[jakobegger]

It’s obvious that gender and genetics have an effect on interests. I doubt that anybody challenges that, and you can go talk about that without anyone raising an eyebrow.

What is a problem is if you use that to justify discrimination. Just because members of a demographic are statistically different, it isn’t okay to treat individuals differently because they belong to a certain demographic. And that’s what people are complaining about!

People don’t complain when you say: “A lot of the fastest marathon runners are from Kenia”. People will complain if you use that fact to justify an imbalance in your workforce: “Well, it’s obvious that we hire only people from Kenia since marathons show they are much faster!”

So why do companies fire people who say stuff like that? Because discrimination is stupid from a business point of view: variance within demographics is much larger than variance of the mean between demographics. So if you hire people based on them being part of a “good” demographic, you will end up with worse hires than if you actually selected for individual aptitude.

[corporateslave2]

I don't mean to start a flame war here, but when you say:

People don’t complain when you say: “A lot of the fastest marathon runners are from Kenia”. People will complain if you use that fact to justify an imbalance in your workforce: “Well, it’s obvious that we hire only people from Kenia since marathons show they are much faster!”

This is precisely the point. If objectively they are better, why is it discrimination to only hire them? Definitely you give everyone the opportunity to work for you, but if a singular group always performs better, is it really your fault? And if society did determine that it was your fault, how long could that go on for? Forever? How long can that charade last? Hasn't a Darwinian economy (capitalism) done the best ever for man kind (massively raised standards of living over the last 200 years).

[govg]

One thing you might be mixing up is population vs individual. If you hold some sort of hiring process where the skill tested is similar to that tested in marathon running, then yes, Kenyans will tend to do better as a population. That does not mean you should actively discourage everyone else from applying. Your process should be blind to race/class of applicants, if some race/class does show a higher affinity towards specific skills, that will be the natural outcome of your process.

TL;DR - Don't hire only Kenyans, that's discrimination. You might end up with a lot of Kenyans if you hire only marathoners, but that's not the same.

[jakobegger]

Bingo. It’s fair to reject someone because they scored low on a test. It’s not fair to reject someone because they belong to a demographic that on average scores low on a test — that would be discrimination.

Of course, a lot of the discussion is about faulty tests, that claim to test for individual aptitude, but end up testing for demographics instead (eg. interviewers inadvertently giving higher scores to people similar to themselves)

[scotty79]

It's not even all Kenians. It's Kalenjin minority in Kenia. If you need to hire people with best endurance why not ask them to run a marathon as a test instead hiring only people from ethic group that on average is better than others.

[corporateslave2]

The point is, when you have everyone take that test, you end up hiring only Kenyans. And then everyone cries about discrimination

[scotty79]

If the test is adequate for the job I don't think most people would mind. For example nobody says that short whites, latinos and asians are victims of discrimination because there's so few of them in NBA.

Discrimination is suspected if the test has little to do with actual job requirements.

[corporateslave3]

Whats your opinion on diversity in tech and the whiteboarding interview process at the big tech companies?

[scotty79]

Whiteboards interviews are inadequate. I'd opt for time boxed (for a month?) trial employment. Paid but probably less than actual job. After a short test for absolute basics to verify that person has the skills to even start.

Lack of diversity in tech is sad for me, but I don't think that there should be any additional incentives or bonus points on entry based on minority status. The problem for me is that large companies pretty much shy away from responsibility of training new employees for themselves and only hire people who got themselves fully educated already. This causes artificial barriers in entry to tech that let in only the people who in the past had the means and the will.

I'd put responsibility on the companies to hire for entry level positions people that have not previously worked in tech and attempt to train them. This could be proportional to company headcount and if company refuses to hire it should contibute significant amount of money to a fund that sponsors free tech education initiatives for anyone who's willing.

I think this approach would increase diversity and even help other groups disadvantaged on the job market.

It would put burden on companies but I haven't heard of company bankrupt because it spent too much on new employee training.

This kind of scheme is in place in my country to support employment of the disabled people. I think it should work on entry level employees too.

[arthur_pryor]

parent specifically addressed this question:

> variance within demographics is much larger than variance of the mean between demographics. So if you hire people based on them being part of a “good” demographic, you will end up with worse hires than if you actually selected for individual aptitude.

did you not read the comment fully? that last part seems to pretty clearly address what you're asking here.