As much as I appreciate the clarity here, you really could have saved yourself the headache and back-and-forth we had earlier if you'd approached my question differently; after all, this is what I said last time:
'I understood the thesis of the article; however, one part stuck out to me, and I guess its truth would depend on what you meant there.
"There's never been a female Ted Bundy for the same reason there's never been a female Newton. They simply don't exist."
I'd love it if you could clarify what you meant there.'
The last part of this article, condensed into a paragraph, would have sufficed. "Rebuttal" articles are useful, but often not necessary if you engage with someone in good faith. The game of rhetoric you tried to play when I asked you what particularly about Ted Bundy you were comparing other serial killers to was surprisingly intellectually dishonest—not what I'd expect from the person writing the articles you do. Anyway, I appreciate your response, and I hope you consider my feedback in good faith.
Hmmm, read the previous article too. Well, the way I see it is this, of course let's continue to give equal opportunities (e.g, make sure both gender gets the same quality of education), but only and always hire the best hands at any given time.
But the honest truth is that the ideal approach might end up giving a skewed representation which we might not have the stomach for. For example, (pardon the stereotype) this might result in the leading tech companies being filled with 90% Asian devs.
Truth is bitter, and as social animals, we need to compromise at some point or the other. We just have to know where it's worth it and where it's not.
As much as I appreciate the clarity here, you really could have saved yourself the headache and back-and-forth we had earlier if you'd approached my question differently; after all, this is what I said last time:
'I understood the thesis of the article; however, one part stuck out to me, and I guess its truth would depend on what you meant there.
"There's never been a female Ted Bundy for the same reason there's never been a female Newton. They simply don't exist."
I'd love it if you could clarify what you meant there.'
The last part of this article, condensed into a paragraph, would have sufficed. "Rebuttal" articles are useful, but often not necessary if you engage with someone in good faith. The game of rhetoric you tried to play when I asked you what particularly about Ted Bundy you were comparing other serial killers to was surprisingly intellectually dishonest—not what I'd expect from the person writing the articles you do. Anyway, I appreciate your response, and I hope you consider my feedback in good faith.
It was no headache and I enjoyed writing it. Thanks for reading!
Hmmm, read the previous article too. Well, the way I see it is this, of course let's continue to give equal opportunities (e.g, make sure both gender gets the same quality of education), but only and always hire the best hands at any given time.
But the honest truth is that the ideal approach might end up giving a skewed representation which we might not have the stomach for. For example, (pardon the stereotype) this might result in the leading tech companies being filled with 90% Asian devs.
Truth is bitter, and as social animals, we need to compromise at some point or the other. We just have to know where it's worth it and where it's not.
Is it not better to invest more where you know the talent is in more abundance?
Would you expect a world class football club to invest the same level of resources in scouting in England / Brazil as they do in Somalia / Mauritius?
Equal opportunity serves no purpose other than massaging the sensibilities of the weak. If you want more, then you should show that you deserve more.
If you're not faithful in little, then you won't be faithful with much either.
You’re correct… but I’m biased for equal opportunities because of obvious reasons.