Born for it – How the image of software developers came about • Hacker News Board

Re: Born for it – How the image of software developers came about

#41

Post by majormajor » Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 5:58 AM UTC

cb18 wrote: post #37

majormajor wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very interested to know how you believe conflating economic, social, and geographical/geopolitical factors (e.g. clusters of poverty and their effect on upbringings) have all been filtered out of this supposed consensus conclusion.

It's called science bro, it's kind of detailed. Trust that the people doing it know what they are doing. If you'd like more information, you're free to study it. The answer to your question is relatively straightforward though, different races raised in the same circumstances have been given IQ tests. Among other techniques. Once again, this is a century old science, it's been thought through pretty well. Whatever co…

Fascinating, considering that other scientific research has itself demonstrated the effects of those confounding factors.

So this seems like a wash... Except that it doesn't take much to observe that it's very hard to be raised in the same circumstances when you're of different races in the US. There are very real differences in people's behavior towards people based on race, and those shape that environment.)

Re: Born for it – How the image of software developers came about

#42

Post by home_boi » Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 5:59 AM UTC

majormajor wrote: post #27

home_boi wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can segment the human population in any way and assign equal power to each of these groups. Why segment the population by race? Life is inherently unfair. There will always be differences in power. The goal can't be to assign equal power to everyone because it is impossible. The best goal is to ensure that there isn't a huge difference in power. Equal opportunity provides that guarantee.

In regard to the US, the obvious answer is that some races were literally oppressed on that very basis for decades/centuries. That was not a passive activity. So is it any real surprise that it might have long-lasting effects that need active, rather than passive, countering? EDIT: your comment reads differently after your addition of the second paragraph so now I don't know if I'm disagreeing with you or answering a…

The problem is that reparations in the form of equal representation hurt people that have nothing to do with the original oppression. It is a zero sum game.

The groups that suffer the most from "equal representation" are immigrants and their children. These people tend to be high achievers, competing in the upper echelon where every little difference counts. It is unfair to punish these people for actions that were done when they were not even in the country.

Even if there is some way to only target the children of the perpetrators, it isn't fair to punish people for simply being related to the perpetrators.

What happened in the past is wrong and unfair, but reparations will just displace the hurt from one group to another.

Re: Born for it – How the image of software developers came about

#43

Post by cb18 » Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 6:13 AM UTC

alex_young wrote: post #32

cb18 wrote: post #19

So many mysteries of the modern world become quite understandable when you allow yourself the luxury of understanding the relevance of intelligence. It varies among races, knowledge of this is scientifically sound, it is the consensus of everyone who studies it seriously. The modern tendency is to feverishly avert one's eyes from this fact, but it must be reckoned with eventually. I believe we'll all be better off wh…

"groups with higher average intelligence are obviously going to win more Physics Nobels." You mean men right? I'm sure there's no bias in that process...

Men, Jews

The Men thing is interesting. Men and women have either the same average intelligence, or just slightly different. But the reason that you have a preponderance of men with very high intellect is because men's intelligence is distributed on a normal distribution('bell curve')[0] that is broader than the distribution for women. So you end up with more men than women occupying the very high and low edges of the intelligence distribution. More male geniuses, but also more male dunces.

Yeah, and you're right, not much bias in the process. Results of this type tend to speak for themselves.[1]

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_in_Phy...

Re: Born for it – How the image of software developers came about

#44

Post by jonathankoren » Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 6:16 AM UTC

DKnoll wrote: post #35

jonathankoren wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the article isn't about the ENIAC at all. It's about how programming transitioned from being a menial (and thus women's) job, to a prestigious (and thus male) job.

Programming was a 'women's job' at the time because men were intended for combat. It's exactly the same reason women were working in factories which, in peacetime, was traditionally a men's job. This is not to say that it was right, but at the same time it wasn't due to lesser ability... it was because they were still at home and not delivering the munitions whose trajectory they were calculating. I would like to add…

The facts don't back this up the assertion that this was an inherently transitory effect. Women fell out of computer science starting 1985, and hasn't gained any year since.[0]

Turing was prosecuted as soon as his usefulness in the war effort ended, so I don't think they made that many bounds. And if we're going to have a good ol' oppression-off how about blacks? They weren't anywhere in programming, and sadly still aren't.

[0] http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-...

Re: Born for it – How the image of software developers came about

#45

Post by cb18 » Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 6:26 AM UTC

majormajor wrote: post #41

cb18 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's called science bro, it's kind of detailed. Trust that the people doing it know what they are doing. If you'd like more information, you're free to study it. The answer to your question is relatively straightforward though, different races raised in the same circumstances have been given IQ tests. Among other techniques. Once again, this is a century old science, it's been thought through pretty well. Whatever co…

Fascinating, considering that other scientific research has itself demonstrated the effects of those confounding factors. So this seems like a wash... Except that it doesn't take much to observe that it's very hard to be raised in the same circumstances when you're of different races in the US. There are very real differences in people's behavior towards people based on race, and those shape that environment.)

Things like poor nutrition and lack of other basic necessities when corrected do yield modest improvements in IQ scores, but not enough to explain the gap between races.

very hard to be raised in the same circumstances when you're of different races in the US.

Adopted siblings...

And these differences don't only present themselves in the US.

Re: Born for it – How the image of software developers came about

#46

Post by DKnoll » Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 6:36 AM UTC

jonathankoren wrote: post #44

DKnoll wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Programming was a 'women's job' at the time because men were intended for combat. It's exactly the same reason women were working in factories which, in peacetime, was traditionally a men's job. This is not to say that it was right, but at the same time it wasn't due to lesser ability... it was because they were still at home and not delivering the munitions whose trajectory they were calculating. I would like to add…

The facts don't back this up the assertion that this was an inherently transitory effect. Women fell out of computer science starting 1985, and hasn't gained any year since.[0] Turing was prosecuted as soon as his usefulness in the war effort ended, so I don't think they made that many bounds. And if we're going to have a good ol' oppression-off how about blacks? They weren't anywhere in programming, and sadly still…

I don't know if I should be disturbed or amused that you were willing to say "And if we're going to have a good ol' oppression-off how about blacks?" under your real name.

It says a great deal about your motives when you speak facetiously about the struggle of others as if it's just a trump card to be used in debate. I could digress into a rant about academics here but I'll hold my tongue and let you use your imagination.

Re: Born for it – How the image of software developers came about

#47

Post by cb18 » Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 6:38 AM UTC

kenjackson wrote: post #34

cb18 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_Science_on_Intellig... This is a false statement: The overwhelming consensus by scientists at reputable top universities don't allege this at all.

I figured that this is where it came from. These are generally fringe researchers, led by the author herself, Gottfredson. As was commonly noted at the time... few who signed it were measurement experts. Note the lack of prestigious programs of the signatories. This is the Wall Street Journal fringe. Certainly not the mainstream of top researchers in the field.

Your trying hard, but you seem to have no idea what you are talking about. "This is the Wall Street Journal fringe." It ran in the journal Intelligence signed by their editorial board.

Who are these "non-fringe" you speak of? People who tell you what you want to believe? HuffPo bloggers?

Or are you just blowing hot air, totally ignorant of this field in general, and decided to call some people you've never heard of "fringe"...

Re: Born for it – How the image of software developers came about

#48

Post by oneweekwonder » Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 6:39 AM UTC

jonathankoren wrote: post #44

DKnoll wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Programming was a 'women's job' at the time because men were intended for combat. It's exactly the same reason women were working in factories which, in peacetime, was traditionally a men's job. This is not to say that it was right, but at the same time it wasn't due to lesser ability... it was because they were still at home and not delivering the munitions whose trajectory they were calculating. I would like to add…

The facts don't back this up the assertion that this was an inherently transitory effect. Women fell out of computer science starting 1985, and hasn't gained any year since.[0] Turing was prosecuted as soon as his usefulness in the war effort ended, so I don't think they made that many bounds. And if we're going to have a good ol' oppression-off how about blacks? They weren't anywhere in programming, and sadly still…

> and sadly still aren't.

I have to disagree with you. I'm from Africa, and I can point you to many African programmers.

Maybe in your country where blacks is a minority(?) you don't see black programmers. But in the last 10 years of my programming career. I worked next to black competent peers.

Re: Born for it – How the image of software developers came about

#49

Post by cb18 » Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 6:41 AM UTC

jonathankoren wrote: post #30

cb18 wrote: post #19

So many mysteries of the modern world become quite understandable when you allow yourself the luxury of understanding the relevance of intelligence. It varies among races, knowledge of this is scientifically sound, it is the consensus of everyone who studies it seriously. The modern tendency is to feverishly avert one's eyes from this fact, but it must be reckoned with eventually. I believe we'll all be better off wh…

> [Intelligence] varies among races, knowledge of this is scientifically sound, it is the consensus of everyone who studies it seriously. Holy fuck. Yeah. I'm calling you out for being a racist fuck. Your "human biodiversity" aka "scientific racism" is a pseudoscience that has no basis at all. All your ideas better explained by economics. So in conclusion, fuck you.

^[flagged]

Re: Born for it – How the image of software developers came about

#50

Post by coffeandcode » Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 6:49 AM UTC

exclusiv wrote: post #29

I don't deny that there is some history in the current representation of programmers but I don't buy that socially awkward white males are somehow oppressing diversity in general as some would suggest. When they supposedly aren't, it's a brogrammer problem and blatant sexism. Everyone wants to find someone to blame. Granted this was 9 years ago, but when I was in computer engineering we had a few classes with only 1…

I don't think the article was really putting socially awkward white males to blame. I believe it tried to say that the diversity (or lack of it) of the field is a result of the shift in targeting a certain type of person for the programmer's job. And this accumulated over time reinforcing the notion until recently that it's sort of a no girls land. I can't help but feel that you're kinda shifting the blame when you say that there are just not enough female candidates otherwise you'd be perfectly happy to hire them and of course you would be. Maybe the problem really is in the way career possibilities are presented to children from early on. My brother is a programmer with years of experience - he got a pc when very young that I really didn't have access to and he was making fun of me when I got into a coding job because I it didn't really suit me, even though I have a CS degree. That doesn't mean he is to blame, it's just how we are brought up. Arts and humanities go girls, STEM go boys.