[kepler1]

I disagree with your being downvoted. But I also disagree with your points.

Because "role models" and "acknowledging barriers... identification, perspective, and connections" are codewords and a shield (and highly subjective and limitless ones at that) for making others adopt inappropriate solutions to a much earlier problem. Maybe not you personally, but that's where it inevitably leads.

It leads to people wanting to take the easiest path and just change the outcome by force at the last step. Rather than making the harder, longer lasting (and responsible) change to the pipeline and environment that produces people interested in whatever jobs or careers we're talking about.

I don't have a white male name. And yet I don't find your quoted stats surprising or offensive (or outrage-worthy), given the proportions of who have made up the pipeline of people skilled and interested in working at those levels of employment in the decades up to now.

It's up to [whatever demographic group you happen to feel like it's appropriate to segment people into] to train their kids, encourage them to pursue fields of interest, and the rest of society to make sure that barriers don't exist to their advancement.

It's not for you to decide on your own to adjust the percentage of some group until you're satisfied, and perhaps someday decide, because you saw enough inspirational "role model" stories, that we've achieved enough.

As an intellectual honesty check, I ask you to answer the question Justice O'Connor asked when she was deciding the last case about this. "When does it end?" All your steps and corrections to the rules and outcomes -- when does it end? Or did you already lose interest after putting in some temporary band-aid rules and assuming it fixed everything? And just for the group you were interested in? Or everyone?

[grx]

Thank you for your reply! To my surprise, you say you disagree but are very close to what I wrote before.

> for making people adopt inappropriate solutions to a much earlier problem

I don't see where we are disagreeing here, because..

> Rather than making the harder, longer lasting (and responsible) change to the pipeline and environment that produces kids interested in whatever jobs or careers we're talking about.

is exactly what my post was about. The point of entry, which must be discussed is NOT "how to enter CS and produce more female engineers" but "how can I get kids from underprivileged families to even consider taking their chance in CS".

> It leads to people wanting to take the easiest path and just change the outcome by force at the last step.

Sorry if this argument could be taken from my previous post. This is of course in no way what I'm rooting for. On the contrary: do you know what I don't like in the current system? That only privileged people have a the chance to "inherit" a freedom of experimentation where they can try themselves without the risk to e.g. go into debt. This privilege should be granted to every one at a young age and then we are where you - we both - would like to see children and teenagers. We are on exactly the same page here: the problem that kids face today are unfair chances in finding their talents and getting on board of the respective educational and professional tracks.

What they do with it is their thing to solve. I'm not arguing about anything related to "equality of outcome", whatever that is. Sounds like the attempt to produce a 50/50 graduation ratio, which in no way helps anybody.

> And yet I don't find your quoted stats surprising or offensive

They were not meant to be, it's just a good statistical observation to see that there are inter-generational patterns.

> It's up to [...] to train their kids, encourage them to pursue fields of interest, and the rest of society to make sure that barriers don't exist to their advancement

My point as well! And what my addition to this is that not every parent has the possibilities to do so. And these kids must be supported through programs and given what their parents could not give them: perspective. Example from Germany: there is a group called "Arbeiterkind" which support children from "Arbeiterfamilien" (worker families) to be the first generation of their family to enter university and finish their studies. From what I learned is that most of these kids would never consider trying higher education, because the environment in which they are raised discourages them to delay earning a living (by going to university for 3-5 years). They need someone to teach them about their better chances and possibilities of financial support (BAföG, student loans).

In this context TheOtherHobbes' post is very related.

---

> It's not for you to decide on your own to adjust the percentage of some group until you're satisfied, and perhaps someday decide, because you saw enough inspirational "role model" stories, that we've achieved enough.

That's why I hate discussing this topic on US-heavy tech sites. Where did I say any of this?

---

To add to your edit:

> "When does it end?" All your steps and corrections to the rules and outcomes -- when does it end?

I don't know. As a white male from Germany, I have no idea how much changes underprivileged groups need. That is where I'm advocating listening to them. My experiences lead me to the conclusion that encouraging and empowering children and teens in experimenting with their interests is what might lead to the best "results".

[luckylion]

> As a white male from Germany, I have no idea how much changes underprivileged groups need. That is where I'm advocating listening to them.

If you ask people to a) declare whether they are underprivileged and then b) declare how many advantages they need to become equal, you're really just incentivizing everyone to loudly claim that they have it the absolute worst and need the most help.

And then you'll need somebody to decide whose complaints are true and whose are fake, aka you'll need somebody to feel truth and rule accordingly.

[grx]

> you're really just incentivizing everyone to loudly claim that they have it the absolute worst and need the most help

I understand where you are coming from. What this argument highlights is that there are black sheep everywhere. Should this be the reason to toss support for the rest out of the window? In fact your argument can be applied to every social program, and it is. And to the surprise of every one, it is mostly brought up by privileged people (politicians, lobbyists, employers) who e.g. like to cut social spending.

> And then you'll need somebody to decide whose complaints are true and whose are fake, aka you'll need somebody to feel truth and rule accordingly.

Does this not already exist in other parts of social security programs? Or taking loans? What is the difference, what is new?

[luckylion]

> What this argument highlights is that there are black sheep everywhere.

No, the point is that you turn everyone into a black sheep. If you make taxes factually optional by simplifying the form to "do you have income tax to pay, if so, how much?" with no checks and control, you're creating an incentive to lie, and people will lie.

The same happens when you put "subjective feeling of how much money you deserve" on the list of criteria of how much money to pay that person.

> Does this not already exist in other parts of social security programs? Or taking loans? What is the difference, what is new?

It does not. Means tested social security programs are individual. You make less than X, you're eligible for rent support. Grievance studies are not, it's "you're gender x, ethnicity y or subculture z, you get extra bonuses, don't need to reach the same scores for qualifications etc". It's not individual, it's based on some arbitrary group identity.

What you throw out of the window with that line of thinking is the fundamental possibility that innate interests (for gender) and culture (for some minority groups) have anything to do with success. The idea that you just need to pretend that somebody is X to make them value X and put an emphasis on X for their children is completely backwards.

[grx]

> No, the point is that you turn everyone into a black sheep

What do you mean? I wrote "there are black sheep everywhere" as in "yes, it happens that there will be people who will try to exploit the system". That does not justify not striving to support those who would benefit from it, which most probably are the bigger group.

> If you make taxes factually optional by simplifying the form [...] people will lie.

As the people who understand how to game the system already do?

> how much money to pay that person.

Money is not the only thing people can be provided with. Supporting children from underprivileged groups can also mean supporting single mothers with child care, providing more accessible health care or providing mentors and tutoring.

> Means tested social security programs are individual. You make less than X, you're eligible for rent support

> It's not individual, it's based on some arbitrary group identity

You contradict yourself here. Your first example based on income is also grouping of individuals, exactly what you criticize in the second part. To add to your point: one could even say that the income base lines for eligibility in social programs can be seen as arbitrary as well. Do you think the Mindestlohn is based on an objective, most fair judgement of what people need? It's already an absurd system when you just look at the regional differences of cost of living throughout Germany.

Ignore the trigger words ("gender x, ethnicity y or subculture z") and you'll see that we don't diverge much. The point I'm trying to make is not to find out, how $skincolor_x can be pushed to represent a greater share of graduates. It is to find out how we can lift everyone to have the same chances at the beginning, taking structural and unconscious factors into account.

[luckylion]

Incentives. When you give people an instrument to achieve success by making claims, they will make claims to become successful. When you make that official policy, you will create lots of "black sheep" (that is: people abusing the system) because abusing that system will be easy ("claim to be underprivileged") and profitable ("get more money, work less").

> Your first example based on income is also grouping of individuals, exactly what you criticize in the second part.

No, not on some kind of identity. There is no "makes less than X" group, anyone can be a part of that group and anyone in that group can stop being a part of it. That's not true for gender, ethnicity, political convictions etc.

> It is to find out how we can lift everyone to have the same chances at the beginning, taking structural and unconscious factors into account.

Take everyone's children away from their parents, make the state raise them. If you want to exclude the parents' culture and values and the peer group of children from having influence on their future, that's the way. It's not a particularly nice thing, and I doubt that many people want it though.

> One could even say that the income base lines for eligibility in social programs can be seen as arbitrary as well.

Absolutely, they are. But they are the same for all, gender and ethnicity don't play a role. The SJW-alternative is having different laws for different people "to right a historic wrong". Which is pretty much incompatible with anything that wants to call itself democracy.