5 ms·

Excellent point from Freada: "My first piece of advice is to stop thinking about yourself as a meritocracy. Because if you believe you’re a meritocracy and you

by jdp23 11y ago

Excellent point from Freada: "My first piece of advice is to stop thinking about yourself as a meritocracy. Because if you believe you’re a meritocracy and you have numbers like everybody who has released their data, the implicit message is that Caucasian men are better than everyone else. Because that’s who is overrepresented."

JesperRavn 11y ago
On the flipside, what if Caucasian [sic] men were better than everyone in this field? Many people are happy to assert that diversity is good because it means multiple different viewpoints. What if the viewpoint of the Caucasian male[0] happened to be more suited to a particular field or company? [0] Given the obfuscation around race and culture, this might not be clear on first reading, but I am only discussing the possibility that the culture that is highly correlated with being "Caucasian" might have some advantage, not being "Caucasian" in itself. Thus my claim is entirely analagous with "You should hire more Black people because more (cultural) diversity will add more viewpoints to your company and hence increase productivity".
- jdp23 11y ago
  > what if Caucasian [sic] men were better than everyone in this field? That's her point: given the data, claiming it's a meritocracy implies that Caucasian men are "better" than everybody in this field. That's not a useful attitude if you're trying to improve diversity. > What if the viewpoint of the Caucasian male happened to be more suited to a particular field or company? Then the particular field or company has evolved to favor Caucasian males (or if you prefer the culture that is highly correlated with being "Caucasion"). In other words, it's got embedded structural discrimination. If you want to improve diversity, that needs to be acknowledged and removed.
  - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
    > That's her point: given the data, claiming it's a meritocracy implies that Caucasian men are "better" than everybody in this field. That's not a useful attitude if you're trying to improve diversity. It isn't an attitude at all. It's purely descriptive. If you're saying it's wrong to describe it as a meritocracy because it isn't one then that's one thing. If making the industry more diverse would also make it more meritocratic then that is clearly the way forward. But then what we need to do is not to stop calling it or wanting it to be a meritocracy but rather to make it live up to its name. On the other hand, if it is (more or less) a meritocracy already then what you're asking for is not that we stop calling it that, but that we stop it from being that. And if that's what you're saying then say it clearly so that more people can disagree with you. > Then the particular field or company has evolved to favor Caucasian males (or if you prefer the culture that is highly correlated with being "Caucasion"). In other words, it's got embedded structural discrimination. If you want to improve diversity, that needs to be acknowledged and removed. This is a really great exemplification of the failure of your entire line of reasoning. Let's suppose that, culturally, the parents of white and asian males generally encourage them to study engineering at university and the parents of females and african americans generally discourage it. In this not altogether unrealistic hypothetical this explains the main cultural difference leading to the disproportionate representation. Then companies looking to hire engineers logically require that candidates have studied engineering. You call this structural discrimination and demand that it be removed. Companies are expected to what, hire engineers who have no knowledge of engineering? Sometimes the problem is not the culture of the industry. Sometimes the problem is the culture of the people.
throwit542 11y ago
White men are over represented at large tech companies? White people make up around 80% of the U.S. population [0]. They make up less than 60% of tech workers at Google[1] and less than 55% of tech workers at Facebook[2]. That's underrepresented. Asian Americans make up less than 5% of the U.S. population[0], but almost 35% of tech workers at Google[1] and 36% of tech employees at Facebook[2]. That's over representation by a factor of about 7 times. Yet, the media will continue to harp on the over representation of white people at tech companies. Why? Because "diversity" really only means "not white". BTW: I bring this up not because I want fewer Asian Americans in tech or more white people in tech, but to point out the hypocrisy of the reporting on diversity in tech. [0] https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/... [1] http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/06/google-diversity-statistics-barely-impoved http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/06/google-diversity-sta... [2] http://recode.net/2015/06/25/facebook-employee-demographics-a-little-less-white-a-little-less-male/ http://recode.net/2015/06/25/facebook-employee-demographics-...
- duaneb 11y ago
  You think that 80% of the US is male, let alone white male? There are some big problems with your argument. And it's exactly this type of argument that is the problem: underrepresentation as a majority is far less of a problem than underrepresentation as a minority.
  - throwit542 11y ago
    If you read my post more closely, I wasn't talking about white men, but white people. It's pretty clear that the facts show that women are underrepresented in tech.
    - Joeboy 11y ago
      To be fair the combined overrepresentation of men and underrepresentation of white people may well mean white men are overrepresented, and you started your post with the words "White men". But yeah, in terms of ethnicity those figures are not what you would expect from reading some media representations of the tech industry. I'll be interested to hear what the big problems and flawed reasoning alluded to elsewhere are.
duaneb 11y ago
Privilege increases merit via education and culture. Why would you ever assume meritocracy would naturally lead to a diverse workplace? A cursory glance through most "white" or "male" privilege arguments shows this is very much not true. Given that this is true, the responsible thing would be to both acknowledge that you want diversity and that certain groups are underserved in the field. How to resolve this in terms of policy as a business is going to be a difficult decision for anyone. But I don't think it's responsible to not acknowledge that white men are not the best qualified candidates (though I was under the impression Asian males also do quite well in the tech industry)--i think that is doing a disservice to young people trying to understand the industry and the truth about the massive disparity between minority population distribution and minority hiring distribution.
- jdp23 11y ago
  > Privilege increases merit That definition of "merit" implies that whites have more merit than blacks (because they tend to be more privileged) and men have more merit than women. If your goal is to increase diversity, that's not a helpful definition. > Why would you ever assume meritocracy would naturally lead to a diverse workplace? Exactly. Any definition of "meritocracy" will have embedded biases, and so won't lead to a diverse workplace. That's why I saw this as such good advice. > But I don't think it's responsible to not acknowledge that white men are not the best qualified candidates If the definition of "best qualified" favors white men, then of course white men are more likely to be the "best qualified" candidates. It's a classic example of structural discrimination.
  - tzs 11y ago
    > > Privilege increases merit > That definition of "merit" implies that whites have more merit than blacks (because they tend to be more privileged) and men have more merit than women. If your goal is to increase diversity, that's not a helpful definition. What he wrote was "Privilege increases merit via education and culture". Why did you cut off the "via education and culture" part?
    - 11y ago
revelation 11y ago
In a world where only white caucasian men can go to school, of course a meritocracy ends up being filled with them. You seem to imply there is some logical disconnect here when it's perfectly explainable.
- jdp23 11y ago
  No, I'm not implying a logical disconnect; I'm saying that if your goal is diversity, the notion of a "meritocracy" gets in the way. More in my comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10208825 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10208825
  - ebfe 11y ago
    The goal isn't diversity, though. The goal is meritocracy, with diversity only desirable insofar as it enables meritocracy.
    - jdp23 11y ago
      Speak for yourself. Many people who benefit from the current systemic biases would agree with you; many people who don't -- and some think society as a whole would be better if the systemic biases were reduced -- see thins differently. > The goal is meritocracy, with diversity only desirable insofar as it enables meritocracy. In other words "The goal is anti-diversity, with diversity only desirable insofar as it enables the anti-diversity goal."
      - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
        > In other words "The goal is anti-diversity, with diversity only desirable insofar as it enables the anti-diversity goal." Meritocracy is not anti-diversity. Meritocracy is correlated with diversity. Choosing meritocracy where they diverge is nothing more than accepting that diversity is not the one true goal of all things.
      - douche 11y ago
        The goal is to get shit done. If diversity enables you to get shit done better than non-diversity, then let's be diverse. The old great metaphor for America was that it was a "melting pot." The metaphor comes from smelting. When you smelt metal, you're not promoting diversity - you're creating a homogeneous alloy. You also skim off the slag and throw it out. It's not a particularly pleasant metaphor when you think about it.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
tzs 11y ago
But if your company actually is a meritocracy (i.e., it hires and promotes solely based on objective measures of suitability for the job) in a tech field and it is reasonably large, then it will in fact be mostly white and asian. Acknowledging this fact does NOT imply that whites and asians are better than others. It just implies that whites and asians go into tech fields at a higher rate than others. If you want to increase diversity, it is far better to acknowledge this and then work on finding out why some groups have a low rate of going into tech, and fixing that. It's like Jews and doctors in the US. Jews are about 1.2% of the US population, but 14% of US doctors. This doesn't imply that Jews are better than everyone else at medicine. Jews are so overrepresented among physicians because Jewish culture in the US greatly admires and respects physicians and children are steered toward becoming doctors from an early age.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > But if your company actually is a meritocracy (i.e., it hires and promotes solely based on objective measures of suitability for the job) in a tech field and it is reasonably large, then it will in fact be mostly white and asian. Choosing objective measures of merit first requires choosing a subjective choice of how to define merit -- what the mission is and what things are needed to fulfill it. And, in point of fact, many "objective measures of merit" are objective measures that have a tenuously presumed connection to merit in the specific job that are adopted because of what amounts to cultural traditions in the profession.
millermp12 11y ago
Actually, you will find it is asians as a percentage of population who are over represented. Good thing mitch is Mr money bags. With her math, she'd run a 7-11 into the ground. It's kind of like my hebraic friend who conflated the UVA rape hoax with slavery by exclaiming on his Facebook page: "you don't reform a plantation you burn it down." I guess that's what 10 years of African studies (or diversity training) gets you.

by jdp23 11y ago

JesperRavn 11y ago

On the flipside, what if Caucasian [sic] men were better than everyone in this field? Many people are happy to assert that diversity is good because it means multiple different viewpoints. What if the viewpoint of the Caucasian male[0] happened to be more suited to a particular field or company? [0] Given the obfuscation around race and culture, this might not be clear on first reading, but I am only discussing the possibility that the culture that is highly correlated with being "Caucasian" might have some advantage, not being "Caucasian" in itself. Thus my claim is entirely analagous with "You should hire more Black people because more (cultural) diversity will add more viewpoints to your company and hence increase productivity".

jdp23 11y ago
> what if Caucasian [sic] men were better than everyone in this field? That's her point: given the data, claiming it's a meritocracy implies that Caucasian men are "better" than everybody in this field. That's not a useful attitude if you're trying to improve diversity. > What if the viewpoint of the Caucasian male happened to be more suited to a particular field or company? Then the particular field or company has evolved to favor Caucasian males (or if you prefer the culture that is highly correlated with being "Caucasion"). In other words, it's got embedded structural discrimination. If you want to improve diversity, that needs to be acknowledged and removed.
- AnthonyMouse 11y ago
  > That's her point: given the data, claiming it's a meritocracy implies that Caucasian men are "better" than everybody in this field. That's not a useful attitude if you're trying to improve diversity. It isn't an attitude at all. It's purely descriptive. If you're saying it's wrong to describe it as a meritocracy because it isn't one then that's one thing. If making the industry more diverse would also make it more meritocratic then that is clearly the way forward. But then what we need to do is not to stop calling it or wanting it to be a meritocracy but rather to make it live up to its name. On the other hand, if it is (more or less) a meritocracy already then what you're asking for is not that we stop calling it that, but that we stop it from being that. And if that's what you're saying then say it clearly so that more people can disagree with you. > Then the particular field or company has evolved to favor Caucasian males (or if you prefer the culture that is highly correlated with being "Caucasion"). In other words, it's got embedded structural discrimination. If you want to improve diversity, that needs to be acknowledged and removed. This is a really great exemplification of the failure of your entire line of reasoning. Let's suppose that, culturally, the parents of white and asian males generally encourage them to study engineering at university and the parents of females and african americans generally discourage it. In this not altogether unrealistic hypothetical this explains the main cultural difference leading to the disproportionate representation. Then companies looking to hire engineers logically require that candidates have studied engineering. You call this structural discrimination and demand that it be removed. Companies are expected to what, hire engineers who have no knowledge of engineering? Sometimes the problem is not the culture of the industry. Sometimes the problem is the culture of the people.

throwit542 11y ago

White men are over represented at large tech companies? White people make up around 80% of the U.S. population [0]. They make up less than 60% of tech workers at Google[1] and less than 55% of tech workers at Facebook[2]. That's underrepresented. Asian Americans make up less than 5% of the U.S. population[0], but almost 35% of tech workers at Google[1] and 36% of tech employees at Facebook[2]. That's over representation by a factor of about 7 times. Yet, the media will continue to harp on the over representation of white people at tech companies. Why? Because "diversity" really only means "not white". BTW: I bring this up not because I want fewer Asian Americans in tech or more white people in tech, but to point out the hypocrisy of the reporting on diversity in tech. [0] https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/... [1] http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/06/google-diversity-statistics-barely-impoved http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/06/google-diversity-sta... [2] http://recode.net/2015/06/25/facebook-employee-demographics-a-little-less-white-a-little-less-male/ http://recode.net/2015/06/25/facebook-employee-demographics-...

duaneb 11y ago
You think that 80% of the US is male, let alone white male? There are some big problems with your argument. And it's exactly this type of argument that is the problem: underrepresentation as a majority is far less of a problem than underrepresentation as a minority.
- throwit542 11y ago
  If you read my post more closely, I wasn't talking about white men, but white people. It's pretty clear that the facts show that women are underrepresented in tech.
  - Joeboy 11y ago
    To be fair the combined overrepresentation of men and underrepresentation of white people may well mean white men are overrepresented, and you started your post with the words "White men". But yeah, in terms of ethnicity those figures are not what you would expect from reading some media representations of the tech industry. I'll be interested to hear what the big problems and flawed reasoning alluded to elsewhere are.

duaneb 11y ago

Privilege increases merit via education and culture. Why would you ever assume meritocracy would naturally lead to a diverse workplace? A cursory glance through most "white" or "male" privilege arguments shows this is very much not true. Given that this is true, the responsible thing would be to both acknowledge that you want diversity and that certain groups are underserved in the field. How to resolve this in terms of policy as a business is going to be a difficult decision for anyone. But I don't think it's responsible to not acknowledge that white men are not the best qualified candidates (though I was under the impression Asian males also do quite well in the tech industry)--i think that is doing a disservice to young people trying to understand the industry and the truth about the massive disparity between minority population distribution and minority hiring distribution.

jdp23 11y ago
> Privilege increases merit That definition of "merit" implies that whites have more merit than blacks (because they tend to be more privileged) and men have more merit than women. If your goal is to increase diversity, that's not a helpful definition. > Why would you ever assume meritocracy would naturally lead to a diverse workplace? Exactly. Any definition of "meritocracy" will have embedded biases, and so won't lead to a diverse workplace. That's why I saw this as such good advice. > But I don't think it's responsible to not acknowledge that white men are not the best qualified candidates If the definition of "best qualified" favors white men, then of course white men are more likely to be the "best qualified" candidates. It's a classic example of structural discrimination.
- tzs 11y ago
  > > Privilege increases merit > That definition of "merit" implies that whites have more merit than blacks (because they tend to be more privileged) and men have more merit than women. If your goal is to increase diversity, that's not a helpful definition. What he wrote was "Privilege increases merit via education and culture". Why did you cut off the "via education and culture" part?
  - 11y ago

revelation 11y ago

In a world where only white caucasian men can go to school, of course a meritocracy ends up being filled with them. You seem to imply there is some logical disconnect here when it's perfectly explainable.

jdp23 11y ago
No, I'm not implying a logical disconnect; I'm saying that if your goal is diversity, the notion of a "meritocracy" gets in the way. More in my comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10208825 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10208825
- ebfe 11y ago
  The goal isn't diversity, though. The goal is meritocracy, with diversity only desirable insofar as it enables meritocracy.
  - jdp23 11y ago
    Speak for yourself. Many people who benefit from the current systemic biases would agree with you; many people who don't -- and some think society as a whole would be better if the systemic biases were reduced -- see thins differently. > The goal is meritocracy, with diversity only desirable insofar as it enables meritocracy. In other words "The goal is anti-diversity, with diversity only desirable insofar as it enables the anti-diversity goal."
    - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
      > In other words "The goal is anti-diversity, with diversity only desirable insofar as it enables the anti-diversity goal." Meritocracy is not anti-diversity. Meritocracy is correlated with diversity. Choosing meritocracy where they diverge is nothing more than accepting that diversity is not the one true goal of all things.
    - douche 11y ago
      The goal is to get shit done. If diversity enables you to get shit done better than non-diversity, then let's be diverse. The old great metaphor for America was that it was a "melting pot." The metaphor comes from smelting. When you smelt metal, you're not promoting diversity - you're creating a homogeneous alloy. You also skim off the slag and throw it out. It's not a particularly pleasant metaphor when you think about it.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

tzs 11y ago

But if your company actually is a meritocracy (i.e., it hires and promotes solely based on objective measures of suitability for the job) in a tech field and it is reasonably large, then it will in fact be mostly white and asian. Acknowledging this fact does NOT imply that whites and asians are better than others. It just implies that whites and asians go into tech fields at a higher rate than others. If you want to increase diversity, it is far better to acknowledge this and then work on finding out why some groups have a low rate of going into tech, and fixing that. It's like Jews and doctors in the US. Jews are about 1.2% of the US population, but 14% of US doctors. This doesn't imply that Jews are better than everyone else at medicine. Jews are so overrepresented among physicians because Jewish culture in the US greatly admires and respects physicians and children are steered toward becoming doctors from an early age.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> But if your company actually is a meritocracy (i.e., it hires and promotes solely based on objective measures of suitability for the job) in a tech field and it is reasonably large, then it will in fact be mostly white and asian. Choosing objective measures of merit first requires choosing a subjective choice of how to define merit -- what the mission is and what things are needed to fulfill it. And, in point of fact, many "objective measures of merit" are objective measures that have a tenuously presumed connection to merit in the specific job that are adopted because of what amounts to cultural traditions in the profession.

millermp12 11y ago

Actually, you will find it is asians as a percentage of population who are over represented. Good thing mitch is Mr money bags. With her math, she'd run a 7-11 into the ground. It's kind of like my hebraic friend who conflated the UVA rape hoax with slavery by exclaiming on his Facebook page: "you don't reform a plantation you burn it down." I guess that's what 10 years of African studies (or diversity training) gets you.