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

Diversity and Startups

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 218 posts

Re: Diversity and Startups

#191

Post by sanderjd »

potatolicious wrote: post #166
lacus wrote: post #115

YC is starting to take a lot of the right steps. I know for me personally, as a female founder, my attitude has changed a lot in the past 6-8 months (from "I guess I'll keep reading HN & essays because I don't want to miss out on interesting content... but I don't feel good about it, and I'd definitely never apply" -- to now being able to be an unequivocal fan, attending Startup School, etc.). Honestly, any effort at…

> "e.g., that other industries are doing worse than tech on gender issues. (Like who? Who's doing worse, specifically?" Probably no one, or at least no industry of comparable size. But knowing HN, if Sam made an absolute statement like "we are the worst in diversity", the HN crew will spend the entire ensuing commentary self-importantly arguing whether or not we are literally the worst . That's a conversation best av…

I think any reasonably sized group of people can reasonably be expected to defend themselves when accused of being literally the worst in some way that matters if they don't think they are, regardless of their level of pedantry. In general, if you're trying to make some other major point in an article, it's best to equivocate on things that you think would be inflammatory and irrelevant.

Re: Diversity and Startups

#192

Post by adamzerner »

MartinCron wrote: post #182
adamzerner wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems too long winded. I understand your point that "girls" might have a connotation of disrespect. As if they're young and immature. But I think it's a slight connotation. Given the context, of me pointing out that girls are being mistreated and that I think we should treat them better, I think the connotation is negligible. In other contexts I could see "girls" being disrespectful, but I don't think it is in t…

You realize that you don't get to determine what feels disrespectful and diminutive to other people? That is sort of what it means for them to be other people.

If using the term "girl" is genuinely offensive, I'll happily stop. You're right, it isn't my place to hurt people who I think are misinterpreting a word.

However, I suspect that most people wouldn't be offended. If I used "women", I think the implication is "age > twenty something". I think the context makes it clear that I'm just using "girl" to be all encompassing, and thus, most people wouldn't be offended.

Re: Diversity and Startups

#193

Post by tptacek »

whybroke wrote: post #183
tptacek wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure "0% of founders were anywhere near pg's age" is false.

Is that really your only observation about the utterly extreme public positions I mentioned above? Very well. Name one.

Search the archives and you'll find Paul Graham talking about the age distributions, and contradicting you.

Re: Diversity and Startups

#194

Post by lexcorvus »

tptacek wrote: post #96
benmathes wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Broadly speaking, competition definitely creates sex-based selection-bias. Men self-select into competitions more than women, and are more motivated by them. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brain-wise/201210/when-c... https://www3.nd.edu/~wevans1/fresh_honor_seminar/vesterland.... I am not saying men are more capable, just more likely to self-select into the competition. Read up on what professional coaches of wo…

We work in a deeply, irretrievably competitive industry. The ability to thrive in a competitive environment is a requirement at many, perhaps most, startups. Women perform in the industry just fine, but are victimized by the perception that their gender prevents them from being competitive.

There's no question that women and men face different barriers in startups and tech. The null hypothesis is thus

(a) differences in reactions to a competitive environment are partially due to differences in how women and men are treated.

There's also no question that women and men differ biologically. The null hypothesis is thus

(b) differences in reactions to a competitive environment are partially biological in origin.

We thus have joint null hypotheses. Most commentators focus on a for obvious political reasons. Most contrarians focus on b, partially because a receives most of the attention, thus perhaps discounting a unfairly. But both a and b deserve consideration, and the burden of proof is on those asserting either ¬a or ¬b.

By stating that women are "victimized by the perception that their gender prevents them from being competitive", you've implicitly asserted that women are not in fact less competitive because of their gender, but rather are merely perceived to be so. You have thus placed the burden of proof on those who claim otherwise. In other words, by asserting a while discounting b, you have implicitly asserted ¬b as the null hypothesis.

You're in good company, of course: virtually the entire mainstream treats ¬b as the null hypothesis. Indeed, publicly supporting anything other than ¬b in the workplace is not only socially unacceptable, it is probably illegal. Unfortunately, it is also fallacious. The burden of proof is on those who assert that women's biology doesn't make them less competitive in startups and tech.

So, what evidence is there that women and men are equally well-suited to highly competitive environments? Bear in mind that nearly every highly competitive field (not just startups and tech) is now, and has historically been, dominated by men—including in far-flung locations without significant cultural contact. Contra the mainstream, ¬b is an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary evidence.

Re: Diversity and Startups

#195

Post by tuxidomasx »

As mentioned in some other comments, the post focuses more on gender than ethnicity. As a 31 year old African American male in tech, some of the challenges for black males and females that I've witnessed range from cultural mismatches to being under-valued and therefore underutilized. There's also a lot of stress and pressure associated with often being the only black person in the room throughout most of your STEM education and career. For startups specifically, I've often heard of "pattern matching" as a manifestation of bias for white and asian males. If we're looking for a cause of the lack of ethnic diversity, we can't ignore the socially uninviting nature of the environment.

Many of the solutions that have helped counter these challenges for me and a lot of my peers have been programs, organizations, and networks that focus on creating a culturally targeted atmosphere. Professional organizations like the National Society of Black Engineers really go a long way in encouraging minorities to pursue careers in technology. And within the startup community, I think programs like the NewMe accelerator meet a very specific and important need. Instead of just corralling minorities into tech companies or startups where they will still be underrepresented, there is a benefit in encouraging them to create their own companies where they can foster a cultural climate that naturally appeals to their ethnic peers.

Re: Diversity and Startups

#196

Post by streptomycin »

gizmo wrote: post #187
streptomycin wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see why it makes sense to ignore certain areas of racial disparity. If the racial IQ gap can be closed by various means, we should try to do it. Refusing to acknowledge that a disparity exists (not referring to you, but to people like the other guy who replied to me) doesn't help solve anything. I could replace "IQ" with various other metrics like "SAT scores" or "high school graduation rates" or whatever, si…

The idea that people who look different are inferior is a racist hypothesis -- now scientifically discredited -- that has been repeated for the past 300 years. People who bring up IQ today use the exact same language people used back in the day and that has racist implications. But when they get called on it they backtrack and claim they never meant to say something racist -- they're just talking about neutral scient…

Point taken on most of that. I still believe that the racial disparity in tech is a much more difficult problem than the gender disparity, because that argument doesn't change if you swap "IQ" with "SAT scores". Definitely do not want to imply racial superiority.

However,

the concepts of "black" and "white" are cultural inventions, and have no biological meaning

That's not true. If you take a look human genetic data, clusters very clearly appear which correspond with races. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/05/why-race-as-a...

To deny that is unscientific silliness.

Re: Diversity and Startups

#197

Post by dang »

xiaoma wrote: post #188
dang wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and locked it That's false. We didn't lock anything. We simply made the post not be on the front page. Edit: I posted a longer reply, but decided it was a bad idea.

I have to say that I've lost some respect for HN today. While there are many times I've missed the quality of the community from the early days of 2007, it's only been recently where I've wondered if the front page might be as censored as Digg was around the time I first discovered HN.

Not sure what you're referring to? I can tell you, though, that HN has never been a purely vote-driven site, not in 2007 or any time since. It has always been a blend of user votes and moderator curation. What has changed is that (because users asked us to) we've been more transparent over the last few months about how the site works. It's a mistake to misinterpret this change in reporting as a change in HN itself.

Re: Diversity and Startups

#198

Post by tptacek »

whybroke wrote: post #184
tptacek wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does not tell us that all the downvoters believe ageism not to be an issue.

It means the conversation is not welcome here. Which, given the prevalence of discussion on similar issues, does indeed tell us a lot.

That depends on what you mean by "here". This thread? Yes.

Re: Diversity and Startups

#199

Post by gizmo »

streptomycin wrote: post #196
gizmo wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that people who look different are inferior is a racist hypothesis -- now scientifically discredited -- that has been repeated for the past 300 years. People who bring up IQ today use the exact same language people used back in the day and that has racist implications. But when they get called on it they backtrack and claim they never meant to say something racist -- they're just talking about neutral scient…

Point taken on most of that. I still believe that the racial disparity in tech is a much more difficult problem than the gender disparity, because that argument doesn't change if you swap "IQ" with "SAT scores". Definitely do not want to imply racial superiority. However, the concepts of "black" and "white" are cultural inventions, and have no biological meaning That's not true. If you take a look human genetic data,…

Race (as opposed to say, skin color) is a social construct that changes over time. It's an us-vs-them delineation.

This puts it better than I can, so I'll just provide the link: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/what-we-... (And I'm aware of the irony)

Re: Diversity and Startups

#200

Post by streptomycin »

gizmo wrote: post #199
streptomycin wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Point taken on most of that. I still believe that the racial disparity in tech is a much more difficult problem than the gender disparity, because that argument doesn't change if you swap "IQ" with "SAT scores". Definitely do not want to imply racial superiority. However, the concepts of "black" and "white" are cultural inventions, and have no biological meaning That's not true. If you take a look human genetic data,…

Race (as opposed to say, skin color) is a social construct that changes over time. It's an us-vs-them delineation. This puts it better than I can, so I'll just provide the link: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/what-we-... (And I'm aware of the irony)

This kind of argument never seemed very convincing to me. It's the same you see with any kind of fuzzy data. Like what is a "species", when exactly do two groups of animals become different "species"? There's no perfect answer, and attempts at making strict biological definitions often run contrary to popular opinion. Similar to "Is Pluto a planet?", "Is a tomato a fruit?", "Is this blueish-green or greenish-blue?", etc.

The answer isn't to just completely discard the concepts of races, species, planets, fruits, colors, and many other things. It's to understand that all of those things are real scientific concepts, but their precise definitions depend on the context of use.

Post reply on HN