4 ms·

The article cites data from the government on percentages of black, hispanic, and women in tech in Silicon Valley vs those same populations in tech nationwide.

by sjg007 8y ago

The article cites data from the government on percentages of black, hispanic, and women in tech in Silicon Valley vs those same populations in tech nationwide. You would expect the percentages to be statistically equal.

crististm 8y ago
You can also make any lie you want with statistics.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  You can also use that argument to wave away any statistics you don't like the ramifications of.
  - crististm 8y ago
    Yes, but does this make my argument false?
    - ceejayoz 8y ago
      It makes your argument specious, barring any supporting criticisms of the statistics in question.
    - gotocake 8y ago
      It isn’t an argument, it’s a restated aphorism devoid of context. I think I’m not alone in wondering if you actually have an argument to make, one this involves making specific claims about the statistics I’m question and the methods by which you claim they’re lying.
- gotocake 8y ago
  That’s not even an argument, but I’d certainly be willing to see your analysis of these particular statistics and why you think they’re fraudulent.
bluedevil2k 8y ago
No you probably wouldn't, as Silicon Valley attracts the top X% of the tech population due to the pay, the status of the companies hiring, VC money floating around, etc.
- jonathankoren 8y ago
  Are you saying the top X% is racially skewed? Because all things being equal, if the only difference between the two groups is color of their skin, I'd say that was a textbook definition of racial bias.
  - strken 8y ago
    The question isn't whether there's racial bias anywhere in the pipeline from conception to employment, because there clearly is. It's whether there's racial bias in the SV companies themselves, or whether it happens exclusively in earlier stages.
    - jonathankoren 8y ago
      He's explicitly rejecting the notion that the already skewed nationwide tech population is relevant. One would think, that if I was a large company recruiting nationwide, with brand name that's a resume magnet, I would be drawing from the skewed nationwide tech population, because that's what's entering the pipeline. If controlling for geographic factors, that's not what's coming out, something looks amiss. He explicitly is saying that "talent" is determining factor. That seems odd, since that would be conditionally independent.
  - zepto 8y ago
    All things are not equal. Black Americans as a group are poorer than other racial groups save perhaps native Americans, and have worse educational outcomes on average. Is this the result of institutional racism? I’d say so, but it also can be a cause or underrepresentation in higher skilled employment, even if the employers are not biased in their selection processes.
ben_jones 8y ago
Is the distribution of minorities static across the entire country? If you want to promote change you need to earn people's trust, skewing statistics to support your cause does not help that. I am on the side of removing discrimination, unfair wage practices, etc., but the diversity industry (speakers, journalists, special interest groups) often shoot themselves in the foot by making loud, bold, claims, based on gamed statistics...
dgellow 8y ago
> You would expect the percentages to be statistically equal. Serious question: why? Why would you expect that? I’m seriously interested by a response to that, that would give way more weight to this affirmation.
rndgermandude 8y ago
No, you wouldn't, at least when it comes to the racial composition. SV (and surrounding area) has a very different demographic makeup than e.g. NY or Chicago or Houston. I'm not saying this explains all the differences between SV and nationwide, but it surely accounts for some. PS: E.g. google tells me that the Santa Clara population is 2.5% black, while it's 12.6% nationwide (2010 census). The article now says nationwide the tech industry is 14.5% black; 14.5 / 12.6 = 1.15, 2.5 * 1.15 = 2.9; So adjusted for demographics I'd expect the SV number to be 2.9% black employees in tech after adjusting for demographics of the area, compared to the 2.6% the article states. However, it might be that the low black population in that area is highly correlated to the hiring practices of the tech companies in that area, or it may not be.
siruncledrew 8y ago
Except when looking at the EEOC report, the numbers they are comparing are percentages of black, hispanic, and women working in tech in Silicon Valley vs. the percentages of those same groups working in all industries (not just tech) in the US. In reality, the tech-tech participation comparison between SV and the US is closer than the article makes it seem. Look at the chart "INDUSTRY PARTICIPATION BY GENDER SEX AND RACE GROUP - HIGH TECH VS. ALL PRIVATE INDUSTRIES" in the EEOC report [1], and then compare to the numbers listed on the graphs for SV. The proper corresponding stats for representation in tech between SV and US would be: Black: 2.6% SV vs. 7.4% US Hispanic: 6.4% SV vs. 8.0% US Women: 32.3% SV vs. 35.7% US So one could still point to the differences above for looking at the group disparities, but the article's statistics are comparing apples to oranges. Not to mention location demographics and other factors attribute to differences between SV as a data point vs. the aggregate data for the US. The pick-and-choose implementation of statistics is looking through a narrow lens. [1] https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/reports/hightech/ https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/reports/hightech/
- sjg007 8y ago
  The Bloomberg article is either intentionally misleading on where they pulled their stats from OR they used a different table. Regardless the stats don't match the chart you referenced so I am guessing it is a different source. I don't find a straight map for your numbers either.. can you clarify how you got those numbers?
  - siruncledrew 8y ago
    The US numbers I pulled directly from a table in the EEOC report. The EEOC report says the data is from 2014, and the article's charts cite "Latest comparable data as of 2014", so I am not sure why there are minor discrepancies in the article's US numbers unless they didn't use 2014 data.
    - sjg007 8y ago
      Which table? Thanks.

by sjg007 8y ago

crististm 8y ago

You can also make any lie you want with statistics.

ceejayoz 8y ago
You can also use that argument to wave away any statistics you don't like the ramifications of.
- crististm 8y ago
  Yes, but does this make my argument false?
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    It makes your argument specious, barring any supporting criticisms of the statistics in question.
  - gotocake 8y ago
    It isn’t an argument, it’s a restated aphorism devoid of context. I think I’m not alone in wondering if you actually have an argument to make, one this involves making specific claims about the statistics I’m question and the methods by which you claim they’re lying.
gotocake 8y ago
That’s not even an argument, but I’d certainly be willing to see your analysis of these particular statistics and why you think they’re fraudulent.

bluedevil2k 8y ago

No you probably wouldn't, as Silicon Valley attracts the top X% of the tech population due to the pay, the status of the companies hiring, VC money floating around, etc.

jonathankoren 8y ago
Are you saying the top X% is racially skewed? Because all things being equal, if the only difference between the two groups is color of their skin, I'd say that was a textbook definition of racial bias.
- strken 8y ago
  The question isn't whether there's racial bias anywhere in the pipeline from conception to employment, because there clearly is. It's whether there's racial bias in the SV companies themselves, or whether it happens exclusively in earlier stages.
  - jonathankoren 8y ago
    He's explicitly rejecting the notion that the already skewed nationwide tech population is relevant. One would think, that if I was a large company recruiting nationwide, with brand name that's a resume magnet, I would be drawing from the skewed nationwide tech population, because that's what's entering the pipeline. If controlling for geographic factors, that's not what's coming out, something looks amiss. He explicitly is saying that "talent" is determining factor. That seems odd, since that would be conditionally independent.
- zepto 8y ago
  All things are not equal. Black Americans as a group are poorer than other racial groups save perhaps native Americans, and have worse educational outcomes on average. Is this the result of institutional racism? I’d say so, but it also can be a cause or underrepresentation in higher skilled employment, even if the employers are not biased in their selection processes.

ben_jones 8y ago

Is the distribution of minorities static across the entire country? If you want to promote change you need to earn people's trust, skewing statistics to support your cause does not help that. I am on the side of removing discrimination, unfair wage practices, etc., but the diversity industry (speakers, journalists, special interest groups) often shoot themselves in the foot by making loud, bold, claims, based on gamed statistics...

dgellow 8y ago

> You would expect the percentages to be statistically equal. Serious question: why? Why would you expect that? I’m seriously interested by a response to that, that would give way more weight to this affirmation.

rndgermandude 8y ago

No, you wouldn't, at least when it comes to the racial composition. SV (and surrounding area) has a very different demographic makeup than e.g. NY or Chicago or Houston. I'm not saying this explains all the differences between SV and nationwide, but it surely accounts for some. PS: E.g. google tells me that the Santa Clara population is 2.5% black, while it's 12.6% nationwide (2010 census). The article now says nationwide the tech industry is 14.5% black; 14.5 / 12.6 = 1.15, 2.5 * 1.15 = 2.9; So adjusted for demographics I'd expect the SV number to be 2.9% black employees in tech after adjusting for demographics of the area, compared to the 2.6% the article states. However, it might be that the low black population in that area is highly correlated to the hiring practices of the tech companies in that area, or it may not be.

siruncledrew 8y ago

Except when looking at the EEOC report, the numbers they are comparing are percentages of black, hispanic, and women working in tech in Silicon Valley vs. the percentages of those same groups working in all industries (not just tech) in the US. In reality, the tech-tech participation comparison between SV and the US is closer than the article makes it seem. Look at the chart "INDUSTRY PARTICIPATION BY GENDER SEX AND RACE GROUP - HIGH TECH VS. ALL PRIVATE INDUSTRIES" in the EEOC report [1], and then compare to the numbers listed on the graphs for SV. The proper corresponding stats for representation in tech between SV and US would be: Black: 2.6% SV vs. 7.4% US Hispanic: 6.4% SV vs. 8.0% US Women: 32.3% SV vs. 35.7% US So one could still point to the differences above for looking at the group disparities, but the article's statistics are comparing apples to oranges. Not to mention location demographics and other factors attribute to differences between SV as a data point vs. the aggregate data for the US. The pick-and-choose implementation of statistics is looking through a narrow lens. [1] https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/reports/hightech/ https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/reports/hightech/

sjg007 8y ago
The Bloomberg article is either intentionally misleading on where they pulled their stats from OR they used a different table. Regardless the stats don't match the chart you referenced so I am guessing it is a different source. I don't find a straight map for your numbers either.. can you clarify how you got those numbers?
- siruncledrew 8y ago
  The US numbers I pulled directly from a table in the EEOC report. The EEOC report says the data is from 2014, and the article's charts cite "Latest comparable data as of 2014", so I am not sure why there are minor discrepancies in the article's US numbers unless they didn't use 2014 data.
  - sjg007 8y ago
    Which table? Thanks.