5 ms·

Except that the "systematic" bias only seems to be happening in some fields, and ironically in a field that kind of relies on rationality, or at least logic. O

Except that the "systematic" bias only seems to be happening in some fields, and ironically in a field that kind of relies on rationality, or at least logic. Obviously, it's because everybody in that field is either a frat boy or evil, and there can be no other explanation /s

mikeash 9y ago
Implying programmers are systematically rational in all areas of life? Have you ever met any programmers? The alternative is not that everybody in that field is a frat boy or evil. It's that they're... human. We are all biased. The only differences are a matter of degree, and whether or not we acknowledge it.
- guitarbill 9y ago
  > We are all biased. The only differences are a matter of degree, and whether or not we acknowledge it. That should even out then, right? Or is bias somehow not normally distributed? I'm happy to call BS on "bias" and "irrational" explanations - sounds like something you make up when you want to dismiss something and can't be arsed to come up with a proper explanation. There are preferences for prettiness/beauty and especially tallness. They are biologically routed, well documented, and have good predictive power. I guess you could call that a bias. From looking at high competency fields such as doctors or lawyers, there doesn't seem to be a gender bias, neither biologically, nor culturally. So which systematic bias are you proposing that would employers to act so irrationally, but yet somehow opt for the more expensive labour cost. Even if e.g. a CEO is racist, he's not going to lose sleep over offshoring jobs. Is gender different, if so why/why not? On the flip side, if it is a systematic bias like tallness, do we have an obligation to combat it? Height doesn't get nearly the same treatment. Either way, the "bias"/"irrationality" argument is lazy and incomplete.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    Remember when black people were terribly oppressed in the South, so big companies rationally took advantage of this to hire labor for cheap and out-compete others, thereby ending racial discrimination through the power of economic rationality? Do you seriously suggest that bias should be evenly distributed? For every person biased against women in some field, there's another person equally biased against men? After all of these discussions about this topic on HN, I'm starting to wonder if HN actually has users posting from a parallel universe. Because some of the things being described don't match the one I live in at all.
    - guitarbill 9y ago
      > Remember when black peoples were terribly oppressed in the South Actually I don't remember, I wasn't alive or in the US for that. But from my understanding, calling that "bias" is a bit of an understatement. > For every person biased against women in some field What bias and which people? A general anti-women bias in society? In all men? White men? Only in tech? Only men in tech against women in tech? Any specifics at all for your hypothesis? Fact is, there are fewer women than men doing CS degrees, about 20% AFAIK. That seems broadly to carry over to the ratio of genders in tech roles. Women seem to earn less than men. We don't really know why either is the case, but people are working hard to "correct" that, even though we have no idea what correct looks like. Some people think 50% would be good, because that's roughly the ratio in the general population. Looking at other majors and fields, 50% sometimes happens, sometimes doesn't. Maybe there are better ways to approach this than to claim everybody is prejudice - maybe that's true, but is it constructive? Why is the ratio in tech disproportionate? Why is the ratio in veterinarians disproportionate? Are these equally important issues? Are they getting the same amount of coverage? At the moment, it seems that all the nuance we've got is a hammer, and publications like the New York Times are sure reporting on a lot of nails. Bonus question: Is Big Bang Theory good or bad for the tech industry, and do you think it will increase, decrease, or have no effect on gender ratios in tech?
      - mikeash 9y ago
        You ought to remember, because it still happens today. Take a resume and put a typically black name at the top, and your chances of getting an interview plummet compared to a typically white name. There's a lot of reporting on nails because there are a ton of nails. Gender bias has been a thing literally since before recorded history. There are blatant examples quite recently, too. Until the 1970s, it was routine for banks to refuse to issue credit cards to women without their husbands' permission. Am I to believe that his problem, which is literally thousands of years old (probably more) has been solved in the past 40 years? I have no idea about Big Bang Theory, never saw it.

mikeash 9y ago

Implying programmers are systematically rational in all areas of life? Have you ever met any programmers? The alternative is not that everybody in that field is a frat boy or evil. It's that they're... human. We are all biased. The only differences are a matter of degree, and whether or not we acknowledge it.

guitarbill 9y ago
> We are all biased. The only differences are a matter of degree, and whether or not we acknowledge it. That should even out then, right? Or is bias somehow not normally distributed? I'm happy to call BS on "bias" and "irrational" explanations - sounds like something you make up when you want to dismiss something and can't be arsed to come up with a proper explanation. There are preferences for prettiness/beauty and especially tallness. They are biologically routed, well documented, and have good predictive power. I guess you could call that a bias. From looking at high competency fields such as doctors or lawyers, there doesn't seem to be a gender bias, neither biologically, nor culturally. So which systematic bias are you proposing that would employers to act so irrationally, but yet somehow opt for the more expensive labour cost. Even if e.g. a CEO is racist, he's not going to lose sleep over offshoring jobs. Is gender different, if so why/why not? On the flip side, if it is a systematic bias like tallness, do we have an obligation to combat it? Height doesn't get nearly the same treatment. Either way, the "bias"/"irrationality" argument is lazy and incomplete.
- mikeash 9y ago
  Remember when black people were terribly oppressed in the South, so big companies rationally took advantage of this to hire labor for cheap and out-compete others, thereby ending racial discrimination through the power of economic rationality? Do you seriously suggest that bias should be evenly distributed? For every person biased against women in some field, there's another person equally biased against men? After all of these discussions about this topic on HN, I'm starting to wonder if HN actually has users posting from a parallel universe. Because some of the things being described don't match the one I live in at all.
  - guitarbill 9y ago
    > Remember when black peoples were terribly oppressed in the South Actually I don't remember, I wasn't alive or in the US for that. But from my understanding, calling that "bias" is a bit of an understatement. > For every person biased against women in some field What bias and which people? A general anti-women bias in society? In all men? White men? Only in tech? Only men in tech against women in tech? Any specifics at all for your hypothesis? Fact is, there are fewer women than men doing CS degrees, about 20% AFAIK. That seems broadly to carry over to the ratio of genders in tech roles. Women seem to earn less than men. We don't really know why either is the case, but people are working hard to "correct" that, even though we have no idea what correct looks like. Some people think 50% would be good, because that's roughly the ratio in the general population. Looking at other majors and fields, 50% sometimes happens, sometimes doesn't. Maybe there are better ways to approach this than to claim everybody is prejudice - maybe that's true, but is it constructive? Why is the ratio in tech disproportionate? Why is the ratio in veterinarians disproportionate? Are these equally important issues? Are they getting the same amount of coverage? At the moment, it seems that all the nuance we've got is a hammer, and publications like the New York Times are sure reporting on a lot of nails. Bonus question: Is Big Bang Theory good or bad for the tech industry, and do you think it will increase, decrease, or have no effect on gender ratios in tech?
    - mikeash 9y ago
      You ought to remember, because it still happens today. Take a resume and put a typically black name at the top, and your chances of getting an interview plummet compared to a typically white name. There's a lot of reporting on nails because there are a ton of nails. Gender bias has been a thing literally since before recorded history. There are blatant examples quite recently, too. Until the 1970s, it was routine for banks to refuse to issue credit cards to women without their husbands' permission. Am I to believe that his problem, which is literally thousands of years old (probably more) has been solved in the past 40 years? I have no idea about Big Bang Theory, never saw it.