5 ms·

Up until the last paragraph I thought you were going to say that your opinion of Paul Graham had become much more negative. To be fair most of the people direc

by olefoo 13y ago

Up until the last paragraph I thought you were going to say that your opinion of Paul Graham had become much more negative. To be fair most of the people directly involved in this ruckus don't come out of it looking all that well; but The Information did say the interview was on the record and did tell Graham that it was getting published and didn't get pushback. The fact that Valleywag was able to stir up a controversy and garner a massive amount of traffic off the back of PG's somewhat inept handling of a sensitive question ( that he knew was sensitive ) does no credit to Valleywag, even if it is their business model. Those people who slotted this into their preexisting models of reality and tried to use it as a teaching opportunity may feel rather threatening to some. which may mean they need to rethink their tactics; but may just mean that some people feel threatened whenever the topic of gender equity is brought up. Now I get that what PG was saying was not nearly as inflammatory as it was made out to be by Valleywag. However, it did bring to light some unconscious bias on his part; and I get that that is very hard to acknowledge and correct, especially when you have to do so in the full glare of hostile publicity. I do hope the PG can take some time to reflect and to reach out to some of the people who have substantive criticisms of his thinking on this topic. note: I'm not saying that he needs to turn ycombinator into a feminist reeducation camp, just that he needs to _listen_ to what some of his critics are trying to point out to him. note the second: I've been participating in HN for 6 years or so; and I have to say that the level of reflexive sexism I've seen in the comments this past week is making me think I should abandon my account.

wvenable 13y ago
> it did bring to light some unconscious bias on his part Can you expand on that? Because from his actual quote I don't find anything unreasonable or biased about his opinions on this particular issue. It seems to me like while pg is no longer guilty of being overtly anti-woman-in-technology, his reputation is now unfairly tarnished by this attention.
- ceol 13y ago
  I'm just getting familiar with this drama, but to me, it sounds like pg was dropping responsibility for the lack of women founders. Eric asked him about YC doing more to attract women or encourage women founders, and he responded by saying, essentially, "It's not our fault, there's no way we could be biased, women who want to be hackers just don't exist," and passing the buck to middle school curriculums.
  - wvenable 13y ago
    But isn't it entirely possible that he's right?
    - halostatue 13y ago
      PG can be correct that “hacker-founders” (what YC looks for, AIUI) who are female may not exist in sufficient numbers to be visible to the YC process—and still be in the wrong because there is a strong gender bias against the production of female hacker-founders in our society. The question—as I read the articles surrounding this—was about the larger problem (of the continuing ultra-dominance of the tech industry by men) and what YC might be doing to improve the situation. (And the answer is…nothing?) The bias here is the same thing that keeps female participation in OSS horribly low: the “meritocracy” involved is inherently biased toward young males because of the way that our society works as a whole. YC can't fix this, but there may be things that can and should be done to improve how it handles that existing bias.
      - wvenable 13y ago
        Isn't that lack of female hacker-founders exactly what pg was saying? I don't understand how pg could personally be in the wrong about that. And this is exactly my point, pg is now vilified for what? Not doing enough? It's ridiculous.
        halostatue 13y ago
        I think that what you're missing is that while the fact that there's a lack of female hacker-founders is true…only looking for hacker-founders further solidifies a blatantly sexist problem in the tech industry. So his statement is right—but the attitude is wrong and it is pure blame-shifting. Facts like this can be correct in the small, but wrong (not incorrect, but…ill-intentioned) in the large. The issue is about the larger problem, not the smaller problem. pg has been defending the smaller problem (the facts of the analysis) while ignoring the larger problem. At least in the articles I read this evening (I was on vacation last week when this apparently broken). It's a systemic/societal problem, and YC certainly can't fix it on its own, and has limited ability to fix it in any case. They started doing something different with Watsi…maybe there's something they can do different for female founders (as pg himself has suggested that there's another essay coming, plus some announcements from YC in that direction in any case).
- olefoo 13y ago
  Well, the bit about having to start hacking at age 13 to have the right mindset to be a founder packs a number of assumptions into one bundle; and some of those assumptions are gendered. There are girls who start programming at that age, but they learn to mask it because peer pressure runs against them. It also makes assumptions about the socio-economic status of the household; being able to afford even a cheap computer for a child takes some doing even today. It's not an opportunity that everyone gets, and it's a sad fact that in most human cultures scarce opportunities are handed preferentially to boys. The thing is; and I think PG is aware of this, ycombinator is missing out on good opportunities because of false negatives in this particular area; and even more so because potential founders who happen to be female perceive that they aren't as welcome as they might be. I think the best thing he could do would be to reach out to some of the people who are seen as his harshest critics ( specifically Shanley Kane and Ashe Dryden ) and open a dialogue with them. The thing is that Paul Graham and YCombinator have accrued a level of influence and power that can be quite damaging if exercised blindly and he would I think understand the need to use that power responsibly. And in this case that means having some uncomfortable conversations and being challenged in ways that I'd guess he's becoming rather used to not being challenged.
  - wvenable 13y ago
    I think PG would agree with everything that you are saying -- and he really hasn't said anything otherwise. We could all maybe totally agree that peer pressure runs against girls, economic status matters, and so on. What is the result of all that? Less women with the right ability at the right time for YC. I don't think there is much to argue about there. But then you assume that PG isn't doing enough to support women. But that's just an unfounded assumption born out of nothing. The only reason why we're even talking about this is because of some mis-quote to begin with. It's frankly all a bit pathetic.
    - olefoo 13y ago
      Oddly, the only thing I said PG _should_ do is open a dialogue with some of his critics. This is a much better explanation http://danilocampos.com/2013/12/explained-why-people-are-angry-at-paul-graham/ http://danilocampos.com/2013/12/explained-why-people-are-ang...
ceol 13y ago
> I have to say that the level of reflexive sexism I've seen in the comments this past week is making me think I should abandon my account. I've had the same feeling as well, although it really started during "Donglegate". A few misogynist groups joined HN to spread their filth, and the commenters here lapped it up and even joined in on the harassment. I'll warn you: You will only notice it more and more, to the point where you wince before clicking into a thread because you know the kind of comments people will make. It's... disheartening, to say the least.
- SamReidHughes 13y ago
  What misogynist groups are these?
  - ceol 13y ago
    /pol/ and /r/MensRights were invading sites during this time. I recall a handful of posts on both that directed users to HN. If you were active on HN during that whole fiasco, you'd remember the huge influx of new accounts that did nothing but "shitpost" in the submissions on here.
    - SamReidHughes 13y ago
      Your commenting is bad because it implicitly takes not-universally-agreed-upon-statements as truth in backing other opinions. You could have said (in the GGP of this comment) that /pol/ and /r/MensRights were redirecting posters to the forum. Instead you have to go out of your way to say "misogynist groups" and "filth". That's not a good characterization of the influx of posters (if we go by the description you've just given) because the posters at those sites and coming from those sites do not form well-defined groups, and there's no need to call what they wrote "filth". What you're doing is baking hostility into any conversation that would happen with people that might disagree with you. You just did it again in your reply, saying that I should remember something I don't remember despite being active on HN at the time. Now any disagreement I might say about that notion of yours suddenly turns your comment into an attack against mine. You might have accidentally trained yourself into using these awful conversational technique because they result in you having the last word, or because of some other feelings.

by olefoo 13y ago

wvenable 13y ago

> it did bring to light some unconscious bias on his part Can you expand on that? Because from his actual quote I don't find anything unreasonable or biased about his opinions on this particular issue. It seems to me like while pg is no longer guilty of being overtly anti-woman-in-technology, his reputation is now unfairly tarnished by this attention.

ceol 13y ago
I'm just getting familiar with this drama, but to me, it sounds like pg was dropping responsibility for the lack of women founders. Eric asked him about YC doing more to attract women or encourage women founders, and he responded by saying, essentially, "It's not our fault, there's no way we could be biased, women who want to be hackers just don't exist," and passing the buck to middle school curriculums.
- wvenable 13y ago
  But isn't it entirely possible that he's right?
  - halostatue 13y ago
    PG can be correct that “hacker-founders” (what YC looks for, AIUI) who are female may not exist in sufficient numbers to be visible to the YC process—and still be in the wrong because there is a strong gender bias against the production of female hacker-founders in our society. The question—as I read the articles surrounding this—was about the larger problem (of the continuing ultra-dominance of the tech industry by men) and what YC might be doing to improve the situation. (And the answer is…nothing?) The bias here is the same thing that keeps female participation in OSS horribly low: the “meritocracy” involved is inherently biased toward young males because of the way that our society works as a whole. YC can't fix this, but there may be things that can and should be done to improve how it handles that existing bias.
    - wvenable 13y ago
      Isn't that lack of female hacker-founders exactly what pg was saying? I don't understand how pg could personally be in the wrong about that. And this is exactly my point, pg is now vilified for what? Not doing enough? It's ridiculous.
      - halostatue 13y ago
        I think that what you're missing is that while the fact that there's a lack of female hacker-founders is true…only looking for hacker-founders further solidifies a blatantly sexist problem in the tech industry. So his statement is right—but the attitude is wrong and it is pure blame-shifting. Facts like this can be correct in the small, but wrong (not incorrect, but…ill-intentioned) in the large. The issue is about the larger problem, not the smaller problem. pg has been defending the smaller problem (the facts of the analysis) while ignoring the larger problem. At least in the articles I read this evening (I was on vacation last week when this apparently broken). It's a systemic/societal problem, and YC certainly can't fix it on its own, and has limited ability to fix it in any case. They started doing something different with Watsi…maybe there's something they can do different for female founders (as pg himself has suggested that there's another essay coming, plus some announcements from YC in that direction in any case).
olefoo 13y ago
Well, the bit about having to start hacking at age 13 to have the right mindset to be a founder packs a number of assumptions into one bundle; and some of those assumptions are gendered. There are girls who start programming at that age, but they learn to mask it because peer pressure runs against them. It also makes assumptions about the socio-economic status of the household; being able to afford even a cheap computer for a child takes some doing even today. It's not an opportunity that everyone gets, and it's a sad fact that in most human cultures scarce opportunities are handed preferentially to boys. The thing is; and I think PG is aware of this, ycombinator is missing out on good opportunities because of false negatives in this particular area; and even more so because potential founders who happen to be female perceive that they aren't as welcome as they might be. I think the best thing he could do would be to reach out to some of the people who are seen as his harshest critics ( specifically Shanley Kane and Ashe Dryden ) and open a dialogue with them. The thing is that Paul Graham and YCombinator have accrued a level of influence and power that can be quite damaging if exercised blindly and he would I think understand the need to use that power responsibly. And in this case that means having some uncomfortable conversations and being challenged in ways that I'd guess he's becoming rather used to not being challenged.
- wvenable 13y ago
  I think PG would agree with everything that you are saying -- and he really hasn't said anything otherwise. We could all maybe totally agree that peer pressure runs against girls, economic status matters, and so on. What is the result of all that? Less women with the right ability at the right time for YC. I don't think there is much to argue about there. But then you assume that PG isn't doing enough to support women. But that's just an unfounded assumption born out of nothing. The only reason why we're even talking about this is because of some mis-quote to begin with. It's frankly all a bit pathetic.
  - olefoo 13y ago
    Oddly, the only thing I said PG _should_ do is open a dialogue with some of his critics. This is a much better explanation http://danilocampos.com/2013/12/explained-why-people-are-angry-at-paul-graham/ http://danilocampos.com/2013/12/explained-why-people-are-ang...

ceol 13y ago

> I have to say that the level of reflexive sexism I've seen in the comments this past week is making me think I should abandon my account. I've had the same feeling as well, although it really started during "Donglegate". A few misogynist groups joined HN to spread their filth, and the commenters here lapped it up and even joined in on the harassment. I'll warn you: You will only notice it more and more, to the point where you wince before clicking into a thread because you know the kind of comments people will make. It's... disheartening, to say the least.

SamReidHughes 13y ago
What misogynist groups are these?
- ceol 13y ago
  /pol/ and /r/MensRights were invading sites during this time. I recall a handful of posts on both that directed users to HN. If you were active on HN during that whole fiasco, you'd remember the huge influx of new accounts that did nothing but "shitpost" in the submissions on here.
  - SamReidHughes 13y ago
    Your commenting is bad because it implicitly takes not-universally-agreed-upon-statements as truth in backing other opinions. You could have said (in the GGP of this comment) that /pol/ and /r/MensRights were redirecting posters to the forum. Instead you have to go out of your way to say "misogynist groups" and "filth". That's not a good characterization of the influx of posters (if we go by the description you've just given) because the posters at those sites and coming from those sites do not form well-defined groups, and there's no need to call what they wrote "filth". What you're doing is baking hostility into any conversation that would happen with people that might disagree with you. You just did it again in your reply, saying that I should remember something I don't remember despite being active on HN at the time. Now any disagreement I might say about that notion of yours suddenly turns your comment into an attack against mine. You might have accidentally trained yourself into using these awful conversational technique because they result in you having the last word, or because of some other feelings.