5 ms·

I think the article posted is excellent and was an amazingly good read. The comment that I and rustynails replied to added absolutely nothing of value and was a

I think the article posted is excellent and was an amazingly good read. The comment that I and rustynails replied to added absolutely nothing of value and was an admonishing post suggestive that the lack of surface diversity* in our industry is largely the result of discrimination and not other factors like base rates and natural nerd proclivities. The people described in the article worked as computers and mathematicians at NASA because of: - talent - born, raised and lived in the right place at the right time (propinquity) - self interest (they applied for jobs doing work they were interested in performing) - health (reasonably good enough not to be a distraction) - education People who worked as engineers in Silicon Valley since the mini-computer revolution have done so because of: - talent - born, raised and lived in the right place at the right time (propinquity) - self interest (they applied for jobs doing work they were interested in performing) - health (reasonably good enough not to be a distraction) - education Notice that those two lists are largely the same? While I'm not saying discrimination isn't at play or non-existent, it's at best a minor factor relative to lots of other issues. Let's take what is likely to be one of the biggest issues that everyone loves to conveniently ignore, base rates: In Hampton, Virginia, the birthplace of NASA, the African American population is 49.8% and in Virginia it's 19.7%, whereas in the Bay Area it's about 6.7%, most of which is largely concentrated in Alemeda, Contra Costa and Solano counties. Furthermore, these counties are not the locus of Silicon Valley, San Francisco (5.8%), San Mateo (3.0%) and Santa Clara (2.9%) are. Even the entire state of California is only about 6.5% black. This means, that to have a percentage of the Silicon Valley work force be black at approximately the same rate as the rest of the United States, black people need to move here either for work or for school. As someone who's moved countries 4 times and states 2 times, this is non-trivial and unpleasant for those without a disposition to tolerate such a jarring change where you're an adult and responsible for supporting yourself and financing your own move. You lose support networks of family and friends. It's a non-trivial cost, especially if you need to move belongings. You need to rebuild and re-purchase the things you didn't bring. The base rates above are the general population. If you assume that most people in tech have a bachelor degree or better (we no this isn't universally true since many software engineers are self taught), then the base rates gets worse. For people between 25 and 29 years of age, about 20% of black people have a bachelors degree versus 15% for Hispanics, 40% for white people and 58% for Asians. Furthermore, 52% of college students attend a university within 100 miles of home and only 15.5% attend a university farther than 500 miles away. And a mere ~1.5% of Americans move across state lines each year. Honestly, most people debating diversity as so incredibly awful at understanding statistics and performing a basic root cause analysis. It's like people start asking the 5 Whys, but the moment diversity is involved people's minds automatically short circuit and jump straight to because #racism or because #patriarchy. I'm not saying neither of those contribute to the problem, but they are far from the biggest factors. There are a LOT of filters that do a lot to modify/distort the available pool of people who would get even as far as applying for a job (which is for the most part a prerequisite for discrimination, active or unconscious) Basically, if you want to make it so racial diversity in tech approximates the general population in the US, the best solution is not to try to change Silicon Valley, but to help more places like Silicon Valley exist in places with base rates that more closely match the racial distribution you believe is ideal. AnnaLee Saxenian's books are instructive if you're curious how such regions are formed: "Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128" and "The New Argonauts: Regional Advantage in a Global Economy". A big part of what you need to move is money (i.e. you need a robust angel investor and venture capital industry). * surface diversity - when you define diversity based on genetics and not content of character and live experiences. yes, I'm aware that you could argue that recruiting mostly from people who live in the same city, county or state is a form of unconscious bias, but you're going to have a hard time arguing against that one ( http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2010/05/28/you-cant-look-for-a-job-from-a-remote-location-it-doesnt-work/ http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2010/05/28/you-cant-look-... ) Hampton, Virginia http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/51/51650.html http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/51/51650.html Santa Clara County http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06085.html http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06085.html San Mateo County http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06081.html http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06081.html San Francisco County http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06075.html http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06075.html https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/race-gap-narrows-in-college-enrollment-but-not-in-graduation/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/race-gap-narrows-in-col... http://www.thecollegesolution.com/where-most-students-end-up-attending-college/ http://www.thecollegesolution.com/where-most-students-end-up... http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/magazine/why-are-so-many-americans-staying-put.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/magazine/why-are-so-many-a...

nickpsecurity 11y ago
It all looks nice until we get numbers from groups like GapJumpers that institute blind auditions for hiring or performance evaluations where evaluator can't identify what group they are. Starting out, these "fair" companies are usually under 10% minority or women. Once they see only performance, it's suddenly closer to 50/50. Hmm. Then there's the experiences themselves: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/12/silicon-valley-women-harassment-gender-discrimination http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/12/silicon-va... Would you work in a place or field like that if all you heard was what's in above link? And people justified it instead of solved it? And hard data, such as pay or hiring w/ performance in context, showed they discriminated in both hiring and advancement? Probably not. The problems are in the Valley's culture and decision-making, not anything intrinsic. Same as in most other places. Good policies on professionalism, hiring, and promotion which focus on performance instead of identity would go a long way. Have, in few companies that did it.
- brighteyes 11y ago
  I would be interested to see a source for the "blind auditions" claim. Some reasons for skepticism about blind auditions making a difference in tech: 1. Github provides a potential blind audition scenario - don't mention your race or age or gender or weight or anything else. Just submit code and prove yourself. Yet, diversity advocates generally see this as not helping minorities in tech. 2. Tech companies constantly publish their diversity stats. They are trying to hire more women and minorities, and are motivated to do so. Blind auditions tend to help in industries where the opposite is true. Still, I'd love to see a source for your claim, and I'd be happy to be convinced otherwise. Regarding the one link you do provide: The headline figure is meaningless without some more data on the survey - such as how was the survey conducted, and is it random. If it's not random, then it's very hard to judge how valid it is.
  - malandrew 11y ago
    I too want to see citations for the above poster's assertions. I'm also curious to see a citation for this statement, "Just submit code and prove yourself. Yet, diversity advocates generally see this as not helping minorities in tech.", since I'm curious to read their reasoning. I actually would expect and hope that such a process doesn't help minorities. I also would expect and hope that it also doesn't help those that are not minorities. After all, isn't a fair, blind process the most just approach we can hope for? However, I think this is where there is a big, largely unrecognized schism, and that is the schism between those that advocate for equality and those that advocate for equity. Those two unfortunately are not the same. I personally am an advocate for equality. +1 for understanding study methodology and what biases may be present. AFAIK, the study is this one here, http://elephantinthevalley.com/ http://elephantinthevalley.com/ They state the criteria for including a respondent in the survey, but I didn't find out if the 200+ women included in the study were randomly sampled from all women they "found" who met the criteria or if this represented the entire population of all the women they "found" who met that criteria. An explanation of how they were "found" was also absent. The final sentence in the introductory block "We encourage you to read, discuss, and add your anonymous stories to this initiative." suggests that self selection bias may influence these figures. I submitted the following comment on the site: "Could you please add a section on your site describing in detail the study/survey methodologies used? I'm particularly interested in knowing more about how survey participants were selected.". I wish all studies and surveys like this voluntarily shared their methodology along with their results. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-selection_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-selection_bias

nickpsecurity 11y ago

It all looks nice until we get numbers from groups like GapJumpers that institute blind auditions for hiring or performance evaluations where evaluator can't identify what group they are. Starting out, these "fair" companies are usually under 10% minority or women. Once they see only performance, it's suddenly closer to 50/50. Hmm. Then there's the experiences themselves: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/12/silicon-valley-women-harassment-gender-discrimination http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/12/silicon-va... Would you work in a place or field like that if all you heard was what's in above link? And people justified it instead of solved it? And hard data, such as pay or hiring w/ performance in context, showed they discriminated in both hiring and advancement? Probably not. The problems are in the Valley's culture and decision-making, not anything intrinsic. Same as in most other places. Good policies on professionalism, hiring, and promotion which focus on performance instead of identity would go a long way. Have, in few companies that did it.

brighteyes 11y ago
I would be interested to see a source for the "blind auditions" claim. Some reasons for skepticism about blind auditions making a difference in tech: 1. Github provides a potential blind audition scenario - don't mention your race or age or gender or weight or anything else. Just submit code and prove yourself. Yet, diversity advocates generally see this as not helping minorities in tech. 2. Tech companies constantly publish their diversity stats. They are trying to hire more women and minorities, and are motivated to do so. Blind auditions tend to help in industries where the opposite is true. Still, I'd love to see a source for your claim, and I'd be happy to be convinced otherwise. Regarding the one link you do provide: The headline figure is meaningless without some more data on the survey - such as how was the survey conducted, and is it random. If it's not random, then it's very hard to judge how valid it is.
- malandrew 11y ago
  I too want to see citations for the above poster's assertions. I'm also curious to see a citation for this statement, "Just submit code and prove yourself. Yet, diversity advocates generally see this as not helping minorities in tech.", since I'm curious to read their reasoning. I actually would expect and hope that such a process doesn't help minorities. I also would expect and hope that it also doesn't help those that are not minorities. After all, isn't a fair, blind process the most just approach we can hope for? However, I think this is where there is a big, largely unrecognized schism, and that is the schism between those that advocate for equality and those that advocate for equity. Those two unfortunately are not the same. I personally am an advocate for equality. +1 for understanding study methodology and what biases may be present. AFAIK, the study is this one here, http://elephantinthevalley.com/ http://elephantinthevalley.com/ They state the criteria for including a respondent in the survey, but I didn't find out if the 200+ women included in the study were randomly sampled from all women they "found" who met the criteria or if this represented the entire population of all the women they "found" who met that criteria. An explanation of how they were "found" was also absent. The final sentence in the introductory block "We encourage you to read, discuss, and add your anonymous stories to this initiative." suggests that self selection bias may influence these figures. I submitted the following comment on the site: "Could you please add a section on your site describing in detail the study/survey methodologies used? I'm particularly interested in knowing more about how survey participants were selected.". I wish all studies and surveys like this voluntarily shared their methodology along with their results. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-selection_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-selection_bias