Meritocracy and Discrimination in Tech(bjk5.com)
bjk5.com
Meritocracy and Discrimination in Tech
http://bjk5.com/post/43249906199/meritocracy-and-discrimination-in-tech
9 comments
Transparency about our interviewing process: http://bjk5.com/post/3340326040/in-any-language-you-want-kha... (which comes from the hiring cultures at Fog Creek and Google, see http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/GuerrillaInterviewing...).
Transparency about all past internships, their expectation and accomplishments: http://bjk5.com/post/36067210182/khan-academy-internship-sum... http://bjk5.com/post/8826207372/khan-academy-internship-summ... http://bjk5.com/post/15500332273/khan-academy-internship-fal...
Transparency from previous interns about their work, which I believe speaks for itself: http://david-hu.com/2011/11/02/how-khan-academy-is-using-mac... http://dylanv.org/2012/09/14/the-khan-academy-internship-exp... http://jamie-wong.com/2012/08/22/what-i-did-at-khan-academy/
If any piece of evidence from the above points to an organization that values quotas over excellence in interns and the work expected of them, well please raise the alarm.
We need to get past our default response being a knee jerk assumption of discrimination.
Transparency about all past internships, their expectation and accomplishments: http://bjk5.com/post/36067210182/khan-academy-internship-sum... http://bjk5.com/post/8826207372/khan-academy-internship-summ... http://bjk5.com/post/15500332273/khan-academy-internship-fal...
Transparency from previous interns about their work, which I believe speaks for itself: http://david-hu.com/2011/11/02/how-khan-academy-is-using-mac... http://dylanv.org/2012/09/14/the-khan-academy-internship-exp... http://jamie-wong.com/2012/08/22/what-i-did-at-khan-academy/
If any piece of evidence from the above points to an organization that values quotas over excellence in interns and the work expected of them, well please raise the alarm.
We need to get past our default response being a knee jerk assumption of discrimination.
Fogcreek and Google's interview process both seem to yield a far larger number of male employees than females yes?
David, Dylan and Jamie are all men yes?
If any piece of evidence from the above points to an organization that values quotas over excellence in interns and the work expected of them, well please raise the alarm.
No one is accusing you of using quotas and no is saying you do not value excellence in interns. What's being asked is why was there such a steep increase in the number of female interns accepted? Were there more female applicants? Were interview questions changed? How did this result come about?
David, Dylan and Jamie are all men yes?
If any piece of evidence from the above points to an organization that values quotas over excellence in interns and the work expected of them, well please raise the alarm.
No one is accusing you of using quotas and no is saying you do not value excellence in interns. What's being asked is why was there such a steep increase in the number of female interns accepted? Were there more female applicants? Were interview questions changed? How did this result come about?
One thing Fog Creek did was we hunted harder for qualified women applicants, which meant we actually had to go to female tech recruiting events.
The problem is that there are few female developers to start with, and they are all heavily recruited by large software companies (Google, Microsoft, etc) already. The larger companies have big budgets to devote to this and encourage the very small number of women developers to go work there.
If you just sit back and wait for more women to apply, they are going to get picked up by the bigger companies before you even get a chance to interview them.
It's also difficult to attract that small group of women devs to apply to work at your company when there are no women developers there currently. The larger companies already have a bunch of women developers, so it can suggest to future candidates that these companies are great places for them to work (i.e. they won't be discriminated against at these companies). It may be that your small company is also a great place, it's just that you don't have any women to vouch for that.
So in Fog Creek's case, we increased the number of women applicants by making it our goal to get more women to apply. That's the only thing we changed. Our interview process stayed exactly the same.
The problem is that there are few female developers to start with, and they are all heavily recruited by large software companies (Google, Microsoft, etc) already. The larger companies have big budgets to devote to this and encourage the very small number of women developers to go work there.
If you just sit back and wait for more women to apply, they are going to get picked up by the bigger companies before you even get a chance to interview them.
It's also difficult to attract that small group of women devs to apply to work at your company when there are no women developers there currently. The larger companies already have a bunch of women developers, so it can suggest to future candidates that these companies are great places for them to work (i.e. they won't be discriminated against at these companies). It may be that your small company is also a great place, it's just that you don't have any women to vouch for that.
So in Fog Creek's case, we increased the number of women applicants by making it our goal to get more women to apply. That's the only thing we changed. Our interview process stayed exactly the same.
And that's fine but did you get a 2 to 1 f/m ratio after you increased your female recruitment? That's what I'm trying to get to the bottom of.
Why does an investigation need to be launched?
Having worked with Kamens, including interviewing the same candidates, I can't even entertain the idea that the interviews were rigged in some way, which is you abhorrent implication.
We see 2:1 male to female ratios all the time, and no one bats an eye. But when it gets flipped we need to figure out why?
Regardless of how it came to be, this is a win for our industry, as it sets an example that the numbers don't need to be so heavily skewed towards men.
Having worked with Kamens, including interviewing the same candidates, I can't even entertain the idea that the interviews were rigged in some way, which is you abhorrent implication.
We see 2:1 male to female ratios all the time, and no one bats an eye. But when it gets flipped we need to figure out why?
Regardless of how it came to be, this is a win for our industry, as it sets an example that the numbers don't need to be so heavily skewed towards men.
We see 2:1 male to female ratios all the time, and no one bats an eye. But when it gets flipped we need to figure out why?
Simple probability. A 2:1 male environment is completely reasonable in a gender neutral process, whereas a 2:1 female environment is exceedingly unlikely to occur under such a process.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5233153
Simple probability. A 2:1 male environment is completely reasonable in a gender neutral process, whereas a 2:1 female environment is exceedingly unlikely to occur under such a process.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5233153
And what I'm asking you is: can you come up with any possible explanations for an increase in women devs over time that should be celebrated, especially at an organization that values equal education for everyone, without first wondering if our interview questions have changed?
Can you come up with any possible explanation period? You're dodging my question.
An increase in women in tech majors and a company mission that strongly appeals to both women and men.
I'm pretty sure most universities have a company mission that appeals to both men and women and they haven't suddenly seen a 2:1 f/m ratio in CS majors. What makes Khan so different?
He might have a point in that a lot of women seem to aspire to be teachers. For example when I got my maths degree, 99% (estimated) of the women sitting in the lectures with me were studying to become teachers. Perhaps working for Khan Academy somehow seems close enough to teaching.
What % of the applicant pool was women?
Some hard numbers would help this discussion.
Some hard numbers would help this discussion.
Why is an explanation required? Any developer worth his or her salt knows that, statistically, something like this is bound to happen over enough companies and enough years, even if the trend is so heavily skewed the other way.
Is this a 3 sigma deviation? Maybe. Or could it be that, on average, women might be drawn to educational software more than other types? Doesn't sound unreasonable.
Regardless, your insistence on an explanation shows that you're still stuck in the bad old days.
Is this a 3 sigma deviation? Maybe. Or could it be that, on average, women might be drawn to educational software more than other types? Doesn't sound unreasonable.
Regardless, your insistence on an explanation shows that you're still stuck in the bad old days.
As a hiring manager for over a decade, I can't recall the last time I received a resume from a qualified female applicant for a full-time software position.
Internships tend to be a bit less one-sided, but the skew is still quite high.
This sucks. I want to receive those resumes, for what I hope are obvious reasons, but I don't ever receive them.
Given that, I can't help but wonder whether:
1) You have a completely different applicant pool
or
2) You somehow changed your application process in a way that resulted in a 2:1 female:male ratio.
I don't think those are terrible questions to have. The answers could be enlightening.
Internships tend to be a bit less one-sided, but the skew is still quite high.
This sucks. I want to receive those resumes, for what I hope are obvious reasons, but I don't ever receive them.
Given that, I can't help but wonder whether:
1) You have a completely different applicant pool
or
2) You somehow changed your application process in a way that resulted in a 2:1 female:male ratio.
I don't think those are terrible questions to have. The answers could be enlightening.
I don't think you have to feel attacked, isn't it natural to ask what is going on if you produce an outlier? It could be genuine curiosity.
In the same vein it is interesting to ask why most companies receive more male applications. Without asking these questions, how can there ever be an improvement (except for random luck)?
In the same vein it is interesting to ask why most companies receive more male applications. Without asking these questions, how can there ever be an improvement (except for random luck)?
"it's well known that minority students are admitted to prestigious universities with far lower SAT and GPA's that their white/Asian counterparts"
SATs have been criticised for having inherent socioeconomic bias. The validity of both SATs and GPAs, and their appropriateness as gauges of student intelligence, future performance, learning, and appropriateness for use in admissions have all been questioned.
SATs have been criticised for having inherent socioeconomic bias. The validity of both SATs and GPAs, and their appropriateness as gauges of student intelligence, future performance, learning, and appropriateness for use in admissions have all been questioned.
Do you have a better criterion with which to measure?
How about proven ability to overcome adversity?
Well A) How do you plan on quantitatively measuring that so that all candidates are equally considered? and B) What does that have to do with writing software?
LockeWatts: What does the SAT have to do with writing software? I'd say being able to overcome adversity, i.e. being able to do more with what you've been dealt than others believe you can, is usually going to be a stronger indicator of future performance than is a test score. Furthermore, I'd argue in software development especially, you need to be able to overcome people's initial compunctions, and you need to be resourceful and able to figure out how to succeed when it seems like the chips are stacked against you.
As to how you test for that: why not ask? The SAT and ACT both have an essay portion. Why not ask candidates to write an essay, or tell you in person, about how they've overcome adversity? Also, how is asking interviewees how to solve a programming problem more quantitative than asking them how they've dealt with adversity?
As to how you test for that: why not ask? The SAT and ACT both have an essay portion. Why not ask candidates to write an essay, or tell you in person, about how they've overcome adversity? Also, how is asking interviewees how to solve a programming problem more quantitative than asking them how they've dealt with adversity?
"I'd say being able to overcome adversity, i.e. being able to do more with what you've been dealt than others believe you can, is usually going to be a stronger indicator of future performance than is a test score."
Well you can say that, but I haven't seen any studies that would indicate as such. However, multiple studies have shown that logical reasoning, critical thinking, and mathematical aptitude all lead to better programmers. These are things the SAT attempts to select for.
"why not ask? The SAT and ACT both have an essay portion."
A much discussed and argued about section, precisely due to it's inability to be quantitatively and statistically analyzed.
Admissions officers at multiple schools indicated they gave the essay portion little to no consideration for precisely this reason.
"Why not ask candidates to write an essay, or tell you in person, about how they've overcome adversity?"
To colleges or jobs? For jobs, simply because it's a less efficient method.
"Also, how is asking interviewees how to solve a programming problem more quantitative than asking them how they've dealt with adversity?"
You can measure things about this. Candidate A took N minutes to solve the problem ideally, Candidate B took N + 5 minutes. All other things being equal, candidate A is superior to candidate B.
Furthermore, you can look at things such as programming fundamentals that are easily quantifiable, such as being able to correctly create a log(n) versus n search algorithm, or being able to correctly indicate why log(n) might be superior to n.
Finally, 'adversity' hasn't even been defined in this conversation, so I'm arguing against an ethereal concept. Please define it for me.
Well you can say that, but I haven't seen any studies that would indicate as such. However, multiple studies have shown that logical reasoning, critical thinking, and mathematical aptitude all lead to better programmers. These are things the SAT attempts to select for.
"why not ask? The SAT and ACT both have an essay portion."
A much discussed and argued about section, precisely due to it's inability to be quantitatively and statistically analyzed.
Admissions officers at multiple schools indicated they gave the essay portion little to no consideration for precisely this reason.
"Why not ask candidates to write an essay, or tell you in person, about how they've overcome adversity?"
To colleges or jobs? For jobs, simply because it's a less efficient method.
"Also, how is asking interviewees how to solve a programming problem more quantitative than asking them how they've dealt with adversity?"
You can measure things about this. Candidate A took N minutes to solve the problem ideally, Candidate B took N + 5 minutes. All other things being equal, candidate A is superior to candidate B.
Furthermore, you can look at things such as programming fundamentals that are easily quantifiable, such as being able to correctly create a log(n) versus n search algorithm, or being able to correctly indicate why log(n) might be superior to n.
Finally, 'adversity' hasn't even been defined in this conversation, so I'm arguing against an ethereal concept. Please define it for me.
Adversity: a state, condition, or instance of serious or continued difficulty or adverse fortune (see adverse)[1]
One of the biggest problems with relying purely on quantitative data is that you bias the results to those who are better at achieving quantitative goals. EDIT: and your results are inevitably skewed by the test. Are you saying communication and writing capability are unimportant, simply because they're difficult to quantify?
What you're arguing for is, given a choice of bad quantitative tools and OK to mediocre qualitative ones, using the quantitative tools as they're the only way you can measure things. This is a similar argument as to why grades are more important than actual teacher feedback, despite some teachers giving 95% of the class an A, and others giving 20%.
The SAT has a history of discrimination, and, in addition, there are proven stereotyping effects: give self-identifying Asian women a math test, and they'll perform better when you make them identify with being Asian then when you make them identify with being a women[2].
Given how much energy has been spent recruiting me (having me fly out to interviews, organizing tech talks at my school, having employees at the company take me to lunch, etc.), and given that every company I interviewed with asked something along the lines of "tell me about a project you've done recently," which also is a subjective, non-quantifiable question, it hardly seems like an unreasonable burden to ask, as part of the regular interview questions, how a candidate has overcome adversity.
And admissions officers don't give weight to the SAT essay because they have their own essays with which to judge a candidate with. And the SAT just provides a quantitative essay score, whereas colleges can see and evaluate multiple written pieces. And they do often ask questions like how you've overcome adversity. Which makes sense, as they want students who won't give up when facing difficulties.
[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adversity
[2] http://icos.groups.si.umich.edu/shihpaper.html
One of the biggest problems with relying purely on quantitative data is that you bias the results to those who are better at achieving quantitative goals. EDIT: and your results are inevitably skewed by the test. Are you saying communication and writing capability are unimportant, simply because they're difficult to quantify?
What you're arguing for is, given a choice of bad quantitative tools and OK to mediocre qualitative ones, using the quantitative tools as they're the only way you can measure things. This is a similar argument as to why grades are more important than actual teacher feedback, despite some teachers giving 95% of the class an A, and others giving 20%.
The SAT has a history of discrimination, and, in addition, there are proven stereotyping effects: give self-identifying Asian women a math test, and they'll perform better when you make them identify with being Asian then when you make them identify with being a women[2].
Given how much energy has been spent recruiting me (having me fly out to interviews, organizing tech talks at my school, having employees at the company take me to lunch, etc.), and given that every company I interviewed with asked something along the lines of "tell me about a project you've done recently," which also is a subjective, non-quantifiable question, it hardly seems like an unreasonable burden to ask, as part of the regular interview questions, how a candidate has overcome adversity.
And admissions officers don't give weight to the SAT essay because they have their own essays with which to judge a candidate with. And the SAT just provides a quantitative essay score, whereas colleges can see and evaluate multiple written pieces. And they do often ask questions like how you've overcome adversity. Which makes sense, as they want students who won't give up when facing difficulties.
[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adversity
[2] http://icos.groups.si.umich.edu/shihpaper.html
"Why not ask candidates to write an essay, or tell you in person, about how they've overcome adversity?"
Wouldn't such a system be very easy to attack, how would you avoid the judges being biased, or the claim that they could be biased? Since judging an essay would probably not be an automated thing at this stage of AI development?
Wouldn't such a system be very easy to attack, how would you avoid the judges being biased, or the claim that they could be biased? Since judging an essay would probably not be an automated thing at this stage of AI development?
Most colleges (especially private colleges) already require you to write essays. Having one on adversity is also, for certain colleges, already in place. I'm not talking about automated judging, or even explicit scoring (besides figuring out hire/not hire, or next round or not), i.e. no, this can't really be used to exactly replace the SAT, but it could be used as an evaluative supplement.
Didn't know that, I never actually had to deal with the US admissions system.
There seems to be an assumption here that Khan Academy made some change that resulted in this outcome, instead of it being a natural occurence.
I'm from a minority, and I'm currently enrolled in a phd program (well, about to enroll in september) in a top university. I've been working really, really, really hard to get there. Like, really hard. So it does piss me off when people just waive their hands and say: "pfff, must have been affirmative action or something".
That being said, I understand their reaction. When I put myself in a white male's shoes and I hear every day that we should remedy this and this instance of blatant discrimination, and the next day I hear that a company celebrates the fact that there are more women/blacks/whatever being hired, then it's true that the connection: they got hired BECAUSE they where women/black is a rather tempting conclusion.. and is sometimes true.
I think that some companies are at fault here, using anti-discrimination as a PR move. This can, and I think, does antagonize a lot of people, and is counter productive.
That being said, I understand their reaction. When I put myself in a white male's shoes and I hear every day that we should remedy this and this instance of blatant discrimination, and the next day I hear that a company celebrates the fact that there are more women/blacks/whatever being hired, then it's true that the connection: they got hired BECAUSE they where women/black is a rather tempting conclusion.. and is sometimes true.
I think that some companies are at fault here, using anti-discrimination as a PR move. This can, and I think, does antagonize a lot of people, and is counter productive.
"Discretion is the better part of valour" springs to mind. If I hired some great women for development roles and my first thought was to write a blog post saying "look at these great women I hired", I'd be doing something wrong. It detracts from the fact that they're actually great developers, and if they weren't then I wouldn't have hired them.
How can people who claim to be meritocratic immediately cry "discrimination! misandry!" when women outperform men? Yep, must have been discrimination, because we all know women can never be better candidates unless there's something else going on.
And being excited about a historically underrepresented group overcoming adversity isn't the same thing as "we are favoring primarily women applications". Anyone who's actually meritocratic would be ecstatic that the walls in tech are slowly dissolving away.
And being excited about a historically underrepresented group overcoming adversity isn't the same thing as "we are favoring primarily women applications". Anyone who's actually meritocratic would be ecstatic that the walls in tech are slowly dissolving away.
Yep, must have been discrimination, because we all know women can never be better candidates unless there's something else going on.
It's not that women can never be better candidates, it is merely that this is unlikely.
Consider a set of applications, 20% of which come from women (fairly typical numbers, from what I've read). Assume women and men are equally skilled. If 30 interns are selected without bias, the odds of choosing at least 60% women (18/30) is quite small:
Anyone have more exact numbers to plug into this calculation? Perhaps kamens can give us some more exact numbers?
(Of course, in a much smaller applicant pool, e.g. 6 students, you might arrive at results like this due to random chance.)
It's not that women can never be better candidates, it is merely that this is unlikely.
Consider a set of applications, 20% of which come from women (fairly typical numbers, from what I've read). Assume women and men are equally skilled. If 30 interns are selected without bias, the odds of choosing at least 60% women (18/30) is quite small:
In [1]: from scipy.stats import binom
In [2]: rv = binom(30, 0.2)
In [3]: 1-rv.cdf(0.60*30)
Out[3]: 2.8432472531925157e-07
Anyone have more exact numbers to plug into this calculation? Perhaps kamens can give us some more exact numbers?
(Of course, in a much smaller applicant pool, e.g. 6 students, you might arrive at results like this due to random chance.)
Assuming men and women are equally skilled is a big assumption. Given that few women enter CS, and many who do leave, it would not be surprising to find that the remaining women who have not been selected out somehow are in fact more skilled than the average male engineer.
Your reasoning contains no fact specific to women. Thus, it should be valid for me to substitute any other group which is underrepresented in computing:
Given that few retards enter CS, and many who do leave, it would not be surprising to find that the remaining retards who have not been selected out somehow are in fact more skilled than the average non-retard engineer.
It also still doesn't make a >60% women class remotely likely - even if women make up 40% of the top engineers, the odds of recruiting at least 60% women in a 30 person class is only only 0.83%.
(PC note: I am only asserting that women are similar to retards in the sense that khuey's argument applies to both of them. No other similarity is asserted or implied.)
Given that few retards enter CS, and many who do leave, it would not be surprising to find that the remaining retards who have not been selected out somehow are in fact more skilled than the average non-retard engineer.
It also still doesn't make a >60% women class remotely likely - even if women make up 40% of the top engineers, the odds of recruiting at least 60% women in a 30 person class is only only 0.83%.
(PC note: I am only asserting that women are similar to retards in the sense that khuey's argument applies to both of them. No other similarity is asserted or implied.)
Looking at the average "non-retard" developer, it would not surprise me at all to discover they were less skilled than the "retards" that persisted with being software developers. Your social ineptitude would also place you in that average pool as this is is a social undertaking as much as an intellectual one. Fail fast, take up the monastic life.
The selection pressures on women and retards are quite different.
That said the probability point is a good one.
That said the probability point is a good one.
From the original post (emphasis added): "we currently have 2x as many female interns as male ones who have signed their offers to join us"
From this post: "Even though we all knew it wouldn’t last as acceptances come in (it already hasn’t held), our team enjoyed a brief moment basking in the future that we (and all educators around the world) hope to build"
They never said they extended offers to more women than men and they never said the actual class had more women than men, they simply highlighted a point in the process that had more women than men and used it as an opportunity to be optimistic about the future.
But thanks for using math and stuff to enlighten us all.
From this post: "Even though we all knew it wouldn’t last as acceptances come in (it already hasn’t held), our team enjoyed a brief moment basking in the future that we (and all educators around the world) hope to build"
They never said they extended offers to more women than men and they never said the actual class had more women than men, they simply highlighted a point in the process that had more women than men and used it as an opportunity to be optimistic about the future.
But thanks for using math and stuff to enlighten us all.
Transparency has been requested by several people, and I think it would be helpful to flesh out transparency.
Here are a few quantitative questions which would help us get closer to the truth:
What % of the applicant pool was women?
What % of the potentially qualified applicant pool was women? [1]
How many interns were hired? [2]
Are there any objective numbers (i.e., besides the # hired) to suggest that a large fraction of the most qualified people were women?
[1] These numbers can allow us to do the same calculation I did here (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5233153), or even a proper Bayesian probability update.
[2] I.e., if 3 interns were hired, this is a tempest in a teapot caused by a statistical fluke.
Here are a few quantitative questions which would help us get closer to the truth:
What % of the applicant pool was women?
What % of the potentially qualified applicant pool was women? [1]
How many interns were hired? [2]
Are there any objective numbers (i.e., besides the # hired) to suggest that a large fraction of the most qualified people were women?
[1] These numbers can allow us to do the same calculation I did here (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5233153), or even a proper Bayesian probability update.
[2] I.e., if 3 interns were hired, this is a tempest in a teapot caused by a statistical fluke.
Are tech internships a big enough deal with people to merit this controversy? Don't tell me you need to participate in one these days to break into the industry(if so, that's sad).
I'm in college presently, and to get into the tech world, it's a requirement from where I'm sitting. Good candidates have multiple ones with big name companies\hot start ups.
Boo, that stinks. Personally, I think internships are bullshit unless they're having you work on genuinely interesting stuff like Google's Summer of Code. I must have been pretty lucky as I never had to jump through any credentialing hoops to break into the industry (That was in '05, pre-bubble no less. Didn't even finish college). If I were you, I'd pair up with a co-founder, come up with an idea, and apply to one of the incubators while you're still young. Don't waste your youth trying to impress HR drones. Or, if you want to look-before-you-leap, just "intern" at a less sexy startup (You'll learn the same stuff pretty much)
At Khan Academy, we certainly do our best to have interns work on "genuinely interesting stuff", and we put huge emphasis on good mentorship, more so than is probably possible with a remote program like GSoC. Here's a bit more info about our internship program:
https://www.khanacademy.org/careers/interns
Don't miss the stories from past interns linked on the left.
https://www.khanacademy.org/careers/interns
Don't miss the stories from past interns linked on the left.
One of the commonly-stated reasons for why discrimination persists in a field is that people making hiring decisions are biased. They might not know that they're biased, but they have some notions about the kind of people they want to see working for their company, and they disproportionately hire those people. This is quite an insidious form of discrimination because it's hard to prove, but it is possible to catch people out - for instance if they display a preference for talking to or dealing with male colleagues over female ones, or give more rewards, perks or encouragement to male colleagues. There doesn't need to be a "guys only" sign above the door for this to be a discriminatory environment.
Now, the original "Girls, girls, girls" post talks about how "super exciting" it is for KA to have hired twice as many female interns as male ones, how the women at KA network together, how there are exclusive events for female staff where female leadership is advocated. I know what Jessica was trying to say there, but damn if it didn't wind up looking somewhat like the stuff I described in my first paragraph. Now, I do not believe that KA has done anything wrong, but I don't think it's unreasonable for some people to question this.
This (as I post every time there's a sexism thread, I really should just get a blog or something) is all controversial because people are applying different ethical rules. Some people are applying deontological ethics, which says that there are rules about how to behave, and we should follow those rules (e.g. don't discriminate based on gender). They look at the "Girls, girls, girls" post and see things that look like they might break the rules against doing the stuff I described in my first paragraph. They're not actually looking at the "big picture" because they don't believe that, philosophically speaking, the ends can be used to justify the means. If bias is wrong, being biased in favour of a minority group is still wrong, in this view.
There's another more pragmatic view, which says that we should care mostly about outcomes, especially if no particularly great harms are being inflicted in order to achieve better outcomes. Although I generally lean more towards the rule-based view, in this case, I think KA is pretty clearly producing a good outcome and even if there is some bias[1] then it's not really the end of the world. But I wouldn't condemn or insult someone who thought differently.
[1] A key point about bias and discrimination is that people aren't (and often can't be!) aware of their own biases. If people from KA want to claim that they're totally without bias, that's going to make it hard to accuse other people of bias in the future. This is, sadly, just a Hard Problem and the various problems inherent in solving it are why we keep having lengthy discussions like this.
Now, the original "Girls, girls, girls" post talks about how "super exciting" it is for KA to have hired twice as many female interns as male ones, how the women at KA network together, how there are exclusive events for female staff where female leadership is advocated. I know what Jessica was trying to say there, but damn if it didn't wind up looking somewhat like the stuff I described in my first paragraph. Now, I do not believe that KA has done anything wrong, but I don't think it's unreasonable for some people to question this.
This (as I post every time there's a sexism thread, I really should just get a blog or something) is all controversial because people are applying different ethical rules. Some people are applying deontological ethics, which says that there are rules about how to behave, and we should follow those rules (e.g. don't discriminate based on gender). They look at the "Girls, girls, girls" post and see things that look like they might break the rules against doing the stuff I described in my first paragraph. They're not actually looking at the "big picture" because they don't believe that, philosophically speaking, the ends can be used to justify the means. If bias is wrong, being biased in favour of a minority group is still wrong, in this view.
There's another more pragmatic view, which says that we should care mostly about outcomes, especially if no particularly great harms are being inflicted in order to achieve better outcomes. Although I generally lean more towards the rule-based view, in this case, I think KA is pretty clearly producing a good outcome and even if there is some bias[1] then it's not really the end of the world. But I wouldn't condemn or insult someone who thought differently.
[1] A key point about bias and discrimination is that people aren't (and often can't be!) aware of their own biases. If people from KA want to claim that they're totally without bias, that's going to make it hard to accuse other people of bias in the future. This is, sadly, just a Hard Problem and the various problems inherent in solving it are why we keep having lengthy discussions like this.
Breaking my planned HN abstinence, but this is exactly the one thing I worry about: "for instance if they display a preference for talking to or dealing with male colleagues over female ones"
Why is this discrimination? I think people should still be allowed to be individuals. So maybe I am more interested in Star Wars and some female developer is more interested in Sex And The City (sorry for the stereotypes, but actually I think more women than men are interested in Sex And The City - fwiw I actually found SATC more interesting than Star Wars, I am just making this example up). So maybe I prefer to talk to a colleague who is also interested in Star Wars? If that is discrimination, or if to be a good non-sexist developer I have to take an interest in Sex And The City, I think this approach to eliminating discrimination is not going to work out.
Personally I think there are differences between men and women and to try to pretend they don't exist will end up a failure. (I don't mean mental capabilities).
I am not writing this to deride the anti-sexism campaigns, but because I genuinely would like to understand how the future is supposed to work out.
One example: will sexual attraction still be allowed at the work place? Obviously it is going to exist, but we can of course learn to suppress it. I would like to hear from the anti-sexism crowd a definite statement on how the envision the sexes to deal with each other.
Making a rule "sexual attraction at the work place is a 100% no go" is of course a possibility, but the reality at the moment seems to be that ~20% of couples met at work. So taking that opportunity for couples to meet away will create a hole that needs to be filled in some other way.
Sexual attraction is also another reason why men might be less comfortable talking to other women than other men. I don't think calling that "discrimination" is doing the complexity of the issue much justice. I also reject the notion that being sexually attracted to a woman is sexist (or vice versa).
(Edit: I'll log off again, but I'll read replies next week...)
Why is this discrimination? I think people should still be allowed to be individuals. So maybe I am more interested in Star Wars and some female developer is more interested in Sex And The City (sorry for the stereotypes, but actually I think more women than men are interested in Sex And The City - fwiw I actually found SATC more interesting than Star Wars, I am just making this example up). So maybe I prefer to talk to a colleague who is also interested in Star Wars? If that is discrimination, or if to be a good non-sexist developer I have to take an interest in Sex And The City, I think this approach to eliminating discrimination is not going to work out.
Personally I think there are differences between men and women and to try to pretend they don't exist will end up a failure. (I don't mean mental capabilities).
I am not writing this to deride the anti-sexism campaigns, but because I genuinely would like to understand how the future is supposed to work out.
One example: will sexual attraction still be allowed at the work place? Obviously it is going to exist, but we can of course learn to suppress it. I would like to hear from the anti-sexism crowd a definite statement on how the envision the sexes to deal with each other.
Making a rule "sexual attraction at the work place is a 100% no go" is of course a possibility, but the reality at the moment seems to be that ~20% of couples met at work. So taking that opportunity for couples to meet away will create a hole that needs to be filled in some other way.
Sexual attraction is also another reason why men might be less comfortable talking to other women than other men. I don't think calling that "discrimination" is doing the complexity of the issue much justice. I also reject the notion that being sexually attracted to a woman is sexist (or vice versa).
(Edit: I'll log off again, but I'll read replies next week...)
> Why is this discrimination? I think people should still be allowed to be individuals.
As soon as you become a manager you are no longer allowed to just be an individual. Your actions (both overt and subtle) have power over others so you no longer just get to do whatever you want.
As soon as you become a manager you are no longer allowed to just be an individual. Your actions (both overt and subtle) have power over others so you no longer just get to do whatever you want.
"If bias is wrong, being biased in favour of a minority group is still wrong, in this view."
Another way to look at this is that the exception proves the rule. These sorts of deliberately perverse inversions of discrimination really offend. Perhaps they may also serve spur the male colleagues to clean their own house. Sometimes people can become aware of their own biases when they see their actions mirrored in front of them.
As an aside, I will believe the people arguing for deontological ethics just as soon as they give up the lifetime of power, privilege and status afforded them due to their sex (or race).
Another way to look at this is that the exception proves the rule. These sorts of deliberately perverse inversions of discrimination really offend. Perhaps they may also serve spur the male colleagues to clean their own house. Sometimes people can become aware of their own biases when they see their actions mirrored in front of them.
As an aside, I will believe the people arguing for deontological ethics just as soon as they give up the lifetime of power, privilege and status afforded them due to their sex (or race).
Privilege seems to be a common theme today, based on the very worrisome line of thinking that averaging over 150 million people spanning 100+ years tells you anything meaningful.
"how there are exclusive events for female staff where female leadership is advocated."
Can someone on HN give me a level headed explanation, for why this is more appropriate than the opposite (An event exclusive to men)? It's never made sense to me why one is accepted and the other isn't.
Can someone on HN give me a level headed explanation, for why this is more appropriate than the opposite (An event exclusive to men)? It's never made sense to me why one is accepted and the other isn't.
In general, the idea is that actions designed to improve outcomes for underprivileged groups are acceptable, and actions designed to improve outcomes for privileged groups are not. In other words, "it depends". This obviously undermines the "don't discriminate based on gender" norm, which is quite easy to understand, and replaces it with "only discriminate against the privileged". Unfortunately, while it's quite easy to work out what gender someone is (or identifies as), privilege is a more slippery concept.
We could say that men are privileged relative to women. This shows up in the data on educational attainment and wage differentials, which have historically favoured men. Actually, in the case we're currently discussing, of younger people who are in the typical intern age bracket, women already outperform men in both education and pay[1]. It's actually not at all clear that young women are an underprivileged group relative to their male counterparts, so we should probably start treating instances of bias in favour of young women against young men as just as objectionable as bias in favour of older men would be. There's probably going to be some time lag involved here, as it will take some time for people to update their priors on this subject, but I can easily imagine affirmative action in favour of men within the next decade or two.
This is one of the main arguments against allowing positive discrimination - when the time comes to acknowledge that this discrimination is obsolete, there's not much incentive for those who benefit from it to do so (any more than there was any incentive for men who benefited from the old male privileges to acknowledge that it was time to end them). Personally, I think this is why we need to ensure that discourse on this issue remains civil and focused on fairness, rather than "men vs. women".
[1] http://womensissues.about.com/od/womenintheworkforce/a/Gende...
We could say that men are privileged relative to women. This shows up in the data on educational attainment and wage differentials, which have historically favoured men. Actually, in the case we're currently discussing, of younger people who are in the typical intern age bracket, women already outperform men in both education and pay[1]. It's actually not at all clear that young women are an underprivileged group relative to their male counterparts, so we should probably start treating instances of bias in favour of young women against young men as just as objectionable as bias in favour of older men would be. There's probably going to be some time lag involved here, as it will take some time for people to update their priors on this subject, but I can easily imagine affirmative action in favour of men within the next decade or two.
This is one of the main arguments against allowing positive discrimination - when the time comes to acknowledge that this discrimination is obsolete, there's not much incentive for those who benefit from it to do so (any more than there was any incentive for men who benefited from the old male privileges to acknowledge that it was time to end them). Personally, I think this is why we need to ensure that discourse on this issue remains civil and focused on fairness, rather than "men vs. women".
[1] http://womensissues.about.com/od/womenintheworkforce/a/Gende...
It's the same reason "Black history month" is OK (if misguided) but "White history month" isn't: because EVERY month is white history month. Likewise, for tech events, if there's a focus on male-dominated things, such as drinking beer and playing Halo, or even a "hackathon" then, while it doesn't technically exclude women, the implication is that it's a "macho" event, even if that was never the intention. There simply aren't many events in tech that implicitly exclude men, while there are a lot of events, either due to who attends them (look at the conferences where 2 women show up) or how they're portrayed (using "booth babes," for instance) that implicitly exclude women.
It is a private organization is probably why; so they are allowed to discriminate. In government if they had a female issues oriented event there would be a foot note stating that men are welcome to attend.
edit: to respond to the below comment, I don't think it is socially acceptable. It just isn't something that affects people too adversely yet so while they may shake their head and fire off a tweet no one really cares enough to bring significant pressure to bear.
edit: to respond to the below comment, I don't think it is socially acceptable. It just isn't something that affects people too adversely yet so while they may shake their head and fire off a tweet no one really cares enough to bring significant pressure to bear.
I wasn't really thinking about the legality of the issue so much as the social acceptability.
Because events for male staff where male leadership is advocated HAPPEN ALL THE FUCKING TIME. LOOK AROUND! The events that the OP discusses for women are a great way to even things out just a little bit.
Agreed although I'd be careful with this,
A key point about bias and discrimination is that people aren't (and often can't be!) aware of their own biases
as it's typically the beginning of an explanation for why admissions/hiring policies are being changed to ensure an equal outcome or Khan's case a 2:1 outcome (which apparently is just great as long as it's in the right direction).
A key point about bias and discrimination is that people aren't (and often can't be!) aware of their own biases
as it's typically the beginning of an explanation for why admissions/hiring policies are being changed to ensure an equal outcome or Khan's case a 2:1 outcome (which apparently is just great as long as it's in the right direction).
[deleted]
The world doesn't have to be evenly divided. Just because you see a group of people that are under-represented in a field doesn't mean it needs to be adjusted. We don't need to push for more white people in the NBA. We don't need to push for more men to become nurses. We need to push for equality of opportunity, not outcome.
Meritocracy is like traditional view of objectivity that knowledge exists without the knower. Truth of the matter is, knowledge exists without the knower but it is not independent of the knower.
This is why 14 year olds writing app is a reason for celebration and why encouraging more females is a good thing. By doing so, we allow our work to expand to incorporate the values that those group represent, which is important because our work is user-centric, it doesn't stand by itself. If the work doesn't stand by itself, how can its creators?
This is why 14 year olds writing app is a reason for celebration and why encouraging more females is a good thing. By doing so, we allow our work to expand to incorporate the values that those group represent, which is important because our work is user-centric, it doesn't stand by itself. If the work doesn't stand by itself, how can its creators?
Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't it the exact opposite of a meritocracy? If someone makes something awesome, it doesn't really matter if they're 14 year olds, women, men or aliens.
I know at least I'd high five someone who made something cool, regardless of gender/age/other factors.
I know at least I'd high five someone who made something cool, regardless of gender/age/other factors.
The parent is describing the postmodern definition of Meritocracy where "merit" is just a point view. In that world all achievements/failures must be evaluated in light of the person or group's privilege/race/class/gender and sexuality. People who subscribe to this definition really don't believe in meritocracy as it's generally viewed as a way to institutionalize white male advantage. Just a heads up :)
I am not sure whether this is what the parent meant. I mean one way of looking at it is that the more people from completely different backgrounds do things, the more interesting the work gets. E.g. it is possible that some people (teens, women) have a better perspective on solving some problems that affect them more.
I generally support the success of more people from varied backgrounds in tech. Mainly because it makes for a wider variance in problems that get solved. It gets tiring to see every startup out there that solves problems for 20 something people who live in San Francisco (who incidentally might be male, asian/white...). This does not however mean that I ascribe to the idea that one should impose quotas or have lower standards for people who don't fit in these demographics.
I generally support the success of more people from varied backgrounds in tech. Mainly because it makes for a wider variance in problems that get solved. It gets tiring to see every startup out there that solves problems for 20 something people who live in San Francisco (who incidentally might be male, asian/white...). This does not however mean that I ascribe to the idea that one should impose quotas or have lower standards for people who don't fit in these demographics.
E.g. it is possible that some people (teens, women) have a better perspective on solving some problems that affect them more.
Is it possible that some people (men, whites, asians) have a better perspective on solving some problems?
Is it possible that some people (men, whites, asians) have a better perspective on solving some problems?
It is not about the exclusion of some people as much as it about the inclusion of all.
I completely agree with you that there is more merit(effort) in coming from a disadvantaged background (say x-5) and getting to point x than coming from a wealthier background (x-3) and getting to point x.
I believe though that a meritocracy is a system where people are selected based on an objective criterion, regardless of the above definition of merit and completely orthogonally to privilege/race/class/gender.
I believe though that a meritocracy is a system where people are selected based on an objective criterion, regardless of the above definition of merit and completely orthogonally to privilege/race/class/gender.
I believe though that a meritocracy is a system where people are selected based on an objective criterion, regardless of the above definition of merit
Why? If two candidates are equal in every way, why not favor the one coming from a disadvantaged background? Shouldn't they be more, rather than equally, likely to achieve more given the same future resources?
Why? If two candidates are equal in every way, why not favor the one coming from a disadvantaged background? Shouldn't they be more, rather than equally, likely to achieve more given the same future resources?
While I did borrow from feminist epistomology, that's not the point.
Simply put, having a diverse workforce is better because it introduces diversity in work.
Simply put, having a diverse workforce is better because it introduces diversity in work.
It's disheartening to watch online communities turn on themselves as they become infected with the cancer of postmodern feminism. It's a bullying, disempowering, dissent-crushing and divisive[1] ideology that erases individual experiences, obsesses over things one cannot control, demonizes nuance, and glorifies experiencing alleged "oppression", as defined in Marxist terms. It's toxic.
Unless things change, the evaporative cooling effect will leave Hacker News a divisive, infighting shell of its former self. Hopefully, a few new, positive communities will have sprouted by then. I'm constantly on the lookout.
[1] Look beneath the surface of any postmodern Marxist, anarchist, or feminist community, and you'll quickly see that dissent is completely non-tolerated, often in comical fashion. "Check your privilege" and similar anti-intellectualisms are internally thrown around like candy over any disagreement, new members are expected to prostrate themselves, and sub-communities are constantly splintering off and reemerging under new "leaders".
Unless things change, the evaporative cooling effect will leave Hacker News a divisive, infighting shell of its former self. Hopefully, a few new, positive communities will have sprouted by then. I'm constantly on the lookout.
[1] Look beneath the surface of any postmodern Marxist, anarchist, or feminist community, and you'll quickly see that dissent is completely non-tolerated, often in comical fashion. "Check your privilege" and similar anti-intellectualisms are internally thrown around like candy over any disagreement, new members are expected to prostrate themselves, and sub-communities are constantly splintering off and reemerging under new "leaders".
Erases individual experiences? That's exactly the opposite of what feminist epistemology proposes, hacker789.
The concept of regardless is lost in a meritocracy given the terms of measurement are defined by the the dominant group, which may or may not reflect the required knowledge for the betterment of the system.
For example, if you have a computer science scientist judging the validity of a physics experiment, you are not doing the physicist and physics justice, are you? If your meritocracy supports computer scientists, what chance does the physicist have?
For example, if you have a computer science scientist judging the validity of a physics experiment, you are not doing the physicist and physics justice, are you? If your meritocracy supports computer scientists, what chance does the physicist have?
As the person who stands at the end of our hiring process’s pipeline, I find “Mark“‘s idea that we’re sacrificing quality to fill some quota merely very insulting. If I were one of the women who has successfully navigated our brutal interview process, I’d be furious.
This is said as if there is no basis for "Mark's" belief. Affirmative action programs are notorious for establishing two-tier admissions policies for the sole purpose of fostering "diversity". While official quotas are illegal, it's well known that minority students are admitted to prestigious universities with far lower SAT and GPA's that their white/Asian counterparts. What's to make us think that's not what's at work here? Especially given that increasing female enrollment was a high priority given that there are so many "big smiles" when it was achieved. Again, some transparency would be nice.
Edited for spelling and grammar