Staff Speak Out at Turing Institute due to four men being given top jobs(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Staff Speak Out at Turing Institute due to four men being given top jobs
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/mar/11/staff-at-alan-turing-institute-speak-out-after-four-men-given-top-roles
7 comments
It's quite incredible how hating men have been not only normalized but institutionalized in the last few years. Changing a single word in that kind of headlines would give a strong 1933 vibe.
It's not so much about hating men as it is an increase in people claiming they are a victim of something. Being a victim gives them feelings of power and control, even if it is completely hogwash.
The article is more than the how you personally interpreted (or were triggered by) the wording of the headline
Sure, but that is denying the reality of the moment / endorsing the fantasies of the past. I fail to see how pointing out the actual reality of hiring statistics correlates at all the fascist conspiracy theory. This is not "hating men".
It depends which statistics we're talking about, for example talking about crime stats is a big no-no no matter which angle you take, but talking about hiring stats without any background information nor nuance will get you a shiny social justice medal
And as usual no data other than opinions.
How many women did they have with the same qualifications as the men? How many women work the same amount of hours? How many women even applied for the job?
My local kindergarten also only has women. Guess why?
How many women did they have with the same qualifications as the men? How many women work the same amount of hours? How many women even applied for the job?
My local kindergarten also only has women. Guess why?
It's not really about equality, as no one is complaining about men doing the most dangerous and laborious jobs, as mining, forestry, saturation diving etc. According to most reports, men are more than 20 times more likely to die at work.
People need to be less outraged. Look at the situation and figure out what would allow the UK/EU to get on par with the US in terms of AI.
If diversity would achieve it, then do that, if homogeneity would achieve that, then do that.
Personally, I think they need to figure out what their main goal is. Is it diversification in this one area, or is it parity/supremacy in this one area and then go from there. One cannot serve two masters.
If diversity would achieve it, then do that, if homogeneity would achieve that, then do that.
Personally, I think they need to figure out what their main goal is. Is it diversification in this one area, or is it parity/supremacy in this one area and then go from there. One cannot serve two masters.
Could it be because the lack of representation in leadership roles is self-perpetuating?
That's a stretch! It's common knowledge women are more nurturing than men, especially with regards to children.
Plenty of men are also nurturing by nature. I am not, unfortunately. It is a trait I am working to cultivate in myself in order to perform my leadership roles more effectively.
Plenty, yes, but more women than men on average. There's plenty of women who are interested in fiddling with engines and hardware and things that go boom but on average more men than women are interested in such things. This does not sit well with some ideologues who insist that preferences are 100% nurture instead of nature in combination with nurture but that should be their problem, not ours. Unfortunately many of those ideologues have made it to positions in society where they have the power to make their problem ours as well which leads to situations like these.
The solution is clear: get the ideologues out of positions of power and replace them with more level-headed people. Speak up when confronted with or by such ideologues, don't be cowed by the labels they're wont to attach to detractors as they're only words which have been appropriated with their original meaning twisted or lost to suit the ideologue's purposes. The ideologues gain their power from the strength of those words which means that power can be taken away from them as well through the effort of taking back the language they misappropriated.
The solution is clear: get the ideologues out of positions of power and replace them with more level-headed people. Speak up when confronted with or by such ideologues, don't be cowed by the labels they're wont to attach to detractors as they're only words which have been appropriated with their original meaning twisted or lost to suit the ideologue's purposes. The ideologues gain their power from the strength of those words which means that power can be taken away from them as well through the effort of taking back the language they misappropriated.
> My local kindergarten also only has women. Guess why?
You are comparing two completely different things as if they are related.
Is there something about computers and AI that men have a knack for?
As usual, we have men outraged about a more even playing field.
You are comparing two completely different things as if they are related.
Is there something about computers and AI that men have a knack for?
As usual, we have men outraged about a more even playing field.
"Results showed that the male infants showed a stronger interest in the physical-mechanical mobile while the female infants showed a stronger interest in the face. The results of this research clearly demonstrate that sex differences are in part biological in origin."
- Sex differences in human neonatal social perception, Connellan Et. Al.
Boys are more interested in things, girls are more interested in people. Men preferentially grow up to work with things, women preferentially grow up to work with people. It's not about skill, its about what they instinctually find interesting.
- Sex differences in human neonatal social perception, Connellan Et. Al.
Boys are more interested in things, girls are more interested in people. Men preferentially grow up to work with things, women preferentially grow up to work with people. It's not about skill, its about what they instinctually find interesting.
As these are management jobs referred to in TFA, it seems then women would be more qualified, yes?
What is TFA?
And my answer depends. I think that its hard to be an effective engineering manager without first working hard at being an engineer and learning all about it. I think a prerequisite for that is someone who is naturally passionate about engineering. But then on top of that interpersonal skills are important. So you could say that on average men and women both have their respective advantageous biases for engineering management, but the pool from which they're drawn skews heavily male because not too many women go into engineering in the first place.
And my answer depends. I think that its hard to be an effective engineering manager without first working hard at being an engineer and learning all about it. I think a prerequisite for that is someone who is naturally passionate about engineering. But then on top of that interpersonal skills are important. So you could say that on average men and women both have their respective advantageous biases for engineering management, but the pool from which they're drawn skews heavily male because not too many women go into engineering in the first place.
The field can be perfectly even. If you have 15 guys and 5 girls enter the field, you'll find more men attain the goal.
So: “Solve the problem at the left.”†
This means for most leverage, meaning best results with least cost and least waste, intervene in a system at the earliest stage that can make a difference.
† The metaphor is assuming production lines flow left to right. RTL cultures can say "solve the problem at the right" which has the advantage of both metaphor and pun!
So: “Solve the problem at the left.”†
This means for most leverage, meaning best results with least cost and least waste, intervene in a system at the earliest stage that can make a difference.
† The metaphor is assuming production lines flow left to right. RTL cultures can say "solve the problem at the right" which has the advantage of both metaphor and pun!
But you seem to be arguing for a less even playing field, no? Even means playing no favorites and only going by who might be best suited for the job. If there is someone better suited for the job and, in this case, she, who is she? Maybe another AI aspirant can hire her.
Don’t need to feign ignorance here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_workforce
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_workforce
What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?
If NYC and SF are having crime issues it does not mean Greenwich, Connecticut should ramp up its police force to make up for NYCs and SFs deficiencies.
If NYC and SF are having crime issues it does not mean Greenwich, Connecticut should ramp up its police force to make up for NYCs and SFs deficiencies.
Are you suggesting men aren't qualified to take care of children?
I've read the whole thing but the fact that the argument isn't "more qualified female candidates were overlooked" tells me the Institute made the correct decision.
Was a female passed up even though she was top of the pick?
Vicious cycle:
1. There is a relatively stable job opening with diversity requirements. The 'diverse' hire is made.
2. The 'non-diverse' candidates for the position end up not getting the job. While seemingly inconsequential on its own, this has the effect of 'non-diverse' candidates being over-represented among those who are overqualified for their current position.
3. In order to get a more suitable position for their abilities, these 'non-diverse' candidates are forced to work on higher risk projects, maybe lacking the same prestige, as the position in (1).
4. Due to their ability, these riskier projects take off. Now the risk was higher, so the reward is commensurately higher.
5. As these projects mature and grow and attract more money, they start to have job openings similar to 1.
6. Charges of discrimination are made when only 'non-diverse' candidates seemed to have benefited from this novel technology. And likely those same candidates in 2 are now forced out as more jobs like 1 are opened up in the projects they grew in 4. Then the start at step 3 again.
Personally, I have absolutely seen this play out with AI. I was in the industry before all the LLM / NVDA buzz. Many people thought it was crazy, a pipe dream, etc. Now... everyone wants in and is retconning their stories to talk about how they always supported it. Give me a break.
1. There is a relatively stable job opening with diversity requirements. The 'diverse' hire is made.
2. The 'non-diverse' candidates for the position end up not getting the job. While seemingly inconsequential on its own, this has the effect of 'non-diverse' candidates being over-represented among those who are overqualified for their current position.
3. In order to get a more suitable position for their abilities, these 'non-diverse' candidates are forced to work on higher risk projects, maybe lacking the same prestige, as the position in (1).
4. Due to their ability, these riskier projects take off. Now the risk was higher, so the reward is commensurately higher.
5. As these projects mature and grow and attract more money, they start to have job openings similar to 1.
6. Charges of discrimination are made when only 'non-diverse' candidates seemed to have benefited from this novel technology. And likely those same candidates in 2 are now forced out as more jobs like 1 are opened up in the projects they grew in 4. Then the start at step 3 again.
Personally, I have absolutely seen this play out with AI. I was in the industry before all the LLM / NVDA buzz. Many people thought it was crazy, a pipe dream, etc. Now... everyone wants in and is retconning their stories to talk about how they always supported it. Give me a break.
This reflects my career path as well. I worked for a large company and I was impacted by Step 2. Left for a startup (step 3), startup takes off with a competing technology. Fast forward a couple of years, the large company drops technology I was working in at the time as they couldn't compete with the startup (step 4). Startup is now a leader in that technology and is now a more attractive workpalce than the large company. There are now complaints that the leaders with tenure are non-diverse at the startup. We've reached stage 5.
[deleted]
Maybe merit isn’t everything.
Maybe a weaker player with a different perspective makes the team stronger than would another homogenous superstar.
I just don’t know.
Maybe a weaker player with a different perspective makes the team stronger than would another homogenous superstar.
I just don’t know.
Surely a person's sex or race isn't the most significant factor that would give someone a different perspective. Why is it that we must seek alternatives primarily along the sex and race axes, at the exact same time that we're being told that differences in those dimensions don't matter?
If we want different perspectives, then let's look for people that are urban vs suburban, religious vs atheist, short vs tall, active vs sedentary, sports fans vs those who would rather read a book, listeners of classical music vs country, those who served in the military vs pacifists, and so on. Why tell ourselves that the most important "diversity" we need is to be found in sex/gender and race?
If we want different perspectives, then let's look for people that are urban vs suburban, religious vs atheist, short vs tall, active vs sedentary, sports fans vs those who would rather read a book, listeners of classical music vs country, those who served in the military vs pacifists, and so on. Why tell ourselves that the most important "diversity" we need is to be found in sex/gender and race?
It's easier to look at sex and race, especially when you view those of a certain sex or race as victims. For many, it does not matter what accomplishments you make, how hard you work, or your credentials, it only matters how it appears to others. Too many men: Sexist. Too many whites: racist.