6 ms·

>, and its kernel is an anecdote about how her son is interested in programming and her daughter in photoshop. Fascinating how different readers take away dif

by jasode 9y ago

>, and its kernel is an anecdote about how her son is interested in programming and her daughter in photoshop. Fascinating how different readers take away different salient points. For me, her main buildup was hiring women to meet a "diversity goal" resulted in pressures to hire some women who couldn't do the work. This creates a perverse feedback loop that unfairly taints future women candidates who could do the work -- which ends up undermining the whole point of diversity. Imo, the biological stuff about her son and daughter is more of a side note. To restate her text, we could say that yes, there are talented female computer scientists like Grace Hopper and NASA's Margeret Hamilton.[1][2] However, if companies lower the bar to hire women who are not competent like them (because diversity is valued over skills), it will inadvertently make it harder to hire future Grace Hoppers and Margeret Hamiltons. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with her but her Google observation is getting lost in her boy/girl preferences sidebar. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Hamilton_(scientist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Hamilton_(scientist)

tptacek 9y ago
Because the piece isn't very well written†, it's unclear whether the "infinite loop" of mediocrity she's referring to is something she actually observed, or something she surmises is possible. She is clear and specific, presenting numbers, when talking about things she was personally involved in. Since the cycle of increasing mediocrity has a prominent float in the parade of horribles conjured by the "anti-diversity" (for lack of any better term) side of this debate, I'm left assuming she didn't see that occur. But she could also clear that up easily. Finally, an obvious point: evaluation of the performance of an individual software developer is one of the great unsolved problems of software engineering. Virtually all performance evaluation done today is at root subjective. Subjective performance evaluations are easily tainted by prejudice; in fact, you have to work hard not to taint them. If you think that's different at Google, re-evaluate: Google also runs one of the most famously capricious hiring programs in the industry. Despite constant rituals and genuflection towards data-driven decision making, Google continues to thrive based on its status as a premiere destination for new software developers, despite running a hiring process renowned for the quality of the people it has alienated. There is ample evidence of Google having scaled broken processes. † 99% of what I write isn't well-written either, in case this sounds like a jab at the author, who I am not familiar with.
- cargo8 9y ago
  I think that her "infinite loop" theory was her perception of the anecdote around hiring at her own startup. It does seem conceivable, but yeah obviously data is light here. Good point on how the whole interview process is a crapshoot anyway. Hadn't really thought about that aspect, but obviously is a huge opportunity for subliminal bias since it is how it is.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    Another weird attribute of her theory about setting the bar and paying premiums for talent is that her engineering team, according to LinkedIn, is in India --- which is a radically different market for software talent than SFBA. In particular, the gender distribution of CS grads and programmers in India is very different from what it is here. One possible interpretation --- and there are probably equally credible others --- is that this founder found it difficult to compete in the (overheated) SFBA market for talent, irrespective of gender.
    - goldbeck 9y ago
      Oh interesting. Where did you find this? (My cursory check didn't show turn up any info on that)
      - tptacek 9y ago
        I used the following advanced sleuthing techniques (don't share outside HN): 1. I went to LinkedIn 2. I searched for "Silverlabs" 3. I found the page for their company 4. I clicked on the link labeled "14 employees and former employees have LinkedIn profiles" 5. I observed that all the engineering profiles were in Hyderabad. I'm being a little snarky but also it's good to know how superficial this "research" was so it's not at all unlikely that I'm totally wrong about this.
    - mcguire 9y ago
      That makes it even more weird. The percentage of women programmers there is higher. https://m.cacm.acm.org/magazines/2015/5/186026-decoding-femininity-in-computer-science-in-india/abstract https://m.cacm.acm.org/magazines/2015/5/186026-decoding-femi...
nodamage 9y ago
> For me, her main buildup was hiring women to meet a "diversity goal" resulted in pressures to hire some women who couldn't do the work. This creates a perverse feedback loop that unfairly taints future women candidates who could do the work -- which ends up undermining the whole point of diversity. Wow, that sounds terribly unfortunate! Did this happen while she worked at Google? Or while working at her startup? What are the mechanisms behind this? Do the diversity programs at Google have lower hiring standards than the normal hiring track? (In case it's not clear, my point is that she appears to be describing a hypothetical scenario. The claim that diversity programs result in hiring unqualified women is a very strong claim (not even one that James Damore makes in his memo), and needs to be backed by actual evidence.)
madeofpalk 9y ago
Yes. A lower-quality 'Diversity hire' just to fulfil quotas are not how you achieve equality. But... > there are talented female computer scientists like Grace Hopper and NASA's Margeret Hamilton. ...it's funny how you point to two quite exceptional people as the standard for women to meet.
- Coincoin 9y ago
  There is also Amanda from online services on the 3rd floor, but you don't know her. I swear she is good but at the same time worst than Grace.
CodeMage 9y ago
> For me, her main buildup was hiring women to meet a "diversity goal" resulted in pressures to hire some women who couldn't do the work. I've learned to be especially leery of arguments that sound reasonable and logical, but lack something concrete to prop them up. The post says her company paid premium salaries -- despite allegedly not being able to afford market salaries -- to women who then "lacked the energy to put us into overdrive" and "were starting to drain the energy from the rest of the team". Even if I were to disregard that the post seems to be basing its argument on a single company's set of anecdotes, I would still need an explanation of just what the heck is meant by "energy to put us into overdrive" and how you "drain" that energy from the rest of the team.
lowbloodsugar 9y ago
I found the anecdotal information about her children confusing. The only way I could rationalize it, in the context of her broader argument, is that she is suggesting that there are less women in tech simply because girls don't like to code. And given this natural reason for less women, having quotas actually harms the women who do want to code. I'm not sure though.

by jasode 9y ago

tptacek 9y ago

Because the piece isn't very well written†, it's unclear whether the "infinite loop" of mediocrity she's referring to is something she actually observed, or something she surmises is possible. She is clear and specific, presenting numbers, when talking about things she was personally involved in. Since the cycle of increasing mediocrity has a prominent float in the parade of horribles conjured by the "anti-diversity" (for lack of any better term) side of this debate, I'm left assuming she didn't see that occur. But she could also clear that up easily. Finally, an obvious point: evaluation of the performance of an individual software developer is one of the great unsolved problems of software engineering. Virtually all performance evaluation done today is at root subjective. Subjective performance evaluations are easily tainted by prejudice; in fact, you have to work hard not to taint them. If you think that's different at Google, re-evaluate: Google also runs one of the most famously capricious hiring programs in the industry. Despite constant rituals and genuflection towards data-driven decision making, Google continues to thrive based on its status as a premiere destination for new software developers, despite running a hiring process renowned for the quality of the people it has alienated. There is ample evidence of Google having scaled broken processes. † 99% of what I write isn't well-written either, in case this sounds like a jab at the author, who I am not familiar with.

cargo8 9y ago
I think that her "infinite loop" theory was her perception of the anecdote around hiring at her own startup. It does seem conceivable, but yeah obviously data is light here. Good point on how the whole interview process is a crapshoot anyway. Hadn't really thought about that aspect, but obviously is a huge opportunity for subliminal bias since it is how it is.
- tptacek 9y ago
  Another weird attribute of her theory about setting the bar and paying premiums for talent is that her engineering team, according to LinkedIn, is in India --- which is a radically different market for software talent than SFBA. In particular, the gender distribution of CS grads and programmers in India is very different from what it is here. One possible interpretation --- and there are probably equally credible others --- is that this founder found it difficult to compete in the (overheated) SFBA market for talent, irrespective of gender.
  - goldbeck 9y ago
    Oh interesting. Where did you find this? (My cursory check didn't show turn up any info on that)
    - tptacek 9y ago
      I used the following advanced sleuthing techniques (don't share outside HN): 1. I went to LinkedIn 2. I searched for "Silverlabs" 3. I found the page for their company 4. I clicked on the link labeled "14 employees and former employees have LinkedIn profiles" 5. I observed that all the engineering profiles were in Hyderabad. I'm being a little snarky but also it's good to know how superficial this "research" was so it's not at all unlikely that I'm totally wrong about this.
  - mcguire 9y ago
    That makes it even more weird. The percentage of women programmers there is higher. https://m.cacm.acm.org/magazines/2015/5/186026-decoding-femininity-in-computer-science-in-india/abstract https://m.cacm.acm.org/magazines/2015/5/186026-decoding-femi...

nodamage 9y ago

> For me, her main buildup was hiring women to meet a "diversity goal" resulted in pressures to hire some women who couldn't do the work. This creates a perverse feedback loop that unfairly taints future women candidates who could do the work -- which ends up undermining the whole point of diversity. Wow, that sounds terribly unfortunate! Did this happen while she worked at Google? Or while working at her startup? What are the mechanisms behind this? Do the diversity programs at Google have lower hiring standards than the normal hiring track? (In case it's not clear, my point is that she appears to be describing a hypothetical scenario. The claim that diversity programs result in hiring unqualified women is a very strong claim (not even one that James Damore makes in his memo), and needs to be backed by actual evidence.)

madeofpalk 9y ago

Yes. A lower-quality 'Diversity hire' just to fulfil quotas are not how you achieve equality. But... > there are talented female computer scientists like Grace Hopper and NASA's Margeret Hamilton. ...it's funny how you point to two quite exceptional people as the standard for women to meet.

Coincoin 9y ago
There is also Amanda from online services on the 3rd floor, but you don't know her. I swear she is good but at the same time worst than Grace.

CodeMage 9y ago

> For me, her main buildup was hiring women to meet a "diversity goal" resulted in pressures to hire some women who couldn't do the work. I've learned to be especially leery of arguments that sound reasonable and logical, but lack something concrete to prop them up. The post says her company paid premium salaries -- despite allegedly not being able to afford market salaries -- to women who then "lacked the energy to put us into overdrive" and "were starting to drain the energy from the rest of the team". Even if I were to disregard that the post seems to be basing its argument on a single company's set of anecdotes, I would still need an explanation of just what the heck is meant by "energy to put us into overdrive" and how you "drain" that energy from the rest of the team.

lowbloodsugar 9y ago

I found the anecdotal information about her children confusing. The only way I could rationalize it, in the context of her broader argument, is that she is suggesting that there are less women in tech simply because girls don't like to code. And given this natural reason for less women, having quotas actually harms the women who do want to code. I'm not sure though.