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

201–210 of 218 posts

Re: Diversity and Startups

#201

Post by tptacek »

lexcorvus wrote: post #194
tptacek wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ori…

It's interesting that it's only during discussions of race and gender that male nerds suddenly become receptive to social science. But in any other discussion, it's their rhetorical whipping boy. How convenient for them.

Re: Diversity and Startups

#202

Post by gizmo »

streptomycin wrote: post #200
gizmo wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?",…

People get persecuted based on their (perceived) race/ethnicity. The classification of tomatoes or planetary bodies is not a life or death matter.

Additionally, the difference is that race is a product of racism, not of science. This is a historical fact. The concept of race has no scientific value. It has historical and sociological importance, though, and we should seek to understand that.

In a perfectly rational world researchers could research anything and the world would only pay attention based on the merit of the research itself. We don't live in that world. Research on race and IQ today has predictable consequences: it legitimizes racist prejudices.

Re: Diversity and Startups

#203

Post by xiaoma »

dang wrote: post #197
xiaoma wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've been aware of the hiring ads on which no comments were allowed, of course. Have moderators been doing things like un-flagging and keeping specific stories they disagree with off the page for so long?

It is entirely possible I was mistaken, but I was under the belief that HN was mostly hands-off when it started. I.e., things other than clear attempts to spam, etc were off the page. Also, I think the focus of the site was narrower and clearer. It was dominated by technology and business with political pieces specifically discouraged. Now, political posts are pretty common. This broadening and blurring of the borders of what's "hacker news" can leave more room for mods to simply boost those they agree with and silence those they disagree with.

The particular article above is disturbing to see suppressed since it's clearly factual, isn't spam or similar and it's about the bay area tech scene, but apparently it's politically inconvenient.

Re: Diversity and Startups

#204

Post by streptomycin »

gizmo wrote: post #202
streptomycin wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?",…

People get persecuted based on their (perceived) race/ethnicity. The classification of tomatoes or planetary bodies is not a life or death matter. Additionally, the difference is that race is a product of racism, not of science. This is a historical fact. The concept of race has no scientific value. It has historical and sociological importance, though, and we should seek to understand that. In a perfectly rational w…

The concept of race has no scientific value.

If you want to stop scientists from using the word "race", at least propose an alternative. Like people who don't like that male pronouns are used for gender-neutral cases in English at least propose alternatives such the singular "they", "he/she", etc. If you think scientists need a new word for "race" because other people have poisoned it so much, your cause would probably be more successful if you actually tried to propose and promote that new word. Because scientists aren't going to just stop all research related to "race", that would be ridiculous.

"Broad cluster of people with fairly similar genes relative to other broad clusters of people" doesn't quite roll off the tongue.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-specific_and_gender-neut...

Re: Diversity and Startups

#205

Post by gizmo »

streptomycin wrote: post #204
gizmo wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People get persecuted based on their (perceived) race/ethnicity. The classification of tomatoes or planetary bodies is not a life or death matter. Additionally, the difference is that race is a product of racism, not of science. This is a historical fact. The concept of race has no scientific value. It has historical and sociological importance, though, and we should seek to understand that. In a perfectly rational w…

The concept of race has no scientific value. If you want to stop scientists from using the word "race", at least propose an alternative. Like people who don't like that male pronouns are used for gender-neutral cases in English at least propose alternatives such the singular "they", "he/she", etc. If you think scientists need a new word for "race" because other people have poisoned it so much, your cause would probab…

Scientists already know that they have to tread very carefully if they don't want to get accused of racism. In public discourse political correctness has also made discussions about race much better. Some of the statements you've made in this thread you would never make on TV, knowing what the repercussions would be.

So from my perspective we're making good progress already, although you may not see it as such.

Re: Diversity and Startups

#206

Post by MartinCron »

adamzerner wrote: post #192
MartinCron wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If using the term "girl" is genuinely offensive, I'll happily stop.

There is an overwhelming body of evidence that it is offensive to many women.

Re: Diversity and Startups

#207

Post by jmromer »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #65
staunch wrote: post #41

What about class? Ivy League Parents -> Private School -> SAT tutoring -> Ivy League College -> Investment by Ivy League VC -> Acquired by Ivy League Tech Company vs Poor parents -> Shitty Public School -> High School Drop Out -> Programmer at Ivy League Tech Company (maybe) There's a reason most of the big tech companies are from Ivy League graduates. And you can't ignore how many successful startups only happened b…

There's likely to be big correlations between class and race. Gender is obviously a much more complicated one. I think aspirations are likely to play a big role here, after all people tend to judge their successes relative to their family and close friends. So for a kid from a poor neighbourhood (who's more likely to be black), getting a good job with a decent salary and benefits is a great success already and runnin…

Using race as a proxy for class is a great way to generate oppression along some margin (i.e., for some poor bastard(s) unlucky enough to be both poor and not a member of a protected racial/ethnic group). If you want to talk about class and poverty, talk about class and poverty. There's enough misery in the world.

Re: Diversity and Startups

#208

Post by SamReidHughes »

xiaoma wrote: post #203
dang wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've been aware of the hiring ads on which no comments were allowed, of course. Have moderators been doing things like un-flagging and keeping specific stories they disagree with off the page for so long? It is entirely possible I was mistaken, but I was under the belief that HN was mostly hands-off when it started. I.e., things other than clear attempts to spam, etc were off the page. Also, I think the focus of the…

> but apparently it's politically inconvenient.

This is merely a theory to explain your observations. I think a more plausible alternative explanation is that the moderators' beliefs about what makes up worthwhile discussion is different from yours.

Re: Diversity and Startups

#209

Post by xiaoma »

SamReidHughes wrote: post #208
xiaoma wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been aware of the hiring ads on which no comments were allowed, of course. Have moderators been doing things like un-flagging and keeping specific stories they disagree with off the page for so long? It is entirely possible I was mistaken, but I was under the belief that HN was mostly hands-off when it started. I.e., things other than clear attempts to spam, etc were off the page. Also, I think the focus of the…

> but apparently it's politically inconvenient. This is merely a theory to explain your observations. I think a more plausible alternative explanation is that the moderators' beliefs about what makes up worthwhile discussion is different from yours.

>I think a more plausible alternative explanation is that the moderators' beliefs about what makes up worthwhile discussion is different from yours.

I generally think it's worthwhile to let the community decide what's "worthwhile" and what isn't. Interfering to suppress spam or a flamewar is reasonable but interfering to suppress things which contain ideas you personally disagree with is not.

Similarly I don't have a lot of respect for you downvoting all my comments in this thread and on the previous one we were both on. It's the same principle, just on a lesser scale. I made a valid point in the GP post and was answering Dang's question.

Re: Diversity and Startups

#210

Post by SamReidHughes »

xiaoma wrote: post #209
SamReidHughes wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but apparently it's politically inconvenient. This is merely a theory to explain your observations. I think a more plausible alternative explanation is that the moderators' beliefs about what makes up worthwhile discussion is different from yours.

> I think a more plausible alternative explanation is that the moderators' beliefs about what makes up worthwhile discussion is different from yours. I generally think it's worthwhile to let the community decide what's "worthwhile" and what isn't. Interfering to suppress spam or a flamewar is reasonable but interfering to suppress things which contain ideas you personally disagree with is not. Similarly I don't have…

> Interfering to suppress spam or a flamewar is reasonable but interfering to suppress things which contain ideas you personally disagree with is not.

By "what makes up worthwhile discussion" I was referring to a content-neutral or viewpoint-neutral notion of the idea. (The general category of "Not written for the reader's sake" encompasses most of the badness.)

Post reply on HN