Martin Fowler: The Fallacies and Reprocussions of Diversity Imbalance
1–10 of 177 posts
Re: Martin Fowler: The Fallacies and Reprocussions of Diversity Imbalance
#2Recommended reading on this topic: Ensmenger's "The Computer Boys Take Over", or the more scholarly "Gender Codes" edited by Thomas Misa.
The latter in particular gives lots of detail, not just in describing the situation (the imbalance isn't the same everywhere, in every company or in every job description) but also in in explaining how (historically) and why (causally) the situation became what it is today.
Re: Martin Fowler: The Fallacies and Reprocussions of Diversity Imbalance
#3I 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 direct observation, what other definition of "evidence" would you use? Or are you assuming that because one ratio exists in one set (the general population of humans) it must exist in any subset? This would require that the subset have no defining characteristics, which effectively prevents it from being a subset. (A bit loose with my language, but you get the gist)
Then his sheer audaciousness when he calls observation of the data circular logic! If I there are 20% blue trees in the world, and I see a lot with 40% blue trees, is it not natural to conclude there is some agency at work here? The question becomes one of intelligent design -- was there a external intelligent agent causing the blue tree delta? With complex systems, this is as much a religious question as anything else. We simply don't know. Very intelligent people could creatively speculate on all sorts of prime movers, natural or not.
Men have spent centuries using this kind of argument to deny women equal rights in all sorts of fields. Over the last century we've seen tons of evidence that this isn't true elsewhere, so why should it be true in software? As far as I'm concerned this shoddy history should make us doubly wary of the any suggestion that a diversity imbalance is natural.
I'm really not sure what to do with this. Is he arguing that since a certain type of rhetoric has been used to ill purpose in the past that it should be looked upon extra critically now? If so, how would I go about picking and choosing which methods of reasoning might be better or worse to use? It seems to me that he's arguing that based on some conclusion to the argument (there might be a natural difference) that we should hold the methods of reasoning suspect. But if we got a different conclusion using the same methods, that would be okay? This is like a generic ad hominem -- don't trust that reasoning because it's been faulty in the past! Well sure, all kinds of ways of reasoning have been faulty in the past. This has nothing to do with anything.
That is, given we have a unnatural imbalance, is it a problem that's sufficiently serious to spend energy on fixing it?
But he hasn't shown an unnatural imbalance at all, he's just made broad statements about how he feels about certain kinds of tools being used in the discussion.
Lack of diversity is itself a problem. Different people think differently, and consequently come up with different ways to solve problems. If you have a bunch of people with the same background, they miss lots of ideas - leading to inefficiencies and lack of innovation. A diverse group is usually more effective.
See here I completely agree with him -- a lack of various backgrounds, opinions, and personalities hurts small groups. But he seems to be saying that these good qualities -- opinions, backgrounds, personalities -- are inherently part of being a female, being a Norwegian, or of being black. So it's okay for him to say that in general being Norwegian is cause to make you so different you have value as a team member, at the same time he's saying that there are no natural differences to account for the difference in observed ratios? Huh? Who is using circular logic again?
Fowler seems like a nice guy, and I'm sure he likes puppies and ice cream and all of that, but this is tripe. I am a firm believer in having as much possible diversity as possible in my teams as long as we can hold the group together. So count me in as being a huge proponent of diversity.
But diveristy is all about things that you can't see -- not bullshit like your skin color, how tall you are, or your gender. Lots of teams fail because nobody on the team had good empathy skills. Nobody fails because there wasn't a person on there wearing glasses. Don't confuse the true greatness of diversity with some kind of flavor-of-the-week political bullshit.
Here it is: nobody knows. It's a complex system full of individuals all acting in their best interests, not something you can perform a logical proof on. The variables and systems involved are legion. If you would like to discuss the story of just one person, we could do that with some clarity. But if you start waving your hands around and claiming you already know the answer -- whether you want it to be a natural ratio or whether you see prejudice in the world -- we're not going to get very far. I can assure you that whatever happening is natural, but by "natural" I mean it might be that the society at large has major problems that need to be fixed. Or maybe not. Beats me. This is a topic for moral discussion, not logical discussion, and bringing these kinds of logic tools to the table only makes things worse, not better.
Must be in angry-old-guy mode again today. Sorry about that. I'm just really disappointed that Fowler couldn't see the errors of his own thinking and then presumes to lecture us about it. Man I find that really annoying.
Re: Martin Fowler: The Fallacies and Reprocussions of Diversity Imbalance
#4>Men have spent centuries using this kind of argument to deny women equal rights in all sorts of fields. Over the last century we've seen tons of evidence that this isn't true elsewhere, so why should it be true in software?
True. But are underrepresented groups being actively denied access as was the case in the example above? Apple and oranges. Not saying there isn't a problem, just saying it's a different problem. I think in this case more passive cultural than active cultural problem.
There are imbalances everywhere. Line cooks. Where are the women line cooks? Photography. Where are the women in professional photography -how many women street photographers do we know, other than Vivian Maier? Where are the straight people in fashion? I think, at least in some cases, there is self selection going on. Different airports have different pluralities of ethnicities doing lots of the service work. SFO is different from JFK is different from BOS, in that regard.
Re: Martin Fowler: The Fallacies and Reprocussions of Diversity Imbalance
#5I feel like this imbalance is going to correct itself over the coming decades. As people become more connected, and are introduced to computers at a younger age, the diversity of those interested in them to the point of wanting to work with them as a career will increase.
The stereotype of the white pasty male computer nerd is vanishing. With it is the pressure for those who don't fit that stereotype to choose a different field (Fowler mentioned this). I feel like this lack of diversity was almost purely societal and as society changes this will.
You are already seeing the enrollment of women at universities increase from its post-bubble years. It will probably keep going up. I don't think it will ever be on par, but it will get closer.
Re: Martin Fowler: The Fallacies and Reprocussions of Diversity Imbalance
#6> A diverse group is usually more effective.
Does this mean the problem will take care of itself? That is, if it is true that a diverse group is usually more effective, the products and startups that succeed should have teams which tend to be more diverse than the ones that fail. And as that happens, founders interested in succeeding would pay more attention to the diversity of their firms.
Re: Martin Fowler: The Fallacies and Reprocussions of Diversity Imbalance
#7> A diverse group is usually more effective. Does this mean the problem will take care of itself? That is, if it is true that a diverse group is usually more effective, the products and startups that succeed should have teams which tend to be more diverse than the ones that fail. And as that happens, founders interested in succeeding would pay more attention to the diversity of their firms.
There's also the problem of confounding variables. All else being equal, a diverse group is usually better. However, if you have to fudge those other factors in order to get a diverse group then perhaps you've completely erased that advantage.
Re: Martin Fowler: The Fallacies and Reprocussions of Diversity Imbalance
#8He talks about diversity of sex and race being necessary to have a diversity of viewpoints. If that is true doesn't that imply that that different sexes and races have fundamental differences based on those attributes? If so shouldn't we expect a diversity imbalance in every occupation. That is, people with fundamental differences will tend to want to do different things. If it's not true then why care about diversity of sex or race.
Also I disagree with this line from the article: "A diversity imbalance suggest that there are many women, who would have good careers as programmers, who are not getting the opportunity to do so." If women are denied opportunities as programmers there will be an imbalance. An imbalance can be caused by any number of other factors.
Re: Martin Fowler: The Fallacies and Reprocussions of Diversity Imbalance
#9I 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's nothing new here. grumpy, indignant old men (self aware or not) believe the status quo (which only incidentally favours them) to be natural. people like fowler do not.
[edit: i've removed fowler's superlatives to be less unpleasant (sorry - in my defense i have been configuring maven all day...); the grumpy old man characterisation is from the parent post]
Re: Martin Fowler: The Fallacies and Reprocussions of Diversity Imbalance
#10I 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 discriminatory barriers, then by all means let's remove them. But if we succeed, and it doesn't change the numbers much, does it matter?
If certain groups really think it's a problem then let them do the work of encouraging their group members (alert, this feels condescending - who says they'll even self-identify with that group) to get into tech.
It's certainly not my fault. I'm a cheerleader for tech careers. The more, the merrier. But if you're not into it, then you're not into it. There's a lot of things I'm not into, either. Whose fault is that? And why should it matter?