5 ms·

I think GH is starting from the point of "the distribution of our employees doesn't line up with the larger population of the country we operate in". If you thi

I think GH is starting from the point of "the distribution of our employees doesn't line up with the larger population of the country we operate in". If you think each of those groups of people has the potential to be as talented as any other, then why is there a discrepancy? I think they're saying, "We don't think the market is working." There are hidden biases at work. For example, people with "non-white sounding" names don't get hired at the same rate as those with "white sounding" names when they have the same skillset. http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html I think these biases operate at a low level, below most of our understanding. I like that GH is having this conversation in the open and working to rid themselves of these biases as much as possible. To me, this is all relevant socioeconomic data. Why not look at the distribution of gender, race, sexuality, religion, etc, in your workplace? If there's a discrepancy, why not figure out what the root cause is? Given the starting point of "all these groups of people have the same capacity for talent and skill", why is the distribution skewed? What does it hurt to ask?

wskinner 10y ago
GitHub is focusing on the very bottom of the funnel. They are noticing the distribution of their employees doesn't match that of the larger population, then attempting to make it match. But what if the reason their company distribution doesn't match up is that the distribution of people with the requisite skills doesn't match up? They are trying to treat the symptoms of a supposed problem rather than the ailment itself, and putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage by doing so. Affirmative action doesn't work, except for the short-term career prospects of those individuals lucky enough to profit from it, and the virtue-signalers who propose it.
- phasmantistes 10y ago
  This is just the pipeline argument. And while there are very real aspects to the pipeline -- yes, women and minorities drop out of the tech industry in early education, late education, and on the job -- the problem with the argument is that it attempts to absolve blame. GitHub is not at the "bottom of the funnel". They're in the middle: people who work there today may go on to wildly successful careers elsewhere. And people who have bad experiences there may not. So please don't make the pipeline argument. Just because other earlier stages have failed to be welcoming to minorities doesn't mean GitHub shouldn't try, and just because GitHub is a corporate employer doesn't mean their employees aren't still living developing human beings.
reader5000 10y ago
"all these groups of people have the same capacity for talent and skill" What evidence is there to believe this?
- SolaceQuantum 10y ago
  This rhetoric in this context is implying that you may be skeptical that black people are as valuable and capable at computer science/information technology as the majority white population. Please reconsider.
  - reinhardt 10y ago
    This rhetoric in this reply is implying that you may be skeptical that white people are as valuable and capable at basketball as the majority black player population. Please reconsider.
MustardTiger 10y ago
>If you think each of those groups of people has the potential to be as talented as any other, then why is there a discrepancy? Because you think wrong. >Given the starting point of "all these groups of people have the same capacity for talent and skill" Why take something we know to be false as your starting point though?
- Aaron1011 10y ago
  What evidence do you have that "we know this to be false"?
  - MustardTiger 10y ago
    The overwhelming scientific evidence that we are not all the same. Racial differences have been measured over and over again, and are quite significant. And what I find striking is how often the people living in their "everyone is equal" fantasy bubble will admit this, depending on the context. For example, 117 people have run the 100m in less than 10 seconds. Do you know how many of them are women? Of course you do. Almost everyone is willing to admit this is a genetic difference. Do you know how many of those men are black? 113. Most people are also willing to admit this is genetic, especially when you point out that we've identified specific genes giving west Africans an advantage in sprinting. But suddenly when the same observations are made about IQ, then it becomes "racist pseudo-science", despite a complete inability to offer any valid criticism of the science involved.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

wskinner 10y ago

GitHub is focusing on the very bottom of the funnel. They are noticing the distribution of their employees doesn't match that of the larger population, then attempting to make it match. But what if the reason their company distribution doesn't match up is that the distribution of people with the requisite skills doesn't match up? They are trying to treat the symptoms of a supposed problem rather than the ailment itself, and putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage by doing so. Affirmative action doesn't work, except for the short-term career prospects of those individuals lucky enough to profit from it, and the virtue-signalers who propose it.

phasmantistes 10y ago
This is just the pipeline argument. And while there are very real aspects to the pipeline -- yes, women and minorities drop out of the tech industry in early education, late education, and on the job -- the problem with the argument is that it attempts to absolve blame. GitHub is not at the "bottom of the funnel". They're in the middle: people who work there today may go on to wildly successful careers elsewhere. And people who have bad experiences there may not. So please don't make the pipeline argument. Just because other earlier stages have failed to be welcoming to minorities doesn't mean GitHub shouldn't try, and just because GitHub is a corporate employer doesn't mean their employees aren't still living developing human beings.

reader5000 10y ago

"all these groups of people have the same capacity for talent and skill" What evidence is there to believe this?

SolaceQuantum 10y ago
This rhetoric in this context is implying that you may be skeptical that black people are as valuable and capable at computer science/information technology as the majority white population. Please reconsider.
- reinhardt 10y ago
  This rhetoric in this reply is implying that you may be skeptical that white people are as valuable and capable at basketball as the majority black player population. Please reconsider.

MustardTiger 10y ago

>If you think each of those groups of people has the potential to be as talented as any other, then why is there a discrepancy? Because you think wrong. >Given the starting point of "all these groups of people have the same capacity for talent and skill" Why take something we know to be false as your starting point though?

Aaron1011 10y ago
What evidence do you have that "we know this to be false"?
- MustardTiger 10y ago
  The overwhelming scientific evidence that we are not all the same. Racial differences have been measured over and over again, and are quite significant. And what I find striking is how often the people living in their "everyone is equal" fantasy bubble will admit this, depending on the context. For example, 117 people have run the 100m in less than 10 seconds. Do you know how many of them are women? Of course you do. Almost everyone is willing to admit this is a genetic difference. Do you know how many of those men are black? 113. Most people are also willing to admit this is genetic, especially when you point out that we've identified specific genes giving west Africans an advantage in sprinting. But suddenly when the same observations are made about IQ, then it becomes "racist pseudo-science", despite a complete inability to offer any valid criticism of the science involved.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]