6 ms·

"we aren't against diversity"..."they should make their bones, same as we did" sounds like it could come from any all white male institution. The problem is, w

"we aren't against diversity"..."they should make their bones, same as we did" sounds like it could come from any all white male institution. The problem is, we as humans prefer to surround ourselves with people just like us, sometimes that means same race, sometimes same religion, or gender, or political views, and often it happens subconsciously, choosing the person closer to our ideal without us even realizing we're penalising the "other" in ways that we don't penalise those like us. This is what diversity is (or should be) fighting against, it really is trying to make it merit based which goes against our survival instincts, even those of the "nerds".

Kalium 12y ago
> "we aren't against diversity"..."they should make their bones, same as we did" sounds like it could come from any all white male institution. It could... if you choose to cast it that way. It could also come from any self-selecting group where the selection process is part of the group identity. Group identity isn't just a matter of waking up one day, declaring yourself a member of $GROUP, and $GROUP being obliged to accept you.
- spiritplumber 12y ago
  It's less "we aren't against diversity" and more "diversity is orthogonal to what we care about", I think.
  - Kalium 12y ago
    I think this is exactly it. Thank you.
- modfodder 12y ago
  I don't disagree, but quite often $GROUP lies to itself about who and how it accepts those into the $GROUP. And let's be honest, this isn't a problem if the $GROUP is a bunch of people hanging out in their living room or grabbing a beer once a week, but it does become a problem when the $GROUP is making hiring decisions or when $GROUP decides to harass someone online. Then it is those subconscious selectors that define the group and its members more than the how the $GROUP thinks it defines itself.
  - Kalium 12y ago
    I think that's an effective commentary on how those outside the group see it defined, rather than one on how the group defines membership. It's also a commentary on the limits of certain political lenses.
pekk 12y ago
I can't convince you, and it doesn't matter whether you believe me, when I say that it doesn't matter to me about your race or sex or whatever, I am still going to think your cool hack is a cool hack. That's just how it is. I know not everyone does work this way. But I think it's counterproductive to try to tear down and erase this entire value system. In the worst case it's an imperfectly met ideal, but that's no reason to abandon it.
- modfodder 12y ago
  I will absolutely believe you. I will take your word until your actions show me otherwise. What value system is being destroyed or abandoned? Surely not one where a person is judged by merit and not by what group they do or don't belong to. At least not by me or anyone I've ever heard about. Now there are people that are trying to destroy the value system that professes to be based on merit but is in reality based on discrimination, privilege and/or internal groupthink by a narrowly defined group. But if you truly believe in merit above everything else, I would think you would welcome the downfall of these false meritocracies.
  - Kalium 12y ago
    Just because it's less than the perfect meritocracy we would like does not mean we wish to tear it all down. As most software engineers learn, perfect is the enemy of better. Might I suggest you re-read the article? This point is addressed.
dropit_sphere 12y ago
>This is what [the forces of D]iversity [are] (or should be) fighting against, it really is trying to make it merit based which goes against our survival instincts, even those of the "nerds". How exactly do you expect a group to react when you push against its survival instincts? Feminism is accused of this most often, so I'll use it as an example: some have accused the feminist movement of sexism because it simultaneously claims the sanctity of women-only "safe spaces" while simultaneously fighting against the existence of male-only institutions. I don't want to pass a verdict on that so much as point out that that is what the article is talking about:a safe space for nerds.
- modfodder 12y ago
  Well, I would say that first, the threat feminists are often fighting against is the threat of bodily harm and behavior that leads to bodily harm (1 out of 6 women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape¹). Compare this to the threat that nerds are fighting against today, the threat of having to accept those that they deem unworthy. Secondly, I'm not arguing nerds shouldn't have a safe space. But that safe space shouldn't be at the expense of diversity in the workplace (hired on merit) or online public spaces (where everyone should be treated with respect regardless of the merit metric). That safe space doesn't preclude nerds from learning basic social skills in order not to harass members of the opposite sex while at work (or really anywhere). Just like nerds shouldn't be harassed at school or work, they shouldn't harass people then hide behind the excuse that they are allowed because they're socially awkward nerds who don't know any better. And I say this as a socially awkward nerd. ¹https://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims https://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assa...
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - modfodder 12y ago
    edit: the comment this was a reply to was deleted.... I don't assume you harass people, sexually or otherwise, and never stated that you did. And from my experience, nerds tend to be less "harassy" than the general male population. But just because you want to ignore that sexual harassment is a problem even among the nerd population doesn't mean I will.
lucio 12y ago
No, and this distinction is essential: You're welcomed based on what you can do and not on what you are. "white male" is un-meritocratic, is something you "are", and not something you can "make" by talent and effort. "code" is cold, hard, unforgiving ("you can't argue with a root shell"), and meritocratic. She's saying: Nevermind who you "ARE", you're welcomed if you can "PRODUCE" (great code). That's exactly the antithesis of what you're implying with "white male" or "black female" or "$X $Y". The mere fact of using "$X $Y" or $MINORITY should give you a hint of how much this concepts are considered. If something fits in a variable, is waaay less important than the algorithm, it is just content, a parameter, "Lorem ipsum" if you like it.
- arrrg 12y ago
  Meritocracy is a bullshit term. It does not exist in reality. It’s an illusion, a joke.
  - MollyR 12y ago
    True, but I've noticed programming like some of the other STEM fields are a lot harder to fake skills than some other fields. I'm not saying its impossible to fake development skills, just saying its harder than some other fields. I think primarily due to the fact computers are not forgiving, but require pure logic.
  - jschwartzi 12y ago
    It's actually an ideal. Ideals also don't exist in reality. The difference is that ideals are generally held to be worth striving for in spite of that.
    - arrrg 12y ago
      Actually it’s used as a bludgeon to kill all debate, not something to strive towards. The point that’s always made is that something already is this magical and perfect meritocracy with the selection process already working perfectly. The term meritocracy is thrown into the faces of those that question the selection process as a defense of the selection process. Perfectness is just assumed, not something to be strived for. Your statement makes just no sense at all when considering the context in which meritocracy is typically used when defending exclusionary selection processes. It’s downright absurd. And that’s even ignoring all the grave moral quandaries you get into when you base who can participate on merit – if that is even possible and if you can even coherently define what the hell merit means. Merit is hard to nail down and as such can be easily used as a convenient tool for exclusion. In light of the long and heated debates about how to best conduct job interviews (nobody knows, really!), often seen right here on HN, this all is especially absurd. It seems that put into a slightly different context (of a job interview) everyone knows that selection processes are frail, complex, complicated things, hard to get right – and even at its best you will make mistakes. Selection processes are fucking hard to get right. Doesn’t everyone know that? How, in that context, can you then turn around and claim that there is no issue because meritocracy. It sounds like a bad joke. A horrible joke, one that kills all debate about selection processes and how we can improve them (or even where selection is necessary and where not and based on what and how and how we should deal with the frailty and difficulty of evaluating human fucking beings.)

Kalium 12y ago

> "we aren't against diversity"..."they should make their bones, same as we did" sounds like it could come from any all white male institution. It could... if you choose to cast it that way. It could also come from any self-selecting group where the selection process is part of the group identity. Group identity isn't just a matter of waking up one day, declaring yourself a member of $GROUP, and $GROUP being obliged to accept you.

spiritplumber 12y ago
It's less "we aren't against diversity" and more "diversity is orthogonal to what we care about", I think.
- Kalium 12y ago
  I think this is exactly it. Thank you.
modfodder 12y ago
I don't disagree, but quite often $GROUP lies to itself about who and how it accepts those into the $GROUP. And let's be honest, this isn't a problem if the $GROUP is a bunch of people hanging out in their living room or grabbing a beer once a week, but it does become a problem when the $GROUP is making hiring decisions or when $GROUP decides to harass someone online. Then it is those subconscious selectors that define the group and its members more than the how the $GROUP thinks it defines itself.
- Kalium 12y ago
  I think that's an effective commentary on how those outside the group see it defined, rather than one on how the group defines membership. It's also a commentary on the limits of certain political lenses.

pekk 12y ago

I can't convince you, and it doesn't matter whether you believe me, when I say that it doesn't matter to me about your race or sex or whatever, I am still going to think your cool hack is a cool hack. That's just how it is. I know not everyone does work this way. But I think it's counterproductive to try to tear down and erase this entire value system. In the worst case it's an imperfectly met ideal, but that's no reason to abandon it.

modfodder 12y ago
I will absolutely believe you. I will take your word until your actions show me otherwise. What value system is being destroyed or abandoned? Surely not one where a person is judged by merit and not by what group they do or don't belong to. At least not by me or anyone I've ever heard about. Now there are people that are trying to destroy the value system that professes to be based on merit but is in reality based on discrimination, privilege and/or internal groupthink by a narrowly defined group. But if you truly believe in merit above everything else, I would think you would welcome the downfall of these false meritocracies.
- Kalium 12y ago
  Just because it's less than the perfect meritocracy we would like does not mean we wish to tear it all down. As most software engineers learn, perfect is the enemy of better. Might I suggest you re-read the article? This point is addressed.

dropit_sphere 12y ago

>This is what [the forces of D]iversity [are] (or should be) fighting against, it really is trying to make it merit based which goes against our survival instincts, even those of the "nerds". How exactly do you expect a group to react when you push against its survival instincts? Feminism is accused of this most often, so I'll use it as an example: some have accused the feminist movement of sexism because it simultaneously claims the sanctity of women-only "safe spaces" while simultaneously fighting against the existence of male-only institutions. I don't want to pass a verdict on that so much as point out that that is what the article is talking about:a safe space for nerds.

modfodder 12y ago
Well, I would say that first, the threat feminists are often fighting against is the threat of bodily harm and behavior that leads to bodily harm (1 out of 6 women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape¹). Compare this to the threat that nerds are fighting against today, the threat of having to accept those that they deem unworthy. Secondly, I'm not arguing nerds shouldn't have a safe space. But that safe space shouldn't be at the expense of diversity in the workplace (hired on merit) or online public spaces (where everyone should be treated with respect regardless of the merit metric). That safe space doesn't preclude nerds from learning basic social skills in order not to harass members of the opposite sex while at work (or really anywhere). Just like nerds shouldn't be harassed at school or work, they shouldn't harass people then hide behind the excuse that they are allowed because they're socially awkward nerds who don't know any better. And I say this as a socially awkward nerd. ¹https://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims https://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assa...
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- modfodder 12y ago
  edit: the comment this was a reply to was deleted.... I don't assume you harass people, sexually or otherwise, and never stated that you did. And from my experience, nerds tend to be less "harassy" than the general male population. But just because you want to ignore that sexual harassment is a problem even among the nerd population doesn't mean I will.

lucio 12y ago

No, and this distinction is essential: You're welcomed based on what you can do and not on what you are. "white male" is un-meritocratic, is something you "are", and not something you can "make" by talent and effort. "code" is cold, hard, unforgiving ("you can't argue with a root shell"), and meritocratic. She's saying: Nevermind who you "ARE", you're welcomed if you can "PRODUCE" (great code). That's exactly the antithesis of what you're implying with "white male" or "black female" or "$X $Y". The mere fact of using "$X $Y" or $MINORITY should give you a hint of how much this concepts are considered. If something fits in a variable, is waaay less important than the algorithm, it is just content, a parameter, "Lorem ipsum" if you like it.

arrrg 12y ago
Meritocracy is a bullshit term. It does not exist in reality. It’s an illusion, a joke.
- MollyR 12y ago
  True, but I've noticed programming like some of the other STEM fields are a lot harder to fake skills than some other fields. I'm not saying its impossible to fake development skills, just saying its harder than some other fields. I think primarily due to the fact computers are not forgiving, but require pure logic.
- jschwartzi 12y ago
  It's actually an ideal. Ideals also don't exist in reality. The difference is that ideals are generally held to be worth striving for in spite of that.
  - arrrg 12y ago
    Actually it’s used as a bludgeon to kill all debate, not something to strive towards. The point that’s always made is that something already is this magical and perfect meritocracy with the selection process already working perfectly. The term meritocracy is thrown into the faces of those that question the selection process as a defense of the selection process. Perfectness is just assumed, not something to be strived for. Your statement makes just no sense at all when considering the context in which meritocracy is typically used when defending exclusionary selection processes. It’s downright absurd. And that’s even ignoring all the grave moral quandaries you get into when you base who can participate on merit – if that is even possible and if you can even coherently define what the hell merit means. Merit is hard to nail down and as such can be easily used as a convenient tool for exclusion. In light of the long and heated debates about how to best conduct job interviews (nobody knows, really!), often seen right here on HN, this all is especially absurd. It seems that put into a slightly different context (of a job interview) everyone knows that selection processes are frail, complex, complicated things, hard to get right – and even at its best you will make mistakes. Selection processes are fucking hard to get right. Doesn’t everyone know that? How, in that context, can you then turn around and claim that there is no issue because meritocracy. It sounds like a bad joke. A horrible joke, one that kills all debate about selection processes and how we can improve them (or even where selection is necessary and where not and based on what and how and how we should deal with the frailty and difficulty of evaluating human fucking beings.)