[lliamander]

> That said, I think a lot of these people are upset by DEI precisely because it is resulting in more diversity.

You are exemplifying a fallacy known as asymmetric insight, whereby you assume to know more about someone else's "real" intentions than they do. While at some level we do have to have a mental model of other people's motivations, the temptation is strong to pathologize those we disagree with rather than take their ideas seriously.

So tell me, did you come to your conclusion based on sincere effort to actually understand the mindset of those opposed to DEI, or are you using it as an excuse to avoid thinking about their actual arguments?

[qdog]

I certainly haven't conducted a scientific study, this isn't my field.

I am, however, a white male who checks most of the 'tech dude' boxes, and I don't usually have to guess what people are thinking about this. I just have to be around at the right time for people to make their opinions known. So my evidence is anecdotal, but no, I don't have to wonder if people have racial bias, they will tell you if you let them. I have also observed a manager who's religion made women subservient, and no woman he ever managed was promoted. Bias or just probability? One of those women is now a very successful director of engineering. (She left his team and was promoted elsewhere)

While I can't speak to all DEI programs, the intent at most places I've been is to interview a wider range of people. That might show slight favor to interviewing, but the bar for hiring does not change. This is not just a problem in tech, the relatively recent NFL head coach issue of teams deciding to hire a coach and then interviewing a black coach after that "for compliance" with no intent of actually considering them is a huge problem.

If you work at a place that truly only hires people to check a box and doesn't care about that person's success or the impact around them, sure, move on.

[lliamander]

> I certainly haven't conducted a scientific study, this isn't my field.

I'm not asking for a scientific study, I'm just asking for some indication that you take arguments against DEI programs seriously.

> I am, however, a white male who checks most of the 'tech dude' boxes, and I don't usually have to guess what people are thinking about this. I just have to be around at the right time for people to make their opinions known. So my evidence is anecdotal, but no, I don't have to wonder if people have racial bias, they will tell you if you let them.

Sharing demographic characteristics with some people does not automatically give you special insight into their true motivations. The insinuations that people "let you know" about their racial bias suggests that they didn't explicitly tell you as such, but rather you inferred it based on other things they did or said (things that, if I hazard to guess, might not be seen as racist by most people).

I must say, as someone who does oppose DEI programs (and who has successfully lobbied against them in small ways) I find your presumption about the motivations of people on my side of the issue extremely aggravating. You are going to do much more to help the dialogue if you actually respond in good faith to the arguments against DEI.

But, if you want to know what motivates people on this side, just ask.

[qdog]

Sorry for the late reply, I was out a while.

I literally have heard people say things like "We need less brown people". This may not be your reasoning, and not everyone says something exactly like that, but there are enough.

Apple does very well and loudly displays their diversity numbers, so it's obviously possible to be succesful and supportive of inclusion (which is or should be the DEI goal).

But sure, why do you not support DEI? You have a better solution that is somehow based on 'qualifications' that isn't biased?

[lliamander]

My apologies as well, but you do deserve a response, particularly to your last question.

I do not support DEI because it is based on a false assumption: that disparate outcomes between groups must be the result of some sort of discrimination or exploitation. Thomas Sowell's book Discrimination and Disparities is a good concrete overview of the reasons why this assumption is not warranted.

This is not to imply that groups or individuals should merely accept their lot in life: far from it! By all means find ways to improve. And sometimes that will mean overcoming some bias - but often it will mean other things. Just don't expect equality, as that is neither a realistic nor a desirable goal.

> Apple does very well and loudly displays their diversity numbers, so it's obviously possible to be successful and supportive of inclusion (which is or should be the DEI goal).

Apple's success almost certainly has nothing to do with it's DEI efforts. To the extent that DEI is counterproductive, Apple has so much wealth and inertia that it would be a long time before the problem would be visible to the bottom line. Most businesses cannot survive the level of irrationality that a company like Apple can.

> I literally have heard people say things like "We need less brown people". This may not be your reasoning, and not everyone says something exactly like that, but there are enough.

I do hear that kind of thing often from DEI proponents...about white men. Most of the people who oppose DEI do not think that way one way or the other. They believe in treating people with basic fairness and object to the divisiveness of DEI.