Arrington, Race, and Silicon Valley • Hacker News Board

Re: Arrington, Race, and Silicon Valley

#111

Post by tempaccount10 » Sat, Oct 29, 2011, 6:38 PM UTC

nonrecursive wrote: post #87

tempaccount10 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why aren't there many over-weight entrepreneurs in the Vally? I mean just look at how many over weight americans in US and they are under-presented in tech. I'm pissed. I'm going to start a OverWeightMe incubator that helps fat people. And any news media or investor who is not paying attention is a a weight-ist. You all should all write about me and fund me because i'm fat and under-presented so I deserve it. Sarcasm…

Your comment would be more helpful if it didn't misrepresent the blog post. Hank is nowhere saying that "any news media or investor who is not paying attention is racist". He's also not saying that he and others in NewMe deserve anything just because they're black and under-represented. Finally, it's pretty ridiculous to imply that this guy, Hank Williams - and ALL black people out there - are trying to turn venture…

I agree that there's no perfect meritocracy in Silicon Valley or anywhere since we're all human and human has bias. And I agree that black history has caused many disadvantages to the success of black Americans. But I don't buy that the reason that there are few black entrepreneurs because of racism or discrimination in the Valley. Yes, there might be some discrimination, but they are not the root or dominant causes.

Like you said, black people have been mistreated for hundreds of years. So even today, not many black students go to college (comparatively), and when they are in college, not many of them choose engineering(cultural?). The reason why there are few black tech entrepreneurs is because there is a small selection pool to begin with.

I think it's more productive to try to solve these root causes than to blame Valley meritocracy which i think is working ok.

Re: Arrington, Race, and Silicon Valley

#112

Post by neutronicus » Sat, Oct 29, 2011, 6:53 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #100

Steko wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is saying that the tech clique is whites and asians. If you're not Indian but you're white (Chinese, Jewish, etc.) this does not put you at a disadvantage. If you're non-white and non-asian all things being equal you would be at a disadvantage. This is not a very strong claim. It's been shown repeatedly with resumes and in loan applications that a black name/photo/applicant is less likely to move forward than a wh…

So here is the fundamental question: how did Indians/Chinese break into the "tech clique" and why can't Blacks do the same thing?

Extensive support from their own governments, for one. India and China are very serious about trying to export their own tech workers, and have put their education infrastructure where their mouths are. American-born Indians and Chinese have no doubt benefited from the halo of highly-skilled imported labor.

On the other hand, there isn't a "Black IIT" to bootstrap the tech reputation of blacks.

Re: Arrington, Race, and Silicon Valley

#113

Post by david927 » Sat, Oct 29, 2011, 7:00 PM UTC

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?".

Are you kidding? Which one is the quality-selected accelerator? You mentioned YC and TechStars, but both of these have a large number of examples of a selection bias that seems to skew to young, male Ivy League grads. Trying to skew that another way seems like a good idea to me.

Re: Arrington, Race, and Silicon Valley

#114

Post by TDL » Sat, Oct 29, 2011, 7:23 PM UTC

rdl wrote: post #85

jcampbell1 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't seen the movie, but my understanding was that someone used some math skills to better acquire skilled players, thus making professional athletics even more of a meritocracy than it was. If I had to put a bunch of rich people on a chart with three axises of merit, luck, and inheritance, I still think professional athletes lie the closest to the pure merit line.

Definitely professional athletics seems to be an exception, since it has a clearly defined metric for merit, and big enough rewards to picking the winners to justify global search. I'd assume at some level finance is like this; the algorithmic trading parts, not the "we went to Yale together and you have compromising pictures of me with that nun, so I'll give you this business" parts.

Actually finance is a very socially oriented business. Not to the extent that you use in your example, but frankly if the M.D. doesn't like the person they spend 60 to 100 hours/week with that person will be out of a job. Same thing goes on the client side; if they don't like you, you won't get their business.

Re: Arrington, Race, and Silicon Valley

#115

Post by rhizome » Sat, Oct 29, 2011, 7:42 PM UTC

barrkel wrote: post #107

achompas wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no question that professional sports is a meritocracy. Players like LeBron James, Albert Pujols, and Peyton Manning make the most money because they deserve to make the most money. They merit their contracts. Moneyball deals with inefficiencies in antiquated markets, and fits well into Lewis's oeuvre (see Big Short, Liar's Poker for examples of how to take advantage of credit default swaps or the bond market)…

You're confusing merit with scarce resources in high demand.

A nice tulip is a bargain at any price.

Re: Arrington, Race, and Silicon Valley

#116

Post by yummyfajitas » Sat, Oct 29, 2011, 8:34 PM UTC

neutronicus wrote: post #112

yummyfajitas wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So here is the fundamental question: how did Indians/Chinese break into the "tech clique" and why can't Blacks do the same thing?

Extensive support from their own governments, for one. India and China are very serious about trying to export their own tech workers, and have put their education infrastructure where their mouths are. American-born Indians and Chinese have no doubt benefited from the halo of highly-skilled imported labor. On the other hand, there isn't a "Black IIT" to bootstrap the tech reputation of blacks.

There certainly is a "Black IIT" to bootstrap the tech reputation of blacks. It's called "MIT". Most Black applicants who are as qualified as a typical IIT student will get in.

Most Black Americans also tend to have a higher quality primary education than the typical Indian student - their teachers tend to show up for work and their schools tend to have toilets with > 2 nines of uptime.

As for "very serious about trying to export their own tech workers", their efforts have made it considerably easier for Indian/Chinese workers to get an H1B. I guess you are right - Black Americans would probably have a hard time getting an H1B.

Re: Arrington, Race, and Silicon Valley

#117

Post by Dn_Ab » Sat, Oct 29, 2011, 8:57 PM UTC

wisty wrote: post #105

Dn_Ab wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it is not so simple. I do not think most people are rascist. That is the wrong term. But there is a problem. The answer is what you get when you turn your "Fact 2" to a question. Let me explain. I have wondered about this and think the core problem lies with two cognitive short cuts. The availability heuristic and the belief that other groups (predicated on culture) are much less varied in individuals than yours (…

The theory is, if someone acts white, they are going to flee the neighbourhood the minute they finish school, so you shouldn't waste any energy making friends with them. Interestingly, the prejudice against "acting white" is much lower in black schools, and very high in schools with 20% blacks. Also, Hispanics are much worse off - African Americans are respected for a GPA of 3.5, but start losing friends if they get…

Some of what you say makes much sense. I went to a school with about 20% blacks. Although I have heard from others in more homogenous schools that its not much better. You are also right it is not limited to blacks but I could not think of a term that succinctly captured a minority but from a less affluent demographic and more likely to be of a culture that has fractured from its roots.

But part of what you say is a symptom of the chronic heuristic I spoke of. To perpetuate ignorance just because those who do not appreciate it will leave? makes no sense. Why, leaving is almost part of the job description of a sports or entertainment job and they don't get ostracized. Plus part of the problem is a lack of availability of models. The more that achieve the more it becomes okay to try an intellectual avenue as a way out and the less and less notable it becomes to be interested in say math. Plus as a matter of numbers some of them will come back to try and better things, the spaces in entertainment are much more limited than in technology.

Finally, "acting white" exactly exemplifies what I mean. Just because I am not fluent in ebonics, like music with guitars in it, like to read scifi by Egan and books on information theory does not mean I am acting white. Nor does my like of chicken, basketball, funk, hiphop and bboying mean I am acting black. It is a cultural and personal lifestyle choice not predicated on color in deciding what I wish to identify with.

Re: Arrington, Race, and Silicon Valley

#118

Post by Dn_Ab » Sat, Oct 29, 2011, 9:04 PM UTC

tempaccount10 wrote: post #108

Dn_Ab wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it is not so simple. I do not think most people are rascist. That is the wrong term. But there is a problem. The answer is what you get when you turn your "Fact 2" to a question. Let me explain. I have wondered about this and think the core problem lies with two cognitive short cuts. The availability heuristic and the belief that other groups (predicated on culture) are much less varied in individuals than yours (…

For my Fact2, I simply point out there are very fewer black engineering students and as a result, fewer tech founders. I agree with you that it's a cultural problem. There is a research showing that recent African immigrants perform better than those whose have been in US for hundreds of years. So the problems are not inherent but cultural. My point is that Silicon Valley is not to blame for not having many black fou…

As I noted skin color does not exempt you from such behaviour. I don't think it classes as racism. More subconscious biases we all fall prey to. But it is these observable actions that hint at the hidden biases that stack the decks to make it harder.

Not until it is common knowledge that ignanance is not a symptom of race will the problem be solved.

Re: Arrington, Race, and Silicon Valley

#119

Post by rdl » Sat, Oct 29, 2011, 9:51 PM UTC

TDL wrote: post #114

rdl wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely professional athletics seems to be an exception, since it has a clearly defined metric for merit, and big enough rewards to picking the winners to justify global search. I'd assume at some level finance is like this; the algorithmic trading parts, not the "we went to Yale together and you have compromising pictures of me with that nun, so I'll give you this business" parts.

Actually finance is a very socially oriented business. Not to the extent that you use in your example, but frankly if the M.D. doesn't like the person they spend 60 to 100 hours/week with that person will be out of a job. Same thing goes on the client side; if they don't like you, you won't get their business.

Right, but in the long run, a really obnoxious guy who is right about the market more than everyone else could probably end up running money, using other people as buffers. A small hedge fund really doesn't have a lot of overhead, so one obnoxious genius could work with 2-3 other people.

There are lots of roles in finance where connections and likability are probably primary (once you pass a certain level of competence), though.

Re: Arrington, Race, and Silicon Valley

#120

Post by eaurouge » Sat, Oct 29, 2011, 10:04 PM UTC

eftpotrm wrote: post #104

achompas wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no question that professional sports is a meritocracy. Players like LeBron James, Albert Pujols, and Peyton Manning make the most money because they deserve to make the most money. They merit their contracts. Moneyball deals with inefficiencies in antiquated markets, and fits well into Lewis's oeuvre (see Big Short, Liar's Poker for examples of how to take advantage of credit default swaps or the bond market)…

David Beckham isn't by any stretch the world's greatest footballer; his rise was directly alongside Ryan Giggs in the same team, and a comparison of their stats isn't favourable to Mr. Beckham. Yet his fame is such that teams will hire him, knowing they'll turn a profit on sales of his shirts. Anna Kournikova was never a very successful tennis player but her earnings never reflected that. Ferrari have a good F1 team,…

I think sports is 'mostly' a meritocracy. You don't just walk into the first team of any of the top European leagues. And Beckham fully deserved his place in all the teams he's played in so far - just ask Capello. Capello initially refused to play Beckham (for whatever reason) in 2007, but would now acknowledge Beckham's role in helping Madrid win La Liga in the same year. I agree teams factored shirt sales when bidding for Beckham, but he couldn't have built his brand without being a top player.

Depending on how you define success, Kournikova was successful. You can't qualify routinely for grand slam tournaments unless you're a top tennis player - you get there purely on merit.

F1 is a different matter entirely. For all the love I have for it, it's hardly a pure sport. But even then, the top drivers do win the top drives. I remember telling my Spanish friend that Alonso was going to win the championship some day, after seeing him routinely out-qualify and out-race his teammate, and drivers in better cars.