4 ms·

I mostly like the article, but the author and I have a different perspective on a basic assumption that is taken as axiomatic in the third paragraph: Let’s say

I mostly like the article, but the author and I have a different perspective on a basic assumption that is taken as axiomatic in the third paragraph: Let’s say that all the jobs in tech are in a room on the second floor of a building. There are a limited number of people that can fit in that room. I don't personally believe there are a fixed number of spots. I believe that when you find a way to cram more people into the second floor, it expands. A company may seem like it is only hiring five engineers today, but companies that hire good people, grow. Companies operating in an environment where more people are working, can sell more of their products and services. Overall, more people being more productive expands the number of "spots on the second floor" for everyone. Thus, I do not consider this an issue of choosing which people make it up the escalator, but rather a problem in trying to grow the size of the building. When looked at it in terms of growing the size of the building, we arrive at a completely different view of how we should handle escalators and the purpose of getting people to the second floor.

munificent 13y ago
That seems orthogonal to me. Say I have a list and I'm taking some number of items off one end. I want to maximize the value of that chunk. A larger chunk is better, of course, but sorting the list so that bigger items are on one also helps. That's what the author is arguing: we're incorrectly ranking people because of a gender bias. Having a larger pool of poorly ranked people won't solve that.
- raganwald 13y ago
  I don't follow what you're saying about a list, but if you're saying that either or both help, the key thing to remember is that it isn't a dichotomy. In the context of HN, what startup isn't trying to hire all the smart and capable people it can? If it comes down to two people, and there is a perception that A is better than B but both A and B are excellent candidates, a great company hires both.
  - munificent 13y ago
    Right, but by saying "comes down to two people" that implies you've already done some filtering: you've ordered the set of all possible people and then taken the first two. My point is that if the ordering relation is wrong (which is what the article suggests) then it doesn't matter what subset you take: you're still not getting the best possible set of people. You have to get the right people. If your ordering is off, being more inclusive lets in as many more bad candidates as it does good ones.

munificent 13y ago

That seems orthogonal to me. Say I have a list and I'm taking some number of items off one end. I want to maximize the value of that chunk. A larger chunk is better, of course, but sorting the list so that bigger items are on one also helps. That's what the author is arguing: we're incorrectly ranking people because of a gender bias. Having a larger pool of poorly ranked people won't solve that.

raganwald 13y ago
I don't follow what you're saying about a list, but if you're saying that either or both help, the key thing to remember is that it isn't a dichotomy. In the context of HN, what startup isn't trying to hire all the smart and capable people it can? If it comes down to two people, and there is a perception that A is better than B but both A and B are excellent candidates, a great company hires both.
- munificent 13y ago
  Right, but by saying "comes down to two people" that implies you've already done some filtering: you've ordered the set of all possible people and then taken the first two. My point is that if the ordering relation is wrong (which is what the article suggests) then it doesn't matter what subset you take: you're still not getting the best possible set of people. You have to get the right people. If your ordering is off, being more inclusive lets in as many more bad candidates as it does good ones.