4 ms·

I'll add another reply to this, because this deserves its own discussion: > I don't personally view a lack of $GROUP as a problem Do you really not see how a

I'll add another reply to this, because this deserves its own discussion: > I don't personally view a lack of $GROUP as a problem Do you really not see how a group's problem-solving could be much richer if more $GROUPs are added to the mix? I find this astounding. A lack of $GROUP in a design team designing products for $GROUP leads to obvious overhead where the members have to account for every $GROUP's needs, while not having a representant of this very group, leading to blindness and bias - one popular example being crash test dummies which no one even thought to test for female body types, leading to greater injuries in car accidents for women (it's not difficult to find scientific articles on this, if that's new to you) Another obvious problem is that by having $GROUP out of the mix, a member of $GROUP trying to enter the field faces doubt and skepticism ("scene whore"), just because of the fact that $GROUP is under-represented, perpetuating the situation. Let's play devil's advocate here and say that a lack of $GROUP isn't a problem in itself - how would you solve the two aforementioned problems without increasing $GROUP's representation in a field?

yummyfajitas 12y ago
In at least two jobs, not to mention my current consulting project, I've been the only member of my racial group. I can't think of a time my group membership ever helped or affected the work at all. At most it was a source of fun within the office - e.g. convincing an officemate that I had two illegitimate children might have been more difficult if I were a member of the majority group. I agree that diversity among crash test dummies, nurses and security theatre pat down people is important since specific job functions depend on it. Another obvious problem is that by having $GROUP out of the mix, a member of $GROUP trying to enter the field faces doubt and scepticism ("scene whore"), just because of the fact that $GROUP is under-represented, perpetuating the situation. Your entire process is broken if irrational concerns like this are playing a significant role. This is a bigger problem, and merely throwing in some more bias to compensate is papering over the problem. The solution is to vigorously make your process systematic and objective, removing human judgement as much as possible.
- purerandomness 12y ago
  > In at least two jobs... While anecdotal trivia of your work history didn't make you feel a lack in your work environment, you're actively downplaying and trying to make a non-issue of the lack that is viewed by your peers in the group. Why? What would you lose if more $GROUPs happened to work in your field? > make your process systematic and objective You mean the crash test dummy example? You can't automate the design of a new process, because the design of the automation in itself is the designing of a process which underlies human bias and blindness. How exactly are you going to make the process of a female being called a "scene whore" on IRC as soon as the mob find out she's female make more "systematic and objective"? I think you mixed up the different examples here.
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    What would you lose if more $GROUPs happened to work in your field? Nothing. I don't care about the background of the people I work with. And if other people do, I'd suggest they should focus on work instead of tribalism. By "make your process systematic and objective", I'm referring to entry processes into tech (or whatever). E.g., judge a job candidate by their github + systematic tech interview instead of a resume + culture fit. Or hear out what a person on IRC has to say rather than spewing ad hominems.
    - purerandomness 12y ago
      > Or hear out what a person on IRC has to say rather than spewing ad hominems Let me quote from the original article. "When I was 14, I found IRC, and with it, a whole subculture of people that loved the same things that I loved. [...] But the negative attention that came from being a female on IRC far outweighed anything I got from the positive. This was really my only substantial interaction with humans though, so I didn’t know it was weird. I thought that this is just how it was. I didn’t know it was wrong to treat people that way. I saw it happening to other women on IRC, too. Even though I never consciously acknowledged it, women felt like second class citizens to me. Even though my only goal was to learn, it was always a battle being taken seriously. I was constantly being called things like “scene whore” and “clueless” [...]" By the way, please read the article, and the second part.

yummyfajitas 12y ago

In at least two jobs, not to mention my current consulting project, I've been the only member of my racial group. I can't think of a time my group membership ever helped or affected the work at all. At most it was a source of fun within the office - e.g. convincing an officemate that I had two illegitimate children might have been more difficult if I were a member of the majority group. I agree that diversity among crash test dummies, nurses and security theatre pat down people is important since specific job functions depend on it. Another obvious problem is that by having $GROUP out of the mix, a member of $GROUP trying to enter the field faces doubt and scepticism ("scene whore"), just because of the fact that $GROUP is under-represented, perpetuating the situation. Your entire process is broken if irrational concerns like this are playing a significant role. This is a bigger problem, and merely throwing in some more bias to compensate is papering over the problem. The solution is to vigorously make your process systematic and objective, removing human judgement as much as possible.

purerandomness 12y ago
> In at least two jobs... While anecdotal trivia of your work history didn't make you feel a lack in your work environment, you're actively downplaying and trying to make a non-issue of the lack that is viewed by your peers in the group. Why? What would you lose if more $GROUPs happened to work in your field? > make your process systematic and objective You mean the crash test dummy example? You can't automate the design of a new process, because the design of the automation in itself is the designing of a process which underlies human bias and blindness. How exactly are you going to make the process of a female being called a "scene whore" on IRC as soon as the mob find out she's female make more "systematic and objective"? I think you mixed up the different examples here.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  What would you lose if more $GROUPs happened to work in your field? Nothing. I don't care about the background of the people I work with. And if other people do, I'd suggest they should focus on work instead of tribalism. By "make your process systematic and objective", I'm referring to entry processes into tech (or whatever). E.g., judge a job candidate by their github + systematic tech interview instead of a resume + culture fit. Or hear out what a person on IRC has to say rather than spewing ad hominems.
  - purerandomness 12y ago
    > Or hear out what a person on IRC has to say rather than spewing ad hominems Let me quote from the original article. "When I was 14, I found IRC, and with it, a whole subculture of people that loved the same things that I loved. [...] But the negative attention that came from being a female on IRC far outweighed anything I got from the positive. This was really my only substantial interaction with humans though, so I didn’t know it was weird. I thought that this is just how it was. I didn’t know it was wrong to treat people that way. I saw it happening to other women on IRC, too. Even though I never consciously acknowledged it, women felt like second class citizens to me. Even though my only goal was to learn, it was always a battle being taken seriously. I was constantly being called things like “scene whore” and “clueless” [...]" By the way, please read the article, and the second part.