5 ms·

In a roundabout way, the author points out that because of differences in preferences between groups, equal access to opportunities don't lead to equal outcomes

In a roundabout way, the author points out that because of differences in preferences between groups, equal access to opportunities don't lead to equal outcomes. However, the 'equal opportunities don't lead to equal outcomes' argument is often used as an excuse to ignore inequality - if we all pretend we've all got perfectly equal access to opportunities, we can attribute any difference in outcomes between groups to group preferences and call it a day. Yes, I'd expect that in a world where access to opportunity was truly equal, the gender balance of founders would still be skewed. But that doesn't imply that there's equal access to opportunity in tech today, and it certainly doesn't mean we can say 'no gender problem here' and stop thinking about the ways we inadvertently discourage women from doing what we do.

kstenerud 15y ago
Thus begins yet another unendable initiative. Differences exist, therefore we say there could be inequality. Since there could be inequality, better to consciously bias against the alleged inequality, just in case the inequality actually exists. And since it's impossible to prove its nonexistence, better to simply state that it exists. After all, there HAS to exist some bias somewhere, no matter how significant. It's safer to think this way because you avoid being labeled as "against equality", and can enjoy life with the other "enlightened". I just call it pure cowardice.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- tptacek 15y ago
  "Pure cowardice". Anyone who disagrees with you does so because they're afraid of acknowledging the truth that you've arrived at. Great comment.
- wpietri 15y ago
  Come now. We know there's inequality, and we know there's bias. The question is always "is this particular outcome due to bias or some intrinsic difference?" When we honestly can't tell and the outcome is important, I think it's reasonable to proceed as if the problem is bias. First, because to just assume it's natural differences and be wrong means you're screwing up people's lives and supporting an unfair system. And second, because historically we have fallen back on natural differences in ways we now realize are total bullshit. See, for example, the Confederate Vice President's "Cornerstone Speech": "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition." If you're going to call something cowardly, I'd favor people who argue for continuing the (favorable to them) status quo on the grounds that it's intrinsic to the universe. There's not much bravery in justifying a system that's working well for you.
  - im3w1l 15y ago
    Wouldn't the prudent thing be to give everyone equal opportunities, and then require solid science for every step away from that. For instance if you want to go on a campaign to specifically encourage women to make different choices than the ones they currently make, you should be pretty sure that what you are doing is helpful.
    - kstenerud 15y ago
      Right on! The last thing we need is more busybody do-gooders trying to fix something without sufficient evidence that it's even broken. What really gets my goat is how people willfully ignore or marginalize anyone in the "victim" group who doesn't toe the line. For example, look at the editor's note for this article: "Editor’s note: The following is a guest post by Penelope Trunk, writer and founder of Brazen Careerist. Her opinions are her own." I took a look at the past 30 guest contributor columns, and not a single one of them was prefaced with "Her opinions are her own" (not even the $100,000 green card article had Techcrunch distancing itself like this). This is the CYA mentality that kills honest debate and rushes in stupid policies.
      - wpietri 15y ago
        You may not think there's sufficient evidence that there's something broken. In which case, you aren't obliged to help fix it. But unless you have strong evidence that things are working perfectly, then by your own standard you should stop interfering with people trying to fix the problems they see.
        stickfigure 15y ago
        You just illustrated the entire point of the TC article. The "problem" you see (not enough women in startups) is only a problem in your mind. Maybe this is caused by generations of gender role programming, maybe this is caused by biological differences, maybe it's caused by the divine will of the flying spaghetti monster. What right do you have to "fix" other people's voluntary decisions? What I don't hear is the argument that "women want to run startups and they are being blocked from the field". That would bother me. But a skewed outcome, by itself, is not a problem that needs to be fixed... and why shouldn't there be some scientific rigor applied to social meddling?
- gyardley 15y ago
  My eyes rolled so hard at this, it woke up my wife in the next room. Then we both had a laugh at me being described as 'enlightened' - in my neck of the woods, most people think I'm a troglodyte. Look, sometimes people do real, obvious, correctable things that result in inequality. There's nothing 'alleged' about these things, and correcting them isn't an 'unendable initiative' - usually, all you've got to do is be a little more self-aware. A case in point - a startup I co-founded a few years back was all-male for a while, and without getting into the details, we didn't always maintain a sophisticated level of conversation around the office. We didn't change our habits after we hired a couple of female college students part-time. Later, I found out our part-time employees were uncomfortable with our office banter. Not cool, since this was their first exposure to startups and the type of people that work for them. When I found out about this, my unendable initiative to fix the problem was a quick email, which took care of it. (Still irritated that I didn't pick up on this earlier.) That's it - no systematic bias in the other direction, no big bureaucratic programs by government authorities, just being aware enough of your surroundings to not be an asshole. You can do it too.
  - DuncanIdaho 15y ago
    That is exactly the right thing to do. But completely honestly, why did you even develop this kind of culture in the first place? Don't you think you should have prevented the whole situation in the first place?
    - gyardley 15y ago
      Heh, that's easy to answer - it's because I was an idiot! Of course I should've prevented the whole situation in the first place, but I wasn't on the ball enough to realize it was a problem. I wasn't consciously trying to shape company culture at all, which is why it developed on its own in a suboptimal way.
      - nknight 15y ago
        It happens all the time, and it can be essentially invisible to management at larger companies. People get close. Cliques with their own sub-cultures will develop, HR-unfriendly and perhaps legally-actionable things will go on behind closed doors when everybody in the room is friends with everybody else. Nobody will really notice or care until someone with a different worldview starts having to work closely with them and stuff starts bleeding through. When it goes on for too long, people may get angry and resentful when trouble starts, and then you have a much quieter but more insidious mess... What? No, I've never seen this happening from the inside! Of course not! I'm a perfect angel!

kstenerud 15y ago

Thus begins yet another unendable initiative. Differences exist, therefore we say there could be inequality. Since there could be inequality, better to consciously bias against the alleged inequality, just in case the inequality actually exists. And since it's impossible to prove its nonexistence, better to simply state that it exists. After all, there HAS to exist some bias somewhere, no matter how significant. It's safer to think this way because you avoid being labeled as "against equality", and can enjoy life with the other "enlightened". I just call it pure cowardice.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
tptacek 15y ago
"Pure cowardice". Anyone who disagrees with you does so because they're afraid of acknowledging the truth that you've arrived at. Great comment.
wpietri 15y ago
Come now. We know there's inequality, and we know there's bias. The question is always "is this particular outcome due to bias or some intrinsic difference?" When we honestly can't tell and the outcome is important, I think it's reasonable to proceed as if the problem is bias. First, because to just assume it's natural differences and be wrong means you're screwing up people's lives and supporting an unfair system. And second, because historically we have fallen back on natural differences in ways we now realize are total bullshit. See, for example, the Confederate Vice President's "Cornerstone Speech": "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition." If you're going to call something cowardly, I'd favor people who argue for continuing the (favorable to them) status quo on the grounds that it's intrinsic to the universe. There's not much bravery in justifying a system that's working well for you.
- im3w1l 15y ago
  Wouldn't the prudent thing be to give everyone equal opportunities, and then require solid science for every step away from that. For instance if you want to go on a campaign to specifically encourage women to make different choices than the ones they currently make, you should be pretty sure that what you are doing is helpful.
  - kstenerud 15y ago
    Right on! The last thing we need is more busybody do-gooders trying to fix something without sufficient evidence that it's even broken. What really gets my goat is how people willfully ignore or marginalize anyone in the "victim" group who doesn't toe the line. For example, look at the editor's note for this article: "Editor’s note: The following is a guest post by Penelope Trunk, writer and founder of Brazen Careerist. Her opinions are her own." I took a look at the past 30 guest contributor columns, and not a single one of them was prefaced with "Her opinions are her own" (not even the $100,000 green card article had Techcrunch distancing itself like this). This is the CYA mentality that kills honest debate and rushes in stupid policies.
    - wpietri 15y ago
      You may not think there's sufficient evidence that there's something broken. In which case, you aren't obliged to help fix it. But unless you have strong evidence that things are working perfectly, then by your own standard you should stop interfering with people trying to fix the problems they see.
      - stickfigure 15y ago
        You just illustrated the entire point of the TC article. The "problem" you see (not enough women in startups) is only a problem in your mind. Maybe this is caused by generations of gender role programming, maybe this is caused by biological differences, maybe it's caused by the divine will of the flying spaghetti monster. What right do you have to "fix" other people's voluntary decisions? What I don't hear is the argument that "women want to run startups and they are being blocked from the field". That would bother me. But a skewed outcome, by itself, is not a problem that needs to be fixed... and why shouldn't there be some scientific rigor applied to social meddling?
gyardley 15y ago
My eyes rolled so hard at this, it woke up my wife in the next room. Then we both had a laugh at me being described as 'enlightened' - in my neck of the woods, most people think I'm a troglodyte. Look, sometimes people do real, obvious, correctable things that result in inequality. There's nothing 'alleged' about these things, and correcting them isn't an 'unendable initiative' - usually, all you've got to do is be a little more self-aware. A case in point - a startup I co-founded a few years back was all-male for a while, and without getting into the details, we didn't always maintain a sophisticated level of conversation around the office. We didn't change our habits after we hired a couple of female college students part-time. Later, I found out our part-time employees were uncomfortable with our office banter. Not cool, since this was their first exposure to startups and the type of people that work for them. When I found out about this, my unendable initiative to fix the problem was a quick email, which took care of it. (Still irritated that I didn't pick up on this earlier.) That's it - no systematic bias in the other direction, no big bureaucratic programs by government authorities, just being aware enough of your surroundings to not be an asshole. You can do it too.
- DuncanIdaho 15y ago
  That is exactly the right thing to do. But completely honestly, why did you even develop this kind of culture in the first place? Don't you think you should have prevented the whole situation in the first place?
  - gyardley 15y ago
    Heh, that's easy to answer - it's because I was an idiot! Of course I should've prevented the whole situation in the first place, but I wasn't on the ball enough to realize it was a problem. I wasn't consciously trying to shape company culture at all, which is why it developed on its own in a suboptimal way.
    - nknight 15y ago
      It happens all the time, and it can be essentially invisible to management at larger companies. People get close. Cliques with their own sub-cultures will develop, HR-unfriendly and perhaps legally-actionable things will go on behind closed doors when everybody in the room is friends with everybody else. Nobody will really notice or care until someone with a different worldview starts having to work closely with them and stuff starts bleeding through. When it goes on for too long, people may get angry and resentful when trouble starts, and then you have a much quieter but more insidious mess... What? No, I've never seen this happening from the inside! Of course not! I'm a perfect angel!