3 ms·

They are committed to this, he says so multiple times. Much of the piece is him acknowledging that there are systematic barriers in place that are discouraging

by srpablo 13y ago

They are committed to this, he says so multiple times. Much of the piece is him acknowledging that there are systematic barriers in place that are discouraging many of the pool of "potentially best founders" from applying, and they'd like to lower them so more people, from many different backgrounds, apply. Re-read the bit on "greedy in the good kind of way."

wyager 13y ago
>Re-read the bit on "greedy in the good kind of way." Yeah, that bit was clearly bullshit. The assertion is "Some percent of good startups are run by women" => "we want more startups run by women [to increase the number of good startups, because we will earn more]" This line of reasoning is clearly ridiculous. Only if A) startups run by women had a higher chance of success and B) the VCs had no better way of judging startup merit than looking at probabilities tied to the gender of the founder would it make sense to explicitly recruit more women for the sake of increasing profits. It is immediately clear that the only way to get more good startups is to A) recruit more people in general (not just people of some biological characteristic) and/or B) have better selection metrics.
- jbooth 13y ago
  It's not bullshit, you just misunderstood the line of reasoning. It goes like: Assumption: There is a population of women out there who would be really capable of running a successful technology startup Fact: Not many women do, whether this is because of VC bias, or women's own biases from social conditioning or whatever Opportunity: encourage more women to start companies that we fund, we will have a competitive advantage by being among the first to mine this under-utilized resource while other VCs compete for the best male-run startups
  - wyager 13y ago
    That is a fair line of reasoning, but it's not what I got from the article at all. What I got from the article is "How can we incentivize people who otherwise wouldn't found startups to found startups?", which is distinctly different from lowering barrier to entry.
  - runako 13y ago
    Generally agree except this: >> other VCs compete for the best male-run startups is possibly more accurately this: >> other VCs compete for the best white male-run startups based within 100 miles of San Francisco
- nostrademons 13y ago
  I think sama is arguing for b.) better selection metrics. Here's another model of startup success: 1.) Part of your success is due to innate factors in your team: who you are as a person, how well you process information, how much relevant experience you have, how well you get along with teammates, etc. 2.) Part of your success is due to how people react to you, which includes both 2.a) how well they consciously perceive the qualities in #1 and 2.b) how they unconsciously attribute qualities of other people to you, based on categories or groups you may belong to (like woman, black, old, big-company employee, Java programmer, Lisp programmer, Ivy League grad, etc.) Everybody does #2.b - it's part of our brain's short-circuit judgment wiring, and we couldn't function if we didn't. In psychology, the effect is called "transference". However, sama's saying that they want to investigate ways that #2.b may be conflating the accuracy of #2.a, and the fact that an applicant is a woman may make them inaccurately perceive the innate qualities that she brings to the table. If you don't believe that unconscious factors may alter how well you process information about how successful a person is, I highly suggest you take an IAT here: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/selectatest.html https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/selectatest.html The results were incredibly eye-opening for me, and oftentimes have been very eye-opening for many other people in positions of power.

by srpablo 13y ago

wyager 13y ago

>Re-read the bit on "greedy in the good kind of way." Yeah, that bit was clearly bullshit. The assertion is "Some percent of good startups are run by women" => "we want more startups run by women [to increase the number of good startups, because we will earn more]" This line of reasoning is clearly ridiculous. Only if A) startups run by women had a higher chance of success and B) the VCs had no better way of judging startup merit than looking at probabilities tied to the gender of the founder would it make sense to explicitly recruit more women for the sake of increasing profits. It is immediately clear that the only way to get more good startups is to A) recruit more people in general (not just people of some biological characteristic) and/or B) have better selection metrics.

jbooth 13y ago
It's not bullshit, you just misunderstood the line of reasoning. It goes like: Assumption: There is a population of women out there who would be really capable of running a successful technology startup Fact: Not many women do, whether this is because of VC bias, or women's own biases from social conditioning or whatever Opportunity: encourage more women to start companies that we fund, we will have a competitive advantage by being among the first to mine this under-utilized resource while other VCs compete for the best male-run startups
- wyager 13y ago
  That is a fair line of reasoning, but it's not what I got from the article at all. What I got from the article is "How can we incentivize people who otherwise wouldn't found startups to found startups?", which is distinctly different from lowering barrier to entry.
- runako 13y ago
  Generally agree except this: >> other VCs compete for the best male-run startups is possibly more accurately this: >> other VCs compete for the best white male-run startups based within 100 miles of San Francisco
nostrademons 13y ago
I think sama is arguing for b.) better selection metrics. Here's another model of startup success: 1.) Part of your success is due to innate factors in your team: who you are as a person, how well you process information, how much relevant experience you have, how well you get along with teammates, etc. 2.) Part of your success is due to how people react to you, which includes both 2.a) how well they consciously perceive the qualities in #1 and 2.b) how they unconsciously attribute qualities of other people to you, based on categories or groups you may belong to (like woman, black, old, big-company employee, Java programmer, Lisp programmer, Ivy League grad, etc.) Everybody does #2.b - it's part of our brain's short-circuit judgment wiring, and we couldn't function if we didn't. In psychology, the effect is called "transference". However, sama's saying that they want to investigate ways that #2.b may be conflating the accuracy of #2.a, and the fact that an applicant is a woman may make them inaccurately perceive the innate qualities that she brings to the table. If you don't believe that unconscious factors may alter how well you process information about how successful a person is, I highly suggest you take an IAT here: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/selectatest.html https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/selectatest.html The results were incredibly eye-opening for me, and oftentimes have been very eye-opening for many other people in positions of power.