5 ms·

I would humbly submit it's possible to do both. While I don't believe at the present time (pending work samples to the contrary) that the author has a valid poi

I would humbly submit it's possible to do both. While I don't believe at the present time (pending work samples to the contrary) that the author has a valid point about his experience being based largely on his race, I do believe that SV has both a diversity problem (that it will take quite a long time to solve) and an image problem (that will take even longer). It may not even necessarily be that people in the the Valley are "racist" - it may be that, being from a different racial background, he might not actually make a very good culture fit at some companies. He didn't mention which companies he applied for - if he applied at a bunch of <=10 person startups, his background may not fit the team as well as an autodidact-brogrammer.

Retra 11y ago
"Culture fit" is the perfect mechanism for reducing diversity. In fact, that is entirely what it does. So it's a little disconcerting that you say SV has a diversity problem and then use culture fit as justification for a lack of diversity.
- notduncansmith 11y ago
  > "Culture fit" is the perfect mechanism for reducing diversity I agree completely. The problem is manyfold. Firstly "culture fit" sounds like a really great thing that companies would want. It has positive connotations, and its usage affirms that a) your company has a "culture" in the first place (a difficult problem for many orgs), and b) that you're hiring people that are just right for maintaining that. Secondly, "culture" itself indicates homogeneity. Here's a fitting definition from Dictionary.app: > the attitudes and behavior characteristics of a particular social group "The attitudes and behavior characteristics" implies that there is one set of attitudes, one set of behaviors - which, unfortunately, is kind of the antithesis of "diversity". Another issue is that people who share these things that make up a culture tend to get along and collaborate more freely, on average, than those who don't. That's not to say that people with radically different cultures can't work well together, but it's far from the path of least resistance (which I'd argue is what businesses are after). The less time, and thus money, you have to spend on forcing your employees to collaborate, the better. This makes homogeneity very desirable in the eyes of management. It may be worthwhile to define a "company culture" along latitudes less tied to artifacts from other forms of culture - however, that sounds like an incredibly difficult task, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any company on Earth whose "company culture" doesn't reflect values from regional or religious cultures. Even if you did, then you'd still be gestating your own flavor of homogeneity inside that organization, by hiring exclusively for people who can get behind those values. I also think, personally, that "diversity" is only a goal worth pursuing when phrased as "diversity in ideas", which, when reduced the useful subset therein, can be more succinctly stated as "innovation"[1] - and I think we've seen multiple times, innovation produced from very homogenous groups (or individuals, to whom it's difficult to ascribe much diversity at the level of granularity to which most people refer).
  - Retra 11y ago
    When people say SV has a diversity problem, they aren't talking about diversity in ideas, but diversity in social opportunity. Maybe that's not useful in the abstract, but we don't live in the abstract. And racial and gender diversity become a political and marketing issues -- things you can't just ignore because you don't like them. So your last paragraph really comes off like you are trying to say SV doesn't have a diversity problem at all. Or rather, it lacks diversity, but that it isn't a problem, because the only diversity you care about is innovation.
    - notduncansmith 11y ago
      > When people say SV has a diversity problem, they aren't talking about diversity in ideas, but diversity in social opportunity. I think that's only a problem because an equivalent to Silicon Valley, but with other groups more equally represented (or rather, similarly overrepresented) hasn't presented itself. > it lacks diversity, but that it isn't a problem, because the only diversity you care about is innovation. That was more or less my last point, yeah. If you're not making a case for cultural diversity based on business, then I'm not sure how you expect to get most businesses on board.
      - Retra 11y ago
        Well, I'm not sure there is reliable data that suggests culture fit actually improves innovation. Given that those terms are even well-defined in the first place. It comes off very much like rationalization, not rationality.

Retra 11y ago

"Culture fit" is the perfect mechanism for reducing diversity. In fact, that is entirely what it does. So it's a little disconcerting that you say SV has a diversity problem and then use culture fit as justification for a lack of diversity.

notduncansmith 11y ago
> "Culture fit" is the perfect mechanism for reducing diversity I agree completely. The problem is manyfold. Firstly "culture fit" sounds like a really great thing that companies would want. It has positive connotations, and its usage affirms that a) your company has a "culture" in the first place (a difficult problem for many orgs), and b) that you're hiring people that are just right for maintaining that. Secondly, "culture" itself indicates homogeneity. Here's a fitting definition from Dictionary.app: > the attitudes and behavior characteristics of a particular social group "The attitudes and behavior characteristics" implies that there is one set of attitudes, one set of behaviors - which, unfortunately, is kind of the antithesis of "diversity". Another issue is that people who share these things that make up a culture tend to get along and collaborate more freely, on average, than those who don't. That's not to say that people with radically different cultures can't work well together, but it's far from the path of least resistance (which I'd argue is what businesses are after). The less time, and thus money, you have to spend on forcing your employees to collaborate, the better. This makes homogeneity very desirable in the eyes of management. It may be worthwhile to define a "company culture" along latitudes less tied to artifacts from other forms of culture - however, that sounds like an incredibly difficult task, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any company on Earth whose "company culture" doesn't reflect values from regional or religious cultures. Even if you did, then you'd still be gestating your own flavor of homogeneity inside that organization, by hiring exclusively for people who can get behind those values. I also think, personally, that "diversity" is only a goal worth pursuing when phrased as "diversity in ideas", which, when reduced the useful subset therein, can be more succinctly stated as "innovation"[1] - and I think we've seen multiple times, innovation produced from very homogenous groups (or individuals, to whom it's difficult to ascribe much diversity at the level of granularity to which most people refer).
- Retra 11y ago
  When people say SV has a diversity problem, they aren't talking about diversity in ideas, but diversity in social opportunity. Maybe that's not useful in the abstract, but we don't live in the abstract. And racial and gender diversity become a political and marketing issues -- things you can't just ignore because you don't like them. So your last paragraph really comes off like you are trying to say SV doesn't have a diversity problem at all. Or rather, it lacks diversity, but that it isn't a problem, because the only diversity you care about is innovation.
  - notduncansmith 11y ago
    > When people say SV has a diversity problem, they aren't talking about diversity in ideas, but diversity in social opportunity. I think that's only a problem because an equivalent to Silicon Valley, but with other groups more equally represented (or rather, similarly overrepresented) hasn't presented itself. > it lacks diversity, but that it isn't a problem, because the only diversity you care about is innovation. That was more or less my last point, yeah. If you're not making a case for cultural diversity based on business, then I'm not sure how you expect to get most businesses on board.
    - Retra 11y ago
      Well, I'm not sure there is reliable data that suggests culture fit actually improves innovation. Given that those terms are even well-defined in the first place. It comes off very much like rationalization, not rationality.