Today, we're going to discuss diversity quotas and how they are not as advantageous as progressives would like you to believe. Before we start reviewing the attached presentation, let's find out what all those numbers and colors represent.

If anyone can point out any flaws in my presentation or ways to improve its effectiveness, please address in detail.

Each table represents a different hiring strategy used to fill positions within a company. Each of the 45 cells within each represents a job applicant. However, each of the 20 red-bordered cells represents a position that needs to be filled. Therefore, in each of the three scenarios, the company is looking to hire 20 new employees, so they must interview all 45 applicants before narrowing down their choices.

The varying color tones represent different ethnic groups. It is assumed that, in the given geographical area where the hiring is taking place, red consists of 44.44% of the population (20 of 45 cells), orange 22.22%, and the remaining colors 11.11% for each group. For simplicity of crunching numbers, the number of applicants is also 100% proportionate to their demographic representation in the area.

Lastly, the numbers within the cells themselves represent the percentage of qualification for the position being applied for. 100 means the applicant meets 100% of the job requirements, 80 means 80%, and so on. These numbers do not represent skill tiers, so a 100 is not necessarily a senior-level applicant and a 50 is not necessarily a mid-level applicant. A 100 could, in fact, be an entry-level applicant who meets all qualifications for an entry-level position.

Now let's get started, beginning with the merit-based model. In this model, the company hires only the most qualified applicants and completely ignores ethnicity. Therefore, they first pick from the 100 pool then the 85 pool, the total applicants coming to 18. They need 2 more to reach their goal of 20, so they pick randomly from the pool of 50 since the 100 and 85 pools have been tapped out. In this model, while the chosen applicants consist mainly of red, all groups are fairly represented according to their demographic representation.

Now let's move to the diversity-based model. In this model, they must ensure that the applicants they hire consist of an even number of ethnic groups. They choose from the 100 pool first, depleting it. They now have 4 reds, but only 2 oranges, 1 blue, 1 green, and 1 purple which is, so far, not compliant with the diversity requirements. This means they can't fully clear out the 85 pool as was the case with the merit-based model because they would end up with too many reds. Instead, to even it out, they choose 2 more from orange to come to a total of 4 orange applicants which now reaches parity with the 4 red applicants. For the remaining positions, they have no choice but to pick from the lesser-qualified pools of 20 and 50 in order for there to be 4 applicants from the blue, green, and purple groups. In this model, you can easily see the distinct disadvantage of not being able to pick any more red applicants from the 85 pool. This means that, while your company is more diverse ethnically, there is also a greater percentage of lesser-qualified employees.

Lastly, we come to the racism-based model where the company gravitates toward hiring only applicants of a specific ethnicity which, in this case, is red. They need to fill 20 positions just as in the previous scenarios, but, in this case, they choose only from the pool of red applicants. Clearly, this is also a bad choice, even worse than the diversity-based model because now they have an even greater percentage of lesser-qualified employees. Because they favor reds, they consciously refused to pick highly qualified applicants from the 100 and 85 pools of the other color groups.

I hope this lesson in the various hiring practices has been enlightening. Please share with your progressive managers, teachers, district representatives, and senators. Thank you, and have a wonderful day.

Attached: hiring strategies.PNG (927x584, 32.03K)

Other urls found in this thread:

If communists were good at math they wouldn't be communists.

Rats, I fucked up the last table. Needed to highlight all the 5's as well.

Attached: hiring strategies.PNG (929x585, 32.8K)

You're assuming that each race is equal however with the values in your table. That is objectively wrong.

Not sure what you mean by this. Each race is equally represented. Even if you are literally implying that all races are not equal, this presentation would still be accurate. It would just mean the numbers would be a bit more skewed. You may be misunderstanding the point of the image which is that there are distinct disadvantages from picking applicants from lesser-qualified pools simply because of their ethnicity.

Also, there are a lot of Indian software engineers. When they work in the states, they typically annex themselves near areas abundant in IT-related companies. When a company in that area begins hiring IT staff, even though the area may consist of 60% white, the number of applicants might only be 20% white and 70% Indian, and 10% other. In this case, the company would end up hiring far more Indian developers than any other ethnicity.

You also fail to represent group cohesion as well.

Have a look at the bowling alone book by Robert D Putnan as he describes how diversity causes isolation. How can you prevent this in the workplace?

If that's truly a factor that can be objectively and consistently demonstrated across the board then it can be added in as a disadvantage to the diversity model without affecting the overall message conveyed in the presentation.

Your right, this has worked out so well for Germany considering diversity has added so many qualified people for skilled labor that something like only 1-2% are working. Definitely worth the GDP hike while your country turned to shit. At least businesses can hire people and feel good about doing so though.

I think the criticism he is bringing up is of your racism based number being disingenuous. I think you are fishing for good goy points to say, "I know racism is bad, but diversity is only a bit better". Given the knowledge this board has outside your limited and hypothetical scenario where all groups are considered to have equal numbers and equal distribution does not exist in practice. Furhermore, the purpose of diversity is not productivity, but one of control. So while I think your model is correct and may throw normalfags for a loop, the the goal of people in support of diversity hiring are tribal or want government and centralized control. Reality is that the distibution of red scores (which I assume are whites) would have higher average score alone than the others. Maybe if one is Asain they would have a similar distribution, but that minority is still small.

Attached: 4a8b4061318f9d5163b547f0bdfcf21a14ed0ad9c090bb605db76b72219fe50.jpg (283x314, 12.05K)

This turns out even more screwed when you account for the fact that the non-reds are worse for the job all across the board

In a manner of speaking, sort of, but not entirely. It's mainly to be fair and balanced, but to also stop any fauxgressive from crying racist when I don't toe their diversity-first line.

This is correct, but the basic principle still stands even if you greatly alter the qualifications. Here are a couple ad-hoc merit-based models. In the first one, the higher-qualified applicants consist mostly of reds with all those extra 85's and 100's, so you can see that the majority of the hired applicants are from the red category.

In the second, however, I made reds disproportionately less qualified, the highest pool being 50. The merit-based model would work no differently even though it would result in far less reds being hired.

So it doesn't matter how you shake up the demographics or the qualification factors at all. The dynamics of the system will still work no matter what variables you plug in.

I agree, but the fauxgressives try to mask their intentions. That is the entire point of this presentation, to show that they're wrong about diversity-first hiring practices and that merit-based is the way to go all around.

Attached: Capture.PNG (620x549, 24K)


This. For the minority colors you would need to have a lower ceiling and lower base number. You would also have to take into account that diverse teams do not work well together so your total score would drop by some percent. You also need to consider if all the rows were the same color. You would also have a much larger pool to pull from in a larger company as the one you are presenting. It also sounds like the ones in the 5's column are not even qualified to do the work so they would not apply for the job. Use normal curves for the IQ OP, then the real fun begins.

Was referring to

Commonly referred to as 'A Triple Threat'

A criticism that a quota-writer would make is "We don't want an EQUAL number of people of each category, we want a REPRESENTATIVE number of people of each category. If we choose our quotas right, we ensure that our spread looks like the Merit-based hiring system."

A criticism that I will make is that "the absolute best" at most tasks isn't significantly more useful than "a really good person." There's not any real difference between 20 years of experience and 5 years of experience for most tasks, and even in high-level research an IQ over 145 doesn't translate into meaningful gains in productivity. Similarly, someone who "just barely can't do the job" isn't much better than hiring a braindead retard.

The fundamental problem isn't badly done quotas, it's that certain races are actually inferior at tasks, so the reality looks a little more like pic related. If you want to only hire 16 squares, you wouldn't take any greens in a merit-based system. However, in a diversity-based system, you're forced to take a green, which is bad for the company.

Attached: Untitled.png (711x700, 41.55K)

Also the number of squares you hire in racism-based and the other two don't add up, you stupid fuck.

I agree with both statements which is why this presentation doesn't account for those attributes. Basically, you interview a person and assess that, regardless of their work experience, IQ, education, etc, they are X% qualified for the job. A person with 5 years of experience could easily be more qualified than someone with 20. My presentation accounts for that perfectly.

I don't know this to be true, but, assuming it is, the merit based system would account for that. In fact, I put this one together to demonstrate that very condition:

In one chart, the reds are superior to the other color groups and consist of more-qualified applicants. In the second, the reds are grossly inferior. In either case, the merit system just takes in whoever is considered the most qualified.

The racism based one doesn't add up because of the error I addressed in the very post you referenced. Doesn't matter, though, those are just flavor metrics. If you care, the racism one should be 1040/52.

Whether or not the cause is deliberate, Jews are over represented at Ivy League schools. Diversity does not hurt the group that identifies as Jewish, because they are a minority.

to be enrolled at Harvard and the rest of the Ivy League than white Gentiles of similar ability.
This was an absolutely astonishing result
given that under-representation in the range of 20% or 30% is often treated by courts as powerful prima facie evidence of racial discrimination." - Ron Unz (who is an ethnic Jew)

Fuck off, natsoc fag.




OP, while you made a solid effort and you are 100% correct, you're also presenting an argument to a group that came to the same conclusion you have 4+ years ago. I guess it's nice to have the logic of this argument laid out so plainly in case any newfags haven't seen it yet but this really isn't anything novel for those who have been running in these circles for more than a year.

Why are you assuming that the distribution curves of qualification are identical in average and shape across races?

My point is that there is not such a thing as being "X%" qualified for the job in most cases.

Do you not even know where you are?

I'm not.

I'm confused. Why does the red row have 4 columns, the orange have 2 columns and the rest have only only column

Attached: 1508995201114.gif (1080x1080, 505.3K)


I would are that there is a % in nearly every case. It's not binary. Everyone has different skillsets within an umbrella of skill requirements. When weighing your options across a large number of applicants, you will undoubtedly need to rank the applicants by their assessed % of qualification so that you can ensure you pick someone who's 90% qualified over someone 80% qualified.

Of course, it's/pol/ which is no longer a natsoc gay bath house thanks to codemonkey.

I see. I missed this chart. You should've been more upfront with posting this one, perhaps in a second post immediately after your OP.

The diversity quota lady will simply call you a racist for suggesting that one race might be superior, then you'll be fired. Then, you'll have issues getting your next job.

You can move the numbers around any way you want like I did here, dumbshit

The diversity past will call you a racist no matter what. Just have your methods in order and we'll documented.

Lots of people here missing the point of OP. We know the races aren't equal, but this is a criticism of diversity hiring using the logic of the diversarists against themselves. Basically, OP is showing that even if we agree with their premise about the equality of races, quota hiring is still mathematically shooting your own company in the foot. This is redpill 101, this is milk for the normalfags, not meat. Yes, we are all aware that niggers can't do shit, and we're also aware that chinks get hired despite having really terrible broken English and no curiosity or drive to learn on the job (can you tell I'm venting about chink co-workers here?). But the point is that OPERATING ON THE ENEMY'S LOGIC, IT STILL HURTS THE COMPANY BOTTOM LINE. Use this with normalfags who aren't quite ready yet to admit that their nigger co-worker sucks because he's a nigger not because he's just one individual guy that just coincidentally happens to be bad at this one specific job.

Most people aren't going to hunt through the entire thread for that post, OP.

Wait somewhere between 1 and 3 days, gather your presentation up, show it here again in a clearer fashion, then ask for help again. Your presentation, as is, isn't clear - this is probably about as bad as it being wrong.

That is the point of OP. But there's a straightforward answer to that criticism, as I pointed out above: "we can smooth this over with better quotas."

Should be diversity quota lady. Don't even know how autocorrect fucked that one up.

With proper regulation and regular audits, this would be far more difficult to accomplish. Of course, we'll never see that happen. Still, this presentation is to convince people that merit is better than diversity, not that some companies will continue to engage in shady diversity hiring practices disguised as merit.

How do you make "better quotas" when OP's charts show the most optimal quota that doesn't just go "lol hire only niggers, what could go wrong?"

merit quotas are just diversity-based-lite the nog and spic will still get reasonable accommodation and resources from the government to succeed the rest of the whites

Here, I made it easier for the retards out there to understand. I hope it helps.

Attached: 345353.jpg (927x594, 153.17K)

But that's OP's point. He took the most liberal, most optimal possibilities and showed how, even with the most ideal conditions, the leftist concepts of hiring models would NEVER be as good as any merit-based model.

We all know the races are not equal in merit but I think this presentation is a hypothetical meant to demonstrate to normies that even if they were equal (which we all know isn't true) it would still more sense to hire based on merit. Which if you ask me is a huge waste of time because you're trying to convince illogical people like women with logic. Do not mistake: women represent a comfortable majority in do-nothing jobs like HR.

Zig Forums is a NatSoc only board. Hang yourself.

OP, while I respect the effort, did you not learn anything from that Google engineer who put together a lengthy and logical memo that wasn't even racist and still got fired? You can't reason with these people. They want you jobless and homeless. They want your children raped and they think it's funny.

This is the key point. Since their motivation is control it doesn't actually matter what's rational or not, or what system gives the best results or not.

(((Their))) goal is to be able to have reward power over minority groups. So they need to be able to allocate jobs and gibs to specific races. Anything or any system that takes away that reward power will get shot the fuck down. Logic be damned. All you can really achieve is to show that their approach is not logical / rational. Which everybody who's not a retard already knows. The people who don't already know are likely too naive to really understand the motivations behind their quota system.