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

Martin Fowler: The Fallacies and Reprocussions of Diversity Imbalance

martinfowler.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 177 posts

Re: Martin Fowler: The Fallacies and Reprocussions of Diversity Imbalance

#21

Post by nsxwolf »

puls wrote: post #15
nsxwolf wrote: post #10

I don't get this. Maybe it's because I'm a white male, but it still doesn't make sense to me. Why is there such a resistance to the idea that there might be differences in what groups of people are interested in at any given time? Not an issue of genetics or competence, but a complicated web of social influences that make people less likely to be interested in one path or the other? If there are truly unjust and disc…

I think his entire point is to call out that complicated web of social influences as the problem.

But the complicated web is what's called "life". It's infinitely diverse and complex, and if some optimal configuration could be discovered and enforced that would lead to this banal goal of "more members of group X in programming jobs", it could only have untold deleterious effects elsewhere.

The demographic makeup of tech careers may simply be the result of billions of people just doing what it is they do.

Re: Martin Fowler: The Fallacies and Reprocussions of Diversity Imbalance

#22

Post by jessedhillon »

nsxwolf wrote: post #10

I don't get this. Maybe it's because I'm a white male, but it still doesn't make sense to me. Why is there such a resistance to the idea that there might be differences in what groups of people are interested in at any given time? Not an issue of genetics or competence, but a complicated web of social influences that make people less likely to be interested in one path or the other? If there are truly unjust and disc…

The resistance comes from the fact that this idea -- lack of diversity is explained by differences in some fundamental, intrinsic way -- is offered and accepted without serious proof!

Re: Martin Fowler: The Fallacies and Reprocussions of Diversity Imbalance

#23

Post by yummyfajitas »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #3

I hate to pick apart Fowler -- probably a good way for folks to call me an idiot -- but I have to. here are (roughly) 50% women in the world, so we should expect the ratio for women in computing to be 50% - unless there's real evidence that some other ratio is natural.[2] So far there's no such evidence. But, er, doesn't the observation that the actual ratio is different evidence constitute "evidence"? Aside from dir…

Not only does he make the logical fallacies you suggest, but he also ignores plenty of evidence that there might be natural causes:

For instance, there is plenty of evidence women are less likely to be very good (or very bad) at math: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/321/5888/494.summary http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21038941

There is also evidence women are more risk averse, making them less likely to work in startups: http://www.pnas.org/content/106/36/15268.full

There is evidence women avoid computing specifically because they are intolerant of geeks: http://web.archive.org/web/20100106021904/http://scicom.ucsc... (The original article was taken down)

This report also pushes the intolerance hypothesis, as well as women being less dedicated, being fearful of text interfaces, and preferring more collectivist environments: http://web.archive.org/web/20091007234852/http://opensource.... (Please go read the report before criticizing me for citing it. It's written by a woman who is allegedly a feminist.)

It's safe to say that none of this is ironclad proof that the only cause of women not being present in computing is natural causes. But the author's claims that "there's no such evidence" is utterly wrong. There is evidence, he just ignores it.

Lastly, the author completely ignores the fact that computing is very diverse. We have whites, all different types of asians, israelis and a smattering of euros (and of all sexual orientations). Our diversity may not be statistically identical to the general US population, but it's nonsensical to claim a lack of diversity in computing.

Re: Martin Fowler: The Fallacies and Reprocussions of Diversity Imbalance

#24

Post by MartinCron »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #14
andrewcooke wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the difference here is on the meaning of "natural". you're taking it to mean something like "what we have" and then your argument makes sense: we see what we have because of some process that exists (is natural). but fowler is using "natural" in a sense more like "unbiased by historical accident" or "what we would get if a bunch of people were suddenly created out of nothing and formed a society from zero". so there'…

Great comment. Thanks. Yes, you are correct. I made an edit to that effect. If I observe something, it is occurring, correct? Or I could not have observed it. The question becomes why is it occurring? We can observe "simple" things like trees and rocks and disagree on the reasons happen the way they do. I'm not trying to argue from ignorance here. Certainly you could ask each and every person and draw some general co…

It's the internet age. I could care less what your sexual organs are or skin color is.

Even if you don't care about those things, it feels shallow and dangerous to pretend to live in a world where nobody cares about those things.

Re: Martin Fowler: The Fallacies and Reprocussions of Diversity Imbalance

#25

Post by drhowarddrfine »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #3

I hate to pick apart Fowler -- probably a good way for folks to call me an idiot -- but I have to. here are (roughly) 50% women in the world, so we should expect the ratio for women in computing to be 50% - unless there's real evidence that some other ratio is natural.[2] So far there's no such evidence. But, er, doesn't the observation that the actual ratio is different evidence constitute "evidence"? Aside from dir…

Absolutely agree with Daniel.

Re: Martin Fowler: The Fallacies and Reprocussions of Diversity Imbalance

#26

Post by lsd5you »

andrewcooke wrote: post #9
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #3

I hate to pick apart Fowler -- probably a good way for folks to call me an idiot -- but I have to. here are (roughly) 50% women in the world, so we should expect the ratio for women in computing to be 50% - unless there's real evidence that some other ratio is natural.[2] So far there's no such evidence. But, er, doesn't the observation that the actual ratio is different evidence constitute "evidence"? Aside from dir…

the difference here is on the meaning of "natural". you're taking it to mean something like "what we have" and then your argument makes sense: we see what we have because of some process that exists (is natural). but fowler is using "natural" in a sense more like "unbiased by historical accident" or "what we would get if a bunch of people were suddenly created out of nothing and formed a society from zero". so there'…

Is it really 'grumpy' vs 'smart' and 'inquisitive'. You're rather close to making a value judgement here, to say the least.

He is clearly starting from a conclusion and looking for the evidence and/or complicated logic to satisfy his own conclusion. In discussions of inequalities you will always find evidence to support the 'but it should be equal stance', because

a) Egalitarian assumptions invalidate otherwise valid explanations (which as sherlock holmes/bayes have it means all other explanations are more likely)

b) The world is a big complicated place, with lots of unknowns and ambiguities

c) Positive feedback may have reenforced an inequality, exaggerating it and thus making it hard to explain the magnitude using only simple explanations.

In this argument, he is only smart in the sense that he is taking a socially acceptable/convenient position.

Re: Martin Fowler: The Fallacies and Reprocussions of Diversity Imbalance

#27

Post by lsd5you »

andrewcooke wrote: post #9
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #3

I hate to pick apart Fowler -- probably a good way for folks to call me an idiot -- but I have to. here are (roughly) 50% women in the world, so we should expect the ratio for women in computing to be 50% - unless there's real evidence that some other ratio is natural.[2] So far there's no such evidence. But, er, doesn't the observation that the actual ratio is different evidence constitute "evidence"? Aside from dir…

the difference here is on the meaning of "natural". you're taking it to mean something like "what we have" and then your argument makes sense: we see what we have because of some process that exists (is natural). but fowler is using "natural" in a sense more like "unbiased by historical accident" or "what we would get if a bunch of people were suddenly created out of nothing and formed a society from zero". so there'…

Is it really 'grumpy' vs 'smart' and 'inquisitive'. You're rather close to making a value judgement here, to say the least.

He is clearly starting from a conclusion and looking for the evidence and/or complicated logic to satisfy his own conclusion. In discussions of inequalities you will always find evidence to support the 'but it should be equal stance', because

a) Egalitarian assumptions invalidate otherwise valid explanations (which as sherlock holmes/bayes have it means all other explanations are more likely)

b) The world is a big complicated place, with lots of unknowns and ambiguities

c) Positive feedback may have reenforced an inequality, exaggerating it and thus making it hard to explain the magnitude using only simple explanations.

In this argument, he is only smart in the sense that he is taking a socially acceptable/convenient position.

Re: Martin Fowler: The Fallacies and Reprocussions of Diversity Imbalance

#28

Post by jkr124 »

Some people bring a cult-like mentality to the discussion of diversity and related issues. Dissent is not welcome, unpleasant facts and observations explained away often in contrived ways. Why is it so hard to imagine that maybe there are meaningful group variations within the human species?

Re: Martin Fowler: The Fallacies and Reprocussions of Diversity Imbalance

#29

Post by MartinCron »

monochromatic wrote: post #20
puls wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think his entire point is to call out that complicated web of social influences as the problem.

Why is it a problem?

It's only a problem if you care about things like injustice, inefficiency, and wasted potential.

Re: Martin Fowler: The Fallacies and Reprocussions of Diversity Imbalance

#30

Post by jdp23 »

bitops wrote: post #18

Amazing, but unsurprising, that the first slew of comments are all about tearing down the post.

As Martin says "Personally I find it troubling when software professionals, who ought to be good at logical thinking, can reach so easily for such circular logic."
Post reply on HN