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

41–50 of 177 posts

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

#41

Post by jkr124 »

MartinCron wrote: post #32
jkr124 wrote: post #28

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?

Why is it so hard to imagine that maybe there are meaningful group variations within the human species? The worst things humans have ever done to each other have all centered around the notion of "meaningful group variations within the human species". Without hard science, it's a scary and dangerous place.

"The worst things humans have ever done to each other have all centered around the notion of 'meaningful group variations within the human species'."

That is an extremely strong statement to make without justification. It sounds like a forbidden knowledge-type of argument. Science should decide if there are statistically significant intergroup variations. But right now, that is strictly verboten by the type of arguments you just gave me. This strikes me as an echo of the resistance to understanding human evolution, but by a group that considers itself to be rational and scientific. It seems some people literally have taken the notion of universal human equality as a revealed truth in the religious sense. These people are hostile to inquiry into the matter because it would literally upset their entire worldview.

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

#42

Post by HalibetLector »

MartinCron wrote: post #29
monochromatic wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it a problem?

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

Or a false sense of moral superiority.

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

#43

Post by mhartl »

Although it's easy to become accustomed to it, it's pretty obvious the child care world has some serious issues in diversity. By this I mean that it has some notable differences in proportions of people compared to the general population. One of the most obvious differences is the low proportion of men, which is true all over the world. In the US, where I spend a good chunk of my time, the over-representation of Latinos is also obvious.

One point of view I hear fairly regularly is that these diversity imbalances are natural - because men don't have the aptitude or inclination for child care. The big flaw here is a simple one of evidence. There are (roughly) 50% men in the world, so we should expect the ratio for men in child care to be 50% - unless there's real evidence that some other ratio is natural.

This waste hurts our society, too. We need more and better child care to nurture and support the next generation. By not bringing enough men into the profession, we are handicapping ourselves. How can we say we are hiring the best people when we ignore significant chunks of our population?

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

#44

Post by MartinCron »

nsxwolf wrote: post #33
MartinCron wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's only wasted potential if you're sure that a career in technology is superior to any other career or goal in life. That's certainly not true. I'd be curious to see the reaction of you telling a woman who is satisfied with her life that she's wasted her potential.

It's less about individual goals than about the mismatch between talent and opportunity.

There are people out there who could make meaningful contribution to this profession. There is a demand for people who could make a meaningful contribution to this profession. There are artificial barriers, based on gender/race/class/whatever that make it marginally harder for some people to contribute.

A more concrete example: The unemployment rate in my country is very huge, and yet my organization is still having a hard time finding talent. Is it because none of the millions of people looking for work could possibly do what I need done? It seems more likely that the complex system of forces has dissuaded talented people from getting skills in this profession.

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

#46

Post by queensnake »

plinkplonk wrote: post #36

Edward de Bono once talked about how words become loaded with emotional connotations and value judgements to the point where it is hard to argue for or against certain positions. Eg: You can make an argument for or against a mixture of two things in differing ratios, but the moment you use the words "balanced" and "unbalanced" to represent the two states, the it is harder to argue for the "unbalanced" side. Likewise…

re: "little solid argument" - he does say that diversity means a wider variety of thinking, and /more programmers/.

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

#47

Post by MartinCron »

jkr124 wrote: post #41
MartinCron wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it so hard to imagine that maybe there are meaningful group variations within the human species? The worst things humans have ever done to each other have all centered around the notion of "meaningful group variations within the human species". Without hard science, it's a scary and dangerous place.

"The worst things humans have ever done to each other have all centered around the notion of 'meaningful group variations within the human species'." That is an extremely strong statement to make without justification. It sounds like a forbidden knowledge-type of argument. Science should decide if there are statistically significant intergroup variations. But right now, that is strictly verboten by the type of argume…

That's why I said that without hard science it's a scary and dangerous place.

With hard science, you can do things like determine that some ethnic groups are more likely to develop particular kinds of illnesses or respond differently to some kinds of medications. That's great!

But looking at the status quo and saying "I guess women just aren't any good at this whole programming business" isn't hard science, it's ex-post-facto rationalization.

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

#48

Post by plinkplonk »

queensnake wrote: post #46
plinkplonk wrote: post #36

Edward de Bono once talked about how words become loaded with emotional connotations and value judgements to the point where it is hard to argue for or against certain positions. Eg: You can make an argument for or against a mixture of two things in differing ratios, but the moment you use the words "balanced" and "unbalanced" to represent the two states, the it is harder to argue for the "unbalanced" side. Likewise…

re: "little solid argument" - he does say that diversity means a wider variety of thinking, and /more programmers/.

"/more programmers/", as long as the new set has a different and "better" distribution ratio among its members than exists presently. Just reinforces my point. As to "wider variety of thinking" this is immeasurable and is sufficiently vague so you can take it to mean anything you want it to mean.

Fwiw, I am not saying Martin is wrong - he is a smart guy and he is a probably right. I am just saying his argument uses subtle tricks of rhetoric to, essentially, circle back to his assumptions.

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

#49

Post by dudeguy999 »

Martin says that we are turning away qualified female candidates right now. That's not the case. Only one female candidate comes through my door for every 7 or 8 males. We are meritocrats like Martin and would be happy to hire females. But first they have to show up.

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

#50

Post by philwills »

jkr124 wrote: post #41
MartinCron wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it so hard to imagine that maybe there are meaningful group variations within the human species? The worst things humans have ever done to each other have all centered around the notion of "meaningful group variations within the human species". Without hard science, it's a scary and dangerous place.

"The worst things humans have ever done to each other have all centered around the notion of 'meaningful group variations within the human species'." That is an extremely strong statement to make without justification. It sounds like a forbidden knowledge-type of argument. Science should decide if there are statistically significant intergroup variations. But right now, that is strictly verboten by the type of argume…

No, it's just saying that in the absence of any such evidence it's sensible to adopt the null hypothesis that there's no intrinsic difference and that you'd need very high level of confidence in such research before making policy based on it.
Post reply on HN