You can’t fix diversity in tech without fixing the technical interview • Hacker News Board

Re: You can’t fix diversity in tech without fixing the technical interview

#431

Post by morgante » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 3:35 PM UTC

MustardTiger wrote: post #430

morgante wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously it doesn't make sense rationally (you miss 100% of the shots you don't take and all that), but it's emotionally very powerful. It's much easier to emotionally justify giving up (I'm not really interested in switching jobs/getting in to tech/etc.) than it is to face the prospect of being rejected many times. Humans are not rational agents.

You are describing the wrong group of people. The "emotionally justify giving up" you describe is precisely what we observe with the group of people who are not considered failures for doing so: women. For men, that is failure. That is not easy to justify emotionally, it is the very thing they are trying to avoid in the first place. The emotional toll of giving up is the same as the emotional toll of trying and faili…

Do you have any evidence to back up that opinion, or is it just your theories on what human nature?

If we want to trade opinions and anecdotes, I personally know plenty of "real men" who have justified giving up on different goals to avoid the pain of continued failure. Heck, I'll admit to having done it myself: many years ago I thought I might want to work in finance but after applying to a few banks and never hearing back I "decided" that it's not really for me when in reality I was just avoiding the pain of further rejection.

I realize this sounds confrontational, but I really do want to know where you're coming from that men don't give up on things due to fear of failure. In my personal and professional lives, I see it all the time.

Re: You can’t fix diversity in tech without fixing the technical interview

#432

Post by MustardTiger » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 3:40 PM UTC

dozzie wrote: post #371

MustardTiger wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes absolutely no sense. By definition, giving up is failure. So the options are "100% chance of failure" vs "less than 100% chance of failure", and you think they are more likely to pick "100% chance of failure" because failure is scary?

You miss an important aspect. You won't succeed in 100% cases you don't take an action, but you also don't fail due to your lack of skills in 100% cases you don't take an action. You can't be blamed for failing if you didn't even try. You can only be blamed for not succeeding .

No, that's not how it works, which is the point. As they said, men's value is judged on their current success. Not trying makes you just as valueless as trying and failing, it is the exact same outcome.

Re: You can’t fix diversity in tech without fixing the technical interview

#433

Post by MustardTiger » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 3:45 PM UTC

morgante wrote: post #431

MustardTiger wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are describing the wrong group of people. The "emotionally justify giving up" you describe is precisely what we observe with the group of people who are not considered failures for doing so: women. For men, that is failure. That is not easy to justify emotionally, it is the very thing they are trying to avoid in the first place. The emotional toll of giving up is the same as the emotional toll of trying and faili…

Do you have any evidence to back up that opinion, or is it just your theories on what human nature? If we want to trade opinions and anecdotes, I personally know plenty of "real men" who have justified giving up on different goals to avoid the pain of continued failure. Heck, I'll admit to having done it myself: many years ago I thought I might want to work in finance but after applying to a few banks and never heari…

>Do you have any evidence to back up that opinion

The very article we're discussing? Remember, it shows 7 times as many women give up as men do.

A generalization is not contradicted by one example to the contrary, it would need a majority of examples to the contrary. Obviously some men do give up. But only 1/7th as many as with women. I am simply supporting the explanation someone else offered: that this is because women have inherent value and men's value is purely based on their current level of success. So men have an additional strong incentive to not give up. And when they do give up, it is often just to pursue another avenue where they feel success is more likely, rather than just giving up altogether.

Re: You can’t fix diversity in tech without fixing the technical interview

#434

Post by geebee » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 3:49 PM UTC

belorn wrote: post #401

taneq wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the start of our teens, we lose the intrinsic value that society places on us as children. For many boys, after this, their only worth is in what they can accomplish, for themselves or for others. For many girls, they learn that they are intrinsically valuable as women, as long as they're attractive. It's not an issue of 'explaining' the odds. It's an issue of women knowing that they're worth something in and of t…

Jumping directly to discrimination in society seems a bit hasted as an explanation for the data, since men entering the teaching profession also show the exact same data. When hitting a roadblock, men a several times more likely to quit the teaching profession than a woman hitting the same roadblock. Surely it not an issue of men knowing that they're worth something in and of themselves, competing against women in th…

"since men entering the teaching profession also show the exact same data"

This is really interesting, could you provide a citation?

Re: You can’t fix diversity in tech without fixing the technical interview

#435

Post by mdorazio » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 3:51 PM UTC

thegayngler wrote: post #337

mdorazio wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a purely utility-maximizing perspective, it's easy to see what happened. Training people costs time and money, both in non-productivity of the new person, and lost productivity from the people training them. Also, there's a fair to good chance that once you train a new person and they get a couple years of experience, they will jump ship and leave you in the same position as when you started. If you look at it t…

I can certainly see where you are coming from. As you stated, it is a chicken and egg problem somewhat. However, if the person has no background whatsoever that's actually different than someone who has some verifiable experience but just isn't what you would like initially. Wouldn't it make sense to take in someone who has some experience then train them. Sure they may leave but they may not if you treat them well.…

Completely agree with you - there is a happy medium with respect to experience and training that the vast majority of hiring completely misses out on today. I think the problem is that's it easier for hiring managers to keep a position open for longer while telling themselves they need a unicorn than it is for them to actually put in the effort to train a new person properly.

And yes, employee retention is a constantly debated topic that most companies only pay lip service to.

Re: You can’t fix diversity in tech without fixing the technical interview

#436

Post by ubernostrum » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 3:51 PM UTC

palunon wrote: post #361

ubernostrum wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So provide me with an interpretation of "just hire the best" -- as a response to critiques of the lack of diversity in tech -- which does not imply or require an assumption that currently-underrepresented groups are, by the nature of the people in those groups, less qualified and thus less likely to be "the best". Because you can't provide that. "Just hire the best" is an excuse for biased interviewing and hiring pro…

There are less of them in tech, so if you hire the best, you've got more chances to hire a white male. It's a numbers game really.

The point is to question why that is -- other fields have stubbornly insisted they were purely merit-based, that women and various other minorities simply were predisposed not to like or be good at what the field was about, etc. etc.

And pretty much every time that's been shown wrong.

Re: You can’t fix diversity in tech without fixing the technical interview

#437

Post by morgante » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 3:52 PM UTC

MustardTiger wrote: post #433

morgante wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any evidence to back up that opinion, or is it just your theories on what human nature? If we want to trade opinions and anecdotes, I personally know plenty of "real men" who have justified giving up on different goals to avoid the pain of continued failure. Heck, I'll admit to having done it myself: many years ago I thought I might want to work in finance but after applying to a few banks and never heari…

>Do you have any evidence to back up that opinion The very article we're discussing? Remember, it shows 7 times as many women give up as men do. A generalization is not contradicted by one example to the contrary, it would need a majority of examples to the contrary. Obviously some men do give up. But only 1/7th as many as with women. I am simply supporting the explanation someone else offered: that this is because w…

All that is evidence of is that women give up more often than men. That doesn't provide any evidence that it's because men's value is tied to achievement.

I could just as readily argue that women give up more than men because they have stronger priors of tech not being for them (fewer peers and role models, less experience, etc.) so any evidence they get confirming that hypothesis is more likely to push them into giving up.

We could, in fact, have both things happening simultaneously: some men giving up to protect their ego, but even more women giving up because they think it's not for them.

Re: You can’t fix diversity in tech without fixing the technical interview

#438

Post by mdorazio » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 3:59 PM UTC

crdoconnor wrote: post #369

mdorazio wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Small caveat - I'd say contract-to-hire is what many places are implementing if they actually want the headcount instead of just a budget expenditure. The problem is that you end up with worse candidates because most people who are really good don't want the uncertainty and stigma of a contract position if they can get a full-time one elsewhere.

I've found the supposed certainty of perm work to be something of an illusion whereas the extra money in contracting is pretty real.

Fair point, but in my experience the extra money is basically a wash when you factor in healthcare costs (I'm in the US), self-employment taxes, lack of employer-matched 401k, unpaid vacation, and the realistic utilization rate you can expect averaged out over several years. If you can keep your rate and utilization up you can definitely do better contracting, but a lot of people prefer the perm setup.

Re: You can’t fix diversity in tech without fixing the technical interview

#439

Post by pj_mukh » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 4:05 PM UTC

weberc2 wrote: post #281

pj_mukh wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because Indian (particularly) men consider engineering to be a safe choice (source: am Indian). Anecdotally, speaking to women (esp American), they find engineering to be categorically unsafe from a career progress perspective. You may not 'see' the bias, but they definitely feel it. The effect is measurable. I am no expert, maybe it has something to do with maternity leave regimes or the interviews (like OP m…

Google offers 18 weeks of maternity leave, and (according to the article at least) they still aren't doing any better than the industry as a whole. I also wonder how much of this perception is the result of a society that tells some groups that everyone is out to get them. Related: https://www.reddit.com/r/TiADiscussion/comments/5arevk/new_t...

Maybe they are inadvertently out to get them? Other than anecdotal stories telling otherwise the numbers show that there is something about the culture that women find openly hostile. We can either tell them to 'get over it' ('thats just the way it is') or change the culture. I don't think the former will work.

Re: You can’t fix diversity in tech without fixing the technical interview

#440

Post by Lio » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 4:10 PM UTC

gspetr wrote: post #429

Lio wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you assuming that there is some genetic or evolutionary reason for men to like cars? That somehow it is hard-coded into the Y chromosome to like cars? There does seem to be some supporting evidence for this theory over social conditioning. Sex differences in rhesus monkey toy preferences parallel those of children[1] [1]: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X08... [edit] I'm actually rather…

I think the issue here is that society sets a taboo on certain views, no matter if they make sense or not. In a sense we have gone back to believing that the Earth is flat when we deny uncomfortable conclusions based on society's (implicit) pressure.

I hope that's not the case here. My reluctance to give my own conclusions about paper is that I don't have the background to interpret the observations properly.

I didn't want my posting of it to be taken as a statement of a poorly informed opinion one way or another, rather than me feeling pressured by society not to discuss it.

I personally don't have anything objective to contribute to discussion that wouldn't be distracting.