Discrimination against male applicants - QLD Police

bobbified on 18/05/2021 - 14:30
Last edited 18/05/2021 - 14:37

Has anyone else seen the articles about the QLD Police's discriminatory hiring practices?

https://7news.com.au/news/qld/queensland-police-union-labels…

I work in the private sector in middle management and I know for a fact that in my current and previous companies, the 50/50 quota gets discussed behind closed doors when making decisions on who to hire, but I never expected to see such a public reveal from within a government agency.

For the record, I don't agree with a simple 50/50 quota and think that people should get hired based on merit only. I get that there are certain positions where having a particular sex may be more desirable (such as a counsellor or health professional that mainly deals with female patients or vice versa), but for the majority, whoever has the experience or capability should get the role rather than aiming for a 50/50.

It'd be interesting to see how many others have experienced this kind of thing at their place of employment. So fire away and share your stories about your employment and quotas!

Education & Work

Comments

- - - - CrowReally on 18/05/2021 - 19:00
        
        +1
        
        @Catullus: Catullus: No. I didn't begin a discussion with a casual reference to being an authority on the subject ("Oh ho ho, let me reveal a pearl of wisdom from the real inner machinations of (nearly) all the parties' preselection processes.."). This isn't a "so how much research have YOU done lately" thing, it was a "dubious claim sounds dubious" comment. Keep up.
        
        Also, "the ABC and the other lefty papers"? Really? Why did you name yourself after great thinker, again?
        
        Catullus on 19/05/2021 - 11:13
        
        @CrowReally: Poet.
- mick123 on 18/05/2021 - 16:50
  
  +8
  
  "the US police force (it is ok to be more aggressive towards minorities - not officially but practicalities are wink wink nudge nudge it is fine we will all cover for you if you are witnessed)"
  
  Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?
  If you looked at the facts and stats, you would see it is the opposite and "minorities" are treated softer and than white people, by the police.
  - brendanm on 18/05/2021 - 17:14
    
    +5
    
    Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?
    
    THE MEDIA TELLS ME THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS SO IT MUST BE TRUE!!!!
  - CrowReally on 18/05/2021 - 17:26
    
    +4
    
    I notice you didn't trot out any facts or stats of your own to support the opposite view.
    
    For those who like a bit of data, here's some stats on % race and % incarceration in America, draw your own conclusions:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_St….
    - mick123 on 18/05/2021 - 19:24
      
      +4
      
      OK, I saw the chart, is there any particular part or extract you wanted me to see.
      The chart doesn't tell me anything about police being more aggressive or unfair to minorities, or that minorities are discriminated against.
      - CrowReally on 18/05/2021 - 19:32
        
        +1
        
        @mick123: I guess it all really depends on whether you can see a connection between
        
        how often (and in what way) the police engage with your race and
        
        whether that would make you more or less likely to end up in court and
        
        whether that in turn would make you more or less likely to receive a criminal conviction and go to prison
        
        If you're really going to shrug and say there aren't any dots to be connected ("Oh come on Crow, just because there's significantly more of that race in prison doesn't meant there's an underlying reason beyond random chance" or whatever), here's another link, this time detailing the % race breakdown of which people in New York were stopped for a frisk search by the police: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_Cit…
        
        Let's see if that one proves to be obtuse and inconclusive as well.
        
        Oh, and don't forget to bring some data next time! I can't wait to see some of those "facts and stats" you mentioned before!
        
        mick123 on 18/05/2021 - 21:16
        
        +6
        
        @CrowReally: You still haven't showed how police are unfairly discriminating against, or treating more harshly, minorities.
        
        If you want facts, here goes, black people make up about 13% of the US population but commit about 40% of crimes (changes slightly every year, but this is long term average). When it comes to homicides, black %age is about 55%.
        
        That means police are more likely to interact with them on a per capita basis as police interact more with those partaking in crime.
        
        In 2019, police shot and killed 55 unarmed people. 14 of them were black. approx 25% of the unarmed and killed. If police were gung ho about killing black men or being harsher to black suspects, the %age of unarmed black men killed would be much higher.
        
        FYI, unarmed does not mean innocent. Of the 14 incidents of unarmed black men shot and killed by police in 2019, several involved high-speed car chases, fights with officers, people reaching for weapons or had weapons recovered at the scene.
        
        I do not have 2020 stats available.
        
        And your own link showed that with the NY stop and frisk, 75% of the arrests were black/latino, so having 90% of those stopped in those 2 racial groups was a smart move.
        
        Your own link disproves your argument.
        
        Would you argue it would be wrong to stop & frisk men more than women?
        
        CrowReally on 18/05/2021 - 23:28
        
        -5
        
        @mick123: I don't think you fully understand the order of events. To be jailed, you need to be convicted; to be convicted, you need to be arrested; to be arrested, you need to be stopped by the police.
        
        If the police are choosing to stop (and frisk) a disproportionate amount of black/Hispanic people, then that's why they're getting represented disproportionately in 'the system'. White college kids with an baggie of pot in their pocket are less likely to get stopped/caught/arrested than their black friends, and so on.
        
        If the police were stopping everyone equally and there weren't any such bias or racial profiling, then you'd expect the prison populaton to be roughly representative of the overall population - unless we're getting into "well clearly people with this colour skin are more criminal, that's a fact" style 18th century phrenology nonsense. But we know for a fact that police aren't treating all skin colours equally.
        
        I mean, it was literally right there in the second link I sent:
        
        "Ninety percent of those stopped in 2017 were African-American or Latino, mostly aged 14–24. Seventy percent of those stopped were later found to be innocent.[1][clarification needed] By contrast, 54.1% of the population of New York City in 2010 was African-American or Latino;[2] however, 74.4% of individuals arrested overall were of those two racial groups.[3]
        
        Research shows that "persons of African and Hispanic descent were stopped more frequently than whites, even after controlling for precinct variability and race-specific estimates of crime participation."[4]"
        
        The latter citation being from a peer reviewed submission to the Journal of American Statistical Association. I mean, unless statistics themselves are now a tool of the woke SJW left, I've proven my point with actual data and we're done.
        
        brendanm on 19/05/2021 - 17:55
        
        +3
        
        @CrowReally: You are what is wrong with the world. If black people are commuting 40% of crime, rather than call cops racist, shouldn't we find out why this is, and try to fix it? How is anything ever going to get better if "racism" is the only thing ever mentioned, instead of fixing the problems in the community, where crime and violence are seen as normal.
        
        If 40% of cancer deaths were black people, would you call the doctor's racist for testing black people for cancer, or would you find out why it is that they are getting cancer?
        
        CrowReally on 19/05/2021 - 17:58
        
        +1
        
        @brendanm: If you can find the bit where I called cops racist and bring it to my attention, we can have a discussion.
        
        Otherwise I think what's wrong with the world are people who lack comprehension skills who make sweeping statements.
        
        brendanm on 19/05/2021 - 18:20
        
        -1
        
        @CrowReally: I never said you said cops were racist. Perhaps work on your own reading comprehension.
        
        Also, nice deflection.
        
        Autonomic on 20/05/2021 - 16:08
        
        -1
        
        @brendanm:
        
        shouldn't we find out why this is, and try to fix it?
        
        We know why: systemic racism for the last 400 years. I know you're trying to get to your talking about point of how black people are genetically inferior but let's just nip that in the bud right here.
        
        brendanm on 20/05/2021 - 17:18
        
        @Autonomic: You are cute.
        
        Systemic racism doesn't make people commit crimes.
        
        When people around you are committing crimes, you are more likely to. When the culture is to dissuade people from doing the right things, by calling them oreos or uncle toms, they are less likely to do the right thing.
        
        Calling everything racism doesn't help anything, as we can see from where things are now. If the actual problems were dealt with, there wouldn't be the disparity we see today. Please see my cancer analogy above.
        
        For the record, I think people of any colour teaching their kids that being a deadbeat is ok, are useless pieces of crap. I don't discriminate, deadbeats are deadbeats.
        
        Autonomic on 21/05/2021 - 16:01
        
        -1
        
        @brendanm:
        
        For the record, I think people of any colour teaching their kids that being a deadbeat is ok, are useless pieces of crap. I don't discriminate, deadbeats are deadbeats.
        
        No one does this. It's a strawman.
        
        Calling everything racism doesn't help anything
        
        Burying your head in the sand and pretending systemic racism isn't the root cause doesn't help anything.
        
        brendanm on 21/05/2021 - 16:17
        
        +1
        
        @Autonomic:
        
        No one does this. It's a strawman.
        
        No one teaches their kids that being a deadbeat is ok? What magical world do you live in?
        
        Burying your head in the sand and pretending systemic racism isn't the root cause doesn't help anything.
        
        People have been saying racism is the cause for a while now, and things have only become worse. The problem isn't racism.
        
        Autonomic on 22/05/2021 - 00:53
        
        @brendanm:
        
        People have been saying racism is the cause for a while now, and things have only become worse. The problem isn't racism.
        
        Because it hasn't been addressed?
        
        brendanm on 22/05/2021 - 08:13
        
        @Autonomic:
        
        Because it hasn't been addressed?
        
        Oh, here I was thinking there has been a tonne of affirmative action.
        
        I'm sure once it has "been addressed", whatever that actually means, everything will be perfect.
        
        Autonomic on 26/05/2021 - 10:10
        
        -2
        
        @brendanm:
        
        People have been saying racism is the cause for a while now, and things have only become worse. The problem isn't racism.
        
        When exactly was racism addressed and fixed? Even today black people are systemically discriminated against in employment, education, lending, housing healthcare and in the justice system.
        
        brendanm on 26/05/2021 - 19:31
        
        @Autonomic: How are they discriminated against? Didn't neg you by the way.
        
        Autonomic on 27/05/2021 - 11:27
        
        -1
        
        @brendanm: Have you done any research into it? You can google systemic racism in healthcare, or education or employment and you'll get dozens of studies.
        
        brendanm on 27/05/2021 - 15:48
        
        -1
        
        @Autonomic: So you don't know?
        
        What should we do to address this issue then?
        
        Do you think that when people are told that they are discriminated against, that they will never succeed at school, college, work, housing etc, that everyone keeps them down, that they will even try to succeed? Almost seems like this is some sort of self fulfilling prophecy. Tell people from birth that they can't do anything, so they don't bother.
        
        Autonomic on 27/05/2021 - 15:51
        
        @brendanm:
        
        So you don't know?
        
        I asked if you did any research. Did you type those words into google? Here's one to get you started:
        
        https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/reports/2019/08…
        
        And another one:
        
        https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/confronting-the-uncomfor…
        
        The list of discriminatory workplace practices is long and backed by research. Applicants with White-sounding names are more likely to receive calls back from potential employers than those with Black-sounding names.1 Studies have shown that darker-skinned applicants face distinctive disadvantages when applying for jobs compared with lighter-skinned applicants.2 One study even found that a White applicant with a criminal record received more interest from employers than a Black applicant with no record — an injustice compounded by the racial discrimination of law enforcement, which has increased the likelihood that Black Americans will have a criminal record.3
        
        Systemic discrimination doesn’t stop once someone has landed a job. Racial bias affects negotiations over starting pay, future wages, and upward mobility. In short, Black employees start off making less money than their White colleagues, a disparity that compounds over time. Black employees also receive promotions less often.4
        
        A third significant blow comes when economic times are tough, as they are now. Many Black Americans believe they are the “last hired and first fired,” and it appears that there is some truth to that. Across industries and job levels, Black employees are more likely than White employees to be laid off or fired, particularly in times of transition and economic uncertainty.5 That’s true even after accounting for any other factors — such as experience or education levels — that might provide an alternative explanation.
        
        How have you reached your conclusion that there is no systemic discrimination? Obviously these aren't some original thoughts you've had (since you've done no research), so where are you getting all your talking points that your parroting?
        
        Almost seems like this is some sort of self fulfilling prophecy.
        
        Really? So we shouldn't talk about racism? That's your logic?
        
        brendanm on 27/05/2021 - 16:30
        
        @Autonomic: Do you understand how a study is done? They get a hypothesis, and then attempt to prove or disprove it, depending on their angle.
        
        You can have studies that say racism exists and is the cause of every problem ever, you can have studies that say the opposite.
        
        Plenty of affirmative action has been happening, what has come of it?
        
        Really? So we shouldn't talk about racism? That's your logic?
        
        Nothing at all wrong with talking about it. Telling an entire group if people that they will never amount to anything because of it, not so much.
        
        You haven't told me how we fix this big discrimination problem yet?
        
        Autonomic on 27/05/2021 - 16:36
        
        @brendanm:
        
        Do you understand how a study is done? They get a hypothesis, and then attempt to prove or disprove it, depending on their angle.
        
        You can have studies that say racism exists and is the cause of every problem ever, you can have studies that say the opposite.
        
        This is mind blowing. So you don't trust any study, ever? What kind of evidence would even convince you? What kind of evidence do you even use to construct your (very strongly held) opinions about the lack of systemic discrimination? Is at all just feelings?
        
        Telling an entire group if people that they will never amount to anything because of it, not so much.
        
        Proof of this happening?
        
        brendanm on 27/05/2021 - 16:40
        
        @Autonomic: Not at all, I would read a variety of them to start with, not just some cherry picked by someone trying to prove a point.
        
        Is at all just feelings?
        
        How ironic.
        
        You still haven't answered my questions. If systemic racism is the issue, why hasn't the affirmative action fixed things?
        
        What would you do to fix this systemic racism problem?
        
        Vietnamese people had systemic racism against them in the 70s/80s, yet they didn't turn to crime and violence. Why is this?
        
        Autonomic on 27/05/2021 - 16:48
        
        @brendanm: How are they cherry picked? The articles include dozens of studies which have been replicated by multiple institutions. If you're going to dismiss such a huge body of work without even reading it then there's no point in having a discussion. You're just going to ignore any facts I give to you.
        
        What would you do to fix this systemic racism problem?
        
        There's literally a whole section in the article I linked.
        
        Now you can answer my questions you've dodged. Where are you getting all these talking points you're parotting if you've never done any research? Where's the proof of black people being told that they'll never amount to anything because of racism?
        
        You still haven't answered my questions. If systemic racism is the issue, why hasn't the affirmative action fixed things?
        
        You realise a few years of affirmative action isn't going to eliminate 400 years of discrimination? Surely you understand that? It's like asking if greenhouse gases are the issue, why hasn't cutting them stopped global warming? Maybe because enough hasn't been done?
        
        brendanm on 27/05/2021 - 17:38
        
        @Autonomic:
        
        Where are you getting all these talking points you're parotting if you've never done any research?
        
        I haven't listed any "talking points". I've used common sense. People have been crying racism for a long time. Back in the day, there was plenty of racism, not so much now. Yet, even though it's been discussed ad nauseam, affirmative action has been tried for a long time now, and nothing has come of it. It's almost like the biggest problem isn't actually racism.
        
        Where's the proof of black people being told that they'll never amount to anything because of racism?
        
        Not sure if you are actually serious. It's all they parrot out.
        
        Is it not racist that Harvard makes it harder for asian students to get in, than black ones? Of course it isn't, racism only works for certain people.
        
        You still haven't answered my question, which is what you suggest we do about this apparent problem. I've said what I think should be done.
        
        Autonomic on 28/05/2021 - 04:15
        
        @brendanm:
        
        Back in the day, there was plenty of racism, not so much now.
        
        You're not living in reality. Systemic racism exists as evidenced above. If you disagree, then prove it (not sure how though, since you don't believe in studies).
        
        I haven't listed any "talking points". I've used common sense
        
        So no research then? No evidence? Sounds like you're just relying on your feelings. I mean here you are saying black people teach their kids to be deadbeats, that racism doesn't exist and that they're regularly and widely told that they'll never be able to achieve anything. Yet you're totally unable to substantiate any of this. So again, where are you getting these talking points from?
        
        You still haven't answered my question, which is what you suggest we do about this apparent problem.
        
        We should dismantle systemic racism. Obviously.
        
        Not sure if you are actually serious. It's all they parrot out.
        
        Should be trivial to provide an example then?
        
        brendanm on 28/05/2021 - 06:45
        
        @Autonomic:
        
        We should dismantle systemic racism. Obviously
        
        How does this happen?
        
        So no research then? No evidence?
        
        Racism has been used as a reason for a long time. There have been a tonne of changes in the last few decades, yet there have been no changes in the incarceration rates. You would expect that if "systemic racism" were the only cause, at least something would have changed with the affirmative action. Yet it hasn't.
        
        Should be trivial to provide an example then?
        
        The entire thing is an example. Everytime someone doesn't get the same outcome, it not because they didn't work as hard, it's because they are "oppressed". Always someone else's fault.
        
        Autonomic on 28/05/2021 - 10:37
        
        @brendanm:
        
        How does this happen?
        
        Read the article I linked. Do you want me to copy and paste the lines?
        
        Racism has been used as a reason for a long time.
        
        And it still is. There's ample of evidence of this.
        
        You would expect that if "systemic racism" were the only cause, at least something would have changed with the affirmative action. Yet it hasn't.
        
        https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/05/06/share-of-bl…
        
        Black imprisonment rate in the U.S. has fallen by a third since 2006
        
        Wrong again.
        
        The entire thing is an example. Everytime someone doesn't get the same outcome, it not because they didn't work as hard, it's because they are "oppressed". Always someone else's fault.
        
        No evidence then. As always with you, feelings over facts.
        
        brendanm on 28/05/2021 - 10:45
        
        @Autonomic:
        
        Wrong again.
        
        The analysis is based only on prisoners who have been sentenced to more than a year in state or federal prison. It excludes inmates held in local jails and those sentenced to shorter periods of imprisonment.
        
        Very easy to change stats when you choose to take only the data you want.
        
        And it still is. There's ample of evidence of this.
        
        Sure there is.
        
        What is your idea for ending systemic racism?
        
        Autonomic on 28/05/2021 - 10:53
        
        @brendanm:
        
        Very easy to change stats when you choose to take only the data you want.
        
        And the data you're using is….? Feelings again?
        
        brendanm on 28/05/2021 - 13:48
        
        @Autonomic:
        
        And the data you're using is….? Feelings again?
        
        https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/ucr.asp?table_in=2&selY…
        
        Go through the different years and see for yourself.
        
        So, riddle me this, what would you do to fix this problem?
        
        Autonomic on 28/05/2021 - 14:09
        
        @brendanm:
        
        Go through the different years and see for yourself.
        
        The arrest rate for black people has halved since 2006….? That's what you wanted to show me?
        
        brendanm on 28/05/2021 - 17:08
        
        @Autonomic: 1980 - 24% of offences were commited by black people.
        
        2006 - 28%
        2017 - 27%
        2018 - 27%
        2019 - 26%
        
        Not sure where you are getting a halving from.
        
        If you are going by pure numbers, which is silly, then in 1980, when there was much more racism, 2.5 million offences were by black people, and in your much loved 2006, where there was less racism, the number was 3.94 million.
        
        I sure hope you do understand that the pure numbers are completely pointless though.
        
        Autonomic on 28/05/2021 - 20:05
        
        @brendanm: Which is why you would use per capita? Which has halved since 2006? Not sure why we're now talking about the proportion of crime committed by black people when you originally started with incarceration rate. Moving goal posts now?
        
        brendanm on 28/05/2021 - 21:05
        
        @Autonomic: You wouldn't use per capita. You would use percentage of all crime. Hopefully you can figure out why that is.
        
        Not sure why we're now talking about the proportion of crime committed by black people when you originally started with incarceration rate.
        
        It's almost like the two are related.
        
        Autonomic on 29/05/2021 - 15:05
        
        @brendanm: They're obviously not given one has halved and one hasn't….? Just admit you made another mistake and we can get back to discussing how you don't believe in studies.
        
        CrowReally on 18/05/2021 - 23:43
        
        +1
        
        @mick123: "And your own link showed that with the NY stop and frisk, 75% of the arrests were black/latino, so having 90% of those stopped in those 2 racial groups was a smart move.
        
        Your own link disproves your argument."
        
        For those reading along, I might as well explain why this is a fallacy.
        
        Let's say there's a 30% chance that a person, any person, is carrying something incriminating on their person (crack pipe, bag of weed, photograph of them jaywalking).
        
        Let's also say that the cops really are out to get anyone who wears glasses. Weird, right? But there it is, they're going to disproportionately target glasses wearers. 90% of the people they stop will be wearing glasses. And glasses wearers are, I dunno, let's say 40% of the population.
        
        So the cops go out and stop 100 people for a frisk. What is the result of this?
        They stop 90 glasses-wearers. 27 of them (30%) are found with something incriminating and arrested.
        They stop 10 non-glasses-wearers. 3 of them (30%) are found with something incriminating and arrested.
        
        We've just 'found' that 40% of the population (glasses wearers) commit 90% of the crimes (27 out of 30). Obviously the cops made the right decision targeting them because a whopping 90% of the people they arrested turned out to be glass-wearers! What a smart move!
        
        The irony is it's the innumerate who are responding saying it's all about me someone ignoring facts for feelings or whatever. I've been the one person to post facts in this little branch, and unless I missed a point somewhere, I don't have particularly strong feelings about people who wear glasses or not. It's just logic and numbers.
        
        trapper on 19/05/2021 - 12:27
        
        +3
        
        @CrowReally:
        
        Let's say there's a 30% chance that a person, any person, is carrying something incriminating on their person (crack pipe, bag of weed, photograph of them jaywalking).
        
        Do you really think that is true though?? lol, that 30% of people are wandering around with illegal stuff on them.
        
        Your whole argument is fundamentally flawed. All sexes and races are not committing crime at an equal rate, and so they are not ending up in jail at equal rate.
        
        Look I am a man and I can understand and accept that my sex commits much more crime than females do. So as a result there are a lot more men in jail than there are woman. This is not due to police discriminately arresting more men than woman.
        
        Also you know what. I don't even care that there are more men than woman in jail, it's not some kind of unjust insult to my sex, it's the result of men committing more crime. Do the crime do the time.
        
        CrowReally on 19/05/2021 - 12:56
        
        @trapper: Do I literally think exactly 30% of the population are carrying illegal items at any point in time? No. That's uh.. that's not what's going on here.
        
        It's a mathematical model that shows even if all people commit crimes at the same rate, "profiling" will cause a disproportionate amount of a group to be arrested/put into the court/prison system. It's an exercise in reflecting on how circumstances can appear in the real world.
        
        Worse still, imagine a new generation of cops, ones who don't have a prejudice against people wearing glasses. They're entering a system with no bias of their own, but the records confirm that 90% of all convicted criminals are glasses-wearers. This shapes their behaviour and the system perpetuates (through no malice of their own).
        
        trapper on 19/05/2021 - 13:12
        
        -2
        
        @CrowReally:
        
        No. That's uh.. that's not what's going on here.
        
        Well exactly, that's why your argument is flawed.
        
        30% of people stopped were carrying something illegal - this does not show that 30% of all people are carrying something illegal.
        
        It shows that the police are extremely good at figuring out who is likely to be carrying something illegal.
        
        I don't agree with that stop and search policy btw - nobody should be subject to a search without reasonable suspicion of illegal activity. Just pointing out that your argument is flawed. :)
        
        CrowReally on 19/05/2021 - 13:21
        
        +1
        
        @trapper: Your poor tortured brain.
        
        I've established a mathematical model, that isn't real, and in this world, that isn't real, 30% of all people, who aren't real, are carrying illegal items, and the items aren't real either. This is all pretend. I'm not trying to "prove" 30% of all people in real life are carrying illegal items. I've established that they are, in pretend, in this hypothetical example. This is the base condition right before I turn the simulator on. It's okay, you can relax, I'm not about to try to get people you know who wear glasses arrested.
        
        Take a moment to read that paragraph and then reply with "BUT WAIT I KNOW SOME PEOPLE AND THEY DON'T CARRY ILLEGAL ITEMS CLEARLY THIS IS A FLAWED ARGUMENT GOOD ON THE COPS FOR FINALLY CRACKING DOWN ON PEOPLE WITH GLASSES MAN I DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS SO RIFE, SPECSAVERS MUST BE LIKE A CRIMINAL HOTBED", because we both know it's inevitable.
        
        trapper on 19/05/2021 - 13:30
        
        +2
        
        @CrowReally: What is the point of your mathematical model if it is not trying to demonstrate anything about reality, I mean why even bring it up.
        
        Here's an improved model that better reflects reality.
        
        30% of glasses-wearers are carrying something illegal.
        1% of non-glasses-wearers are carrying something illegal.
        
        Police stop 90 glasses-wearers and find 27 criminals.
        Police stop 10 non-glasses-wearers and find 0 criminals.
        
        You think it is good use of police time to stop another 2690 non-glasses-wearers to find only 27 criminals? If they instead focus on glasses-wearers they could get another 807 criminals off the streets!
        
        CrowReally on 19/05/2021 - 13:39
        
        +1
        
        @trapper: You really need to read all the instructions. It's demonstrating that if you control for levels of criminality (i.e. everyone is exactly the same level of criminal, it's a flat 30% of all society) then a decision to stop and frisk the population based off profiling will create a disproportionate amount of arrested/imprisoned criminals of that type.
        
        If 90% of your stop-and-frisks are glasses-wearers, then 90% of the people you ultimately arrest will be glasses-wearers.
        If 0% of your stop-and-frisks are glasses-wearers, then 0% of the people you ultimately arrest will be glasses-wearers.
        In both cases there's the same number of the entire population being criminals - but they aren't being caught proportionally.
        
        It's a classic mistake in not understanding how sample selection (% you choose to frisk) relates to the overall population.
        
        If you're really having difficulty with this concept, let's try another, simpler one.
        
        Yesterday over a 24 hour period I looked outside 4 different times. 3 times the sun was out, 1 time it wasn't (because it was night).
        I guess the sun is out 75% of the time! No wonder I'm so tired today, night only lasts 6 hours.
        
        "Crow, there's no WAY night could only be 6 hours, why are you telling everyone night is only six hours????"
        
        trapper on 19/05/2021 - 13:52
        
        +2
        
        @CrowReally: If you wanted to see the sun would you look outside randomly at any time day or night, or would you look during daylight hours…
        
        CrowReally on 19/05/2021 - 14:03
        
        @trapper: And so we inch ever so much closer to realisation. Let's just check my sample data again.
        
        Well, 3 of the 4 times I looked outside the sun was out, that's 75%. 75% of 24 hours is 18 hours.
        And let's do some quick math here, 24 hours of an entire day minus the 18 hours of daytime is 6 hours of night.
        
        Yeah, it all checks out. I guess night really is only 6 hours!
        
        .. .. . unless perhaps there was a problem with the relationship between the sample I took (which hours of the day I glanced outside) and the overall population (the 24 hours in a day).
        
        I mean, if we knew on some level that day and night are equal and 12 hours each, but I was taking too many samples from the 'day' portion and not enough from the 'night', then yeah, we might almost be about to discover a mistake I made when extrapolating from my results. Weird.
        
        trapper on 19/05/2021 - 14:10
        
        @CrowReally: Whoosh
        
        CrowReally on 19/05/2021 - 14:11
        
        @trapper: It's okay, night lasts longer and your glasses wearing friends are safe. It was just a scary story.
        
        brendanm on 19/05/2021 - 17:57
        
        +1
        
        @CrowReally: You are assuming (incorrectly) that criminality is even across the population.
        
        CrowReally on 19/05/2021 - 18:11
        
        @brendanm: If I was attempting to model the actual criminality level of the entire population in real life, sure; though given I'm talking about people committing illegal activities everywhere (whether they are caught or not), I would need some sort of Minority Report type ability to actually look into everyone's minds and their past and present and… well, anyway. Luckily I'm not actually saying I'm doing any of that, because I'd be suggesting I have omnipotent abilities. It's troubling that you think I'm saying I can do that, but your comprehension skills have already been called into doubt, so let's just push on and let me repeat myself about the whole "This is what pretend is, pretend isn't real" explanation you direly need.
        
        Instead, I'm creating a mathematical model that shows if you make your sample selections (who you stop and frisk) in a proportion that's not representative of the entire population, then you will disproportionately represent groups in your data. It's entirely possible to 'prove' 40% of the population commit 90% of the crimes in the eyeglasses example, for instance. In reality, they commit 30% of the crimes - same as everyone else - they're just getting stopped and frisked more often.
        
        If you only stopped and frisked people called Dave, your jail would be full of Daves. Does that prove the only crimes are being committed by Daves? No. Does it prove all Daves commit crimes? No.
        
        If you're looking at a result (the race % number of people locked up) and look backwards to society as a whole and assume it's a result of that race committing that % of crime in society, you're making a mistake. It's exactly the same mistake Homer makes in the Simpsons when he buys Lisa's "tiger-repelling rock" in that episode with the bears in it.
        
        brendanm on 19/05/2021 - 18:19
        
        @CrowReally: Your "model" isn't a model, it is simply stupid, and not at all a representation of actual life and reality.
        
        CrowReally on 19/05/2021 - 18:20
        
        +2
        
        @brendanm: Things you don't understand certainly do get frustrating and calling them stupid makes you feel better.
        
        Maybe pop some shows on the TV and have a little rest. Just be careful, some of the shows are going to have pretend things in it as well.
        
        brendanm on 19/05/2021 - 18:21
        
        +1
        
        @CrowReally: There is nothing to understand, that's the problem. Your assumption completely ignored that different demographics do different things, which is the entire point.
        
        CrowReally on 19/05/2021 - 18:29
        
        +2
        
        @brendanm: You're disappointed because I'm not trying to show you things you want to see.
        
        I've already told you flat out it's impractical and impossible for me to build a model that addresses all that, and I've also told you that's absolutely something I'm not trying to do. It's never been about that. I've never wanted or tried to model the actual level of criminality in society.
        
        It's something that can't be done. I can't do it, I don't want to it, it's not going to happen.
        
        Why do you think I used people wearing eye-glasses and saying "let's make them 40% of the population"? Do you think that I'm saying exactly 40% of the global population wears glasses? It was a mathematical model, illustrating by example what 'selection bias' is. These are concepts that you're clearly not interested in, but that's OK, we don't have to like the same things. I like critical thinking skills, for instance.
        
        I honestly don't know how to bridge this expectation gap you have. If this is still bothering you after your nap, let me know, I guess?
        
        brendanm on 19/05/2021 - 18:30
        
        @CrowReally:
        
        impossible for me to build a model that addresses all that
        
        Exactly, because human behaviour isn't mathematic, hence why you should stop with your year 3 maths model.
        
        CrowReally on 19/05/2021 - 18:31
        
        +1
        
        @brendanm: You can trash talk a year 3 maths ability all you like, but I guarantee when you get there you'll find it pretty enjoyable.
        
        mick123 on 19/05/2021 - 21:31
        
        +4
        
        @brendanm: brendanm, dont bother arguing with idiots .
        
        His whole argument is rubbish with so much misinformation and flawed theory, but this stands out:
        
        "If you're looking at a result (the race % number of people locked up) and look backwards to society as a whole and assume it's a result of that race committing that % of crime in society, you're making a mistake."
        
        He pretty much says there is no correlation between between which people commit crime and which ones end up in prison … you can;t reason with people like that.
        
        brendanm on 20/05/2021 - 06:28
        
        @mick123: Yes, I had to remember that old saying about arguing with idiots, not worth the time.
        
        trapper on 20/05/2021 - 11:58
        
        @CrowReally:
        
        If you only stopped and frisked people called Dave, your jail would be full of Daves. Does that prove the only crimes are being committed by Daves? No. Does it prove all Daves commit crimes? No.
        
        If Daves are committing crime at 30x the rate of non-daves then it makes sense to stop and search daves a lot more often.
        
        CrowReally on 20/05/2021 - 12:10
        
        -1
        
        @trapper: I agree. However, everyone's committing crime at the same rate (30%). If you have 10 Daves and 10 non-Daves, 3 of the Daves are criminals and 3 of the non-Daves are criminals.
        
        Put them all (20) in a room and keep searching people called Dave until you arrest 3 people. You've 'proved' 100% of crimes are being committed by Daves.
        
        trapper on 20/05/2021 - 12:27
        
        +1
        
        @CrowReally:
        
        I agree. However, everyone's committing crime at the same rate (30%).
        
        No they are not.
        
        CrowReally on 20/05/2021 - 12:33
        
        @trapper: Good news everyone, my new policy is not maths related at all.
        
        I've painted up a sign that says "All cops are racist and people should apologise for being white".
        
        Please direct your thoughts on this matter to the sign directly. This will be more fulfilling for us both.
        
        plasmog on 19/05/2021 - 12:57
        
        +6
        
        @trapper: If more men are jailed it proves men are disproportionately criminals.
        
        If more blacks are jailed it proves whites are disproportionately racist .
        
        I see how this game works, each fact should be interpreted to serve identity politics screeching.
        
        CrowReally on 19/05/2021 - 13:06
        
        -6
        
        @plasmog: Cast your keen mind over the hypothetical glasses-wearers example above. 90% of the people arrested/convicted/jailed are glasses-wearers.
        
        Does that actually prove that glasses-wearers are disproportionately criminals? Are they actually committing more crime, or crimes at higher rates?
        
        sakurashu on 20/05/2021 - 11:50
        
        +1
        
        @CrowReally: Wow, multiple people went to the effort of clearly explaining why you are wrong and all of it was conveniently ignored?
        
        Do I feel a 90% correlation equals causation? Yeah I'd be pretty confident with that. If there was such a strong correlation over a period of time and across multiple locations, would I allow or even encourage my police force to target glasses-wearers in order to police better and provide a safer neighbourhood? Yes - that's a no-brainer. Do I care about the few glasses-wearers who aren't criminals who get apprehended more often - sure, that's inconvenient and at times pretty shit I'm sure. If the only alternative to fix that issue and make them feel just as comfortable as the non-glasses-wearers is to pretend that there is not a strong correlation and proceed to make my policing less effective and therefore less safe for everyone then I'm not going to do it.
        
        Are you saying you would? That you'd be happy to trade people's safety for the comfort of a smaller number of people?
        
        CrowReally on 20/05/2021 - 12:03
        
        -2
        
        @sakurashu: Well, I didn't have a "someone actually saying correlation equals causation" on my bingo board, but sure, roll with that, I guess.
        
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_cau…
        
        The only time I've ever seen a dog is when it's chasing a rabbit.
        Dogs obviously cause rabbits in some way, so to address the rabbit problem we're going to have to investigate dogs. How they move, where they live and so on.
        
        Some other people suggest it's actually rabbits that cause dogs and once we figure out where rabbits live and move, we'll be able to accurately predict dogs.
        
        So I guess there's 2 schools of thought, equally valid.
        
        CrowReally on 20/05/2021 - 12:07
        
        -2
        
        @sakurashu: I mean, god bless you for actually applying the logic to my model and recognising it's a fictional construct, but think about what you're actually saying.
        
        *You've acknowledged that criminality is a flat 30% across all society.
        *You've seen how the false correlation emerged (much like only stopping and frisking people named Dave creates a 100% Dave to crime correlation)
        *And then, THEN, you're saying, "Well, to make people feel comfortable, we'd better keep on top of the glasses-wearers and Daves". All while the 30% of actual criminal activity, the thing we're really concerned about, is evenly distributed through all of society.
        
        plasmog on 19/05/2021 - 12:55
        
        @CrowReally: Exactly, many more men are incarcerated than women, which proves we need more men on the force to stamp out this obvious bias.
    - brendanm on 18/05/2021 - 20:13
      
      You've interpreted that in a unique way.
      - mick123 on 18/05/2021 - 21:19
        
        +2
        
        @brendanm: That's because he is putting feelings over facts.
        
        He should tell us if the prison system is sexist against men because they make up 95% of the prison population but only 50% of the general population..
        
        brendanm on 18/05/2021 - 21:45
        
        @mick123: Yes, it requires a lot of mental gymnastics to twist the stats in that way.
        
        CrowReally on 20/05/2021 - 12:58
        
        @brendanm: It's a good a time as any to come clean and reveal that all that stuff about 'assume crime is at a constant rate of 30% and then let's see what happens if you disproportionately target people with eyeglasses or named Dave" wasn't using mathematics to demonstrate the fallacies of selection bias, sampling error and post hoc reasoning; it was me, CrowReally, airing his actual thoughts on how I think society actually works. Most of you spotted this and were quick and accurate in identifying that this was what was going on, and I appreciate that.
        
        Looking at it now in the cold light of day, I guess it's not a very practical world view. I'm surprised I've managed to survive in society as long as I have with this incredibly simplistic understanding of what makes up society (in my head it's a Venn diagram of Daves and glasses-wearers, but clearly there has to be at least a couple of extra circles in there), but I'd like to thank the people who went above and beyond to persuade me that these things aren't literally true.
        
        Where to now? I guess this is a great opportunity for me to take a step back and get a better appreciation of what does make up society. A good start will be for me to have a bit of a think about what you've said on the subject. Then at least one of us has, which is a good start.
        
        trapper on 20/05/2021 - 13:35
        
        +1
        
        @CrowReally: Well sounds like you are on the road to recovery, glad we could help. good luck!
        
        brendanm on 20/05/2021 - 13:35
        
        +1
        
        @CrowReally: I can't tell if you are being sincere or if this is some sort of elaborate troll now.
        
        sleekbrain84 on 20/05/2021 - 16:17
        
        +1
        
        @CrowReally: I'm guessing you will find this take quite objectionable… https://samharris.org/in-defense-of-profiling/
        
        For what it's worth, I understand what you are saying - to recap- if 100 glasses wearing contains 10 crooks and 100 non glasses also contain 10 crooks, then if police focus on one group mainly - that group would appear to hold the majority of crooks. That is True.
        
        The other viewpoint is if you have limited resourcing, for example at an airport to randomly screen people, do you choose to screen people on who would be more likely to be a threat?
        I get it's a horrible concept from a bias perspective, but is it wrong to spend less time & resources frisking 80 year old grandma's as opposed to men between 18 and 50?
        Personally, when it comes to airport screening, I find I'm screened more often probably based on my appearance.. I just go along with it I guess, because personally I prefer they screen people like me more so than 80yo' grandmas… at least until the bad guys cotton on to that 'bias' and start manipulating 80yo grandma's to start carrying weapons etc… :)
        
        CrowReally on 20/05/2021 - 17:42
        
        +1
        
        @sleekbrain84: I think the logic underlying the take is the more objectionable. It's all well and good to say "It's ridiculous to try to appear fair and as a result screen people who are obviously innocent and not a risk", but it's only as effective as how good you are at detecting who "obviously" isn't a risk. And whether it actually is "obvious" being the most important piece of all.
        
        The 3 most recent bomb attacks on US soil: Timothy McVeigh, the Unabomber, the 2 perpetrators of the Boston Marathon bombing - were all perpetrated by white people. Peter Griffin's "skin tone = terrorist" card wouldn't have caught any of them as they lumbered their suspicious ticking backpacks around. And let's not forget even if he had stopped any of the Sept 11 terrorists, they weren't carrying bombs anyway - maybe a box cutter, which they would have handed in without a fuss. Because they weren't bomb builders, like the white people are. Imagine setting up an anti-bomb screening system with all of the knowledge in this paragraph and then deciding to focus on brown people/Muslims for your profiling. (This isn't saying Muslims don't carrying bombs around - shoe bomber's failed attempt and the London bombings confirm that - but like the eyeglasses example, you can't limit yourself to only searching one group or you'll miss the rest).
        
        Like you've noted, if security forces are deliberately not checking the elderly, then it's only a matter of time before the terrorists notice and use that to their advantage. They're going to use any detectable pattern to their advantage. If you want to make it so they don't know how likely or not a person is going to be stopped and examined, then you need to make sure there isn't that sort of pattern that they can detect - also known as "random searches".
        
        We've seen this play out in reality. After terrorist threats, a common piece of "gotcha" journalism in America was for a news crew to put a fake bomb/weapon in a briefcase and then reveal "Look everyone, look what we managed to get on the plane and no one stopped us".
        Note, they weren't dressing up as 'Muslims' (burqa, beard, carrying a book labelled Koran, etc) and then trying to smuggle a device onto a plane… they were showing up as well dressed white people with a slightly bulky suitcase and getting waved past the security check point, because they "obviously" weren't a threat. That's where profiling gets you - your airline on the front cover of the paper with a photo of a Hollywood-film-prop style bomb sitting on the table-tray of a seat.
        
        For those interested in further reading, the second Freakonomics book (Super Freakonomics) has a chapter on identifiying actual terrorists by lifestyle data.
        
        trapper on 21/05/2021 - 11:24
        
        @CrowReally: You've moved from street criminals to terrorists.
        
        As you point out it is critical to check everyone boarding a plane as terrorists would absolutely exploit a scenario where little old ladies were exempt from bag scans.
        
        It is not critical to catch every last street criminal, and it would take a truely oppressive police state to even come close, with checkpoints on every corner. etc
        
        Instead we want the police to catch as many as possible given the resources they have.
        
        CrowReally on 21/05/2021 - 11:33
        
        @trapper: Yes, someone moved the discussion on to airport screenings, and I replied. Not sure why that's worthy of a comment. Well spotted? Should I have ignored them? Hope it's ok with you, either way.
        
        Both concepts have similar objectives (catching bad guys) and similar processes ('stop and frisk' and 'airport searches' both are based on purely looking at someone and 'deciding' whether to search them). I'm comfortable with continuing to discuss a topic in a slightly different way.
        
        You need to re-read what we were discussing however. It was still about deciding who to stop and submit to the search procedure. It's the same metric, no one was saying 'And that's why at the airport we stop and search everyone', because that's not what happens. Searchers still need to make decisions on who to stop, and that's why it's part of this larger discussion.
        
        trapper on 21/05/2021 - 11:57
        
        -1
        
        @CrowReally: Every bag and every person gets scanned at the airport.
        
        CrowReally on 21/05/2021 - 12:01
        
        -1
        
        @trapper: Yes, which is why it's not part of this discussion.
        
        Actually read what the guy said. "Personally, when it comes to airport screening, I find I'm screened more often probably based on my appearance"
        
        The link he provided was about that as well. People picking who to subject the additional tests to.
        
        It's a little bit embarrassing to have to (continually) explain things like this to you. You really gotta focus on the reading bit, man.
        
        trapper on 21/05/2021 - 12:10
        
        +1
        
        @CrowReally:
        
        It's a little bit embarrassing to have to (continually) explain things like this to you. You really gotta focus on the reading bit, man.
        
        Bad faith comments like this are childish and unnecessary. You do it a lot.
        
        CrowReally on 21/05/2021 - 12:16
        
        @trapper: I don't know what to say, man, the guy shows up and talks about additional screening procedures and provides a link to an article on same.
        
        I replied in the same language, discussing what happens when these choices have to be made.
        
        You show up and make comments that screening at airports is actually universal.
        
        I tell you to re-read it and that we're discussing the additional procedures.
        
        You double down on universal screening.
        
        Where does this leave me to go? "Dear Sir, please re-re-read it, Yours Faithfully, CrowReally"? How many free passes do you get on a lacking a fundamental skill? I mean, I literally explained what we were discussing and clarified and …. yet, here we are. When exactly do I 'get' to call you out on either being lazy or bad at comprehension? Four tries? Five?
        
        "The good news is I finished marking the Comprehension section of your exam a lot faster this time. The bad news is, there's a lot of red pen.." is a bad faith slapdown. I had the maturity to not ram one of those down your throat when you sidled up with your irrelevant comments the first time. I'm not asking you to thank me for that, but if you're comfortable tossing out passive aggressive snark like "Whoosh" and "And now we're discussing this", then you shouldn't act all precious when some of it comes back your way.
  - siresteelhell on 20/05/2021 - 02:12
    
    you are actually more likely to be shot by the cops over there if you are white due to all the cops being afraid of being called a racist now…
- brendanm on 18/05/2021 - 17:16
  
  +5
  
  or the culture within the US police force (it is ok to be more aggressive towards minorities
  
  Just because you are told that something happens, doesn't make it so. Cops in America beat plenty of white crack heads too.
- Gnostikos on 18/05/2021 - 18:10
  
  +11
  
  @Quantumcat
  
  Different people bring different perspectives and stop a kind of group think happening.
  
  The irony of this statement; especially given the very obvious group-think on display in the majority of comments in this thread that are clearly in support of gender quotas/affirmative action hiring policies.
  
  It's already happened. You might not work in the private sector/corporate world but trust me, when big national/multinational organisations are putting people's "preferred pronouns" in their email signatures these days and having workshops and training sessions on critical race theory (a practice which was literally unheard of 2 years ago), they are doing a lot more then paying lip service to ideologically conforming with progressive politics.
  
  If you, as a middle-class, ordinary, 9-5 wage slave, don't agree with woke, politically-correct diversity/inclusivity at the expense of everything else including being productive, turning a profit, honestly evaluating staff performance/contributions, avoiding devolving office culture into infantile high school cliques and not being driven insane at your workplace; the corporate hivemind will ostracise you and plenty of people have already lost jobs or entire careers over this bullsh*t.
  
  I think your perspective is a little too naive and optimistic to the point that you genuinely believe that corporate interests and large institutions are always altruistic and they're genuinely concerned about "diversity" and women's opportunities, and not being entirely subservient to a political agenda that doesn't give two sh*ts about women or diversity.
- bobbified on 19/05/2021 - 11:17
  
  Diversity does make makes sense for the certain client/community-facing roles such as policing, but in the industries where the work is done in the back office, isn't it better to have the person who can do the job the best to fill any open roles, regardless of their sex/culture/religion?
  
  For example - if you have a factory that requires heavy lifting day to day, it would be logical to expect that the majority of employees would be men. As an employer, it wouldn't make sense to hire a physically smaller female who (I'm generalising here!) isn't as physically strong since the output may be lower. And then as an employee, you would probably want colleagues who can lift a similar amount to yourself since you'll be the one picking up any slack if the output drops.
  
  We get the argument that men and women are the same and can do exactly the same jobs. This is simply not true.
  There are certain roles that males can do better and certain roles that females are better at. Because if men and women could do exactly the same thing, we wouldn't be having this argument about gender diversity. I believe that men and women have certain skills that complement each other rather than one being better than the other.
  - Quantumcat on 19/05/2021 - 11:54
    
    -2
    
    It is still good to have diversity in those roles (ones that have no contact with the public). The culture within the organisation can otherwise turn hostile to the very few people that are from different backgrounds (eg female liberal staffers). If there are very few voices that say, hey we don't like this, there's no resistance to the inevitable slow tide of change.
    
    If roles have any contact with people who decide the policy for dealing with members of the public it can be good for there to be diversity too. Otherwise there is no voice to say, hang on, if you do X when Y happens won't this hurt people who Z? If there's no one with any experience with people who Z then a possible bad policy may be implemented because no one would think of it.
    
    There would definitely exist organisations that it wouldn't matter if there was diversity or not, who have no meaningful impact on people around them no matter what they do, but that would be the exception rather than the rule.
  - [Deactivated] on 19/05/2021 - 19:18
    
    -1
    
    Honestly why should men be unhindered in the heavy or dangerous areas of professions. I see no reason why two women should not be patrolling King Cross at 3AM or unloading airport containers. No women wanted to be ships captains until it was computerised and air conditioned. Women treat industries like a buffet.
    
    There was no support for convicts who built this country - they have built themselves and their families up. No different for any migrant worker. If migration means displacement for Australians from their positions - then put a stop to it and maybe the boomers will have to settle for houses rising in single digit percentages.
  - Autonomic on 27/05/2021 - 11:29
    
    There are certain roles that males can do better and certain roles that females are better at
    
    Like?
    - bobbified on 27/05/2021 - 11:53
      
      Men would be better suited in jobs like bricklaying and other jobs that involve heavy lifting. For jobs like hairdressing and beauty/nail salons, women would be better suited. Of course I'm speaking generally though and it doesn't mean there are no exceptions.
      - Autonomic on 27/05/2021 - 12:00
        
        +2
        
        @bobbified: Why would you not just say if you're physically capable? There are plenty of physically capable women. There are also tons of male stylists that take care of female celebs.
        
        These aren't exceptions.
        
        bobbified on 27/05/2021 - 12:51
        
        @Autonomic: If I say more "physically capable" in terms of strength, it's generally men. It's not to say that females can't do a bricklaying job. It's just who would be better at it. If you take samples of the average male and female, the male will generally be physically stronger. It's no coincidence that there are many-fold times the number of male bricklayers vs females.
        
        And when it comes to hair and nails, women generally understand other women's needs more than men do. Most men don't exactly do their nails the way women do. Again, it's not to say that men can't do that job.
        
        There's no denying the fact that males and females are built differently - both physically and mentally. Because if we're "all the same", the whole argument of "diversity" being a good thing in the workplace gets thrown out the window.
        
        Autonomic on 27/05/2021 - 15:03
        
        @bobbified:
        
        If I say more "physically capable" in terms of strength, it's generally men. It's not to say that females can't do a bricklaying job. It's just who would be better at it.
        
        More men might do it, it doesn't mean they're better at it. More women are physicians, teachers, vets, psychologists and so on. Does that mean women are better at men at medical jobs? Or teaching? I certainly don't think so.
        
        Because if we're "all the same", the whole argument of "diversity" being a good thing in the workplace gets thrown out the window.
        
        Diversity is to stop discrimination. If stopping discrimination isn't a good enough reason for you then you could always use the utilitarian argument - preventing discrimination means you're hiring the best person for the job and increasing productivity.
        
        There's no denying the fact that males and females are built differently
        
        Maybe. The question is - what relevance do these biological differences, especially purely non-physical, have on the capability to undertake modern day jobs? I'd argue little to none. Demographics for careers are always shifting. Comp Sci was 40-60 back in the 80s. Physical sciences were ~12% women in the 70s and are now ~40%. Did we evolve in the last 40 years? Obviously not. Social pressures seem like a much more likely explanation than some quirk of evolution.
- bmerigan on 19/05/2021 - 21:21
  
  Try for diversity by making the job more appealing to your target minority thereby increasing the pool of applicants, not by selecting someone simply because they are a minority.
  - Quantumcat on 19/05/2021 - 21:23
    
    -2
    
    It will be more appealing when the culture is more welcoming. The culture is more welcoming when there are others of the same background as you. A bit of a chicken and egg problem. Quotas are hopefully temporary until the desired culture change has been effected.
    - sakurashu on 20/05/2021 - 11:54
      
      ^ You've just described why long term this would never work. If the culture is more welcoming based on the number of others of the same background as you then you're straight back in the position of just wanting colleagues and hiring people who are like you and are a culture fit for your view - do you see the hypocrisy when this is almost exactly what you are saying people shouldn't be doing at the moment (i.e. hiring people like themselves)?
      - Quantumcat on 20/05/2021 - 12:45
        
        +1
        
        @sakurashu: Diversity is the key word. Not having overwhelmingly the same type of people.
- Emerald Owl on 19/05/2021 - 22:52
  
  Men are a minority in the US and whites a minority in many counties. Are police discriminatory against them?

Discrimination against male applicants - QLD Police

Comments

New Forum Topics