Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The power of role models

commandcenter.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 380 posts

Re: The power of role models

#341

Post by FullMtlAlcoholc »

watwut wrote: post #204
FullMtlAlcoholc wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think his post was that we should challenge our cognitive biases and the male-oriented geek culture. For example, after some members of the team have interviewed a potential candidate for hire, we get together to discuss our observations on him/her. We were choosing between two people and the female, IMO, wrote much cleaner code. The team decided to go with the guy because "he fit the culture better". What this mea…

Even if the two applicants were guys, that decision process is still wrong and has nothing to do with "meritocracy".

> has nothing to do with "meritocracy".

My point exactly. This is very common in hiring practices where "culture" fit is most important.

Re: The power of role models

#342

Post by bitexploder »

4ad wrote: post #340
jfaucett wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the point of diversity? You're just drawing arbitrary lines based on skin color or gender or sexual orientation. If you drew those lines somewhere else say, favorite color/food, political affiliation, mathematical abilities, etc. you'd have a completely different categorization. This is why a meritocracy is so important. There is no smaller minority group than the individual, basing outcomes on anything else…

Western organisations like Google or universities are spectacular at this. They fill their rooms with asians, women, black people, gays, lesbians, phds of all subjects, and yet they all act and talk like western white males. Yes, even the women. Coming from a country at the boundary between east and west, poor and developed, civilisation and 3rd world, I find it fascinating how there is less diversity of thought at G…

Yes. This meritocracy smells religious in some ways. It speaks to the elite technologist. They begin to value merit, but it gets warped into "merit that is important to me". Smart people are great at biasing themselves into their own strange worlds of monocultute.

Re: The power of role models

#343

Post by stale2002 »

jkaptur wrote: post #328
Shubley wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People don't give (or often even know) the real reasons they do things. Steeped in a culture of sexism accusations, it's not surprising that you'd hear reports of sexism from women leaving the industry. A man doing the exact same thing (and many men do leave tech) would say their boss was an asshole, or they hated the hours, or whatever. Women are prodded and trained to interpret exactly the same circumstances as sex…

What would it take to convince you that the tech industry is more hostile to women than men? Honest question.

There is nothing that could do so for that poster.

He has an unfalsifiable belief.

He asks for evidence, someone gives him clear evidence, well the evidence must be fake.

Re: The power of role models

#344

Post by tbrownaw »

Thiez wrote: post #335
tbrownaw wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does anyone here really have any role models that were influential to their interest in the field? That's probably the wrong question to be asking. There is a limited supply of people who are interested in technology for its own sake, and prefer computers over people. In order for software to keep eating everything, the industry needs to attract more and more people who don't care quite that much or even people who D…

> There is a limited supply of people who are interested in technology for its own sake, and prefer computers over people. What does that even mean, to "prefer computers over people"? I think there are very few people (in tech or any other field) who would prefer to be a hermit and spend all of their time on their interest of choice. You can be interested in technology for its own sake without seeking social isolatio…

The idea that programmers should be modern day monks that have no families and spend their days programming and in quiet contemplation is completely ridiculous.

I'm not saying they should.

But, I'm sure you've heard the terms "geek syndrome" or "pizza-box coder"? Or the whole nerds vs jocks thing, including the "Be nice to nerds. You may end up working for one." that is usually mis-attributed to a commencement speech that Bill Gates apparently (per Snopes) didn't actually give?

Or the "Unix greybeard" persona, and the big push a few years back to recognize that computer people really don't all look like that?

These things did not come out of nowhere.

Who is this "us" and "we" you speak of? I have to work with my coworkers, so all other things equal I prefer it when they are socially competent.

Yep, same here.

I think you are reinforcing a very harmful stereotype, where you have to be a computer-obsessed social pariah to have a successful career in tech.

No. That used to be a common side-effect or correlate of interest in tech.

I am saying that the people we're trying to attract into the field now (and for the most recent decade or two), are not like the people who voluntarily chose to enter the field in the more distant past.

I am saying that these people are not likely to care about the same incentives.

I am saying that the quantitative change in the field has necessitated a qualitative change in new entrants, which makes "back in my day" a very poor argument for what's appropriate or effective.

Perhaps you should reflect on those beliefs, and whether they are based on objective facts or perhaps something you tell yourself to avoid feeling inadequate about your interpersonal skills.

You mean the beliefs you wrongly claimed I hold, based on your presumption that my claims of what is (or in this case, was) were really just disguised claims of what should be?

And my interpersonal skills are just fine now, thank you. Because I made a point of learning them in my early 20s, after seeing how useful they were to my new coworkers.

Re: The power of role models

#345

Post by nickparker »

Shubley wrote: post #291
nickparker wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see where you're coming from, and I think we reach different conclusions because you see merit as a much more readily judged quantity than I do. I wholeheartedly agree, elevating people above the level of responsibility/work they can handle is a bad idea, as is taking away responsibility from more qualified people. Where you run into trouble is the people judging qualifications. Human judgment is an insanely noisy…

I think what you said about height might be a bit off since you're dismissing the possibility that tall people actually are better at their jobs. E.g. looks and facial symmetry both correlate with fertility and IQ, probably through the mechanism of mutational load. So you could say, "good looking people make more money" as an example here, but the effect could be from IQ because they actually do go together. The same…

I haven't looked at that literature myself, but I would be surprised if it completely disarms my point.

It's very believable that intelligence and height correlate, but the question then becomes "Do we overweight height in decision making, relative to its predictive power for success/intelligence?" If height very weakly predicts increased intelligence and we weight it strongly, that's still far from optimal decision making.

The correlation with intelligence isn't even necessary to ask that question. Hiring taller people also has upside in that other people (eg, your customers!) are biased toward them as well. However, and I admit this is conjecture, I still suspect allowing your own biases to influence decision making is a net negative.

Re: The power of role models

#346

Post by tptacek »

discombobulate wrote: post #339
tptacek wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if by "most of the subjects" you mean "engineering and CS", which, along with physics, are the entire male bastion of science. Every other scientific field does far better, including pure math, chemistry, neuroscience, astronomy (as Pike notes in this piece), and molecular biology, where women make up (wait for it) over 50% of PhDs granted every year.

> Every other scientific field does far better It's not 'better' if some people are more interested in one field vs. others. You have to ignore biology to take your position of certainty . It's delutional. There's no certainty, even with something which is true. Most people prefer to hold on to an ideology or what sounds nice rather than taking ideas to their conclusion. All the long words you can muster don't save y…

First, name calling doesn't make your argument any more credible.

Second, you're still just avoiding the question. The idea that there is an intrinsic gender difference driving gender disparity in tech has a huge hurdle to clear, which is that the same disparity does not exist in other STEM fields. Even the STEM fields that have gender parity problems don't have it as bad as CS does.

In order to compose a persuasive argument that gender disparity is due simply to benign preference that is intrinsic to the field of technology, you have to identify attributes of technology that serve as evidence for those preferences. None have been provided anywhere on this thread, just the vague idea that women don't like computers but do like actuarial science, molecular biology, and abstract algebra.

Re: The power of role models

#347

Post by discombobulate »

tptacek wrote: post #346
discombobulate wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every other scientific field does far better It's not 'better' if some people are more interested in one field vs. others. You have to ignore biology to take your position of certainty . It's delutional. There's no certainty, even with something which is true. Most people prefer to hold on to an ideology or what sounds nice rather than taking ideas to their conclusion. All the long words you can muster don't save y…

First, name calling doesn't make your argument any more credible. Second, you're still just avoiding the question. The idea that there is an intrinsic gender difference driving gender disparity in tech has a huge hurdle to clear, which is that the same disparity does not exist in other STEM fields . Even the STEM fields that have gender parity problems don't have it as bad as CS does. In order to compose a persuasive…

> First, name calling doesn't make your argument any more credible.

It explains your position. Being meta isn't name-calling. Or if it is it's on the same level of Nietzsche saying philosophers derive philosophy from who they are.

2) You've listed three such subjects yourself: CS, engineering, physics. Not such a high hurdle when there are multiple elements in the set. Which you left out. Strawman. Or is it OK to be dishonest in your arguments, and then claim I have a lack of rigour?

> you have to identify attributes of technology that serve as evidence for those preferences

No I don't.

I can say males & females have preferences for different activities, therefore it's plausible that they have a preference for one job over another.

I could point to Sweden and say a country with the least inequality has the largest differences in occupation.

There's no way to be more definitive without additional information. Thus, my position is, it's unclear what's creating the differences in a number of fields. It could be biological, or it could be systematic discrimination (which is falsified somewhat by Sweden). So, I lean towards biological differences.

I understand your position as:

There are no preference differences in most 'high-status' jobs, therefore there are no preference differences universally.

That doesn't jive with Sweden. And isn't self-evident.

You demand proof that a number of fields are different in a way which is unattractive to women. How about you supply proof that they're the same?!

Re: The power of role models

#348

Post by [deleted] »

discombobulate wrote: post #347
tptacek wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, name calling doesn't make your argument any more credible. Second, you're still just avoiding the question. The idea that there is an intrinsic gender difference driving gender disparity in tech has a huge hurdle to clear, which is that the same disparity does not exist in other STEM fields . Even the STEM fields that have gender parity problems don't have it as bad as CS does. In order to compose a persuasive…

> First, name calling doesn't make your argument any more credible. It explains your position. Being meta isn't name-calling. Or if it is it's on the same level of Nietzsche saying philosophers derive philosophy from who they are. 2) You've listed three such subjects yourself: CS, engineering, physics. Not such a high hurdle when there are multiple elements in the set. Which you left out. Strawman. Or is it OK to be…

[deleted]

Re: The power of role models

#349

Post by pvg »

nielsabel wrote: post #338
pvg wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>you should judge what I say, not how I say it. That seems obviously inaccurate in any moderated forum. Or we'd all be published New Yorker writers.

You're confusing being a good writer with being polite.

No.

Re: The power of role models

#350

Post by sctb »

zigzigzag wrote: post #314
sctb wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're going to participate in discussions on Hacker News it has to be more civil and substantive than this.

Are you objecting to the use of the word vagina? It seems base, uncivil and shocking doesn't it? It's also a statement of cold fact. That is exactly the policy being advocated by Pike and too many people in this discussion thread: promote and hire people simply because of their anatomy. Your shock at my language is not the result of me being uncivil, but at an uncivil policy stated clearly and without linguistic obfu…

You continue to attack straw men on a controversial topic, and that is what is uncivil and against the guidelines of this site. Worse, we've seen these scarecrows a million times before and they predictably fail to ever bring us any closer to any insight on the topic.
Post reply on HN