3 ms·

> By what kind of a priori logic does the author presume > that any given meritocratic filter will happen to have > an equal pass rate along arbitrarily chose

by eries 17y ago

> By what kind of a priori logic does the author presume > that any given meritocratic filter will happen to have > an equal pass rate along arbitrarily chosen orthogonal > characteristics such as race and gender? I don't think that's a correct reading of the argument. The right question to ask is "What would have to be true about the underlying population to support the observed result that a particular startup is 100% male?" Let's assume that there is significant "differential average programming ability between gender populations" and that this has a combination of biological and sociological causes. Even so, I think we can agree that the two populations are probably normally distributed around each average, right? Now, is it safe to assume a roughly equal standard deviation for both curves? I'm not aware of any data to suggest otherwise. So now we can be specific: how large would that differential have to be before we find ourselves in the part of the curve that has many men but basically no women? I haven't done the math, as it seems intuitive to me that this is going to yield an absurd result, namely, that men would have to have an overwhelming advantage. At that point, it seems more reasonable to me to infer that we have a selection bias in our filter, than that the curves are so far apart in reality. My personal, albeit anecdotal, experience has given me no reason to doubt that conclusion, either. So, I don't think the argument depends on an equal pass rate, and I think it stands up even if you believe in substantial gender differences, regardless of cause.

plinkplonk 17y ago
"Now, is it safe to assume a roughly equal standard deviation for both curves?" No, not really. Why? Which bit of statistical theory tells you this would be the case? "I'm not aware of any data to suggest otherwise." Well you don't have any data going the other way either do you?
- eries 17y ago
  I simply can't imagine what relevant factor would cause a difference in the width of these curves. I know that, in general, men have a higher standard deviation for most activities and attributes than women, but these effects are minor. So, my question is, is there anything relating to the SD that you think affects the soundness of the underlying argument? If so, I'd actually be curious to learn more about it. My argument here is simply the best reasoning I can muster given the data that I'm aware of. You are welcome to poke holes in the reasoning or present alternate data. I'm eager to learn more in either case.
  - plinkplonk 17y ago
    "So, my question is, is there anything relating to the SD that you think affects the soundness of the underlying argument? " What underlying argument? You are presenting a political position unsubstantiated by any facts. Arguing about the distribution of standard deviations about two imaginary curves is like arguing about something in Alice in Wonderland. (Note that i didn't make an argument either way about the std dev in my comment). Speaking against political correctness will probably get me downvoted, but here goes anyway, From your blog post, I gather you think "diversity" of genders/races makes better dev teams. All I am saying is "prove it". With data, not hypotheses. I have yet to see any real evidence for this, whether in terms of sustained commercial success or even in a statistical sense. Show us these supposed benefits from race/gender diversity as applied to software development and startups. Is that too much to ask?
  - btilly 17y ago
    So because you can't imagine it, it must not exist? Even though you can't imagine how the standard deviations could differ, the evidence of a difference is extremely strong. And a 10% higher standard deviation is much less minor than you think if you are looking at an ability cutoff. If you have two populations of equal size with equal medians, one of which has a 10% higher standard deviation, then about 99.5% of the top 1% across both groups belongs to the group with the higher standard deviation. It is that extreme because the standard bell curve has tails that drop off very rapidly, so one curve has pretty much ended while the other curve is still going on.
bokonist 17y ago
Doing a startup is not just about programming ability. Determination, desire, competiveness, a willingness to take risks, etc, are all far more important. Of the long course of human existence, something like 40% of men have reproduced, while 80% of women manage to reproduce ( http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/is-there-anything-good-about-men-and-other-tricky-questions/ http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/is-there-anyt... ). Thus for a woman to reproduce she basically has to not take risks, and not screw up. But the proper reproductive strategy for a man is to take major risks so he can be the top dog with 5 wives, rather than the median man with no wives. The result is that men are by nature far greater risk takers. Startups require a lot of risk and a lot of sacrifice, it's not at all surprising to me that it is so male dominated. All the most risky activities, throughout the entire course of human history have been male dominated. And also, being good at programming is not just about having the smart genes. It's also about liking programming. I'm a nerd, I like spending most of time dealing with abstract logical concepts rather than with people. Most women are not like this. We have several women on our team in QA and product management. They have undergraduate degrees in engineering from top schools. But they don't program. Why? Because they don't like it. Whenever I talk with women about career plans, and mention programming, the usual response is something like, "meh". On the flip side, I'm pretty sure I would hate working in PR. Men and woman are different. And you know what? That's OK. I don't see what this obsession is with putting all of society in a blender until every job as a perfect distribution of every demographic component. Celebrate and embraces differences!
- foldr 17y ago
  Isn't it maybe a bit of a stretch to go from the hypothetical reproduction strategies of our stone-age ancestors to the gender balance of startup founders? A much simpler and more informative approach would be to compare the gender ratios of startups in less techy/programming fields. If what you say is correct, the predominance of men should be more or less equal in these. It's kind of embarrassing to me that whenever these issues come up on forums like this, people immediately start getting into amateur evolutionary psychology. This is basically code for "I like things the way they are; end of discussion."
  - 17y ago
yummyfajitas 17y ago
Now, is it safe to assume a roughly equal standard deviation for both curves? No. Hyde, J. S., Lindberg, S. M., Linn, M. C., Ellis, A. B., & Williams, C. C. (2008). Gender Similarities Characterize Math Performance. Science, 321(5888), 494-495. A WSJ article summarizing: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121691806472381521.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121691806472381521.html Choice quote: "...there were more than twice as many boys among the top [math] scorers than girls."
- eries 17y ago
  I don't have access to the underlying study - the WSJ summary doesn't contain the actual data. Would you be willing to share it? My claim is not that the SD's are the same, but that they are roughly the same. In other words, I don't think the differences in SD are large enough to affect the underlying argument. If the data proves otherwise, I'm eager to learn why.
  - yummyfajitas 17y ago
    Basic point is that SD for men in math ability alone is 1.11-1.21x as large as for women. If you break out your table of normal distributions, you'll see this difference is amplified at the top of the distribution (i.e., for very smart people). And this addresses only base mathematical ability. It completely ignores risk aversion, persistence and other factors which go into startup formation. A factor of 2 here and a factor if 3 there add up quite quickly.

by eries 17y ago

plinkplonk 17y ago

"Now, is it safe to assume a roughly equal standard deviation for both curves?" No, not really. Why? Which bit of statistical theory tells you this would be the case? "I'm not aware of any data to suggest otherwise." Well you don't have any data going the other way either do you?

eries 17y ago
I simply can't imagine what relevant factor would cause a difference in the width of these curves. I know that, in general, men have a higher standard deviation for most activities and attributes than women, but these effects are minor. So, my question is, is there anything relating to the SD that you think affects the soundness of the underlying argument? If so, I'd actually be curious to learn more about it. My argument here is simply the best reasoning I can muster given the data that I'm aware of. You are welcome to poke holes in the reasoning or present alternate data. I'm eager to learn more in either case.
- plinkplonk 17y ago
  "So, my question is, is there anything relating to the SD that you think affects the soundness of the underlying argument? " What underlying argument? You are presenting a political position unsubstantiated by any facts. Arguing about the distribution of standard deviations about two imaginary curves is like arguing about something in Alice in Wonderland. (Note that i didn't make an argument either way about the std dev in my comment). Speaking against political correctness will probably get me downvoted, but here goes anyway, From your blog post, I gather you think "diversity" of genders/races makes better dev teams. All I am saying is "prove it". With data, not hypotheses. I have yet to see any real evidence for this, whether in terms of sustained commercial success or even in a statistical sense. Show us these supposed benefits from race/gender diversity as applied to software development and startups. Is that too much to ask?
- btilly 17y ago
  So because you can't imagine it, it must not exist? Even though you can't imagine how the standard deviations could differ, the evidence of a difference is extremely strong. And a 10% higher standard deviation is much less minor than you think if you are looking at an ability cutoff. If you have two populations of equal size with equal medians, one of which has a 10% higher standard deviation, then about 99.5% of the top 1% across both groups belongs to the group with the higher standard deviation. It is that extreme because the standard bell curve has tails that drop off very rapidly, so one curve has pretty much ended while the other curve is still going on.

bokonist 17y ago

Doing a startup is not just about programming ability. Determination, desire, competiveness, a willingness to take risks, etc, are all far more important. Of the long course of human existence, something like 40% of men have reproduced, while 80% of women manage to reproduce ( http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/is-there-anything-good-about-men-and-other-tricky-questions/ http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/is-there-anyt... ). Thus for a woman to reproduce she basically has to not take risks, and not screw up. But the proper reproductive strategy for a man is to take major risks so he can be the top dog with 5 wives, rather than the median man with no wives. The result is that men are by nature far greater risk takers. Startups require a lot of risk and a lot of sacrifice, it's not at all surprising to me that it is so male dominated. All the most risky activities, throughout the entire course of human history have been male dominated. And also, being good at programming is not just about having the smart genes. It's also about liking programming. I'm a nerd, I like spending most of time dealing with abstract logical concepts rather than with people. Most women are not like this. We have several women on our team in QA and product management. They have undergraduate degrees in engineering from top schools. But they don't program. Why? Because they don't like it. Whenever I talk with women about career plans, and mention programming, the usual response is something like, "meh". On the flip side, I'm pretty sure I would hate working in PR. Men and woman are different. And you know what? That's OK. I don't see what this obsession is with putting all of society in a blender until every job as a perfect distribution of every demographic component. Celebrate and embraces differences!

foldr 17y ago
Isn't it maybe a bit of a stretch to go from the hypothetical reproduction strategies of our stone-age ancestors to the gender balance of startup founders? A much simpler and more informative approach would be to compare the gender ratios of startups in less techy/programming fields. If what you say is correct, the predominance of men should be more or less equal in these. It's kind of embarrassing to me that whenever these issues come up on forums like this, people immediately start getting into amateur evolutionary psychology. This is basically code for "I like things the way they are; end of discussion."
- 17y ago

yummyfajitas 17y ago

Now, is it safe to assume a roughly equal standard deviation for both curves? No. Hyde, J. S., Lindberg, S. M., Linn, M. C., Ellis, A. B., & Williams, C. C. (2008). Gender Similarities Characterize Math Performance. Science, 321(5888), 494-495. A WSJ article summarizing: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121691806472381521.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121691806472381521.html Choice quote: "...there were more than twice as many boys among the top [math] scorers than girls."

eries 17y ago
I don't have access to the underlying study - the WSJ summary doesn't contain the actual data. Would you be willing to share it? My claim is not that the SD's are the same, but that they are roughly the same. In other words, I don't think the differences in SD are large enough to affect the underlying argument. If the data proves otherwise, I'm eager to learn why.
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  Basic point is that SD for men in math ability alone is 1.11-1.21x as large as for women. If you break out your table of normal distributions, you'll see this difference is amplified at the top of the distribution (i.e., for very smart people). And this addresses only base mathematical ability. It completely ignores risk aversion, persistence and other factors which go into startup formation. A factor of 2 here and a factor if 3 there add up quite quickly.