Arrington, Race, and Silicon Valley • Hacker News Board

Re: Arrington, Race, and Silicon Valley

#61

Post by colinplamondon » Sat, Oct 29, 2011, 1:05 AM UTC

aprjoy wrote: post #56

colinplamondon wrote: post #46

It's not surprising NewMe didn't get coverage. Taking part in a race-selected accelerator, instead of a quality-selected accelerator, reflects badly. "If their product is so good, why couldn't they get into YC or TechStars?".

Hmm...two curious assumptions here: 1) that a "race-selected" accelerator is not a "quality-selected" one and 2) that the NewME companies are all YC and TechStars rejects Curious what led you to them.

A race-selected accelerator is filtering based on race first, then on quality. It's not business investment, it's social entrepreneurship.

Step 1) Throw out 87% of applications randomly. Step 2) Select based on quality. Step 3) Profit?

Compare that to a quality-selected accelerator:

Step 1) Select based on quality. Step 2) Profit!

A race-based accelerator will only outperform a quality-selected accelerator if there's a race that inherently, innately outperforms all other races. Science has pretty well debunked that one.

As to #2, you'd have to be really, really, really stupid to go with a niche accelerator that no one's ever heard of IF given the option of going with YC or TS.

NewMe could barely get a mention in TechCrunch, and, when they did, the social entrepreneurship side story beat out the "here are our awesome companies!" story.

Re: Arrington, Race, and Silicon Valley

#62

Post by bilbo0s » Sat, Oct 29, 2011, 1:22 AM UTC

patio11 wrote: post #31

Silicon Valley is chum-tactic, so if you really care about the differential access problem for X, regardless of the value of X, make extra special effort to both tell X that Silicon Valley is chum-tactic and to introduce them to the right people. Chum-tactic: the first filter applied to you, for press or investment or anything, is "Who sent you to me?" Some people think "Silicon Valley is a meritocracy" implies that…

Wow.

That's a brilliant way to put it.

Re: Arrington, Race, and Silicon Valley

#63

Post by gizmo » Sat, Oct 29, 2011, 1:25 AM UTC

ilamont wrote: post #20

yummyfajitas wrote: post #2

People, for the most part, want to work with people that are “like them” or that fit a pattern that appeals to them. I see this argument made a lot. But this argument has a huge hole in it - Chinese and Indians are also not "like them". And yet, Chinese/Indians are not underrepresented. If Hank William's theory were correct, they should be. Any theory concerning the underrepresentation of blacks which does not distin…

He said or fit into a pattern, not and . I once heard an older, well-known investor and entrepreneur in the Boston area tell a room full of students that a startup he's most likely to invest in is one whose founding team includes an IIT graduate. Earlier this month, Foundry Group VC Seth Levine said he felt "surprised" being pitched by a group of guys in their late 40s and 50s ( http://www.sethlevine.com/wp/2011/10/i…

My guess is that it's much more likely that because picking winning founders is so difficult (and so little real data is available) that they're likely to acquire all sorts of superstitions about what a good founder is supposed to look like.

People who play the slot machines or invest in the stock market are notoriously superstitious. I don't think VCs are much different.

I don't think VCs accurately keep track of which founders they reject and end up successful anyway, and adjust their metrics based on that data. I think they have hunches and some founders become successful and then they filter more aggressively on those character traits and confirmation bias takes care of the rest.

Re: Arrington, Race, and Silicon Valley

#64

Post by hackinthebochs » Sat, Oct 29, 2011, 1:27 AM UTC

colinplamondon wrote: post #61

aprjoy wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm...two curious assumptions here: 1) that a "race-selected" accelerator is not a "quality-selected" one and 2) that the NewME companies are all YC and TechStars rejects Curious what led you to them.

A race-selected accelerator is filtering based on race first, then on quality. It's not business investment, it's social entrepreneurship. Step 1) Throw out 87% of applications randomly. Step 2) Select based on quality. Step 3) Profit? Compare that to a quality-selected accelerator: Step 1) Select based on quality. Step 2) Profit! A race-based accelerator will only outperform a quality-selected accelerator if there's…

Not necessarily. You're working under the assumption that Black entrepreneurs don't have a harder time getting exposure or VC funding than other groups, thus focusing solely on Black startups will likely yield a suboptimal group. This is likely to be false. If it is the case that Black startups have it harder, it is likely that strong startups exist that are being overlooked in this group. Thus intentionally taking an extra look at black entrepreneurs could in fact be a smart business decision. Furthermore, there's also the uniqueness factor that could bring extra "free" exposure which is the lifeblood of a startup.

"Merit" has different meanings in different contexts. In the startup world, merit means whoever will likely bring in the most return on investment. He's betting that the overlooked black startups fit the bill. That's a 100% business calculation.

Re: Arrington, Race, and Silicon Valley

#65

Post by bilbo0s » Sat, Oct 29, 2011, 1:39 AM UTC

stfu wrote: post #52

Of cause a socio political minefield. Maybe I am too pragmatic about that - BUT: If I were a founder that would feel being discriminated against in any form (sex, gender, color, your name it) why should I not pare up with a co-founder whom I regard as being not discriminated? If I have no biases within my own friend circle this should be not problem at all. Or would it?

This is, unfortunately, VERY good advice. If I were a young, black guy trying to start a company...I don't care how smart I am...I would go get a front man. Don't let idealism advise your financial dealings. IDEALLY...it would be great if there was no bias. PRAGMATICALLY...there is bias, those kids will need to deal with it.

One way is to come across an Arrington, but as not all guys are like Arrington...you would be well advised to have a front man.

Re: Arrington, Race, and Silicon Valley

#66

Post by nikcub » Sat, Oct 29, 2011, 3:50 AM UTC

NewMe is one of hundreds of new accelerators, you can't expect them all to get the same coverage as YC and Techstars (who have been around for years and have produced great companies), and it isn't racism if one of the accelerators you don't cover just happens to be race focused.

Re: Arrington, Race, and Silicon Valley

#67

Post by larrys » Sat, Oct 29, 2011, 3:57 AM UTC

ilamont wrote: post #20

yummyfajitas wrote: post #2

People, for the most part, want to work with people that are “like them” or that fit a pattern that appeals to them. I see this argument made a lot. But this argument has a huge hole in it - Chinese and Indians are also not "like them". And yet, Chinese/Indians are not underrepresented. If Hank William's theory were correct, they should be. Any theory concerning the underrepresentation of blacks which does not distin…

He said or fit into a pattern, not and . I once heard an older, well-known investor and entrepreneur in the Boston area tell a room full of students that a startup he's most likely to invest in is one whose founding team includes an IIT graduate. Earlier this month, Foundry Group VC Seth Levine said he felt "surprised" being pitched by a group of guys in their late 40s and 50s ( http://www.sethlevine.com/wp/2011/10/i…

"Sequoia VC saying that they're biased toward younger people"

The bias could be that a person who is in their 40's and 50's could be considered "stale" in the same way that a house that sits on the market is if it hasn't sold.

There is a belief somehow that something just out there is potentially something to snap up. It's easier to believe that something great is possible with the 20 year old since they have no track record of not doing anything great yet. They feel they know the older person isn't a hot shot but they don't know for sure that the younger person isn't a hot shot. (Of course this doesn't apply to older entrepreneurs who have a success or even a (high profile) failure in their past.)

Re: Arrington, Race, and Silicon Valley

#68

Post by psyklic » Sat, Oct 29, 2011, 3:58 AM UTC

rdl wrote: post #51

patio11 wrote: post #31

Silicon Valley is chum-tactic, so if you really care about the differential access problem for X, regardless of the value of X, make extra special effort to both tell X that Silicon Valley is chum-tactic and to introduce them to the right people. Chum-tactic: the first filter applied to you, for press or investment or anything, is "Who sent you to me?" Some people think "Silicon Valley is a meritocracy" implies that…

Outside of closed environments with pre-screening (students in a class, for instance), what systems don't work this way?

Dating is an example which bolsters the author's point. If someone says he "just isn't attracted to black people," is that racist? It may be true that he isn't attracted. But, I've found that after having good friends of a particular race (and hence seeing that they're more like me than not), I become more attracted to people of that race.

Re: Arrington, Race, and Silicon Valley

#69

Post by Anechoic » Sat, Oct 29, 2011, 4:00 AM UTC

wangwei wrote: post #44

I believe Silicon Valley is meritocratic for the most part. I don't buy the minority argument since there are many asian minority presence in the valley. If you look at music industry or sports (such as basketball), you will see many black people. You rarely see any asian people doing sports or music. And we don't blame it on race. If black people are not discriminated in music or sports, I don't know why they would…

>If black people are not discriminated in music or sports, I don't know why they would be discriminated in other industries.

And yet there is plenty of evidence to show that they are. This http://www.princeton.edu/~pager/ASR_pager_etal09.pdf for example

Re: Arrington, Race, and Silicon Valley

#70

Post by larrys » Sat, Oct 29, 2011, 4:04 AM UTC

jessedhillon wrote: post #37

yummyfajitas wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So do you think I (a non-Indian) would be at a disadvantage applying to Khosla's outfit [1]? If Khosla looks for people "like him", that should be the case. Similarly, would an Indian founder be at a disadvantage applying to Fred Wilson? Somehow, I suspect any disadvantage would be minor, if it existed at all. In any case, your theory of who "them" is now drawn quite broadly. It's not so much people looking for other…

You are narrowly reducing the "like him" assessment to race alone. It's culture + race that makes the determination. An Indian person has an easier time demonstrating that s/he is part of the mainstream culture. In my experience, educated immigrants, or children thereof, are often received as a blank slate and accordingly it's easy to see them as "one of us." Most Americans, however, already have a conception of who…

"already have a conception of who Blacks and Hispanics "are" and it's not quite positive. They have a deficit initial position"

I agree. In a sense it's like a negative brand association. I would add that we could also discuss the positive association of blacks with sports or entertainment vs. some other minorities or even whites.

But Jewish and sports? No.

Jewish and Medicine? Yes.