| > But you’re saying representation is pointless because people can enter fields they don’t see themselves represented in and I am saying i think representation is a (positive) side effect not the goal. What I actually think that I haven't said is that "representation" is a self defeating idea that encourages people to view themselves as different. > I agree. Limiting your pool is a bad idea. That’s literally why inclusivity is a good thing. Because people self-limit the pool to people who look like them, and because other societal barriers limit the pool by excluding people. Actively acting to include people broadens the pool, it doesn’t limit it. That's true, however, when the high end of the pool all looks a certain way because of systemic issues then the team built will tend to look that way and not be inclusive. Thise creating the team could have the best of intentions the outcome could very likely be the same as if they were discriminatory. People feel social and sometimes legal pressure to make sure it looks like they aren't discriminatory so, when they are choosing that last (few) member, they'll limit the pool of possibilities. The other half of what you said is logical though, that inclusion probably leads to a more diverse future but at the cost of the present. The cost of the present is the part you're pretending doesn't exist. > If you think on the scale of an individual hire or grant, i guess i can see how it would seem like limiting the pool - but zoom out like two steps and you’d see that’s not true. Every single hire is an individual hire. |
I didn’t say that. Idk what comment you read that said that, but it wasn’t mine.
> The cost of the present is the part you're pretending doesn't exist.
Even if there was a cost to the productivity of the present - a better present isn’t one where we’re the most “productive” or efficient - it’s one where the most people are able to grasp a good and fair life.
> Every single hire is an individual hire.
The dots on the screen form a picture.