9 ms·

I hate to pick apart Fowler -- probably a good way for folks to call me an idiot -- but I have to. here are (roughly) 50% women in the world, so we should expe

I hate to pick apart Fowler -- probably a good way for folks to call me an idiot -- but I have to. here are (roughly) 50% women in the world, so we should expect the ratio for women in computing to be 50% - unless there's real evidence that some other ratio is natural.[2] So far there's no such evidence. But, er, doesn't the observation that the actual ratio is different evidence constitute "evidence"? Aside from direct observation, what other definition of "evidence" would you use? Or are you assuming that because one ratio exists in one set (the general population of humans) it must exist in any subset? This would require that the subset have no defining characteristics, which effectively prevents it from being a subset. (A bit loose with my language, but you get the gist) Then his sheer audaciousness when he calls observation of the data circular logic! If I there are 20% blue trees in the world, and I see a lot with 40% blue trees, is it not natural to conclude there is some agency at work here? The question becomes one of intelligent design -- was there a external intelligent agent causing the blue tree delta? With complex systems, this is as much a religious question as anything else. We simply don't know. Very intelligent people could creatively speculate on all sorts of prime movers, natural or not. Men have spent centuries using this kind of argument to deny women equal rights in all sorts of fields. Over the last century we've seen tons of evidence that this isn't true elsewhere, so why should it be true in software? As far as I'm concerned this shoddy history should make us doubly wary of the any suggestion that a diversity imbalance is natural. I'm really not sure what to do with this. Is he arguing that since a certain type of rhetoric has been used to ill purpose in the past that it should be looked upon extra critically now? If so, how would I go about picking and choosing which methods of reasoning might be better or worse to use? It seems to me that he's arguing that based on some conclusion to the argument (there might be a natural difference) that we should hold the methods of reasoning suspect. But if we got a different conclusion using the same methods, that would be okay? This is like a generic ad hominem -- don't trust that reasoning because it's been faulty in the past! Well sure, all kinds of ways of reasoning have been faulty in the past. This has nothing to do with anything. That is, given we have a unnatural imbalance, is it a problem that's sufficiently serious to spend energy on fixing it? But he hasn't shown an unnatural imbalance at all, he's just made broad statements about how he feels about certain kinds of tools being used in the discussion. Lack of diversity is itself a problem. Different people think differently, and consequently come up with different ways to solve problems. If you have a bunch of people with the same background, they miss lots of ideas - leading to inefficiencies and lack of innovation. A diverse group is usually more effective. See here I completely agree with him -- a lack of various backgrounds, opinions, and personalities hurts small groups. But he seems to be saying that these good qualities -- opinions, backgrounds, personalities -- are inherently part of being a female, being a Norwegian, or of being black. So it's okay for him to say that in general being Norwegian is cause to make you so different you have value as a team member, at the same time he's saying that there are no natural differences to account for the difference in observed ratios? Huh? Who is using circular logic again? Fowler seems like a nice guy, and I'm sure he likes puppies and ice cream and all of that, but this is tripe. I am a firm believer in having as much possible diversity as possible in my teams as long as we can hold the group together. So count me in as being a huge proponent of diversity. But diveristy is all about things that you can't see -- not bullshit like your skin color, how tall you are, or your gender. Lots of teams fail because nobody on the team had good empathy skills. Nobody fails because there wasn't a person on there wearing glasses. Don't confuse the true greatness of diversity with some kind of flavor-of-the-week political bullshit. Here it is: nobody knows. It's a complex system full of individuals all acting in their best interests, not something you can perform a logical proof on. The variables and systems involved are legion. If you would like to discuss the story of just one person, we could do that with some clarity. But if you start waving your hands around and claiming you already know the answer -- whether you want it to be a natural ratio or whether you see prejudice in the world -- we're not going to get very far. I can assure you that whatever happening is natural, but by "natural" I mean it might be that the society at large has major problems that need to be fixed. Or maybe not. Beats me. This is a topic for moral discussion, not logical discussion, and bringing these kinds of logic tools to the table only makes things worse, not better. Must be in angry-old-guy mode again today. Sorry about that. I'm just really disappointed that Fowler couldn't see the errors of his own thinking and then presumes to lecture us about it. Man I find that really annoying.

andrewcooke 15y ago
the difference here is on the meaning of "natural". you're taking it to mean something like "what we have" and then your argument makes sense: we see what we have because of some process that exists (is natural). but fowler is using "natural" in a sense more like "unbiased by historical accident" or "what we would get if a bunch of people were suddenly created out of nothing and formed a society from zero". so there's nothing new here. grumpy, indignant old men (self aware or not) believe the status quo (which only incidentally favours them) to be natural. people like fowler do not. [edit: i've removed fowler's superlatives to be less unpleasant (sorry - in my defense i have been configuring maven all day...); the grumpy old man characterisation is from the parent post]
- DanielBMarkham 15y ago
  Great comment. Thanks. Yes, you are correct. I made an edit to that effect. If I observe something, it is occurring, correct? Or I could not have observed it. The question becomes why is it occurring? We can observe "simple" things like trees and rocks and disagree on the reasons happen the way they do. I'm not trying to argue from ignorance here. Certainly you could ask each and every person and draw some general conclusions. But that kind of approach is very fluffy and you could spin the results to say just about anything you wanted. If you have a master's degree in computer science and decided to be stay-at-home dad, is that because the system is flawed? Perhaps you just prefer being with your kids? Most people don't make those kinds of decisions for any one reason. It's complex. Like I said, I love diversity. I think my biggest problem is this continuing thing we do where we define diversity as external characteristics. It's the internet age. I could care less what your sexual organs are or skin color is. EDIT: Just to be sure I am advancing the discussion, the moral question is this: Assume I run a company with 100 employees. Only 20 of them are a member of a sub-group that is 30% in the larger population. Is it the moral thing for me to do to hire another 10 people of this subgroup, even if it means not hiring people of another group that might be better qualified just so the ratios match up? If the answer to that question is "yes", then I have two follow-up questions. One, how many kinds of subgroups do I need to track? One-armed people? People who have beards? Who gets to decide what subgroups are special or not? Two, is it moral for a voter to make somebody do something because they personally find that it has a moral outcome? If I wanted people to be nicer in the world, could I pass a law that required all of them to give 10% to charity? Does something I feel morally outraged about automatically mean I should go mucking around with somebody else's freedom? If so, where's the stopping point? As for Jim Crow laws, please note that I am not saying that society shouldn't evolve. I'd argue that some degree of legislating morality is necessary for society to move along -- even though I find it most distasteful. But there should be time limits on these things. That's why I bring up the internet. I really don't need grandpa's generation telling me how I should think. This is something each generation needs to settle for itself.

andrewcooke 15y ago

the difference here is on the meaning of "natural". you're taking it to mean something like "what we have" and then your argument makes sense: we see what we have because of some process that exists (is natural). but fowler is using "natural" in a sense more like "unbiased by historical accident" or "what we would get if a bunch of people were suddenly created out of nothing and formed a society from zero". so there's nothing new here. grumpy, indignant old men (self aware or not) believe the status quo (which only incidentally favours them) to be natural. people like fowler do not. [edit: i've removed fowler's superlatives to be less unpleasant (sorry - in my defense i have been configuring maven all day...); the grumpy old man characterisation is from the parent post]

DanielBMarkham 15y ago
Great comment. Thanks. Yes, you are correct. I made an edit to that effect. If I observe something, it is occurring, correct? Or I could not have observed it. The question becomes why is it occurring? We can observe "simple" things like trees and rocks and disagree on the reasons happen the way they do. I'm not trying to argue from ignorance here. Certainly you could ask each and every person and draw some general conclusions. But that kind of approach is very fluffy and you could spin the results to say just about anything you wanted. If you have a master's degree in computer science and decided to be stay-at-home dad, is that because the system is flawed? Perhaps you just prefer being with your kids? Most people don't make those kinds of decisions for any one reason. It's complex. Like I said, I love diversity. I think my biggest problem is this continuing thing we do where we define diversity as external characteristics. It's the internet age. I could care less what your sexual organs are or skin color is. EDIT: Just to be sure I am advancing the discussion, the moral question is this: Assume I run a company with 100 employees. Only 20 of them are a member of a sub-group that is 30% in the larger population. Is it the moral thing for me to do to hire another 10 people of this subgroup, even if it means not hiring people of another group that might be better qualified just so the ratios match up? If the answer to that question is "yes", then I have two follow-up questions. One, how many kinds of subgroups do I need to track? One-armed people? People who have beards? Who gets to decide what subgroups are special or not? Two, is it moral for a voter to make somebody do something because they personally find that it has a moral outcome? If I wanted people to be nicer in the world, could I pass a law that required all of them to give 10% to charity? Does something I feel morally outraged about automatically mean I should go mucking around with somebody else's freedom? If so, where's the stopping point? As for Jim Crow laws, please note that I am not saying that society shouldn't evolve. I'd argue that some degree of legislating morality is necessary for society to move along -- even though I find it most distasteful. But there should be time limits on these things. That's why I bring up the internet. I really don't need grandpa's generation telling me how I should think. This is something each generation needs to settle for itself.