4 ms·

>Why do young white males tend to be the ones who pick up computers, teach themselves to code, start businesses in their basements with their friends and get ri

by dvdcxn 10y ago

>Why do young white males tend to be the ones who pick up computers, teach themselves to code, start businesses in their basements with their friends and get rich? It’s an obvious opportunity to everybody isn’t it? If you are a different race, gender, or religion… what’s your excuse? I know of very very few successful bootstrapped tech companies founded by women or blacks. I've always wondered if the answer to this was due to the culture and class demographics. The Current crop of tech leaders came from the era where middle class boys were bought computers by their parents as it was seen as a thing for boys to be into and not girls (I think this stereotype is still prevalent but far less powerful now). Computers just were not affordable to working class folks back then. Considering the poverty most minorities families faced then and still do now, it's sadly the case that they couldn't afford computers. I expect (and hope) that in the next 10 years we'll see the distribution of tech leaders become naturally more diverse. Not because of any activist drive but simply because these kids are much more likely to have access to the tools they were denied in the past.

protomyth 10y ago
> I expect (and hope) that in the next 10 years we'll see the distribution of tech leaders to become more diverse. Not because of any activist drive but simply because these kids are much more likely to have access to the tools they were denied in the past. I don't see much hope of that as the fundamental problem hasn't changed. Lack of STEM training / degrees in pre-K / elementary school teachers and a gender problem worse than tech. We've had a lot of debates about the availability of programmable computers to lower incomes in a lot of threads.
cookiecaper 10y ago
>I've always wondered if the answer to this was due to the culture and class demographics. The answer is simple. Women are naturally inclined toward social fields. There are few women who want to do something highly technical and not people-oriented. Men do not have the same strong social inclination. The physiological differences between male and female affect their psychology as well as their superficial appearances; let's not kid ourselves. These are tools called "generalizations", which means they're not universally applicable, but they are helpful for understanding the world.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  Hasn't that been demonstrated false? Women (girls) start out just as interested in everything including technology. They are socialized away from math and science. Any physiological bias is in the noise.
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    a) it's hard enough to demonstrably prove anything in real sciences, data from social sciences rarely reflects anything other than the author's bias. One's ability to contrive a desired result with opaque language should not be used as evidence contrary to the easily observed, near universal reality. Don't let someone else's agenda send you into denial. b) a loss of interest as a person matures does not necessarily imply that loss is artificial. That unique psychology may emerge naturally over the developmental / maturation process, just as some physical features emerge.
    - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
      We must all understand that we have our own biases. I'm having a hard time believing anybody can use personal observation to separate physiological differences from socializing influences. In fact I don't believe it at all. It sounds the same as making up comfortable stories, denying the science that is done so as to absolve oneself of doing anything about the current state of affairs.
    - SolaceQuantum 10y ago
      Do you have a source that indicates that something in female brain structure during maturation/puberty or hormones associated with puberty causes more socially inclined behavior and career choices?
  - drumdance 10y ago
    Once upon a time the vast majority of nurses and veterinarians were men. Now they're dominated by women. Is that a problem to be solved or just the nature of reality?
  - 10y ago
Eyas 10y ago
The danger here is that you are assuming that the main dominatedness of a field does not alter conditions around it in a way that is potentially self-fulfilling. What I am suggesting is that while I agree that these disparities were likely due to class differences that manifested themselves in racial and gender inequalities, we now have a world where the industry is dominated by one gender and a few racial groups. Does the present situation makes it less likely for more women and minorities join tech? Without an activist drive, the answer seems likely. A lot of what the author brings up here are forces today that makes the reversal you are hoping for less likely, unless an equal but opposite activist force is applied.
nemothekid 10y ago
>I've always wondered if the answer to this was due to the culture and class demographics. You could probably make a well supported case for why this is true for minorities, but what makes the entire hypothesis shaky is if it was a cultural and class issue, what does that say about middle/upper class white women? Now let's assume that these women were discriminated/discouraged out of tech. How are we sure that in 10 years those same forces won't do the same to minorities? I don't have a solution, but I don't think the computer penetration problem sufficiently answers the question.
- jxdjsks 10y ago
  Its obviously traditional gender roles leaking into the minds of children. We instinctively pick up on what society expects us to be and our personality evolves around those loci. To fix this problem you have to drive out one of the most ingrained aspects of all cultures everywhere. I'm definitely not saying it's right, I'm fairly extreme, I think skirts and high heels are particularly poisonus expressions of this cultural norm.
- mercer 10y ago
  Perhaps gaming has something to do with this? Leaving aside whether there is something 'male' about gaming and the specific games that are most common, I recall that in my youth gaming was a 'guy thing'. I can imagine that frequently interacting with a computer in the form of gaming easily leads to becoming a programmer or tech worker.
cloudjacker 10y ago
Insightful, but you are so far removed from reality that you don't even realize most of these teens and early 20 somethings can't type at all because the cheap mobile computers are too convenient.
js8 10y ago
> Considering the poverty most minorities families faced then and still do now, it's sadly the case that they couldn't afford computers. My father bought me (and my brother) a 2nd hand computer in 1988 (ZX Spectrum+), in communist Czechoslovakia, for a price of more than two monthly salaries. Was the social situation in the U.S. really that much worse? I seriously doubt it. Now of course my father was an academic, and was very smart, so he obviously saw a value in it. But it seems to me that being poor is really a poor excuse here.
- erroneousfunk 10y ago
  There's a lot more to poverty than just "not having money." If my bank account suddenly dropped to zero, I lost all my material possessions, and I didn't have a job, I'm pretty confident that, within a few years, I could build things back up again and have a comfortable lifestyle (albeit, one with a very sad retirement account). This isn't the case for most people in poverty [edit: in poverty in the US Obviously, very different depending where they live] So if you're saying: "You were raised without any sort of education, never had a bank account, are trapped in a cycle of high-interest loans, have never had a good-paying job and don't have the skills to get one, and this is all you've ever seen and all your children have ever seen around them... but it's a really poor excuse for not buying a computer!" then fine. You can certainly have an opinion! Just keep in mind that it may not be wise to compare those in poverty to a smart, well-educated academic who sees an "obvious" value in computers for his children.
  - js8 10y ago
    > Just keep in mind that it may not be wise to compare those in poverty to a smart, well-educated academic who sees an "obvious" value in computers for his children. That was my point - the problem here is cultural, not economic. I was specifically addressing the "cannot afford" wording in the parent's post.

by dvdcxn 10y ago

protomyth 10y ago

> I expect (and hope) that in the next 10 years we'll see the distribution of tech leaders to become more diverse. Not because of any activist drive but simply because these kids are much more likely to have access to the tools they were denied in the past. I don't see much hope of that as the fundamental problem hasn't changed. Lack of STEM training / degrees in pre-K / elementary school teachers and a gender problem worse than tech. We've had a lot of debates about the availability of programmable computers to lower incomes in a lot of threads.

cookiecaper 10y ago

>I've always wondered if the answer to this was due to the culture and class demographics. The answer is simple. Women are naturally inclined toward social fields. There are few women who want to do something highly technical and not people-oriented. Men do not have the same strong social inclination. The physiological differences between male and female affect their psychology as well as their superficial appearances; let's not kid ourselves. These are tools called "generalizations", which means they're not universally applicable, but they are helpful for understanding the world.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago
Hasn't that been demonstrated false? Women (girls) start out just as interested in everything including technology. They are socialized away from math and science. Any physiological bias is in the noise.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  a) it's hard enough to demonstrably prove anything in real sciences, data from social sciences rarely reflects anything other than the author's bias. One's ability to contrive a desired result with opaque language should not be used as evidence contrary to the easily observed, near universal reality. Don't let someone else's agenda send you into denial. b) a loss of interest as a person matures does not necessarily imply that loss is artificial. That unique psychology may emerge naturally over the developmental / maturation process, just as some physical features emerge.
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    We must all understand that we have our own biases. I'm having a hard time believing anybody can use personal observation to separate physiological differences from socializing influences. In fact I don't believe it at all. It sounds the same as making up comfortable stories, denying the science that is done so as to absolve oneself of doing anything about the current state of affairs.
  - SolaceQuantum 10y ago
    Do you have a source that indicates that something in female brain structure during maturation/puberty or hormones associated with puberty causes more socially inclined behavior and career choices?
- drumdance 10y ago
  Once upon a time the vast majority of nurses and veterinarians were men. Now they're dominated by women. Is that a problem to be solved or just the nature of reality?
- 10y ago

Eyas 10y ago

The danger here is that you are assuming that the main dominatedness of a field does not alter conditions around it in a way that is potentially self-fulfilling. What I am suggesting is that while I agree that these disparities were likely due to class differences that manifested themselves in racial and gender inequalities, we now have a world where the industry is dominated by one gender and a few racial groups. Does the present situation makes it less likely for more women and minorities join tech? Without an activist drive, the answer seems likely. A lot of what the author brings up here are forces today that makes the reversal you are hoping for less likely, unless an equal but opposite activist force is applied.

nemothekid 10y ago

>I've always wondered if the answer to this was due to the culture and class demographics. You could probably make a well supported case for why this is true for minorities, but what makes the entire hypothesis shaky is if it was a cultural and class issue, what does that say about middle/upper class white women? Now let's assume that these women were discriminated/discouraged out of tech. How are we sure that in 10 years those same forces won't do the same to minorities? I don't have a solution, but I don't think the computer penetration problem sufficiently answers the question.

jxdjsks 10y ago
Its obviously traditional gender roles leaking into the minds of children. We instinctively pick up on what society expects us to be and our personality evolves around those loci. To fix this problem you have to drive out one of the most ingrained aspects of all cultures everywhere. I'm definitely not saying it's right, I'm fairly extreme, I think skirts and high heels are particularly poisonus expressions of this cultural norm.
mercer 10y ago
Perhaps gaming has something to do with this? Leaving aside whether there is something 'male' about gaming and the specific games that are most common, I recall that in my youth gaming was a 'guy thing'. I can imagine that frequently interacting with a computer in the form of gaming easily leads to becoming a programmer or tech worker.

cloudjacker 10y ago

Insightful, but you are so far removed from reality that you don't even realize most of these teens and early 20 somethings can't type at all because the cheap mobile computers are too convenient.

js8 10y ago

> Considering the poverty most minorities families faced then and still do now, it's sadly the case that they couldn't afford computers. My father bought me (and my brother) a 2nd hand computer in 1988 (ZX Spectrum+), in communist Czechoslovakia, for a price of more than two monthly salaries. Was the social situation in the U.S. really that much worse? I seriously doubt it. Now of course my father was an academic, and was very smart, so he obviously saw a value in it. But it seems to me that being poor is really a poor excuse here.

erroneousfunk 10y ago
There's a lot more to poverty than just "not having money." If my bank account suddenly dropped to zero, I lost all my material possessions, and I didn't have a job, I'm pretty confident that, within a few years, I could build things back up again and have a comfortable lifestyle (albeit, one with a very sad retirement account). This isn't the case for most people in poverty [edit: in poverty in the US Obviously, very different depending where they live] So if you're saying: "You were raised without any sort of education, never had a bank account, are trapped in a cycle of high-interest loans, have never had a good-paying job and don't have the skills to get one, and this is all you've ever seen and all your children have ever seen around them... but it's a really poor excuse for not buying a computer!" then fine. You can certainly have an opinion! Just keep in mind that it may not be wise to compare those in poverty to a smart, well-educated academic who sees an "obvious" value in computers for his children.
- js8 10y ago
  > Just keep in mind that it may not be wise to compare those in poverty to a smart, well-educated academic who sees an "obvious" value in computers for his children. That was my point - the problem here is cultural, not economic. I was specifically addressing the "cannot afford" wording in the parent's post.