5 ms·

Why is lack of diversity considered a problem in the first place? > I think at this point we should start asking questions as to why we feel the need to poke h

by zxcdw 14y ago

Why is lack of diversity considered a problem in the first place? > I think at this point we should start asking questions as to why we feel the need to poke hard at conferences, why are we positively discriminating, and what should we really be fixing for lasting change. Why are our starting numbers so low? Discriminating. Positive or negative. Is wrong. Just because you are XYZ doesn't mean you somehow could expect to be treated differently. No. You are equal. You are just like anybody else. You are not special. On the other hand people in minorities whine(in many cases rightly so) that they are treated differently, while people in non-minorities call for positive discrimination which further promotes inequal treatment. You're a woman/gay/trans/whatever in tech? Cool, now get back into line just like everybody else. Nobody cares -- hopefully.

diziet 14y ago
How about all the 'XYZ' that could be contributing a lot and bettering the world via their work in software development but aren't getting a chance to do that?
- Tichy 14y ago
  What makes you think they don't better the world in whatever else profession they choose?
  - diziet 14y ago
    My thesis is that since software and software development are continually growing in scope, popularity and influence on the world, having more people get involved across all kind of demographics will be an overall net benefit to the world.
    - Tichy 14y ago
      That's a big assumption. I've been a software developer for 12 years and have yet to work on anything worthwhile. And Dilbert probably exists for a reason, too - most jobs are crap.
- patrickaljord 14y ago
  How are they not getting a chance to contribute to software development? Github doesn't require an ID card, git push doesn't check for your gender or sexuality last time my wife used it. Any women that have done significant contributions to open source projects on github or else are always invited everywhere, give many conferences and have tons of followers on twitter. If you know of any gem that don't get any attention, someone who has made amazing contributions on github and that is completely unheard of (including their code? though that would be hard to imagine), please share.
  - diziet 14y ago
    Sure, I agree with you that development, especially open source online based one is much closer to being merit based than anywhere else. However, the limiting factor is the number of people that are in a position to know about the world of software development, to actually be able to contribute -- that's where the numbers are off. You can't open a door that you don't know exists. Also, from what I understand in the FLOSS world, the number of contributors that are women are once again a smaller fraction than the number of software developers in general.
    - patrickaljord 14y ago
      Are you saying that women are not smart enough to find out about open source, git or github which are a couple of google search away for anyone with interest in software development? I find this quite insulting for women. Or are you saying there's a white male conspiracy that prevents women from doing these couple of google search? Which is not insulting but pretty absurd.
      - diziet 14y ago
        I am saying neither of those things -- you seem to be pulling a straw-man argument here! I used the analogy of "not knowing the door is there" rather than "not being smart enough to see the door". What I am saying is that due to reasons such as social selection, bias, expectations of what women should do, discrimination etc less women are interested in software.
- zxcdw 14y ago
  What makes you think 'XYZ' aren't bettering the world in more suitable fields for persons themselves? What would prevent 'XYZ' from "getting a chance" to do that in tech/"our field"? Why should the 'XYZ' contribute if they refuse to contribute without special benefits because they somehow are "special"(which they are not)? Just because Jamal is black doesn't mean he's any worse/better/special than Henry who happens to be white. Just because Sally is a lesbian doesn't mean she's any worse/better/special than Cindy who is straight. You get the point. Stop categorizing people. There are no categories. There are only people. All equal regardless of age, sex, sexual preference, "race", origin, religious beliefs, ... Only people. Equal people.
  - diziet 14y ago
    I did not imply or say that 'XYZ' should get any benefits, nor categorized anyone, I'd simply answered your question why it might be a problem -- it is my fault for not quoting back the exact part of your post I was replying to. My point is that I think the optimal number of people in minorities 'XYZ' that might be more happy and productive working in software, and the overall net benefit to the world in terms of 'efficient allocation of labor' is a state where more 'XYZ' work in software development.
    - zanny 14y ago
      This is a valid opinion, but you can't go back and try to correct for people who, given different circumstances, might have grown into software and development rather than nursing or language or economics or another science. You do that, and you are somehow discriminating against someone on the basis of physical characteristics and are absolutely in the wrong. The solution is to make sure entry is unbiased, access is available, and you kind of have to hope culture eventually shifts away from inhereted biogtry and bias and towards indifference. Because at the end of the day, the "programmers are nerds" and "nerds are white men" mentality is pervasive from a young age, and that paints a flawed picture from the get-go. But it is getting better. Nerd culture is becoming more accepted, and computers are getting more pervasive, so they become more accepted too. There was an introductory bias that initiated a cultural stance in a very deeply derogatory way, and it will take decades for society to right itself away from that bias as long as it isn't perpetuated. But I don't think you can force it, especially with nonsense like affirmative action. That just perpetuates the bias by painting certain groups as "unnatural" in a setting where they have to be artificially inserted.
- betterunix 14y ago
  "How about all the 'XYZ' that could be contributing a lot and bettering the world via their work in software development but aren't getting a chance to do that?" This is not a simple matter of people being actively or even passively discriminated against. This is the result of the environments, decisions, and treatment people receive from their earliest elementary school days; there is almost nothing that can be done by the time people are in college. I have watched EE and CS departments do everything imaginable to try to increase diversity, yet they have made extremely modest improvements. Somewhere between the beginning of middle school and the end of high school, girls seem to stop being interested in math, science, and things that are relevant to engineering and CS. Somehow, my female classmates who had high scores on the AP calculus test all wound up somewhere other than engineering -- psychology, accounting, management, etc. Despite every possible opportunity being made available to women, despite departments running the gamut of things that could attract women, despite women representing a majority of students at many colleges, women continue to avoid engineering. So don't say that women are not getting the chance to be engineers or computer scientists. Women have more chances than anyone else; they are choosing not to take advantage of those opportunities. Figure out why that is the case, and maybe you can actually do something to solve the problem.
andreasklinger 14y ago
The problem is that people care - even if they are not aware of it. The reason for reinforcing positive discrimination is that you are not aware of your own bias towards negative discrimination. And honestly we aren't. We cannot judge equal, because we are extremely biased. Artificial skewing to confront people with more and more of XYZ is a good thing as it help estimating objectively. I caught myself questioning a young woman who said she was working in machine learning several times, to get to the root of what she was doing really (turns out the real stuff). I wouldn't have done it in the same way with a guy (i assume).
- zxcdw 14y ago
  > The reason for reinforcing positive discrimination is that you are not aware of your own bias towards negative discrimination. So in other words you think it is perfectly fine to treat people inequally based on what they are? Some people just happen to be "more equal" than others? > And honestly we aren't. We cannot judge equal, because we are extremely biased. Artificial skewing to confront people with more and more of XYZ is a good thing as it help estimating objectively. Who decides how much "artificial skewing" is enough and on what grounds? There can be no correctness or authority over this, and as such any kind of skewing is wrong. > I caught myself questioning a young woman who said she was working in machine learning several times, to get to the root of what she was doing really (turns out the real stuff). I wouldn't have done it in the same way with a guy (i assume). Just like we dislike that guy with long hair. Or that guy with pink bread. Or that terribly tall guy. Or that bald woman. Or that .... whatever doesn't fit the "mainstream" what would be expected from a person in that field. This is a symptom of people not understanding that we're all people, and we're all equal and should be treated as such, regardless of our differences. It's first and foremost a mentality issue, whether that can be solved or not is another thing. Adding more discrimination to "balance" things is like giving opposing forces more weapons to "balance" the odds and thus avoid the slaughter. No need to mention where it leads to.
  - mtrimpe 14y ago
    Except that the long hair, the pink beard or the bald woman are choices. For people who are female, gay or black it's not a choice.
mgkimsal 14y ago
"Discriminating. Positive or negative. Is wrong." Wow. Such bold words. Except it's meaningless (or worse). Every person who submits a topic (PHP? jQuery?) to a conference that doesn't fit what the organizer(s) wants is 'discriminated' against. Every topic that is selected is 'discriminated' for. Uh. Oh. That. Is. Wrong. Sounds so much better when you. use. lots. of. periods. right? FWIW, I organize what has so far been a 3-track 1 day tech conference with 21 slots. I go out of my way to make sure there are female speakers there (IIRC we had 5 or 6 this year). Why? It's a factor that helps bring more audience in. Based on surveys and f2f chats, women have told me they're more likely to attend because they'll be more comfortable knowing women are presenting. More potential audience means more potential sales means lower losses or perhaps even a small profit. There's other reasons I do this. The notion of saying that the organizers can pick "the best" presenters and topics is, at best, a guess, but is more often delusional. I've been to plenty of conferences where some 'big name' presenters were utter crap and the lesser known people were a mixed bag. Getting a more diverse audience to attend - made easier by a more diverse speaker panel - will help improve networking opportunities, as you'll have people from more walks of life and with more diverse networks and opportunities of their own mixing and meeting. If everyone thinks the speakers and topics are the sole reason to attend tech conferences, you've either only been to one or two, or you're asocial, or perhaps trying to justify the non-diverse speaker range after the fact (yes, there's more options, but those spring to mind, especially the first one). Mixing/mingling/networking at conferences - a place to let your hair down and meet others with common interests but different backgrounds - is (for me and several others I know) one of the prime reasons to attend conferences now. Many conferences put up speaker videos; many times the sessions are the 5th time a topic has been presented, or you've seen it before, or it's from the speaker's book; ask him (it's almost always a him, right?) about something in the hallway. Hallway chats and networking sessions are never put up on video sites afterwards, yet are probably the most important parts of face to face conferences. These are the events where we can be human with a range of people. When that range is 200 white men under 30, it's less valuable overall, and when those people all hit 40, and are still seeing conferences that are all featuring under 30s white men, they'll probably start to understand the 'discrimination' thing.
- Tichy 14y ago

by zxcdw 14y ago

diziet 14y ago

How about all the 'XYZ' that could be contributing a lot and bettering the world via their work in software development but aren't getting a chance to do that?

Tichy 14y ago
What makes you think they don't better the world in whatever else profession they choose?
- diziet 14y ago
  My thesis is that since software and software development are continually growing in scope, popularity and influence on the world, having more people get involved across all kind of demographics will be an overall net benefit to the world.
  - Tichy 14y ago
    That's a big assumption. I've been a software developer for 12 years and have yet to work on anything worthwhile. And Dilbert probably exists for a reason, too - most jobs are crap.
patrickaljord 14y ago
How are they not getting a chance to contribute to software development? Github doesn't require an ID card, git push doesn't check for your gender or sexuality last time my wife used it. Any women that have done significant contributions to open source projects on github or else are always invited everywhere, give many conferences and have tons of followers on twitter. If you know of any gem that don't get any attention, someone who has made amazing contributions on github and that is completely unheard of (including their code? though that would be hard to imagine), please share.
- diziet 14y ago
  Sure, I agree with you that development, especially open source online based one is much closer to being merit based than anywhere else. However, the limiting factor is the number of people that are in a position to know about the world of software development, to actually be able to contribute -- that's where the numbers are off. You can't open a door that you don't know exists. Also, from what I understand in the FLOSS world, the number of contributors that are women are once again a smaller fraction than the number of software developers in general.
  - patrickaljord 14y ago
    Are you saying that women are not smart enough to find out about open source, git or github which are a couple of google search away for anyone with interest in software development? I find this quite insulting for women. Or are you saying there's a white male conspiracy that prevents women from doing these couple of google search? Which is not insulting but pretty absurd.
    - diziet 14y ago
      I am saying neither of those things -- you seem to be pulling a straw-man argument here! I used the analogy of "not knowing the door is there" rather than "not being smart enough to see the door". What I am saying is that due to reasons such as social selection, bias, expectations of what women should do, discrimination etc less women are interested in software.
zxcdw 14y ago
What makes you think 'XYZ' aren't bettering the world in more suitable fields for persons themselves? What would prevent 'XYZ' from "getting a chance" to do that in tech/"our field"? Why should the 'XYZ' contribute if they refuse to contribute without special benefits because they somehow are "special"(which they are not)? Just because Jamal is black doesn't mean he's any worse/better/special than Henry who happens to be white. Just because Sally is a lesbian doesn't mean she's any worse/better/special than Cindy who is straight. You get the point. Stop categorizing people. There are no categories. There are only people. All equal regardless of age, sex, sexual preference, "race", origin, religious beliefs, ... Only people. Equal people.
- diziet 14y ago
  I did not imply or say that 'XYZ' should get any benefits, nor categorized anyone, I'd simply answered your question why it might be a problem -- it is my fault for not quoting back the exact part of your post I was replying to. My point is that I think the optimal number of people in minorities 'XYZ' that might be more happy and productive working in software, and the overall net benefit to the world in terms of 'efficient allocation of labor' is a state where more 'XYZ' work in software development.
  - zanny 14y ago
    This is a valid opinion, but you can't go back and try to correct for people who, given different circumstances, might have grown into software and development rather than nursing or language or economics or another science. You do that, and you are somehow discriminating against someone on the basis of physical characteristics and are absolutely in the wrong. The solution is to make sure entry is unbiased, access is available, and you kind of have to hope culture eventually shifts away from inhereted biogtry and bias and towards indifference. Because at the end of the day, the "programmers are nerds" and "nerds are white men" mentality is pervasive from a young age, and that paints a flawed picture from the get-go. But it is getting better. Nerd culture is becoming more accepted, and computers are getting more pervasive, so they become more accepted too. There was an introductory bias that initiated a cultural stance in a very deeply derogatory way, and it will take decades for society to right itself away from that bias as long as it isn't perpetuated. But I don't think you can force it, especially with nonsense like affirmative action. That just perpetuates the bias by painting certain groups as "unnatural" in a setting where they have to be artificially inserted.
betterunix 14y ago
"How about all the 'XYZ' that could be contributing a lot and bettering the world via their work in software development but aren't getting a chance to do that?" This is not a simple matter of people being actively or even passively discriminated against. This is the result of the environments, decisions, and treatment people receive from their earliest elementary school days; there is almost nothing that can be done by the time people are in college. I have watched EE and CS departments do everything imaginable to try to increase diversity, yet they have made extremely modest improvements. Somewhere between the beginning of middle school and the end of high school, girls seem to stop being interested in math, science, and things that are relevant to engineering and CS. Somehow, my female classmates who had high scores on the AP calculus test all wound up somewhere other than engineering -- psychology, accounting, management, etc. Despite every possible opportunity being made available to women, despite departments running the gamut of things that could attract women, despite women representing a majority of students at many colleges, women continue to avoid engineering. So don't say that women are not getting the chance to be engineers or computer scientists. Women have more chances than anyone else; they are choosing not to take advantage of those opportunities. Figure out why that is the case, and maybe you can actually do something to solve the problem.

andreasklinger 14y ago

The problem is that people care - even if they are not aware of it. The reason for reinforcing positive discrimination is that you are not aware of your own bias towards negative discrimination. And honestly we aren't. We cannot judge equal, because we are extremely biased. Artificial skewing to confront people with more and more of XYZ is a good thing as it help estimating objectively. I caught myself questioning a young woman who said she was working in machine learning several times, to get to the root of what she was doing really (turns out the real stuff). I wouldn't have done it in the same way with a guy (i assume).

zxcdw 14y ago
> The reason for reinforcing positive discrimination is that you are not aware of your own bias towards negative discrimination. So in other words you think it is perfectly fine to treat people inequally based on what they are? Some people just happen to be "more equal" than others? > And honestly we aren't. We cannot judge equal, because we are extremely biased. Artificial skewing to confront people with more and more of XYZ is a good thing as it help estimating objectively. Who decides how much "artificial skewing" is enough and on what grounds? There can be no correctness or authority over this, and as such any kind of skewing is wrong. > I caught myself questioning a young woman who said she was working in machine learning several times, to get to the root of what she was doing really (turns out the real stuff). I wouldn't have done it in the same way with a guy (i assume). Just like we dislike that guy with long hair. Or that guy with pink bread. Or that terribly tall guy. Or that bald woman. Or that .... whatever doesn't fit the "mainstream" what would be expected from a person in that field. This is a symptom of people not understanding that we're all people, and we're all equal and should be treated as such, regardless of our differences. It's first and foremost a mentality issue, whether that can be solved or not is another thing. Adding more discrimination to "balance" things is like giving opposing forces more weapons to "balance" the odds and thus avoid the slaughter. No need to mention where it leads to.
- mtrimpe 14y ago
  Except that the long hair, the pink beard or the bald woman are choices. For people who are female, gay or black it's not a choice.

mgkimsal 14y ago

"Discriminating. Positive or negative. Is wrong." Wow. Such bold words. Except it's meaningless (or worse). Every person who submits a topic (PHP? jQuery?) to a conference that doesn't fit what the organizer(s) wants is 'discriminated' against. Every topic that is selected is 'discriminated' for. Uh. Oh. That. Is. Wrong. Sounds so much better when you. use. lots. of. periods. right? FWIW, I organize what has so far been a 3-track 1 day tech conference with 21 slots. I go out of my way to make sure there are female speakers there (IIRC we had 5 or 6 this year). Why? It's a factor that helps bring more audience in. Based on surveys and f2f chats, women have told me they're more likely to attend because they'll be more comfortable knowing women are presenting. More potential audience means more potential sales means lower losses or perhaps even a small profit. There's other reasons I do this. The notion of saying that the organizers can pick "the best" presenters and topics is, at best, a guess, but is more often delusional. I've been to plenty of conferences where some 'big name' presenters were utter crap and the lesser known people were a mixed bag. Getting a more diverse audience to attend - made easier by a more diverse speaker panel - will help improve networking opportunities, as you'll have people from more walks of life and with more diverse networks and opportunities of their own mixing and meeting. If everyone thinks the speakers and topics are the sole reason to attend tech conferences, you've either only been to one or two, or you're asocial, or perhaps trying to justify the non-diverse speaker range after the fact (yes, there's more options, but those spring to mind, especially the first one). Mixing/mingling/networking at conferences - a place to let your hair down and meet others with common interests but different backgrounds - is (for me and several others I know) one of the prime reasons to attend conferences now. Many conferences put up speaker videos; many times the sessions are the 5th time a topic has been presented, or you've seen it before, or it's from the speaker's book; ask him (it's almost always a him, right?) about something in the hallway. Hallway chats and networking sessions are never put up on video sites afterwards, yet are probably the most important parts of face to face conferences. These are the events where we can be human with a range of people. When that range is 200 white men under 30, it's less valuable overall, and when those people all hit 40, and are still seeing conferences that are all featuring under 30s white men, they'll probably start to understand the 'discrimination' thing.

Tichy 14y ago