Apple Releases Employee Diversity Report, 7 out of 10 Workers Are Male, 55% White

[Renzatic]

IQ tests are a nice guide, but not the end all be all. I've never supported them for anything outside of general statistical information. I feel the same about standardized testing in schools. Those tests have the same issues you're mentioning.

Telling the kid that this test is the end all be all will stress them out, and some folks aren't good test takers overall. Intelligence isn't a measure of ones skill in coping with stress.

Exactly. IQ tests are very good at showing at showing rough intelligence, and showing you're great at taking tests.

I'll give you a personal example here. I took an IQ test years ago, and I know what they entail. Some of them are weird, like I had this page 1's and 0's I had to copy down, and some of them are pretty bog standard, like what you'd see on those internet quizzes.

If there's one thing I'll brag about, it'd be my visual memory and spatial acuity. I can take objects apart in my head, mentally rotate them, look at large objects and guess it's length, width, and height within a couple of inches. I always know what direction I'm facing, and I've never been lost. What's really weird is that I can tell you what a person was wearing, what the weather was like, their haircut, and remember their face with exacting detail when asked. But ask me their name, the date, or the exact time I did whatever and I draw a blank.

On an IQ test, I tear through those questions like nothing. Same with the logical next step questions. "If blah is blah, then blah is blah", Oh. That's easy!

...but you get me into the pure math sections, and I'll freeze up and go into a mild panic. Those questions that want you to guess the next number in a sequence, I'll sit there for two or three minutes counting stuff down on my fingers, constantly wonder "is that right, that can't be it...can it". I don't know how good I actually am at pure math, I just know I don't like it. Never have. Even something as simple as making change in my head. If I'm by myself, I can do it no problem. It's easy. Ask me to do it right in front of you, and BBBLLLAAARRRKK...brain freeze...can't do it. Out comes the calculator.

I don't do math well under pressure, and always end up scoring lower on tests that involve them than I otherwise would. I don't know how well I did on my test (the school never told me, which I thought was worrying), but I bet I would've scored 10 points higher at least if I were comfortable with moving numbers.

I'm not the only person like this. There are tons of people who just don't test well with certain things under certain conditions, and it's not necessarily intelligence related. We all have our weird personal mental constructs. So yeah, an IQ test is a good indicator, but not a definitive one.

----------

They aren't =P

Hundreds of thousands then. There's a goodly bunch. Not enough to be a majority in any sitaution, but they're definitely around.

 

[SarcasticJoe]

Actually, this and everything else you say after this is terribly wrong.

Eh? So you're claiming blacks don't have an actual lower average even BEFORE cultural and socio-economic adjustments are made? Because I'm definitely not denying that.

In impoverished environments, blacks score lower, obviously.

I'm not denying that, after all every group scores lower than the average in impoverished environments. The basic disagreement we're having here is that I think it's mostly nurture with a hint of nature while you think it's all nurture.

Ooh, look links!

Read trough it and couldn't find anything except accusations of racism, complaints about the American education system and claims that environmental factors are skewing the numbers, which I'm not denying.

- The nature of the person taking the test. e.g. are they stressed?

This is why tests are generally done in a controlled environment and they don't intentionally put extra pressure on those being tested. Basically all this proves is that you don't do as well in these kinds of tests when you're distracted.

- The fact that IQ varies over our lifespans

I don't know what you're trying make it look like I'm claiming as I never claimed that IQ doesn't vary based on age or that environment plays a role because that's what the article in question claims.

- Psychology and behavior

Once again I'm not denying that environment plays a role.

- Perspectives of merit and achievement

What does some people being hypocrites and practically racist have to do with anything?

- Of course prejudice and racism

Is that supposed to some kind of insult towards me? It basically talks about a correlation between racism and low intelligence...

In "well-off" environments, blacks score HIGHER than their white counter parts.

I read trough all of the links you posted and none of them claimed anything of the sort. My guess is that you just tried to get that to slip by trough coming with so much

So while your post is at the heart sincere, you're still carrying along the traditional forms of racism and prejudice that science has dispelled over a half century ago.

Now I suppose this explains things... You probably didn't read my earlier posts and just made a number of assumptions because I was disagreeing with people with a similar outlook on things as you.

To once again re-state what I think is our main disagreement here: I think intelligence is mostly determined by environmental factors, but also by genetic ones. You on the other hand seem to be of the stance that it's all environmental factors and deny genetics having any part in it.

I should also point out that I'm not American, I'm from Finland and here the educational system is more focused on actually helping kids left behind catch up with the rest rather than just keeping them from worsening averages by lowering standards. Thus I suppose I'm might be making some assumptions that aren't true for the U.S.

Well, given that on average Blacks are much poorer than Whites and receive much, much poorer educations, this can hardly be surprising. I mean unless you honestly make it your business to learn what they aren't teaching you in school, you simply aren't going to do very well on math, which is something that does need to be taught, for the most part (if it was easy to figure out by oneself, it wouldn't have taken mathematicians millennia to amass the proofs, theorems and algorithms we have today.) Extrapolating to poverty and education, I'd imagine Native Americans do even worse.

I'm not denying that the education system of the U.S sucks and that it leads to what you're describing. In that post I was just pointing out that it is the primary reason for things being what they are (i.e relatively few blacks in higher education and related jobs).

Which would make it more or less useless.

The same could be said about a test changed to better suit one specific ethnic group... The point of the mathematical pattern recognition parts is to test things that just go on pure intuition and where the level of their education factors in as little as possible.

My subtest score on the math section (verbal, mental math) was a 19, which correlates with a (subtest math IQ) of 150+. However, while my language, logic, reasoning and critical thinking skills are probably equally strong, my spatial abilities and visual memory are abysmal. Giving me a full-scale IQ of 150 would be silly.

Now you're just bragging. Personally I've refused to ever take and IQ test because I don't like my intelligence being condensed down to a number. I usually do pretty good in tests that measure your mathematical aptitude and about average in tests that test your language aptitude. Mind you I've only done tests like this twice, once in the local elementary school equivalent and once when I was doing my mandatory military service (I'm from Finland where we have that).

It actually does. They had to prime the Black test takers beforehand-- basically in order to raise their own expectations of themselves to that of Whites-- and this then erased the gap entirely.

I'd like to see a source for that

The truth is, of course, "race" is an entirely manufactured label (albeit a useful one). There isn't any biological distinction that validates the idea of race. Hell, we can barely decide on what constitutes a distinct species. The only reason we even have the idea of race is because we're human. Notice we don't apply it to any of the other (7.5-10) million species on the planet.

I suppose that explains your fairly militant attitude... There are a number of medically recognized physiological and chemical differences between different racial and ethnical groups and talking about how we don't look at animals the same way is not an argument against their existence.

The term "Black" covers people from the 53 countries of Africa (as genetically diverse-- actually, more diverse than the gene pool within Whites, e.g. Germans/Ashkenazi Jews/Irish/Scottish/Greeks/Spaniards etc.), not to mention Jamaica and Haiti. It wouldn't shock me if people of certain nationalities in Africa, or at least different regions were smarter than others in the least, but I would be very surprised if the average of all people of African decent was lower (at least by more than a few tenths of an IQ point).

They have actually done by-country wise tests and compiled their results into more expansive works. The basic conclusions there is that the averages they get in sub-saharan Africa are generally lower than in industrialized countries and that there are regional differences in Africa. However it's the results are on the overall level a lot lower than for the industrialized world.

You'll remember we didn't depart Africa that long ago.

While it may not be on the scale of millions of years, most estimates put it on the scale of 60-200.000 years and one archeological estimate even goes as high as 338.000 years ago. That amount of time, vastly different environments and some interspecies mingling (whites interestingly have a bit of neanderthal in them) is enough to cause a wide array of differences and quirks.

The reason why "white" people are a shade of pink is that the further north you get, the less vitamin D you get from sunlight and a lack of it, specially during childhood, leads to things like rickets and lower intelligence. To cope with this people needed to absorb more of the sunlight and to do so, their bodies had to lower the level of melanin, which lead to a lighter skin tone. Makeup producers have to account for this trough having their products come in a wide number of tones even in markets that are mostly white. There's actually a pretty big difference between the tones they sell in southern Europe and Scandinavia.

When industrialization started you suddenly had people being more indoors and the problem re-appeared, but rather than evolution sorting it out, we sorted it out trough diet. They used to do this by feeding kids cod liver oil, but now it's done trough food additives. This is why blacks don't suffer from this problem now that a lot of them have migrated or been forced to migrate to places further north.

What I'm getting at is that if we can cause a change this significant to appearances, I don't see why there can't be a lot of other differences.

Ah. My mother, I think, still has a medical textbook around somewhere, but it's so outdated we don't ever bother with it. Pretty sure my grandfather's would likely list hysteria as a real psychological/medical ailment. Best to avoid old ones from med school days

The way I wrote it was intended to make it look like I wasn't bragging or anything, but as your bragging about how high your IQ is probably enough reason to tell the whole story. The person who originally told me about was my dad, a well respected doctor with well over 30 years of experience and he showed the specifics about it in his old textbook as at the time he was trying to talk me into becoming a doctor like him. The reason why I'm not a doctor now is not because I wasn't interested, but because it's REALLY difficult into med school here in Finland. A couple of years ago only about 10% of accepted applicants were first timers, meaning that the other 90% were not straight out of the local high school equivalent, but had taken the previous year to study while putting some token effort into another subject or working while studying.

When you get your medical license as a doctor that's never the end of your education and instead you have to keep on learning about new developments, old knowledge becoming obsolete and new medication hitting the market. If you're an active doctor who does the job properly, you're never stuck with outdated information or lacking in new discoveries or medication. This textbook that looked like it was from the late 70's did talk about the exact same thing as the wikipedia article you quoted (in other words turning alcohol into acetaldehyde at a dangerous level of effectiveness).

An interesting side note is that When I gave my dad the second season box of House (couldn't find the first one anywhere), he couldn't stand watching any further than one episode. This was because the culprit there turned out to be Tay–Sachs and in his experience as a practicing doctor since 1980, he'd only seen it once.

 

[Digital Skunk]

I should also point out that I'm not American, I'm from Finland and here the educational system is more focused on actually helping kids left behind catch up with the rest rather than just keeping them from worsening averages by lowering standards. Thus I suppose I'm might be making some assumptions that aren't true for the U.S.

I see where you're coming from and I do agree, the US system of education even by the average world standard is abysmal.

In the end I think we're all making assumptions about a lot of things.

I did reread your post and we are saying pretty much the same thing

----------

...I did not make any of it up. Yes, Africa used to have empires before the climate changed. Many people attribute this historical climate change, which led to the dramatic expansion of the Sahara desert, which many believe led to the downfall of the Egyptian kingdoms (a phenomenon called desertification which is still occurring to this very day). I can post studies and sources if need be...

Everything I said is very well known in the field of cultural anthropology. You should read the book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond. Before you tell someone that they're lying, try and do a little bit more research yourself than just posting a Wikipedia link to "African Empires".

1) It wasn't a wiki link, this is a wiki link
2) The Sahara has been that was since 1600 BC.
3) Since the desert has been there for over 3000 years your point is moot since every known African civilization that had no issues cultivating the land and a culture and creating world wonders has existed in the past 2000 years. The more notable ones rise and fall between 1500 and 1900 AD.

4) The point of the post was to point out that Africa had empires LONG into the 20th century, way after the arid climate set in.

Seriously, calm down and read real facts. Desertification has nothing to do with what you or I said which is the prevalance of African empires that had no problems farming and building cities and sitting at home doing stuff.

p.s. Africa has more diseases? Tell that to the Native Americans, or the millions that died from the black plague.

 

[MacSince1990]

Most of the best engineers are (in most but not all cases) white or Asian. It's not because they're any smarter than minorities, it's because Europeans and Asians have been blessed by history and geography. In almost every aspect, Europeans have had it a lot better than Africans and other ethnicities and cultures. For example, Europe is much easier to farm than most of Africa because of climate differences. So while Europeans could harvest the crop and spend all winter in their houses tinkering around, Africans historically had to hunt and gather year round and didn't have as much free time. Africa's climate also lends itself to having much more serious diseases.

There are social, political, environmental, and geological factors that all add together to determine how "well off" a society of people will be, how quickly they historically would have been able to advance and conquer their neighbors, grow rich off trade, educate their children, etc.

If slavery had been outlawed in the United States since the 1500's, and Africans moved to the New World as freemen without prejudice, you would see just as many African Americans (proportionately) graduating university and becoming great engineers as white or Asian Americans.

A lot of people don't understand why poor African Americans and other minorities don't just "pull themselves up by their boot straps" out of poverty, and the simple truth is that it's just not that easy for most people. In fact, in most cases it is impossible to pull yourself out of poverty without some serious luck. It has been proven that in homes where the parents yell at each other, young children have much higher levels of cortisone (a stress hormone) in their blood stream. This leads to extensive cognitive impairments that will last for the rest of their lives because cortisone literally STOPS brain development in its tracks. Thus, even in a brain scan, poverty is easy to see even at five years of age.

This is just one example of how poverty and historical injustice can lead to centuries of inequality, even when slavery is outlawed. It takes MANY generations for the harm done by slavery to disappear entirely.

Unfortunately, many people are so intent on hating other groups and actually wanting the evidence to show that they're inferior, that even the most reasoned, well-argued and, well, downright factually correct argument will sway them not in the least. In fact there's evidence to suggest that factual evidence compiled against people's beliefs--- especially people who are conservative-- actually solidifies their beliefs in the face of proof that they are completely groundless.

That being said, there is much about poor black communities, and even middle/lower-middle class "Black culture" that is highly undesirable, the most obvious to my mind being the rampant misogyny, extending even to the women (who seem often to hate each other, and defend actions of men who beat and abuse women... Chris Brown being a prime example). I see this time and again and it's sort of as heartbreaking as it is maddening.

I predict that even 200 years from now, the insidious effects of slavery will still be apparent on African Americans in US society.

Unfortunately I think you're wrong. The middle and even upper-middle class will have been destroyed well over a century before that by the 1% (and, I would be in no way surprised if the top 1% became the 0.1%, with "one percenters" being little better off than anyone else). Race won't mean a damned thing, at least as far as economics go; we'll all be impoverished.

Of course, I could be wrong. But that does seem to be the way things are headed.

What bothers me the most about the 1% besides the fact that many of them feel so entitled to rather large salaries that don't really take *all* that much skill, is the fact that most of them are just stupid. Even if wealth had a 1:1 correlation with intelligence (which lord knows it doesn't), they still wouldn't be *that* bright on average (people with IQs of 135 don't exactly stand out), yet many of them have egos the size of Texas.

Granted, there are any number of "one percenters" in my family, and with perhaps one exception, they are all very nice, down-to-earth people. But then again, they're mostly liberal, secular Jews who are quite a bit smarter than average. Not sure where I'm going with this.

----------

You should read the book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond.

Somehow I had a feeling you were getting your information from that book


>_> Although before I pretend otherwise, I haven't read it

 

[the8thark]

**** diversity. Just hire the best person for the job. I don't want to see the best person for the job be ignored because a company has a minority group employment quota they have to meet.

it's hard enough to get a job as it is. We don't want discrimination based on diversity quotas as well against us.

The best person for the job does not discriminate between gender or race or any minority group.

 

[AxoNeuron]

Unfortunately I think you're wrong. The middle and even upper-middle class will have been destroyed well over a century before that by the 1% (and, I would be in no way surprised if the top 1% became the 0.1%, with "one percenters" being little better off than anyone else). Race won't mean a damned thing, at least as far as economics go; we'll all be impoverished.

Of course, I could be wrong. But that does seem to be the way things are headed.

What bothers me the most about the 1% besides the fact that many of them feel so entitled to rather large salaries that don't really take *all* that much skill, is the fact that most of them are just stupid. Even if wealth had a 1:1 correlation with intelligence (which lord knows it doesn't), they still wouldn't be *that* bright on average (people with IQs of 135 don't exactly stand out), yet many of them have egos the size of Texas.

Granted, there are any number of "one percenters" in my family, and with perhaps one exception, they are all very nice, down-to-earth people. But then again, they're mostly liberal, secular Jews who are quite a bit smarter than average. Not sure where I'm going with this.

I agree with most of what you say. Wealth has less to do with raw intelligence, and has much more to do with how well your parents treated you, the schools they took you to, whether or not they paid for your college, if you had domestic violence at home, etc. A lot of people, especially right-wingers, have this delusional belief that they are self-made men. Just because you weren't handed buckets of cash doesn't mean you didn't have 1,000 other advantages that most people never had.

Fortunately I don't think this level of economic inequality is sustainable, if the past is any indicator.

Somehow I had a feeling you were getting your information from that book

>_> Although before I pretend otherwise, I haven't read it

Actually, I disagree with a lot of the conclusions in that book, I only recommend it because it is easy to read. I have been fortunate to have a lot of education in the hard sciences (biology especially) and history, and I find it interesting to combine the two. History more than a bunch of kings issuing decrees in books, it has much more to do with historical climate patterns, disease, natural resources, etc. all of those things explain the past much better than the lies handed down to us in manuscripts. Of course, I am not an expert in the field of cultural anthropology, but it makes for some very fun reading.

 

[jolux]

**** diversity. Just hire the best person for the job. I don't want to see the best person for the job be ignored because a company has a minority group employment quota they have to meet.

it's hard enough to get a job as it is. We don't want discrimination based on diversity quotas as well against us.

The best person for the job does not discriminate between gender or race or any minority group.

I don't think anyone's advocating for what you describe. However, in recent years it has become obvious that Apple at the very least needs more females. Remember when the iPad was revealed to be named the iPad, and it occurred to everyone that all of their executives must have been male to choose a name that suggests a female sanitary product?

There are plenty of wealthy white males that are qualified to work at Apple. If they find a non-white, non-male identified person who qualifies for the job, why not hire them? Choices always have to be made, there is not always one person who is evidently qualified for the job. They can't just hire all the qualified white males and ignore everyone else, because there are certainly enough to do so, but that would show a very narrow minded view of hiring, and would do a poor job of representing the country and their market as a whole, with all of its infinite cultural intricacies.

If you're given a room of 10,000 fully and equally qualified people to start fresh again hiring for the next Apple, and there are enough white males in the room to fill up your roster, would you fill it up with white males? That's the question you should be asking yourself.

All the posts in this thread seem to ignore the possibility that a white male or several white males were hired in lieu of a person part of a minority group who was better qualified for the job, simply because they were a white male.

 

[DUCKofD3ATH]

All the posts in this thread seem to ignore the possibility that a white male or several white males were hired in lieu of a person part of a minority group who was better qualified for the job, simply because they were a white male.

No, it's just that most people realize that such hiring would be against the law (Under Title VII, the ADA, GINA, and the ADEA, it is against the law to discriminate on "the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, genetic information, or age").

Unless you're practicing affirmative action in the name of "diversity". Then you can pick someone because of skin color or sex, just as long as it's not a white guy.

Crazy, I know.

 

[Renzatic]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I just got back from burying my face in a load of delicious fish tacos.

...this is not a euphanism, by the way.

They were really good.

 

[jolux]

No, it's just that most people realize that such hiring would be against the law (Under Title VII, the ADA, GINA, and the ADEA, it is against the law to discriminate on "the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, genetic information, or age").

Unless you're practicing affirmative action in the name of "diversity". Then you can pick someone because of skin color or sex, just as long as it's not a white guy.

Crazy, I know.

While most people realize it's illegal, there's at least a few who just don't care. Employment discrimination still happens in this country.

Let me ask you this: In the race as a tie-breaker situation, who would you choose, if your company was majority white? I'm just curious. By extension you think the white person has more of a right to be chosen than the non-white person. I hope that's not a straw man, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Is it inappropriate, if, 50% of the time you choose the white person, and 50% the non-white? If so, what is an acceptable alternative?

 

[DUCKofD3ATH]

While most people realize it's illegal, there's at least a few who just don't care. Employment discrimination still happens in this country.

So? Now you're excusing a poorly thought out point by claiming the outliers?

Let me ask you this: In the race as a tie-breaker situation, who would you choose, if your company was majority white? I'm just curious.

First come, first served is my rule. If indeed I had two identically qualified candidates but of different colors (he's black on the right side, and the other is white on the right side!), I'd hire the first one I interviewed. That's how I've always run my department.

By extension you think the white person has more of a right to be chosen than the non-white person. I hope that's not a straw man, please correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't understand what you're saying. Is it that you think I believe a white person is more deserving of employment? That would be your prejudices speaking because I've never said any such thing.

Is it inappropriate, if, 50% of the time you choose the white person, and 50% the non-white? If so, what is an acceptable alternative?

See my above method for ensuring fair hiring.

 

[jolux]

So? Now you're excusing a poorly thought out point by claiming the outliers?



First come, first served is my rule. If indeed I had two identically qualified employees but of different colors (he's black on the right side, and the other is white on the right side!), I'd hire the first one I interviewed. That's how I've always run my department.



I don't understand what you're saying. Is it that you think I believe a white person is more deserving of employment? That would be your prejudices speaking because I've never said any such thing.



See my above method for ensuring fair hiring.

I'm not exercising a poorly thought out point with outliers. There are large groups of people that are frequently victims of employment discrimination.

http://www.lgbtmap.org/unchecked-discrimination-against-lgbt-workers

I have more studies available upon request.

I'm asking who you think is more deserving of employment. All other factors being equal, which would you choose? That's what this boils down to. Also, I think first come first served is inherently problematic for other reasons, but they're too long to list here. I will enumerate if asked.

Like I said, I was fairly open about that statement being a possible straw man. I apologize for its inclusion and it will be edited out.

All other factors being equal, do you include the person whose culture is frequently excluded and discriminated against in all walks of life, whose entire validation as an equal human being revolves around being hired to do the same job as your white counterpart, or do you chose the white person, who has lived their entire life with inherent privilege of possibly more than one strain?

 

[ricci]

Their should be a % percentage for my milk and sugar peeps like me! Plenty of us here that's not in this percentage break down!? Oh! Milk and honey( or sugar) is half white half black! Dropping some knowledge free of charge!!

 

[MacSince1990]

I agree with most of what you say. Wealth has less to do with raw intelligence, and has much more to do with how well your parents treated you, the schools they took you to, whether or not they paid for your college, if you had domestic violence at home, etc. A lot of people, especially right-wingers, have this delusional belief that they are self-made men. Just because you weren't handed buckets of cash doesn't mean you didn't have 1,000 other advantages that most people never had.

Well, yeah. And the fact that oftentimes you have to be cold and without scruples in order to get to positions of power. There's a reason there are so many psychopaths at the top. That and interest. I come form an upper middle class family, had college paid for me, picked the wrong major. Oops. It's true though about all the advantages. I had things 95% of kids would die for. But try explaining that to right wingers =/

Fortunately I don't think this level of economic inequality is sustainable, if the past is any indicator.

I do. Look at every other third world country. The wealth inequality a hundred times worse than here. Granted, in a first world country with ready information and a (sort of) educated public things may be different.

Actually, I disagree with a lot of the conclusions in that book, I only recommend it because it is easy to read.

Ah, that's disappointing. I was thinking of finally reading it. Do you think it's just not well-reasoned, or that they had an agenda?

I have been fortunate to have a lot of education in the hard sciences (biology especially) and history, and I find it interesting to combine the two. History is more than a bunch of kings issuing decrees in books, it has much more to do with historical climate patterns, disease, natural resources, etc. all of those things explain the past much better than the lies handed down to us in manuscripts. Of course, I am not an expert in the field of cultural anthropology, but it makes for some very fun reading.

I know what you mean. I don't have extensive background knowledge in history OR biology by any means, but I certainly have some, and a fair amount in certain places (evolution, genetics, etc.), and view things similarly. It's definitely a useful lens.

----------

If there's one thing I'll brag about, it'd be my visual memory and spatial acuity.

Pfft. If there's one thing I'll complain about, it's my visual memory and spatial ... not... acuity. =P

I can take objects apart in my head, mentally rotate them, look at large objects and guess it's length, width, and height within a couple of inches.

I hate you. I'm very good at guessing people's heights to within about a half inch, and I'm decent with spatial sense in the real world, but other than that I'm screwed. No sense of direction whatsoever. It's honestly sad.

What's really weird is that I can tell you what a person was wearing, what the weather was like, their haircut, and remember their face with exacting detail when asked. But ask me their name, the date, or the exact time I did whatever and I draw a blank.

Actually, this isn't weird at all. The explanation Psych 101 offers is that names are "arbitrary handles" with no intrinsic meaning. So unless you have something specifically tying that name to that face (or else by repeatedly hearing it), if you're not the type of person who "never forgets a name", you'll just forget it. Quite normal =)
estions. "If blah is blah, then blah is blah", Oh. That's easy!

...but you get me into the pure math sections, and I'll freeze up and go into a mild panic. Those questions that want you to guess the next number in a sequence, I'll sit there for two or three minutes counting stuff down on my fingers, constantly wonder "is that right, that can't be it...can it".

Heh. I'm actually quite good at it and can usually get it within a few seconds. I think it has to do with being naturally good with numbers (storing them, recognizing relationships etc). If the numbers "9, 27 and 81" don't mean anything to you (e.g. 3^2, 3^3, 3^4 or just that 9 into 27 3x and 27 into 81 3x), those sort of number problems won't mean much. That's kind of what i mean by "number relationships." I'm pretty good at the logic too, although I'm a lot better with real-world logic than I am with abstract logic, which I find irritating (e.g. if all glibs are squeebs..)

I don't know how good I actually am at pure math, I just know I don't like it. Never have. Even something as simple as making change in my head. If I'm by myself, I can do it no problem. It's easy. Ask me to do it right in front of you, and BBBLLLAAARRRKK...brain freeze...can't do it. Out comes the calculator.

That would be social anxiety/self consciousness at work I have the same problem. Well, almost.. it just takes me a *lot* longer to do mental math/multiplication.

 

[AxoNeuron]

Well, yeah. And the fact that oftentimes you have to be cold and without scruples in order to get to positions of power. There's a reason there are so many psychopaths at the top. That and interest. I come form an upper middle class family, had college paid for me, picked the wrong major. Oops. It's true though about all the advantages. I had things 95% of kids would die for. But try explaining that to right wingers =/

You're right, in fact there are several studies showing that wealthy people lie much more frequently and much easier than poor people.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/02/21/1118373109

I do. Look at every other third world country. The wealth inequality a hundred times worse than here. Granted, in a first world country with ready information and a (sort of) educated public things may be different.

Many people living in the Gilded age didn't see a happy ending for rising social inequality either. You would be surprised how large and energetic the left wing (even communist) movement in the US was in the 1920's. But it did come to an end and social inequality became much fairer until now.

The wealthy gain almost all of their power and wealth from the consent of the poor and middle class. The second that poor and middle class people stop voting for the fool politicians being advertised on TV, the second we stop voting for this false democrat/republican dichotomy and start voting in more ideas, is the moment social inequality will start getting solved. Until then, I agree with you, we will continue to see the decline of the middle class and the rise of the top 0.1%. What they don't realize is that they are sowing the seeds of their own destruction. JFK said "those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable", and this holds true today.

Ah, that's disappointing. I was thinking of finally reading it. Do you think it's just not well-reasoned, or that they had an agenda?

Oh no, it's still an excellent book. I only disagree with him on a few minor technical points. I think he gives a bit too much importance to the different types of domesticated animals living in different parts of the world, but in all of the big important points he is dead on.

 

[Digital Skunk]

Oh no, it's still an excellent book. I only disagree with him on a few minor technical points. I think he gives a bit too much importance to the different types of domesticated animals living in different parts of the world, but in all of the big important points he is dead on.

I've skimmed through about a third of it so far, and it's garbage.

Again, I agree with you, this isn't about anything you've said before; that's been cleared up.

The book however is nonsense.

The countries and empires that help prove Jared's book is trash are:

Haiti
Russia
Ethiopia this as well

And

America

Now that's not to say that it isn't a nice theory. He does claim what all of us intelligent folks have been saying, that there isn't anything genetic or biological about one ethnic groups shrinking or falling. He just goes about doing it in a way that's not necessarily proven.

Again, this is just about the book. Everything else you say is right on.

 

[DUCKofD3ATH]

I'm not exercising a poorly thought out point with outliers. There are large groups of people that are frequently victims of employment discrimination.

It's against the law to discriminate against LGBTs, so I still don't know what you're trying to prove here.

I'm asking who you think is more deserving of employment. All other factors being equal, which would you choose? That's what this boils down to. Also, I think first come first served is inherently problematic for other reasons, but they're too long to list here. I will enumerate if asked.

There are no problems with hiring on a first come, first served basis if the candidates are equally qualified. Certainly that's a better rule than hiring based on personal preference.

All other factors being equal, do you include the person whose culture is frequently excluded and discriminated against in all walks of life, whose entire validation as an equal human being revolves around being hired to do the same job as your white counterpart, or do you chose the white person, who has lived their entire life with inherent privilege of possibly more than one strain?

None of the factors you mention have any bearing on my decision. What I'm interested in is: can the candidate do the job, does he have the proper character, and does he have any talents that make him even more of an asset to the company.

 

[jolux]

It's against the law to discriminate against LGBTs, so I still don't know what you're trying to prove here.

There are no problems with hiring on a first come, first served basis if the candidates are equally qualified. Certainly that's a better rule than hiring based on personal preference.

None of the factors you mention have any bearing on my decision. What I'm interested in is: can the candidate do the job, does he have the proper character, and does he have any talents that make him even more of an asset to the company.

It's also against the law to discriminate against black people and those of other racial minorities.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to include a more diverse set of people in your company. That's the way I see it. Do you have an objection?

 

[pubwvj]

They (ethinicity questions) aren't compulsory, so you could just skip that section.

Actually, it turns out you are wrong. I received a summons in the mail from the United States Government to fill out a Mandatory survey. They say if I don't fill out the survey I'll be fined and that it is required by law. Census Bureau stuff. One of the questions is what is my ethnicity. I tried not filling that out. They said it is mandatory to fill out that question. So, the questions are compulsory. They're also bogus and frankly none of the government's business.

 

[DUCKofD3ATH]

It's also against the law to discriminate against black people and those of other racial minorities.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to include a more diverse set of people in your company. That's the way I see it. Do you have an objection?

Yes. If you are using criteria that is against the law (as in not employing someone because of race, sex, creed, etc), then I'm against "diversity".

 

[Technarchy]

I don't need a diversity report. I need a longer lasting battery in my iPhone.

 

[thekev]

Actually, it turns out you are wrong. I received a summons in the mail from the United States Government to fill out a Mandatory survey. They say if I don't fill out the survey I'll be fined and that it is required by law. Census Bureau stuff. One of the questions is what is my ethnicity. I tried not filling that out. They said it is mandatory to fill out that question. So, the questions are compulsory. They're also bogus and frankly none of the government's business.

I was responding in the context of employment paperwork, because that is related to the thread. My response had nothing to do with other surveys. Take note of the initial one. The person I responded to was concerned that if he didn't claim to be of a minority race, his job application would be disregarded. Employment applications specifically label that section as voluntary. I didn't make any claims about the census. I think you're just overly eager to contradict my statements here.

 

[the8thark]

If you're given a room of 10,000 fully and equally qualified people to start fresh again hiring for the next Apple, and there are enough white males in the room to fill up your roster, would you fill it up with white males? That's the question you should be asking yourself.

That's a trick question. There won't be 10k people equally perfect for the job. And it's the HR department's job to narrow down the 10k to a more reasonable number. There's more thing than just qualifications that matter when you employ someone. They have to fit within the team, have a passion for what the company sells etc etc.

To directly answer your question. I'd look for other ways to narrow down thew 10k people to find out who would be the best fit at the business. I don't believe in filling jobs based no diversity quotas at all. If a company is mostly white people. And a whote and a non white person apply to work there, in my company the best person would get the job. One would be better than the other and it's my job to work out who. I would not choose the non white person just cause there is enough white people there at the moment. But other companies do this and it's a shame really. The days of "the best person for the job" are disappearing fast.

 

[AxoNeuron]

I've skimmed through about a third of it so far, and it's garbage.

Again, I agree with you, this isn't about anything you've said before; that's been cleared up.

The book however is nonsense.

The countries and empires that help prove Jared's book is trash are:

Haiti
Russia
Ethiopia this as well

And

America

Now that's not to say that it isn't a nice theory. He does claim what all of us intelligent folks have been saying, that there isn't anything genetic or biological about one ethnic groups shrinking or falling. He just goes about doing it in a way that's not necessarily proven.

Again, this is just about the book. Everything else you say is right on.

You seem to be arguing more against the "trends and forces" interpretation of history than against Jared Diamond. There are two main ways to explain history, the "trends and forces" interpretation which looks at things like agriculture and climate, and the "big man" theory of history that looks at personalities, armies, and kings to explain history. It would be a mistake to try and explain all of history using just one of those two interpretations, and Jared Diamond doesn't do that.

I think you should read the book because a lot of this is well explained by his theory of development and agriculture. He doesn't seek to explain the current and exact state of every nation on the planet. Instead, he seeks to identify the general trends and forces of history that have led some countries to incredible levels of prosperity and have left others in ruins.

Russia, historically, was never as well developed as the rest of Europe simply because it is a harder place to live and farm. Natural resources that would have been valuable throughout most of history are either absent or are not located near historically populated regions of Russia. In a world lit only by fire seven-hundred years ago, your average Russian peasant had to work much harder to earn 1 calorie of food compared to your average Western European. That said, Russia did develop surprisingly well until the Golden Horde of the Mongolian steppes took over the lead management roles.

Haiti has always been a disaster in the making. They have been at a large disadvantage from the very start and it would be much more surprising if they had ever been able to catch up with the rest of the world.

Ethiopia was once a real power. They are the cradle of civilization, after all. But they did fall behind the rest of the world because they just don't have access to metals like iron that could be used to make weaponry, to say nothing of the saltpeter needed to make gun powder, and they have never been as densely populated as cosmopolitan countries like Rome or the ancient kingdoms of China.

Diamond's theories cannot be expected to explain the current states of every single country in the world. His book merely explores the underlying trends and forces that gently and invisibly push humanity forward in some regions and hold others back. His book doesn't deal with the "big man" aspect of history where individuals and personalities push history forward or backward, like Peter the Great or Kim Il Sung. His theory doesn't seek to explain everything, but it does a damned good job of explaining why, even the most incompetently managed countries of Europe are generally wealthier than the best managed countries of Africa.

 

[jolux]

snip

snip

The problem is that you people fail to realize that Affirmative Action is righting a wrong. Without it, white people will choose white people as employees almost 100% of the time. It's not even conscious. You can believe you're making a meritocratic decision, but studies have shown that people actually prefer people that are more like themselves consistently.

Case in point, concert orchestras. When concert orchestras started using blind auditioning techniques, the number of women in concert orchestras rose by 25%. Coincidence? I think not. How do you know it's not the case that more white people get hired than black people simply because there are more white people doing the hiring?

Also, what Duck is saying boils down to a tautology. By your definition, hiring a black person to give them an equal opportunity is discriminating against the white person. Why can't race make you the best person for the job? What if you have a team full of white people creating a product aimed at black people, so it would be advantageous to have at least a few non-white opinions at the table? Differing opinions are important in creating a strong, diverse company.