3 ms·

Sorry but how is an article about physiological changes in men becoming fathers possibly feeding into prejudice? Because we might try to be a founder someday? W

by Hayvok 4y ago

Sorry but how is an article about physiological changes in men becoming fathers possibly feeding into prejudice? Because we might try to be a founder someday? We’re fine, thanks. If some halfwit VC seriously passes on my company because he sees this one headline and concludes fathers are stupid then he’s terrible at his job and remind me to short everything he touches.

eyelidlessness 4y ago
> Sorry but how is an article about physiological changes in men becoming fathers possibly feeding into prejudice? It’s noted above the paywall in the article too. I won’t comment further than noting that you’re demonstrating the biases other comment warned about very well.
public_defender 4y ago
> Sorry but... Perhaps you don't understand how science or the aegis of science have been historically used to justify discrimination. You can look to phrenology as a good example of this. It was touted at some point as a biological justification for white-black racism. So here we have a class of people who suffer discrimination (parents) and a "scientific" justification. > If some halfwit VC... You won't know that this happened. There will be plenty of other reasons which can be explicitly stated for not funding you (or passing you over for a promotion or whatever). You will only learn that you are suffering from discrimination if you get lucky and catch the oppressor on a hot mike or they fat finger the reply all.
neilv 4y ago
For example, anecdotally, the percentage of founders I've heard say that they only want to hire early-20s engineers, is... high. (PG might've started it, with influential essays about why he wanted college students as founders, perhaps making it socially acceptable. Then people like Zuckerberg reinforced it, with public comments. Many companies structure their interviews around tests/rituals that arguably start from "How, uh, fresh in mind are your undergrad CS classes, even though that probably has little-to-no relevance to the actual work you'd be doing here?") That's only ageism. There's also sexism, racism, classism, genderism(?), etc. There's enough of those biases going around, and we're in/hitting a recession. Not everyone can afford to decide "I don't want to work for a company where anyone who could influence my opportunities has some ill-informed bias against some group.". Some scientific finding of X is fine, if the science is solid. But being aware of ongoing bias problems can affect how we communicate and think around that.
- karmakurtisaani 4y ago
  >For example, anecdotally, the percentage of founders I've heard say that they only want to hire early-20s engineers, is... high. Maybe that's because early-20s people are willing to work for less, easier to manipulate to work long hours and don't understand red flags like founders who say things like that.
  - bradlys 4y ago
    They’re also looking for repeat successes. If they give money to a founder early on and they have a hit - there’s a good chance they’ll want to found another company and they’ll have another hit.
  - raffraffraff 4y ago
    Bingo. In my experience, young employees are hoping desperately for a lottery win, because owning their own home some day is starting to seem impossible. They want to believe that the magic beans (pre-IPO options) are real and are usually willing to hang on at a bad job, desperately trying to make it work, because they've spent a year of their life believing that their options would be worth megabucks in 5-8 years. It's extremely difficult to walk away from that. If it is successful, they find out too late that their options aren't worth nearly as much as they'd been led to believe. Older engineers, especially those who already have a home, or have been burned by the dream once or twice, are more likely to think of pre-IPO stock like an actual lottery ticket.

by Hayvok 4y ago

eyelidlessness 4y ago

> Sorry but how is an article about physiological changes in men becoming fathers possibly feeding into prejudice? It’s noted above the paywall in the article too. I won’t comment further than noting that you’re demonstrating the biases other comment warned about very well.

public_defender 4y ago

> Sorry but... Perhaps you don't understand how science or the aegis of science have been historically used to justify discrimination. You can look to phrenology as a good example of this. It was touted at some point as a biological justification for white-black racism. So here we have a class of people who suffer discrimination (parents) and a "scientific" justification. > If some halfwit VC... You won't know that this happened. There will be plenty of other reasons which can be explicitly stated for not funding you (or passing you over for a promotion or whatever). You will only learn that you are suffering from discrimination if you get lucky and catch the oppressor on a hot mike or they fat finger the reply all.

neilv 4y ago

For example, anecdotally, the percentage of founders I've heard say that they only want to hire early-20s engineers, is... high. (PG might've started it, with influential essays about why he wanted college students as founders, perhaps making it socially acceptable. Then people like Zuckerberg reinforced it, with public comments. Many companies structure their interviews around tests/rituals that arguably start from "How, uh, fresh in mind are your undergrad CS classes, even though that probably has little-to-no relevance to the actual work you'd be doing here?") That's only ageism. There's also sexism, racism, classism, genderism(?), etc. There's enough of those biases going around, and we're in/hitting a recession. Not everyone can afford to decide "I don't want to work for a company where anyone who could influence my opportunities has some ill-informed bias against some group.". Some scientific finding of X is fine, if the science is solid. But being aware of ongoing bias problems can affect how we communicate and think around that.

karmakurtisaani 4y ago
>For example, anecdotally, the percentage of founders I've heard say that they only want to hire early-20s engineers, is... high. Maybe that's because early-20s people are willing to work for less, easier to manipulate to work long hours and don't understand red flags like founders who say things like that.
- bradlys 4y ago
  They’re also looking for repeat successes. If they give money to a founder early on and they have a hit - there’s a good chance they’ll want to found another company and they’ll have another hit.
- raffraffraff 4y ago
  Bingo. In my experience, young employees are hoping desperately for a lottery win, because owning their own home some day is starting to seem impossible. They want to believe that the magic beans (pre-IPO options) are real and are usually willing to hang on at a bad job, desperately trying to make it work, because they've spent a year of their life believing that their options would be worth megabucks in 5-8 years. It's extremely difficult to walk away from that. If it is successful, they find out too late that their options aren't worth nearly as much as they'd been led to believe. Older engineers, especially those who already have a home, or have been burned by the dream once or twice, are more likely to think of pre-IPO stock like an actual lottery ticket.