5 ms·

"There are very few minorities here. When they are here, they get hired much more easily than their white or asian counterparts." This does not imply that unde

"There are very few minorities here. When they are here, they get hired much more easily than their white or asian counterparts." This does not imply that underrepresented minorities are less qualified, only that they're more likely to be hired. If you swapped "minorities" for "Cambridge Math grads", you would probably infer that they were more qualified. The statement speaks to the likelihood of hiring, the implication of lower quality you see is your own inference.

natrius 15y ago
You are correct, but assuming similar distributions in talent among underrepresented minorities in the Valley and among everyone else, my claim holds. I don't think there's any evidence of differing distributions, and I don't think Arrington had that distinction in mind.
- vidarh 15y ago
  > I don't think there's any evidence of differing distributions Why do you think this? It is not unreasonable to assume that if a group is underrepresented, and there might be a perceived glass ceiling, for example, that those who do give it a go are more likely to be people who believe their skills are sufficiently above average to give them a decent shot at overcoming limitations. Whether or not that's the case in SV is not something I have a basis for saying anything about, but it's also too easy to just write it off and assume the distributions are the same. E.g. in many Western countries, the education of immigrants often vastly outstrip the average education of the native population, for example, in part because of restrictions on immigration, in part because the threshold for moving if your skills are perceived to be of low demand is vastly higher. It is perfectly possible similar self-selection applies to minority groups moving into an area of business where they are underrepresented.
  - natrius 15y ago
    It is certainly possible; I just said there's no evidence of it that I know of. Whether or not that is the case is immaterial because it's not what Arrington was suggesting.
    - vidarh 15y ago
      Really? How do you know this is not what Arrington was suggesting? That is exactly how I read and understood that comment given the context of the rest he's written on the subject.
      - natrius 15y ago
        Because that interpretation makes zero sense in context. "There are very few minorities here. When they are here, they get hired much more easily than their white or asian counterparts. There is no conscious or subconscious desire to keep minorities out [...] It’s the complete opposite." He's saying that people consciously desire to hire minorities, so they make it easier for minorities to be hired. There is no reasonable way he was suggesting that underrepresented minorities in the Valley are more competent than everyone else. If that were the case, one wouldn't need to desire to hire underrepresented minorities; you'd just get them as a byproduct of seeking out merit.
        vidarh 15y ago
        Your logic doesn't hold. You're making assumptions about why minorities are sought after (or rather why Mike thinks they are sought after). If minorities in the valley are people who are above average, then that would make them more desirable in itself. All else being equal, if you got to pick candidates only by race, and you knew (or thought you knew) that one group was above average, it'd be hard not to let it influence you. And your argument that one wouldn't need to desire to hire them is flawed, because if being a member of a minority in SV actually makes you more likely to be highly skilled, then that is an easy signal for you to seek out the person. You wouldn't need to, but it's human nature to consciously or subconsciously try to take "shortcuts" in evaluating other people, especially when other knowledge of the person in question is lacking.
        natrius 15y ago
        Can we at least agree that your point is contrived? I've never heard anyone claim that black people in the Valley are more talented than everyone else, so this is a silly argument.
yummyfajitas 15y ago
This does not imply that underrepresented minorities are less qualified, only that they're more likely to be hired. It doesn't imply non-Asian minorities as a whole are less qualified, but it does imply (with high probability) that non-Asian minorities hired at company X are less qualified than regular hires at company X.

natrius 15y ago

You are correct, but assuming similar distributions in talent among underrepresented minorities in the Valley and among everyone else, my claim holds. I don't think there's any evidence of differing distributions, and I don't think Arrington had that distinction in mind.

vidarh 15y ago
> I don't think there's any evidence of differing distributions Why do you think this? It is not unreasonable to assume that if a group is underrepresented, and there might be a perceived glass ceiling, for example, that those who do give it a go are more likely to be people who believe their skills are sufficiently above average to give them a decent shot at overcoming limitations. Whether or not that's the case in SV is not something I have a basis for saying anything about, but it's also too easy to just write it off and assume the distributions are the same. E.g. in many Western countries, the education of immigrants often vastly outstrip the average education of the native population, for example, in part because of restrictions on immigration, in part because the threshold for moving if your skills are perceived to be of low demand is vastly higher. It is perfectly possible similar self-selection applies to minority groups moving into an area of business where they are underrepresented.
- natrius 15y ago
  It is certainly possible; I just said there's no evidence of it that I know of. Whether or not that is the case is immaterial because it's not what Arrington was suggesting.
  - vidarh 15y ago
    Really? How do you know this is not what Arrington was suggesting? That is exactly how I read and understood that comment given the context of the rest he's written on the subject.
    - natrius 15y ago
      Because that interpretation makes zero sense in context. "There are very few minorities here. When they are here, they get hired much more easily than their white or asian counterparts. There is no conscious or subconscious desire to keep minorities out [...] It’s the complete opposite." He's saying that people consciously desire to hire minorities, so they make it easier for minorities to be hired. There is no reasonable way he was suggesting that underrepresented minorities in the Valley are more competent than everyone else. If that were the case, one wouldn't need to desire to hire underrepresented minorities; you'd just get them as a byproduct of seeking out merit.
      - vidarh 15y ago
        Your logic doesn't hold. You're making assumptions about why minorities are sought after (or rather why Mike thinks they are sought after). If minorities in the valley are people who are above average, then that would make them more desirable in itself. All else being equal, if you got to pick candidates only by race, and you knew (or thought you knew) that one group was above average, it'd be hard not to let it influence you. And your argument that one wouldn't need to desire to hire them is flawed, because if being a member of a minority in SV actually makes you more likely to be highly skilled, then that is an easy signal for you to seek out the person. You wouldn't need to, but it's human nature to consciously or subconsciously try to take "shortcuts" in evaluating other people, especially when other knowledge of the person in question is lacking.
        natrius 15y ago
        Can we at least agree that your point is contrived? I've never heard anyone claim that black people in the Valley are more talented than everyone else, so this is a silly argument.

yummyfajitas 15y ago

This does not imply that underrepresented minorities are less qualified, only that they're more likely to be hired. It doesn't imply non-Asian minorities as a whole are less qualified, but it does imply (with high probability) that non-Asian minorities hired at company X are less qualified than regular hires at company X.