Conservative Christians are definitely not a minority in my experience; they are a very vocal majority.
How so?
Back in the middle of 2016, conservative author and Research Fellow at the Cato Institute P.J. O'Rourke made a surprising announcement:
"I have a little announcement to make ... I'm voting for Hillary. I am endorsing Hillary. I am endorsing Hillary, and all her lies and all her empty promises. It's the second-worst thing that can happen to this country, but she's way behind in second place. She's wrong about absolutely everything, but she's wrong within normal parameters."
If someone is a "conservative republican" as the term would have been understood 20 years ago, or perhaps even as late as 10 years ago, I think they could openly state their political positions in SV today without any dire consequences, if they stated them without actually saying they are "conservative republicans".
Liberals would think that some of those positions, or even most of them, are wrong, but they would think they are, as O'Rourke would say, wrong within normal parameters.
Heck, some of the major ideas from those classic "conservative republicans" could probably even build up some strong liberal support today. Conservative republicans are behind one of the best proposals for addressing climate change, for example [1].
But those kind of "conservative republicans" aren't openly welcome in the Republican party any more. They are still around, but they are keeping silent. What was once the right's conspiracy nut lunatic fringe has effectively taken over the party, or at least taken over the party's messaging. Those are the people that come to mind now if you label yourself "conservative republican" without further clarification.
The problem is the majority of republicans are backwards on social issues and trapped by low-brow "conservative" media. William Buckley must have turned over in his grave.
One should also consider that those who go to churches may have better professional views than those who don't. There are Christian professional job networks there, and if you aren't in there, maybe sucks for you. You seem to think that all weights considered, you experience net career disadvantage for showing your face as one of the moral majority. I would argue those who aren't in these professional networks don't know what they're missing out on. I would also argue that if you come from a poor Christian background, you should try church hopping. Bay Area churches are bastions of quality and professional life.
One should also consider the privilege that is afforded to churches as a tax-exempt organization that does just about everything, including competing in the daycare services market (do you pay for daycare?). One should consider whether any other group is about to gain that same power of tax exemption, which is arguably one of the most lofty powers in a taxed modern life. This is a privilege cloaked in power.
At this point, I can no longer spare any empathy for those who identify as Republican and yet somehow feel oppressed. They are directly threatening my country, my way of life, and our collective peace.
Fix your party or face the music.
On a more serious note, I don't think this is the case. It's highly likely that coming out as pro capitalism, pro lower-taxation, and pro small government will not be career ending. What might be career ending however, is bringing all of your friends, family and colleagues together to declare yourself an out and proud dickhead.
SV should think back to first principals: one is not guilty of the stereotypes of that group simply by sharing a subset of their thoughts. I find the New York scene more understanding of this nuance.
All that said, painting oneself as “the most excluded” is an exaggeration that does nobody any favors, and perpetuates this stereotype that conservatives are close minded. Understanding that there are people with needs far more fundamental than career and self-actualization is necessary for one to make well-advised policy recommendations, be they conservative or liberal.
Aside: Please forgive the nitpick, but despite its widespread use I really don't think "extroverted introvert" is a thing. The problem is that these two things are opposite ends of a spectrum. I think what people really mean when they say "extroverted introvert" is one of two things:
1) Ambivert : "a person whose personality has a balance of extrovert and introvert features"
2) Introvert, but not shy : It is a common misconception that introverts are inherently shy. The two are correlated, but not the same thing. You can be introverted and not be shy, either inherently or by learning to overcome shyness. Extra/introversion has more to do with your preferences and where you derive energy from. Shyness is more fear-based, and fear can be overcome.
Anyway that's not really a critical part of your article but I've sort of unintentionally become a Myers-Briggs nerd over the years and enjoy discussing stuff like that :)
When the E<>I spectrum was subjected to more rigorous analysis it turned out it may just be a metric of "talkativeness" and not really related to the Jungian concept.
Agreed the term "extroverted introvert" is not most clear. What I tried to express in this post is "even though social interactions can be draining to me, I'm comfortable being outspoken and actively participating in discussions, which gives me an advantage in the work setting," so most similar to (2) in your description above.
Thanks, just realized that is me. I prefer to be alone most of the time, but am able to enjoy the occasional party, and even give a speech/talk when needed without issue.
In the old days we had a word for people who neither sought nor avoided emotional stimuli: normal.
1) That they are competent and smart until they definitely prove otherwise to me.
2) That they are technical and interested in technology.
It's worked really well for me so far. In practice it means when I meet someone I say "You're a dev right?". Most people appreciate being assumed to be technical, and if they aren't we still get a great convo out of it. I admit it's kind of a silly thing, but so far in years of doing it I don't know of a time it's made anyone feel bad.
Edit - Also, if their answer to the dev question is that they are instead a product manager, UX, Designer, etc, I try and follow up with a funny compliment about their field. "Ah, so you make apps useable", etc. Again, just a simple conversational technique to make people feel valued.
That said, sometimes it gets awkward in funny ways. A few months ago I was at a conference/event selling our product (booth and everything), talking to two young Polish girls who were running a tech startup. I don't recall the details by heart, but it was some marketplace I think. Our product is relatively technical, so your approach, "You're a dev, right?" usually pays off. But these founders giggled, rolled their eyes, and said "Do we look like developers to you?"
Eh, yes? :/
I try to live by "It's only awkward if you let it be awkward" to get through those situations.
I suppose it makes up for the past somehow, but would be nice if the pendulum could come back to center at some point.
I know that despite my gender people will change their expectations about my career based on how I dress. When I had an undercut and wore around hoodies more often people were much more likely to assume I was technical. Now that I've gotten a little older and my fashion sense has become more conservative people tend to assume I'm a manager or in some other sort of administrative/people oriented role.
It doesn't take much experience in the world to notice that personality type, fashion sense, and career choice are correlated with one another.
It takes a lot of experience on the other hand to learn that you are supposed to ignore such things for the sake of politeness.
Defaulting to a minimal level of respect is a good strategy and goes both ways.
However, I do think that gender and race have an influence on your thought processes because of who you tend to associate with.
In addition, she spent 15 years in China, which is definitely not very common here in the US. That alone means she's going to think somewhat differently than the average engineer.
And finally, a lack of diversity in a group (all white hetero males, for example) indicates an attempt to exclude diversity, though perhaps subconsciously.
Do you think a group of white males who went to Stanford, MIT etc... right after high school, are the same as those who joined the military, yet now work in the same company?
My goal with this post is to convince people to not just limit their views of diversity to race and gender, but also look beyond those 2 to care about the other ways each of us bring in diverse perspectives as well.
However, please don't ignore history. Reality is not neat and tidy: there's never a blank slate from which to build anew. Everything real exists in context and has a past, which constrains its possible futures.
Correlation is an important concept because it is evidence of association. And while it's true that associations can be non causal, many associations are causal.
For example, let's run with this description: a white, heterosexual man with XY chromosomes living and growing up in America. There are few absolutely correct inferences made from such a description (e.g. that the individual was and is still benefiting from a soceity built by and for people like him). On the other hand, there are a number of inferences we can make about such an individual that are likely to be true. Or that street true to a varying degree. E.g. we might say that such an individual is likely to view people of color with disdain. Or view women as sexual obejects that exist soley for his pleasure.
Certainly those last two inferences are only correlative. While many men are taught to view women as sexual objects and many white people are taught to believe that people of color are inferior, one can never make such an inference with 0 error.
Working our way back to the conversation thread: correlations are useful for decision making. If I'm hiring people for software jobs, I cannot exclude anyone for their personal, core characteristics of their skin complexion, sex, gender, nationality, ancestry, or age. I can, however, realize that due to the soceity we live in and how it treats people, it's likely that the men applying to my (fictional) company are likely to have some similar viewpoints. And that my woman applicants are also likely to have some similar viewpoints, which are going to be different from the men. Similar reasoning to all of those other characteristics I mentioned above. Knowing history and observing society, I would certainly use such society-level correlations to inform my recruiting strategy.
E.g. Do men take proactive steps to ensure they aren't victims of sexual assualt? On the whole, they do not. Conversely, women often think about this reality and plan around it -- "go out with a friend" or "call me when you get home" or "walk with your keys through the fingers of your hand when you go to your car at night" or "carry pepper spray on your bag". If I'm making a ride sharing service, I better take into consideration that a room full of white men probably won't think about drivers sexually assaulting passengers.
I sincerely hope that my writing here is insightful and informative as to why gender and racial diversity are important in cultivating intellectual and emotional diversity.
Diversity metrics based on the color of your skin or the country where you were born are an awful way to assess actual diversity of thought. It's much more about your own personal experiences regardless of your environment. It's a shame that's hard to quantify so everyone ignores it.
But if women really do have something different (at least on average) to bring to the table, then this women really does add diversity.
The purpose of diversity is not quotas, but differences that work together and add something to the whole.
In my working life I've seen (and also experienced) a lot of productivity-eating unresolved sexual tension, including between people who were married/had partners and didn't reeeally want to mate, at least not rationally.
I mean, I know men behave like pigs at Hackatons and I'm all for codes of conduct but even in better conditions (no one's an incel, yadda yadda) this happens.
The following is just my experience and I don't claim to generalize although I will use it as a generalization since it is what I have observed.
Groups of men tend to fall into a pattern. There is a leader, there are people vying to be the leader, and there are "subordinates" who execute directives. Male groups try and get something done. These groups are about organizing people.
Groups of women also fall into a pattern. They tend to plan and analyze and put less priority on execution. In female groups the leader/subordinate dynamic is much less apparent, and it's mostly a dance of trying to understand what everyone is saying and what everyone wants. These groups are about organizing ideas.
Mixed groups obviously have a mix of these approaches. Men and women help each other to reach a balanced state of execution and planning, looking at the details while also keeping the big picture in mind. In addition to that, mixed groups are way more dynamic and adaptable. Patterns emerge contextually within the group, rather than following a standard social protocol. To me, this indicates higher potential for productivity in all areas of a project.
Sexual tension can occur, but I think it's a bit silly to suggest it's a Big Deal in the workplace, that it's something significant enough to single out from every other messy thing that can happen in groups of people. To make myself clear, sexual tension is a separate thing from sexual harassment, which is definitely a problem but is the result of some bad players and not the mixed group dynamic itself.
>>> Measuring diversity based on a few predefined attributes makes no sense. Creating diversity by hiring someone because they're female isn't the answer, we need to go beyond that to truly have diversity.
I think I might have been a tad overdramatic by just saying "I'm not diversity" in the title, but what you wrote above there is exactly what I'm trying to communicate: diversity is more than just bullet points, we need to see it more holistically.
https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/18/diverse-teams-are-still-re...
https://www.inc.com/ian-altman/5-reasons-why-workplace-diver...
I already work in a very diverse workplace. Both genders and multiple nationalities are represented, and I really don't see what that brigs to the table. I mean, why is diversity good per se?
I don't see any correlation between any demographic variable and being a good coworker.
On an institutional level, you get a broader set of ideas when you have a more diverse workforce, giving you a better chance at a black swan idea. And frankly, better odds of preventing disaster (Chevy wouldn't have tried to sell a car called the "Nova" in Mexico if they'd had a spanish speaker on the team. No Va means No Go).
There's also evidence that diverse teams do better - https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our...
I'm sorry but I'm still failing to see it. My experience in my company does not support that hypothesis (and it's really a large one) and the link you provided the only thing that is really proving is that more executive women is correlated with more profitability, which could perfectly be (and probably be) the consequence of other institutional factors.
We do have locals in every market we play, but that's pretty common sense, you have to know the language and cultural references.
But again, I'm not in the US nor I work for a US company. Maybe that has something to do, IDK.
wrt your link: "It is important to note, however, that correlation does not demonstrate causality, which would be challenging to demonstrate". I think a more interesting metric would be diversity relative to the local norm.
Not ostracizing people for having political opinions that are not the majority but fairly mainstream.
I work at the satellite office of an east coast tech company and how you have to be careful not to say anything that betrays politics that are not officially condoned is a bi-weekly gripe among the group I eat lunch with.
I'm not saying it should be perfectly acceptable to tell your coworkers you went to a KKK chapter (is that their organizational unit?) barbecue when discussing what you did over the weekend but if you went to see NASCAR you shouldn't feel compelled to tell people you stayed home.
Based on what evidence, or even logic, is diversity critical to the success of even some companies? Let alone any company?
https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/18/diverse-teams-are-still-re...
https://www.inc.com/ian-altman/5-reasons-why-workplace-diver...
I am well aware of why some people think diversity is good. Many things are good. Few things are critical.
I'll make a strong claim - there is no evidence, that diversity is critical for the success of any business, on this planet.
It's an easy claim to make because diversity is not a well defined scientific term, hence there can be no evidence. Which was my point - we can hand wave about diversity, inclusivity and all kinds of things - let's just not pretend it's anything but empty hand waving.
Before anyone comes back with saying I'm cherry picking one sentence out of an entire article - it is the foundation of this entire diversity movement. If we agree that we don't know whether diversity is important, we can begin to focus on things that people actually care about - like standards of living and wages.
Diversity measured across an entire company or large cohort doesn't really show the value of diversity in the first place. For me, the real power of diversity is at a micro-level. The author would absolutely add diversity to a three person team where one member is an Indian woman born, raised, and educated to PhD in India, another is a Croatian man with no formal education beyond secondary school, and the third person was a poor kid from Detroit that scrapped their way through community college and into the job market.
When I'm putting a team together, I try my hardest to create diversity. That doesn't mean running through a checklist of gender, ethnicity, sexual identification, etc. but it does mean looking for people with different points of view, experience, and ways of solving problems.
tl;dr: Diversity == good, agree gender doesn't necessarily mean diversity, diversity is a meaningless term without context.
The broader, more complex concerns you point to are difficult to measure and thus perhaps more likely to be given short shrift.
An interesting anecdote was that I led Engineering for a startup that was acquired by a large ($50-100 Billion) company. After we were acquired, several people commented on my collective team as being the "most diverse" in the company. That was nice to hear, but (for me) the most gratifying part was the team members taking stock and collectively thinking "oh yeah, I guess we are diverse!" It happened on purpose, but with the intention of using diversity as a source of strength not as a means of checking off a box.
It's well-meaning, probably, but really gets on my nerves sometimes. I want to be a mathematician, not a "female mathematician". It feels like I have this bright red sign covering my face that says "FOSTER DIVERSITY HERE". It's okay guys! I'm already fostered!
Taking this as a serious thing on its own devoid of the political context in which it became a necessary tactic and getting into the weeds about what truly is diversity is sort of like the liberal equivalent of taking the Republican rhetoric about makers and takers, welfare frauds and the need for voter ids seriously without realizing that these talking points are largely understood by their audiences to be about black people and immigrants. Seeing the world through rhetorical devices created specifically to confuse the issues results in confusion like this entire article. This is not what diversity means to people for whom it's an important issue.
The priority should be diverse people, not diverse backgrounds.
Companies are not going to ask you about your political leanings, they are probably not going to give you some mental test to see how you react to situation A and situation B. If you look at the stats, race and gender do correlate between stark differences in people. For instance, the "wealth gap" between black and white Americans is about 10x, growing in poverty vs. growing up in a stable middle class family causes a different lived experience, you view the world differently because of how you grew up. That's not to say that all black people are poor and all white people are rich, but if you're working with a limited data set and are thinking about how you can get some people in a room with different lived experiences, you could do a lot worse than saying "let's get a mix of different races in here". I think the same thing applies to women and other traits that companies and institutions use for their diversity metrics.
While I'm sure hiring 2 women and 0.2 black people for every scrum team may help fix the empathy issue, so would hiring white guys who don't think they're the center of the universe. Of course to do that we'd need to stop (as an industry) rewarding and recognizing people who think they're the elite for doing a perfectly normal white-collar job that occasionally involves high school math.
(And I definitely don't think we need diversity of political opinions. I don't want to know my coworkers' political opinions, whatever they may be. What would be great would be if I could get coworkers who just don't think their particular ideology is super important in terms of their work life. Any companies that are more on the chill side like this?)
Isn't diversity ultimately relative to the group you are comparing to? And how you want to define the group might differ among people? Also how you weigh the trait in relation to its effect on the some kind of performance metric of the group?
Someone with trait A could be considered diverse if we define a group with predominantly trait B. Does having diverse traits (a mix of both A and B) highly correlated with better performance/survival/whatever metric? Maybe having diversity means the group can adapt better over time (surviving an evolutionary bottleneck in some sense)?
Most of these concepts are obviously not quantifiable in this way, but I think we need some kind of framework to think about how we define diversity.
Age is one thing she left out, it's great for one's career these days to look ~28.
