversity among the science prizes.
The goal is the result recognized by the prize, not the prize itself.
> the other, and IMO more important one, is to give everybody equal access to education and the sciences.
That might be another part of it, but not the only other one and possibly not the most important. For example, this paper looked at problems with the confidence of women and how it seems correlated to the pay gap in STEM: https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/117/48/30303.full.pdf So even if everyone has equal access to education, the stereotype threat (and other social factors) doesn't necessarily go away. I think, as the parent comment said, enforcing quotas might help with some of these cultural factors, or might make some of them worse. But I don't have data to support those claims.
That might be another part of it, but not the only other one and possibly not the most important. For example, this paper looked at problems with the confidence of women and how it seems correlated to the pay gap in STEM: https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/117/48/30303.full.pdf So even if everyone has equal access to education, the stereotype threat (and other social factors) doesn't necessarily go away. I think, as the parent comment said, enforcing quotas might help with some of these cultural factors, or might make some of them worse. But I don't have data to support those claims.
> If the top of whatever Nobel prizes are handed out for remains white men nobody that doesn't fit that category will feel like they have a chance.
Wow, this is incredibly racist. So you imply you know about the motivation of all non-white non-male people on earth? And you assume they are all so chicken that looking at past winners will immediately kill all their motivation to do similar or even better? Do you actually realize what you are saying here, or are you just echoing the latest sentiment of your circles?
Wow, this is incredibly racist. So you imply you know about the motivation of all non-white non-male people on earth? And you assume they are all so chicken that looking at past winners will immediately kill all their motivation to do similar or even better? Do you actually realize what you are saying here, or are you just echoing the latest sentiment of your circles?
To be fair, the use of "nobody" in that sentence is a bit over-generalizing but isn't the sentiment of the sentence quite clear? If a group is a very homogeneous, outsiders might think that they're not welcome/ have lower chances of getting in.
I don't have any scientific proof to back up that claim but I can certainly relate from personal experience without belonging to any minority.
I think calling that "incredibly racist" and implying Cthulhu_ is just "echoing" something from their circles is quite out of line. In the future maybe you could just point out what you think is wrong with the wording instead of attacking OP personally.
Also: There are things in this world which are "incredibly racist", which is beyond horrible. But do Cthulhu_'s remarks really belong into that category?
I don't have any scientific proof to back up that claim but I can certainly relate from personal experience without belonging to any minority.
I think calling that "incredibly racist" and implying Cthulhu_ is just "echoing" something from their circles is quite out of line. In the future maybe you could just point out what you think is wrong with the wording instead of attacking OP personally.
Also: There are things in this world which are "incredibly racist", which is beyond horrible. But do Cthulhu_'s remarks really belong into that category?
I have some experience with outsiderisms. I am an outsider almost my whole life, being a person with a disability.
I always had to find my place in groups where I was the outsider. If I felt like people like you seemt o imply all the time, I would have ended up in total social isolation. And no, I never felt like me being different was a reason to not interact with these groups. Quite to the contrary. If you are an outsider, you learn quite early that this sort of thinking is masochistic. And I find it extremely problematic that these days, certain people seem to feed this false belief of not belonging. So no, I cant agree with your simple analysis, and no, I cant see the sentence I replied to as innocent either.
I always had to find my place in groups where I was the outsider. If I felt like people like you seemt o imply all the time, I would have ended up in total social isolation. And no, I never felt like me being different was a reason to not interact with these groups. Quite to the contrary. If you are an outsider, you learn quite early that this sort of thinking is masochistic. And I find it extremely problematic that these days, certain people seem to feed this false belief of not belonging. So no, I cant agree with your simple analysis, and no, I cant see the sentence I replied to as innocent either.
When I was at University I went to a guest lecturer who was talking about the mathematics of government policies in the UK.
They touched on the interesting subject of quotas for the fishing industry, and how they were impacting or not impacting fishermen.
* Some fishermen were forced to throw away extra catch back into the sea (which is wasteful), especially if the next week they didn't have a great catch
* Some fishermen would team up with other fishermen to split the catches before landing them in harbour
* Other fishermen would under declare their catches, along with the harbour fish markets
All in all, the conclusion was that quotas are near impossible to enforce, are another layer of bureaucracy and are impossible to gain accurate data observations from. However to the general public, they are an easy sell by goverments, especially on environmental issues like fish and oceans.
Which to this day has always instilled a healthy skepticism in quotas.
"The beatings will continue until the quotas improve...."
They touched on the interesting subject of quotas for the fishing industry, and how they were impacting or not impacting fishermen.
* Some fishermen were forced to throw away extra catch back into the sea (which is wasteful), especially if the next week they didn't have a great catch
* Some fishermen would team up with other fishermen to split the catches before landing them in harbour
* Other fishermen would under declare their catches, along with the harbour fish markets
All in all, the conclusion was that quotas are near impossible to enforce, are another layer of bureaucracy and are impossible to gain accurate data observations from. However to the general public, they are an easy sell by goverments, especially on environmental issues like fish and oceans.
Which to this day has always instilled a healthy skepticism in quotas.
"The beatings will continue until the quotas improve...."
Yea but not all the quotas are the same. Like this is a very specific example of a fishing quota, not an easily enforcible quota like ">12% black students enrolled". Also, points 1 and 2 appear (to me at least) to show the quota working as intended. (If Fisherman A overcatches and splits with Fisherman B who undercatches, that is the same as if they both caught the correct amount.)
And if, as you claim, it's impossible to know if the quota worked, it's also impossible to know if it didn't work, so I'm not sure what conclusion to draw from this special case.
And if, as you claim, it's impossible to know if the quota worked, it's also impossible to know if it didn't work, so I'm not sure what conclusion to draw from this special case.
Is it that easily enforceable though? Where do you draw the line between black and non-black? Appearance? Genetics? Culture?
Also should you treat African-Americans and more recent Africans differently? What about other aspects like refugees vs professional migrants? As there is clear differences between these groups.
If your goal is reparation then you should only give special treatment to the descendants of people who were harmed in the past.
I'd your goal is diversity or simply to "stick it" to the racists then anyone with dark skin is a good choice.
I'd your goal is diversity or simply to "stick it" to the racists then anyone with dark skin is a good choice.
Third choice may be to just help an underprivileged class? Even non descendants of slaves have to go through the same BS as descendants of slaves for example. It's not about sticking it to racists, but about protecting a community.
Initially, I was just answering the question by playing devils' advocate but I've been drawn into this now.
It may be the case that someone will support quota systems' as a form of charity to a particular 'community' but people from other countries don't naturally become part of the same 'community' unless they're forced to be. It's only in the eyes of others that people with different backgrounds are lumped together, merely from having similar skin colors or accents.
For example, Latvians, Russians, and the British all share the same skin tone but it'd be a real stretch to say they're all part of a single unified community and they're at least all on the same continent. And even as immigrants they still retain a measure of pride, which brings me to my next point...
In my experience, you'd be hard pressed to get a Nigerian or Ghanian to admit that they're part of an underprivileged class. You'd have an even harder time getting them to say 'we are one people'; the rivalry between the two nations is very strong despite being two English speaking countries within a sea of Francophones.
Immigrants from those countries, at least, view themselves pretty highly which is born out in high-test scores, high incomes, and general life success. And although the children of some will integrate fully into the existing black US community, for the most part the older generation just views native African-Americans as foreigners.
It'd be better to support this on the grounds of diversity since then you can narrowly target smaller immigrant communities (e.g. Lesothans), or pick out particular groups for charitable aide (e.g. Rwandans)
It may be the case that someone will support quota systems' as a form of charity to a particular 'community' but people from other countries don't naturally become part of the same 'community' unless they're forced to be. It's only in the eyes of others that people with different backgrounds are lumped together, merely from having similar skin colors or accents.
For example, Latvians, Russians, and the British all share the same skin tone but it'd be a real stretch to say they're all part of a single unified community and they're at least all on the same continent. And even as immigrants they still retain a measure of pride, which brings me to my next point...
In my experience, you'd be hard pressed to get a Nigerian or Ghanian to admit that they're part of an underprivileged class. You'd have an even harder time getting them to say 'we are one people'; the rivalry between the two nations is very strong despite being two English speaking countries within a sea of Francophones.
Immigrants from those countries, at least, view themselves pretty highly which is born out in high-test scores, high incomes, and general life success. And although the children of some will integrate fully into the existing black US community, for the most part the older generation just views native African-Americans as foreigners.
It'd be better to support this on the grounds of diversity since then you can narrowly target smaller immigrant communities (e.g. Lesothans), or pick out particular groups for charitable aide (e.g. Rwandans)
You have me thinking. Has drawing such a line ever created a problem in the past 50 years?
I mentioned the conclusion, quotas are useless.
The example of fishing and natural phenomena does not rule it out from being an equivalent to the natural phenomena that would happen enforcing a quota on Nobel Peace prizes.
"Oh we don't have enough Asian Laureattes in Science, lets reclassify South Asian people in the same group. Problem solved"
The example of fishing and natural phenomena does not rule it out from being an equivalent to the natural phenomena that would happen enforcing a quota on Nobel Peace prizes.
"Oh we don't have enough Asian Laureattes in Science, lets reclassify South Asian people in the same group. Problem solved"
> If Fisherman A overcatches and splits with Fisherman B who undercatches, that is the same as if they both caught the correct amount.
Most likely the quotas were set on the basis that they wouldn't always be filled. If lots of fishermen are colluding to always take their full quota then sooner or later quotas must come down.
Most likely the quotas were set on the basis that they wouldn't always be filled. If lots of fishermen are colluding to always take their full quota then sooner or later quotas must come down.
For fishing, a plus for quotas is they can make it safer.
The way crab fishing used to work in the Bering Sea for example is that each for each crab season the agencies that manage the fisheries would determine a total amount that the fishery could support that year, and then the fleet would go out and catch that. This was called the derby system.
As each boat caught crab it would report its catch, and when the total across all boats hit the limit the season ended and everyone had to stop fishing.
Safety took a back seed to fishing speed in this environment, because if anything slowed down fishing or made you miss some fishing time it could dramatically lower your catch.
They replaced that with a quota system. For each type of crab's season each boat gets a quota and the season runs a fixed time.
Under the quota system the boats have plenty of time to catch their quotes without having to compromise safety as much.
Under the derby system, the Alaska crab fleet was averaging a little over 7 deaths a year. After the switch to the quote system it was around 1 death every 5 or 6 years.
Big parts of this decrease can directly be attributed to the change from derby to quotas. Around 2/3 of the derby deaths were due to boats piled high with crab traps capsizing. They went out, dropped everything they had, waiting 12-24 hours, and pulled them. Empty those into the crab tanks and go lay the traps again.
Under quota, the boats aren't in such a hurry. When they lay traps they leave them down for 36-48 hours. They can lay some traps and then go pick up more and lay them before it is time to pull the first group so they don't need to go out with the boat piled to near overload with traps.
Being about to keep the traps down longer helps them in other ways, too, not safety related. The traps are designed so smaller crab that aren't big enough to legally take can escape, but that takes them time. When you pull in 12-24 hours you get a lot of small crab that haven't escaped yet, meaning more work for the crew to separate them and throw them back.
After 36-48 hours a lot more of the small crabs have left so less work for the crew. Also it is pretty traumatic for a crab to be caught and then thrown back, and many don't survive that. In the derby days this killed enough young crabs that it reduced the available harvest in future seasons. Stopping that reversed a long decline in some crab populations.
The way crab fishing used to work in the Bering Sea for example is that each for each crab season the agencies that manage the fisheries would determine a total amount that the fishery could support that year, and then the fleet would go out and catch that. This was called the derby system.
As each boat caught crab it would report its catch, and when the total across all boats hit the limit the season ended and everyone had to stop fishing.
Safety took a back seed to fishing speed in this environment, because if anything slowed down fishing or made you miss some fishing time it could dramatically lower your catch.
They replaced that with a quota system. For each type of crab's season each boat gets a quota and the season runs a fixed time.
Under the quota system the boats have plenty of time to catch their quotes without having to compromise safety as much.
Under the derby system, the Alaska crab fleet was averaging a little over 7 deaths a year. After the switch to the quote system it was around 1 death every 5 or 6 years.
Big parts of this decrease can directly be attributed to the change from derby to quotas. Around 2/3 of the derby deaths were due to boats piled high with crab traps capsizing. They went out, dropped everything they had, waiting 12-24 hours, and pulled them. Empty those into the crab tanks and go lay the traps again.
Under quota, the boats aren't in such a hurry. When they lay traps they leave them down for 36-48 hours. They can lay some traps and then go pick up more and lay them before it is time to pull the first group so they don't need to go out with the boat piled to near overload with traps.
Being about to keep the traps down longer helps them in other ways, too, not safety related. The traps are designed so smaller crab that aren't big enough to legally take can escape, but that takes them time. When you pull in 12-24 hours you get a lot of small crab that haven't escaped yet, meaning more work for the crew to separate them and throw them back.
After 36-48 hours a lot more of the small crabs have left so less work for the crew. Also it is pretty traumatic for a crab to be caught and then thrown back, and many don't survive that. In the derby days this killed enough young crabs that it reduced the available harvest in future seasons. Stopping that reversed a long decline in some crab populations.
I think it would be pretty easy to enforce a quota among the Nobel Prize cadidates, your example really does not apply to that. The question is more about whether it is a good or a bad thing.
Upon what basis does one quota?
Should there be correct proportions of each race? Gender? Sex? Nationality? City/Village? Each combination of the above?
Is it discriminatory that there are 0% of the candidates that have the name Karen? When clearly the percentage of the population with the name Karen is not 0?
Should there be correct proportions of each race? Gender? Sex? Nationality? City/Village? Each combination of the above?
Is it discriminatory that there are 0% of the candidates that have the name Karen? When clearly the percentage of the population with the name Karen is not 0?
Those observations about fishing quotas do not mean that they do not work. You do not need 100% proof for that, same way as you do not need to check tickets of 100% of passengers in public transportation or vaccinate 100% of people during pandemic. After all, the purpose of the quota is not to reach certain number, it is to set such constraints where population of fish will not fall beyond irreversible level. If the majority of fishermen are one or another way compliant and the rest cannot significantly exceed their quota without being caught, then the goal will be achieved. I do not know if that was the case with the specific quotas, but the quotas could be even stricter than necessary to take the non-compliant behavior of fishermen into account.
So the answer is fishermen should be allowed to harvest natural resources without restrictions? Oh right, we tried that, and look where it got us.
These are all solvable problems. Cameras on the boats, tighter limits on nets, etc.
If a population is known the scam at a high enough level, it should get tighter oversight.
These are all solvable problems. Cameras on the boats, tighter limits on nets, etc.
If a population is known the scam at a high enough level, it should get tighter oversight.
Fishing quotas have the advantage to not be racist for a start.
I like thinking about affirmative action because it shine a a light a bit on one's internal moral calculus. Like do you think institutions should award exclusively on merit, or on some other aspects of their mission?
The Nobel Science Committee could argue that their mission is the advancement of science, not necessarily the advancement of society or culture. For them, it's reasonable to take the position that the award should be given out based solely on the merits of the scientist.
On the other hand the University of Texas Law School might award admission based on other parts of its mission besides just the academic merits of its applicants. For example, it might preferentially admit minorities to advance its mission of increasing minoirty representation in politics. Or it might want to correct for the testing gap, or compensate for past wrongs.
Sandel's book "Justice" opened my eyes a little bit to thinking more about "who deserves what" in a variety of social issues.
The Nobel Science Committee could argue that their mission is the advancement of science, not necessarily the advancement of society or culture. For them, it's reasonable to take the position that the award should be given out based solely on the merits of the scientist.
On the other hand the University of Texas Law School might award admission based on other parts of its mission besides just the academic merits of its applicants. For example, it might preferentially admit minorities to advance its mission of increasing minoirty representation in politics. Or it might want to correct for the testing gap, or compensate for past wrongs.
Sandel's book "Justice" opened my eyes a little bit to thinking more about "who deserves what" in a variety of social issues.
As a society, we should have a mission to lower the representation of lawyers in politics.
There's two problems with this.
(1) It puts you at odds with everyone who doesn't share your moral calculus. E.g. Hitler did a great job advancing his mission, despite ultimately losing the war (because too many people found his mission morally revulsive). Things like "justice" and "fairness" are the minimum standard upon which we can (sometimes, to some degree) agree to as a society, so any mission that breaks those standards (as racism/affirmative action does) will rightfully experience a large push-back.
(2) Does the action actually advance the mission? Sometimes it might backfire. E.g. I know people (that live in America) that don't like going to black doctors, not because they're racist, but simply because they know that they were subject to affirmative action, so might be less skilled than non-blacks (using doctors is a good example, as it usually invokes a strong rational response "would you rather take your child to the best doctor, or to the second-best doctor?")
(1) It puts you at odds with everyone who doesn't share your moral calculus. E.g. Hitler did a great job advancing his mission, despite ultimately losing the war (because too many people found his mission morally revulsive). Things like "justice" and "fairness" are the minimum standard upon which we can (sometimes, to some degree) agree to as a society, so any mission that breaks those standards (as racism/affirmative action does) will rightfully experience a large push-back.
(2) Does the action actually advance the mission? Sometimes it might backfire. E.g. I know people (that live in America) that don't like going to black doctors, not because they're racist, but simply because they know that they were subject to affirmative action, so might be less skilled than non-blacks (using doctors is a good example, as it usually invokes a strong rational response "would you rather take your child to the best doctor, or to the second-best doctor?")
I gave two historical examples on lieu of writing a much longer comment. These are real examples of institutions that made diverging decisions. I’m more interested in the reasons behind the decisions, whereas you seem to be more interested in qualifying the outcomes of those decisions. I don’t see how your comment is a rebuttal.
counter argument: to advance science we need to get more women into science. basically half the population is not pursuing science; that’s a giant untapped pool. and to get more women into science, one way is to artificially seed the current system and add women who may not otherwise qualify, so that they can inspire the next generations. it’s not perfect but it’s something. that assumes we already fixed biases against women and what we need to solve now is just the fact that women are not as qualified yet
> ...add women who may not otherwise qualify...
This will and already is undermining credibility of women who got into science through their own merit.
This will and already is undermining credibility of women who got into science through their own merit.
> counter argument: to advance science we need to get more women into science
Not really, just money: unfortunately, women don't have some magical sciencey abilities that make them outperform men. The thing with work is that it is sex-agnostic; whether the grunts^W PhD students collecting data, the penpushers^W profs. filling grant applications and the slaves^W postdocs computing stuff have a vagina or a penis, the whole machine will still go forward.
You can e.g. compare the the US and the USSR/Russia; having the first woman in space and, generally, much more women in science, didn't make them scientifically dominate the West.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/soviet-russia-had-...
https://shethoughtit.ilcml.com/essay/comrades-in-science-wom...
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-39579321
> basically half the population is not pursuing science
That would only be true if the number of tenure tracks/stipends/grants/... were increasing in parallel. The only thing happening now is that the proportion of women is increasing, not necessarily the “science output”.
Not really, just money: unfortunately, women don't have some magical sciencey abilities that make them outperform men. The thing with work is that it is sex-agnostic; whether the grunts^W PhD students collecting data, the penpushers^W profs. filling grant applications and the slaves^W postdocs computing stuff have a vagina or a penis, the whole machine will still go forward.
You can e.g. compare the the US and the USSR/Russia; having the first woman in space and, generally, much more women in science, didn't make them scientifically dominate the West.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/soviet-russia-had-...
https://shethoughtit.ilcml.com/essay/comrades-in-science-wom...
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-39579321
> basically half the population is not pursuing science
That would only be true if the number of tenure tracks/stipends/grants/... were increasing in parallel. The only thing happening now is that the proportion of women is increasing, not necessarily the “science output”.
To be fair, Russian science was very productive. It didn't outcompete the west in the end, but kept up with far fewer resources. It is amazing what they achieved with what little they had compared to relatively prosperous western nations.
I agree though that quotas will not increase output at all. There are limiting factors that reach far beyond gender and of course they did not have quotas, nor did they treat women better than in the west. Expectations were different but people not having to work was obviously seen as a luxury possible through productivity.
I agree though that quotas will not increase output at all. There are limiting factors that reach far beyond gender and of course they did not have quotas, nor did they treat women better than in the west. Expectations were different but people not having to work was obviously seen as a luxury possible through productivity.
There is a bigger differnece between men and women than there are between us and most other animals. The sexes' motivations and perspectives are almost alien to one another.
Results will differ, even if the same subject is studied because all science is self-exploration.
Results will differ, even if the same subject is studied because all science is self-exploration.
> There is a bigger differnece between men and women than there are between us and most other animals
Says someone who never opened a biology textbook.
> The sexes' motivations and perspectives are almost alien to one another.
Because you really think that the M/F dichotomy is a peculiarity of the human species and has not been deeply studied in many other species?
Says someone who never opened a biology textbook.
> The sexes' motivations and perspectives are almost alien to one another.
Because you really think that the M/F dichotomy is a peculiarity of the human species and has not been deeply studied in many other species?
It seems a very US centric view, because in Eastern Europe there are countries with more women than men in science and education and where even women receive bigger salary(tbh, not a good configuration for countries, that need many improvements and stability at this point is stagnating), yet for some reason even there also are parrots present who locally are repeating same dumb ideas, without looking on statistics.
The problem mostly is that there is no interest from women to join male dominated natural sciences - most of those that excell are loners. But, anyway - as a male with IT background I assure, that many guys would not mind, if there were even more women studying. I had probably rare chance of working in a job, where all my colegues were women, who were writing software... it would be very insulting to them and me to know that they had to study less to receive the same salary and job!!!
Ideologies seems to be a necessity for young and dumb people - so they can look back on their stupid mistakes when they will grow wiser(unless they don't), but since the fail of communism in USSR there seems to be not enough effort and brainwork involved to spread these ideologies with style and feeling of selfimportance and it all just relies on making opponents dumb with never ending BS, to compensate for something else.
The problem mostly is that there is no interest from women to join male dominated natural sciences - most of those that excell are loners. But, anyway - as a male with IT background I assure, that many guys would not mind, if there were even more women studying. I had probably rare chance of working in a job, where all my colegues were women, who were writing software... it would be very insulting to them and me to know that they had to study less to receive the same salary and job!!!
Ideologies seems to be a necessity for young and dumb people - so they can look back on their stupid mistakes when they will grow wiser(unless they don't), but since the fail of communism in USSR there seems to be not enough effort and brainwork involved to spread these ideologies with style and feeling of selfimportance and it all just relies on making opponents dumb with never ending BS, to compensate for something else.
> Like do you think institutions should award exclusively on merit, or on some other aspects of their mission?
Lets approach this a bit differently - Is there something inherit within a segment of our population that makes them more meritable and "better scientists"? The answer is either:
- Yes, a subset of our population is superior and awards like Nobel Prize should be dominated by them
- No, everyone is generally of equal skill and merit (or potential), and the Nobel Prize should roughly, on average, be awarded to people that look like the population.
Then, considering your answer above, how does that match to reality? What accounts for this mismatch? Why are fields (and awards like this) underrepresenting our populations?
If you want "the best science" and to be continuously improving the field, don't you want to make sure you're not shutting the door on whole demographics? To say "focus exclusively on merit" seems to suggest that you think that merit favors one demographic.
Lets approach this a bit differently - Is there something inherit within a segment of our population that makes them more meritable and "better scientists"? The answer is either:
- Yes, a subset of our population is superior and awards like Nobel Prize should be dominated by them
- No, everyone is generally of equal skill and merit (or potential), and the Nobel Prize should roughly, on average, be awarded to people that look like the population.
Then, considering your answer above, how does that match to reality? What accounts for this mismatch? Why are fields (and awards like this) underrepresenting our populations?
If you want "the best science" and to be continuously improving the field, don't you want to make sure you're not shutting the door on whole demographics? To say "focus exclusively on merit" seems to suggest that you think that merit favors one demographic.
There very obviously is a good reason why European and Anglo-Saxon populations dominate cutting edge science, even without going into "inherit" factors: The GDP/capita and incomes of these countries/ethnicities were and are far higher than those of Africans or Asians (especially 40 years ago when current laureates where educated), so more people can go into science careers that need 18+ years of schooling and have uncertain payoffs compared to industry careers. These countries also have far better funded universities and science institutes to make science without immediate payoff possible.
> Then, considering your answer above, how does that match to reality? What accounts for this mismatch? Why are fields (and awards like this) underrepresenting our populations?
Isn't that obvious? Nobel prices (especially science) often have a lag time of 50 years (semi random number) and is also often given to middle aged people. So since science has been dominated by white guys we will see almost all Nobel prizes given to white guys. I expect this to change in 100 years as more women enter STEM and then with some added lag time.
Isn't that obvious? Nobel prices (especially science) often have a lag time of 50 years (semi random number) and is also often given to middle aged people. So since science has been dominated by white guys we will see almost all Nobel prizes given to white guys. I expect this to change in 100 years as more women enter STEM and then with some added lag time.
How would you the question if some segment in our population is inherently 'more meritable'? There are many obvious confounding factors (culture, education, opportunity, racism) that are very hard to correct for. The Nobel prize is only given to people with exceptional performance, so the sample size will be quite small.
Regardless of the answer to the question posed by you, it seems to me that we should stay true to the wishes of Alfred Nobel, who stated that a series of prizes should be conferred to those who confer the "greatest benefit on mankind". Since he is the one that provided the funding for this award, I think this award should be awarded according to that measure.
Regardless of the answer to the question posed by you, it seems to me that we should stay true to the wishes of Alfred Nobel, who stated that a series of prizes should be conferred to those who confer the "greatest benefit on mankind". Since he is the one that provided the funding for this award, I think this award should be awarded according to that measure.
Merit is subjective which is why diversity is critical to an organization's survival. Gender and ethnicity are not a guarantee of diversity.
The Nobel Prize organization operates on a very dated model of merit.
The Nobel Prize organization operates on a very dated model of merit.
We already went through this kind of thinking and narrative in Soviet Union and countries under its influence. Additional admission points for where you were raised and what social/economic class you came from. We know how it ends: resentment, friends of friends being promoted, people trying to get to chosen classes (in America you already see attempts to get on affirmative action train by being 1/32 black etc.). It's all very destructive and it breeds nothing but hostility.
We also went through this kind of language: "merit is subjective" may sound clever to you but it sounds awfully Orwellian to anyone raised in a communist country. As do quotas and the whole newspeak around diversity.
If you ever wonder why people coming from Russia, Poland, Hungary and all other Soviet block countries are very against modern American left ideas the explanation is that we have already lived through it and we know where it ends. If I could point to one instance of "please learn from history instead of repeating it" it would be this one. It's good to see a rare display of sanity from Nobel Prize committee but it's also scary to see the mildest stance already getting flak from diversity radicals.
We also went through this kind of language: "merit is subjective" may sound clever to you but it sounds awfully Orwellian to anyone raised in a communist country. As do quotas and the whole newspeak around diversity.
If you ever wonder why people coming from Russia, Poland, Hungary and all other Soviet block countries are very against modern American left ideas the explanation is that we have already lived through it and we know where it ends. If I could point to one instance of "please learn from history instead of repeating it" it would be this one. It's good to see a rare display of sanity from Nobel Prize committee but it's also scary to see the mildest stance already getting flak from diversity radicals.
Russian communism was a farce. You are stretching your experience way too far.
Why do you say it was a farce?
In addition to what GP said, first and foremost they fought expansionist wars. They had readied 28 000 tanks before WW2. - Think about what that means. Their social progress pales in comparison to the evil they were planning.
> They had readied 28 000 tanks before WW2
And the US alone control the first (USAF), second (USAAF) and third (USNAF) air forces in the world. That's a stupid argument that does not have anything to do with the question at hand.
And the US alone control the first (USAF), second (USAAF) and third (USNAF) air forces in the world. That's a stupid argument that does not have anything to do with the question at hand.
To me, the purpose of quotas or affirmative action is to undo a previous distortion.
In my experience, if you look at young kids, no matter the gender, ethnicity or class, they are all equally interested in science. But as they grow older, they start to move apart. Many boys who want to study but don't know what choose physics or computer science as a "default" (like I did). Girls are more likely to default to humanities or a teaching career. The really passionate kids are less affected by this, and choose what they want, but I know a bunch of people who chose the supposed "safe default" and were miserable or dropped out. It is not just bad for them, but also for society, if we are training some additional mediocre men, and missing some talented women in a field.
Same applies to other categories. When I look at my kid's classmates, you can tell unfortunately who's parents have the time and money and energy (and habit from their own upbringing) to support them properly in school, to read to them, and so on. The difference is minimal in Kindergarten, but kids drift apart quickly.
What I'm trying to say is there is a funnel in life. People who are not as priviliged as maybe I am, often "play in hard mode". To me, quotas etc. are not exactly about achiving justice or fairness or equality (you could do that by disadvantaging the priviliged, so that everybody is equally bad off. I think that is what many people fear when they think of affirmative action!). It is about righting a systematic wrong.
And it is not like AA means we will be giving stupid people scholarships. Right now we are often accidentially prefering less qualified people just because they are white or men. Trying to steer against that can only be a net win for society.
In my experience, if you look at young kids, no matter the gender, ethnicity or class, they are all equally interested in science. But as they grow older, they start to move apart. Many boys who want to study but don't know what choose physics or computer science as a "default" (like I did). Girls are more likely to default to humanities or a teaching career. The really passionate kids are less affected by this, and choose what they want, but I know a bunch of people who chose the supposed "safe default" and were miserable or dropped out. It is not just bad for them, but also for society, if we are training some additional mediocre men, and missing some talented women in a field.
Same applies to other categories. When I look at my kid's classmates, you can tell unfortunately who's parents have the time and money and energy (and habit from their own upbringing) to support them properly in school, to read to them, and so on. The difference is minimal in Kindergarten, but kids drift apart quickly.
What I'm trying to say is there is a funnel in life. People who are not as priviliged as maybe I am, often "play in hard mode". To me, quotas etc. are not exactly about achiving justice or fairness or equality (you could do that by disadvantaging the priviliged, so that everybody is equally bad off. I think that is what many people fear when they think of affirmative action!). It is about righting a systematic wrong.
And it is not like AA means we will be giving stupid people scholarships. Right now we are often accidentially prefering less qualified people just because they are white or men. Trying to steer against that can only be a net win for society.
Hey, saw some posts of yours about Urbit. Someone very close to me is getting sucked in and I'm worried, Partially because I don't understand it. Could we please get in touch so I can learn about this? It's very scary and this person has been saying a lot of strange offputting things for some time. They went to the urbit conference that just happened. Now that I'm looking into Urbit and its ideology as well as Yarvin's I see what's going on. I'm familiar with Yarvin and Land as well as Land's serious philosophical predecessors for a long time, but the technological side escapes me. Please let me know if you can help me with this, and if so how we can get in contact.
Neither study is a safe default as that would mean there would be an abundance of people that actually finished studying physics or computer science. The internet might heavily distorts reality here.
The standard academic career of today is still economics and chosen by men and women in rather similar amounts. I heard some guys saying they chose economics for the girls, but I think this is an edge case...
It is true that few men go into teaching and few women into computer science. But I don't think you should force people or even worse, attest discrimination.
Surprisingly mostly men get implicated, so much about sexism, so I also would dispute this comment:
> Right now we are often accidentially prefering less qualified people just because they are white or men
I don't believe being white nets you anything, on the contrary.
Educated parents are indeed a huge advantage but that certainly isn't for the "system" to fix, even if it could do that somehow.
The standard academic career of today is still economics and chosen by men and women in rather similar amounts. I heard some guys saying they chose economics for the girls, but I think this is an edge case...
It is true that few men go into teaching and few women into computer science. But I don't think you should force people or even worse, attest discrimination.
Surprisingly mostly men get implicated, so much about sexism, so I also would dispute this comment:
> Right now we are often accidentially prefering less qualified people just because they are white or men
I don't believe being white nets you anything, on the contrary.
Educated parents are indeed a huge advantage but that certainly isn't for the "system" to fix, even if it could do that somehow.
Funny how people who claim to be so rational and to make data-driven decisions apply quotas for genders, skin color, sexual orientation etc. while there’s evidence that those kinds of policies are actually counter-productive.
Can you post some sources / links to such evidence?
In my debates, I'd often ask people "do you have any data to support your position" but if I had data that argues against their positions, that'd be even better!
In my debates, I'd often ask people "do you have any data to support your position" but if I had data that argues against their positions, that'd be even better!
I knew a hard working student who was applying for PhD who had the incentive to change his gender and sexual orientation (lie) to get extra points to get in. I don’t know what he did at the end, but incentivizing people to lie will definitely worsen the pool of PhD students.
Well, the beautiful thing is, as a science-supporter (not "believer"!), I don't even recognize the concept of "gender" as distinct from "sex" (noone ever managed to explain it in a non-recursive manner, or consistently define it), so I'm officially agender, I don't even need to lie (while remaining a man (sex)).
There is also evidence that it's not counter-productive. Eg, Clayton, A. "How Do Electoral Gender Quotas Affect Policy?", Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 2021. 24:235–52 at https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-polisc...
> The large majority of work on quota adoption suggests that quotas are followed by the greater substantive representation of women’s interests, priorities, and preferences. However, several studies have documented cases in which quotas have resulted in limited policy changes or even more gender-inegalitarian outcomes. ...
> On average, quota-elected women appear to influence policy in ways that substantively benefit women constituents, either by distributing resources in ways that reflect women’s priorities or by enacting or enforcing policies that grant women greater rights. Yet, these findings are not universal, and some work uncovers null results or even instances of backlash against women officeholders in ways that exacerbate patriarchal policies and practices. That there is such variation in the observed policy effects of gender quotas suggests the potential for moderating variables.
That's specifically on policy making, but I think it's enough to highlight how evidence of backlash - which certainly does exist! - isn't on its own enough to make data-driven decisions.
> The large majority of work on quota adoption suggests that quotas are followed by the greater substantive representation of women’s interests, priorities, and preferences. However, several studies have documented cases in which quotas have resulted in limited policy changes or even more gender-inegalitarian outcomes. ...
> On average, quota-elected women appear to influence policy in ways that substantively benefit women constituents, either by distributing resources in ways that reflect women’s priorities or by enacting or enforcing policies that grant women greater rights. Yet, these findings are not universal, and some work uncovers null results or even instances of backlash against women officeholders in ways that exacerbate patriarchal policies and practices. That there is such variation in the observed policy effects of gender quotas suggests the potential for moderating variables.
That's specifically on policy making, but I think it's enough to highlight how evidence of backlash - which certainly does exist! - isn't on its own enough to make data-driven decisions.
I guess it depends on how you define a goal of quotas. If it’s meant to increase women’s presence in certain areas just for the sake of having more women somewhere, then quotas might work. But if you apply quotas to fight the gender/sexuality/skin color bias then usually those policies are applied in a wrong place which creates yet another bias, just of a different direction.
Let’s get a promotion policies for example: if you say that at least 50% of board of directors should be women but 95% of all employees is man, then average woman in the company is 19 times more likely to be promoted than average man which seems extremely unfair.
The problem should be well understood first. That is: why do we have so few female employees. Then it might turn out that we are biased in our hiring process. If there’s no evidence for that, then maybe there’s a bias during university recruitment process etc.
Let’s get a promotion policies for example: if you say that at least 50% of board of directors should be women but 95% of all employees is man, then average woman in the company is 19 times more likely to be promoted than average man which seems extremely unfair.
The problem should be well understood first. That is: why do we have so few female employees. Then it might turn out that we are biased in our hiring process. If there’s no evidence for that, then maybe there’s a bias during university recruitment process etc.
In order to make a data-driven decision, where's the evidence that your hypothesis is correct?
FWIW, Norway requires at least 40% gender representation on the boards of public companies, so there's data right there. The best I can tell is "mixed", but definitely not "actually counter-productive".
I quoted "mixed" from https://www.ft.com/content/6f6bc5a2-7b70-11e8-af48-190d103e3... . One of the observations quoted there is:
> Ms Helleland says three-quarters of recruitment is down to informal networks: “Men recruit men. Men recruit CEOs that look like themselves.
I interpret that as an informal quota system for men.
There's decades of research on this topic. Either it's "well understood" now, or there's no good way to make a data-driven decision.
FWIW, Norway requires at least 40% gender representation on the boards of public companies, so there's data right there. The best I can tell is "mixed", but definitely not "actually counter-productive".
I quoted "mixed" from https://www.ft.com/content/6f6bc5a2-7b70-11e8-af48-190d103e3... . One of the observations quoted there is:
> Ms Helleland says three-quarters of recruitment is down to informal networks: “Men recruit men. Men recruit CEOs that look like themselves.
I interpret that as an informal quota system for men.
There's decades of research on this topic. Either it's "well understood" now, or there's no good way to make a data-driven decision.
quotas might be a solution to various problems but in this world where there are stupid politics, greed, money over ethics we know it is good on paper and is worst on practical life.
A good example is India where quotas has been ingrained in every part of society and at the end many dexterous candidates doesn't get a seat. Quotas were introduced in India to alleviate poverty but now a days its just used by politicians to appease minorities. Quota were supposed to temporary but we know it is never going away.
I want society to solve problem not circumscribe at the problem and mark it as solution.
A good example is India where quotas has been ingrained in every part of society and at the end many dexterous candidates doesn't get a seat. Quotas were introduced in India to alleviate poverty but now a days its just used by politicians to appease minorities. Quota were supposed to temporary but we know it is never going away.
I want society to solve problem not circumscribe at the problem and mark it as solution.
So you think Indian politicians would have alleviated poverty much better without quotas?
Then you'll be able to answer the most basic question: what's the goal of gender quota? And then show how gender quota accomplishes that goal, or at least moves towards it, without harming other goals.
The prizes are awarded by different institutions.
Science prices including economics by Kungliga Vetenskapsakademien.
Literature by Svenska Akademien.
Peace by a committee in the Norwegian parliament.
These reflect the conditions at the time of Nobel's will.
Each institute is free to decide their own criteria, in accordance with their reading of the will.
https://www.kva.se/sv/startsida
https://www.svenskaakademien.se/en
Science prices including economics by Kungliga Vetenskapsakademien.
Literature by Svenska Akademien.
Peace by a committee in the Norwegian parliament.
These reflect the conditions at the time of Nobel's will.
Each institute is free to decide their own criteria, in accordance with their reading of the will.
https://www.kva.se/sv/startsida
https://www.svenskaakademien.se/en
Science prices including economics by Kungliga Vetenskapsakademien.
Medicine is decided by a group at Karolinska Institutet (Sweden's largest hospital and medical school).
Peace by a committee in the Norwegian parliament.
By a committee appointed by, but independent of, the Norwegian parliament. Also the committee contains no current members of the Norwegian parliament.
Medicine is decided by a group at Karolinska Institutet (Sweden's largest hospital and medical school).
Peace by a committee in the Norwegian parliament.
By a committee appointed by, but independent of, the Norwegian parliament. Also the committee contains no current members of the Norwegian parliament.
Thanks for clarifying.
It should be illegal to have quotas for gender and ethnicity.
Otherwise we make the opposite of "i don't care what you are, but who you are", every woman in a high position would be looked at as the "quota-thing" etc. It would be terrible for those persons who really achieved that position by themself s (and not by quota).
Otherwise we make the opposite of "i don't care what you are, but who you are", every woman in a high position would be looked at as the "quota-thing" etc. It would be terrible for those persons who really achieved that position by themself s (and not by quota).
Here in Belgium, quotas were introduced in politics in eighties IIRC. According to prominent women at the time and now, that was the reason we are closer to parity in politics nowadays. Their line of reasoning, obviously from a feminist perspective, is that the quotas ensured that not all women could be excluded and enough of them made it through to positions that mattered in a sexist apparatus. Survivor's bias will of course confirm that this is the reason they made it. After the fact, up and coming women could see examples/representation in the women that made it in, which I do believe helps.
I have lived and worked in a foreign country. When I got my first job there, my new boss joked I'd gotten the job because of diversity quotas. I was horrified at the idea that my skills wouldn't matter but only my status of a being an non-native. So I can see where you're coming from with the "quota-thing".
I am sceptical, like you. Quotas are inherently discriminatory, but I am open to the idea that if the entrenched elite is bigoted or biased too it might be the only way to break things open.
I have lived and worked in a foreign country. When I got my first job there, my new boss joked I'd gotten the job because of diversity quotas. I was horrified at the idea that my skills wouldn't matter but only my status of a being an non-native. So I can see where you're coming from with the "quota-thing".
I am sceptical, like you. Quotas are inherently discriminatory, but I am open to the idea that if the entrenched elite is bigoted or biased too it might be the only way to break things open.
Well academy awards always had a female quota, and since inception not one female won overall best actor. Italy has had "Quote Rosa" since I can remember, and not one female prime minister. Conversely neither Tatcher nor Merkel were products of diversity quota.
>Tatcher nor Merkel were products of diversity quota.
More like the product of massive competency in their field and absolutely no one can say otherwise (i am not talking if one likes them as politicians...that's something else)
>> neither [...] were products
Yes because of competency and not a quota, what's not to understand here?
More like the product of massive competency in their field and absolutely no one can say otherwise (i am not talking if one likes them as politicians...that's something else)
>> neither [...] were products
Yes because of competency and not a quota, what's not to understand here?
> neither [...] were products
Have these sex bases quotas led to better, worse or no change in the quality of government? Has having more women in charge led to better economic growth, lower crime, better educational results, or they worse or no real change. Has you country changed for the better?
My most charitable read is that women's issues have gotten more attention and the quality is otherwise the same. A less charitable read is that the number of female political fall guys has increased, although that could just be a case of women having the same "defect rate" as men. Despite regularly following the news, I couldn't tell you whether (on average) female characteristics have made a difference.
Hard to tell when there is no government some of the time:
https://www.france24.com/en/20191210-no-government-no-proble...
https://www.france24.com/en/20191210-no-government-no-proble...
Any selection rule (save random sampling) is inherently discriminatory in some way, and that is indeed the point of it. It is only in that trivial sense that the general statement "Quotas are inherently discriminatory" is true, if you want to go beyond statements like "sorting by price is discriminatory against expensive usb-cables", you have to be more specific with what precise context you are talking about.
I would have thought it obvious that sex quota are inherently sexist. Benignly sexist perhaps, but sexist nonetheless. Apparently not?
That's conflating actions with motivations, and sexism is a set of discriminatory beliefs and not simply any action that separates based on sex.
It is for example not sexism to say "only women get tax-free tampons" because that (could be) a rule based on concrete difference in irreducible need.
The reason action get called "sexist" is a combination of carelessness in terminology when being upset about suffering things like sexual assault, and the fact that actions are the only availble proxies we have for the private beliefs of people.
(As defined by their genitalia)
It is for example not sexism to say "only women get tax-free tampons" because that (could be) a rule based on concrete difference in irreducible need.
The reason action get called "sexist" is a combination of carelessness in terminology when being upset about suffering things like sexual assault, and the fact that actions are the only availble proxies we have for the private beliefs of people.
(As defined by their genitalia)
Quotas in politics is a great idea and important. Politics is all about representation and without quotas population is not represented properly in law making chambers. As it is, binary democratic systems means majority can out-vote minority at everything and impose laws that only benefits majority and severely penalizes minority. With quotas, at least there is representation.
The weird thing is that it sort of is, in countries (UK, US, EU) with a concept of 'protected characteristics' (however named) such as gender and ethnicity, which can't be discriminated on and used as the basis for hiring.
So you can write up a report saying 'oh dear oh dear, only 20% women, 75% of new hires ought to be women so we start to even out' - but you can't actually effect that unless 75% of the ceteris paribus good hires happen to be women, you can't say (or think) 'oh good, a female interviewee, we need some more', you can't hire her in preference to a male peer (nor vice versa of course) on that basis or partially on that basis.
Of course it happens, 'nobody gets fired for' making diversifying hires, but that's why I say it's weird. If you really follow the letter of the law I think there's nothing for it but to effect change at the beginning of the 'pipeline' (or wherever it's going wrong) - and have a strong (correct?) conviction that an equal outcome is the right/natural/desired-by-themselves outcome. Then if your diversity report differs (statistically significantly) from 50% anywhere, you know there's (illegal) discrimination going on in hiring. For now, you know that when it is 50%, or much different from the rate in the applicant pool, so it's really at odds with 'affirmative/positive action' IMO.
So you can write up a report saying 'oh dear oh dear, only 20% women, 75% of new hires ought to be women so we start to even out' - but you can't actually effect that unless 75% of the ceteris paribus good hires happen to be women, you can't say (or think) 'oh good, a female interviewee, we need some more', you can't hire her in preference to a male peer (nor vice versa of course) on that basis or partially on that basis.
Of course it happens, 'nobody gets fired for' making diversifying hires, but that's why I say it's weird. If you really follow the letter of the law I think there's nothing for it but to effect change at the beginning of the 'pipeline' (or wherever it's going wrong) - and have a strong (correct?) conviction that an equal outcome is the right/natural/desired-by-themselves outcome. Then if your diversity report differs (statistically significantly) from 50% anywhere, you know there's (illegal) discrimination going on in hiring. For now, you know that when it is 50%, or much different from the rate in the applicant pool, so it's really at odds with 'affirmative/positive action' IMO.
The Catholic priesthood has a 100% quota for men. You want to make that illegal, right?
There's no need to pinpoint women in high position now. Historically there was a strong bias to choose men instead of equally qualified women. You should look at (eg) every male doctor hired in the 1950s and 1960s as not really achieving that position through their own merit.
Your ire extends, I presume, towards legacy preference at colleges. Those students should certainly be seen as a "quota-thing", not achieving that position by themselves.
Jo Freeman's classic essay "The Tyranny of Stuctureless" points out that when there is no formal structure, informal structures arise, masking the power of elites. If there are informal quotas - eg, systemic cultural biases [1] - then a solution may be to switch to formal quotas.
[1] The stereotype of a scientist is 'white males wearing lab coats, eyeglasses, with facial hair, and an eccentric appearance'. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/edri/2019/6324704/ Someone who fits the stereotype is more likely to be seen as and accepted as a scientist, and not have to deal with comments like "you can't be a scientist - you're too pretty!"
There's no need to pinpoint women in high position now. Historically there was a strong bias to choose men instead of equally qualified women. You should look at (eg) every male doctor hired in the 1950s and 1960s as not really achieving that position through their own merit.
Your ire extends, I presume, towards legacy preference at colleges. Those students should certainly be seen as a "quota-thing", not achieving that position by themselves.
Jo Freeman's classic essay "The Tyranny of Stuctureless" points out that when there is no formal structure, informal structures arise, masking the power of elites. If there are informal quotas - eg, systemic cultural biases [1] - then a solution may be to switch to formal quotas.
[1] The stereotype of a scientist is 'white males wearing lab coats, eyeglasses, with facial hair, and an eccentric appearance'. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/edri/2019/6324704/ Someone who fits the stereotype is more likely to be seen as and accepted as a scientist, and not have to deal with comments like "you can't be a scientist - you're too pretty!"
[deleted]
> The Catholic priesthood has a 100% quota for men. You want to make that illegal, right?
If i think about an open society, the catholic church is not the first thing that comes to my mind. Also there is no Government who FORCES them to have just men.
If you have a Man-Cave(Church) where "no woman's" have access, that's absolutely your right...crazy but your decision.
NOT okay is, that the Government forces you to have a quota, and btw it's always one-sided, more Woman's in Management for example, but no Quota for Men's in...lets say gender study's.
>>To my sibling:
It's not Rome but the Vatican, the Vatican IS the Church, and please stop comparing a free and open society with that crazy construct called "Roman Catholic Church", where raping children's are called a "trade secret" and "a internal affair".
>>>>To the other sibling:
Now you see the problem when the state try's to implement artificial quotas for something that should not be regulated on the basis of gender or ethnicity.
>The Nobel Foundation is a private institution. Your comment sounded like you want it to be illegal for a private foundation to have quotas in prize giving.
Yes absolutely, since it's racist and bigoted, how should the quote for whites be for the "Royal Society Africa Prize"?
If i think about an open society, the catholic church is not the first thing that comes to my mind. Also there is no Government who FORCES them to have just men.
If you have a Man-Cave(Church) where "no woman's" have access, that's absolutely your right...crazy but your decision.
NOT okay is, that the Government forces you to have a quota, and btw it's always one-sided, more Woman's in Management for example, but no Quota for Men's in...lets say gender study's.
>>To my sibling:
It's not Rome but the Vatican, the Vatican IS the Church, and please stop comparing a free and open society with that crazy construct called "Roman Catholic Church", where raping children's are called a "trade secret" and "a internal affair".
>>>>To the other sibling:
Now you see the problem when the state try's to implement artificial quotas for something that should not be regulated on the basis of gender or ethnicity.
>The Nobel Foundation is a private institution. Your comment sounded like you want it to be illegal for a private foundation to have quotas in prize giving.
Yes absolutely, since it's racist and bigoted, how should the quote for whites be for the "Royal Society Africa Prize"?
> Also there is no Government who FORCES them to have just men.
The entity that forces the various particular Churches in communion with Rome to have just men in the priesthood is also the paramount authority of a state, so in a very real sense there is a government that forces them to do that.
The entity that forces the various particular Churches in communion with Rome to have just men in the priesthood is also the paramount authority of a state, so in a very real sense there is a government that forces them to do that.
What do you actually mean by "It should be illegal to have quotas for gender"?
The Nobel Foundation is a private institution. Your comment sounded like you want it to be illegal for a private foundation to have quotas in prize giving.
But you're okay letting an organization like the Catholic Church have a quota system? I can't figure out what your proposed law would be.
> btw it's always one-sided
No, it isn't.
"Is it time for male quotas in the health sciences?" - https://kifinfo.no/en/2016/05/it-time-male-quotas-health-sci...
"Despite quotas, gender stereotypes are still preventing men from becoming nurses" - https://kathmandupost.com/national/2020/03/16/despite-quotas...
"The percentage of male primary school teachers in Australia has decreased ... Education authorities have responded to this with recruitment-focused initiatives, such as scholarships and quota systems." - https://theconversation.com/primary-schools-are-losing-more-...
The Nobel Foundation is a private institution. Your comment sounded like you want it to be illegal for a private foundation to have quotas in prize giving.
But you're okay letting an organization like the Catholic Church have a quota system? I can't figure out what your proposed law would be.
> btw it's always one-sided
No, it isn't.
"Is it time for male quotas in the health sciences?" - https://kifinfo.no/en/2016/05/it-time-male-quotas-health-sci...
"Despite quotas, gender stereotypes are still preventing men from becoming nurses" - https://kathmandupost.com/national/2020/03/16/despite-quotas...
"The percentage of male primary school teachers in Australia has decreased ... Education authorities have responded to this with recruitment-focused initiatives, such as scholarships and quota systems." - https://theconversation.com/primary-schools-are-losing-more-...
This is why affirmative action was removed. And, it's also the exact same reason why affirmative action was put in place.
Gender and racial bias will exist regardless of quotas nor lack of quotas.
In the end the best way is just like a lot of hiring platforms, remove name, picture and any identifying references. As blind as possible is probably the most fair methodology.
Problem is just like interviews, though, eventually you need to speak to the person/team. It's where all these issues show up.
Better than nothing in my eyes.
Gender and racial bias will exist regardless of quotas nor lack of quotas.
In the end the best way is just like a lot of hiring platforms, remove name, picture and any identifying references. As blind as possible is probably the most fair methodology.
Problem is just like interviews, though, eventually you need to speak to the person/team. It's where all these issues show up.
Better than nothing in my eyes.
I think there has to be some kind of subjective measure in the hiring process. Two people could have similarly excellent credentials and experience, but one may have terrible social/communication skills that are likely not reflected in their resume. I’ve seen several people say that screening for “culture fit” just introduces bias in the process, which is likely true, but I don’t think that negates the reality of some people just not being good fits for certain teams.
I agree that a blind-as-possible hiring process is probably the most fair, but I have doubts that it actually leads to the best hiring decisions. Although, quotas are fair to no one, in my opinion.
I agree that a blind-as-possible hiring process is probably the most fair, but I have doubts that it actually leads to the best hiring decisions. Although, quotas are fair to no one, in my opinion.
What they could do is retroactively fix injustices like this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/27/opinion/pulsars-jocelyn-b...
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/27/opinion/pulsars-jocelyn-b...
Also Rosalind Franklin, although her untimely demise to cancer complicates things.
[deleted]
Well at some point the rational people will have to step up and reject the "positive racism" trend. You cannot avoid forever this little "social Marxism" problem that you folks have in the West.
It could go on for generations. It is deeply ingrained in the ruling socio-economic class that it isn't marxism. I know several people who promote marxist ideas and policies, but refuse to recognize them as such because NYT told them it's not marxism.
[deleted]
[deleted]
There is not even solid definition of gender or woman. There is no way to enforce such quotas without being sexist and transphobic!
What worries me though is that racist and sexist policies like that are prevalent and accepted without anyone knowing if it is the right way to go. I think that equality of outcome not only will not solve the problems that our societies have, but exacerbate them