Hacker News Reader

Comment by rewqfdsa | Hacker News Reader

> Why is this a problem

First-order logic: if (A AND ~B -> ~C) AND C, then (~A OR B).

The persistence of the gender gap in technology despite decades of effort to "fix" it is an annoying refutation of the blank-slate theory of human nature on which the entire worldview of many people, particularly gender activists, rests. In other words, if it's simultaneously true that tech is gender-imbalanced and that there is no systemic discrimination involved in this gap, then groups of human being might have innate differences, and acceptance of this fact has far-reaching and upsetting consequences.

Therefore, there must be no gender gap or there must be systemic discrimination. Since the existence of the gender gap is obvious, there must be systemic discrimination, and the pundit class has been on the warpath trying to uphold this narrative and cherry-pick evidence supporting it.

View on HN

I got somewhat distracted by your use of words (e.g. pundit class) which seem to be meant to be purely inflammatory (not sure if you meant to be - but it is).

But, let's say I follow your logic on its own. Should I just believe that there's no systematic discrimination? How could I be confident that there's not any?

And, as a parent of a bright and mathematically-inclined daughter, should I discourage her from a field in technology because she likely has some otherwise hidden trait that will make her less useful or successful? How do I even know what that trait is? Is there a test for it?

You're right that "pundit class" is too inflammatory. I've edited my comment.

> Should I believe that there's no systematic discrimination? How would I be confident that there's not any?

Nobody can prove the absence of systemic discrimination. You also can't prove the absence of lizard people. The burden of proof rests on those making the positive claim. Look at how the technology industry tries very hard to attract women. Look at the outreach programs, the hackathons, and the scholarships from dozens of foundations and open source projects. Look at the mentorship programs available for women. That's some evidence _against_ systemic bias.

Now look at evidence _for_ systemic bias _other_ than the gender disparity itself. We're left with, what, rugs about meritocracy and a few off-color comments about dongles in a private conversation between two friends at a conference?

I just don't think the non-gender-disparity evidence is strong enough to support a claim of bias.

> should I discourage her from a field in technology because she likely has some otherwise hidden trait that will make her less useful or successful?

You should introduce her to many fields and let her decide which one interests her most.

Still not following. Believe me, I'm really trying, but something seems off. Maybe an analogy would help.

We have two populations A and B. A has walked slower than B. One individual, a1, says 'hey I suspect B (who controls the food) is withholding vitamin X'. Evidence is uncovered showing this to be true. A is given vitamin X, and A begins to walk faster.

However a subset of A still doesn't walk as fast. Again, an investigation is done, and it's shown that B has also been withholding vitamin Y. After vitamin Y is given, that subset of A also begins to walk faster.

Then, a smaller subset of that subset shows initial gains in walking speed, but recently their speed has dropped off significantly. So, A is given even more vitamin X and Y. But, that doesn't help. So, instead of suspecting that B is withholding vitamin Z, we should take them on their word that recently the terrain has changed so that B just naturally walks faster than A?

In other words, correlation DOES imply causation right? And any evidence to the contrary is a conspiracy theory by the 'pundit class'.

Gender bias towards a given domain is a generational problem, like racism or homophobia and so on. Changes do not happen overnight, and because they haven't happened over night does not imply that 'white or asian men are innately better at tech than the other 95% of the population'.

Do you think that in a fair world, it is necessarily the case that every profession is a microcosm of the population as a whole?

Let me ask a different way: in a world where no unjustice exists, is it possible for programming to be 80% men?

Programming is a purely intellectual activity, so I would argue that there is no gender or racial advantage one way or the other.

Contrast this with, for example, physical professions like professional basketball, where the faster ability to grow in fitness and strength, along with certain racial advantages with height or speed means the population tends to skew in one direction - enough so that creating separate leagues allows for fairer representation.

Software development is not like that. The very fact that the majority of programmers used to be women back when it started should be enough to show that current bias' are societal or fashion-based.

So, for clarity: your answer to my second question is "no, such a world is inherently unfair"?

> Programming is a purely intellectual activity, so I would argue that there is no gender or racial advantage one way or the other.

Thank you for so succinctly stating the blank-slate position. I don't see any reason to agree with it. You acknowledge that there are important group differences below the neck; why should there be none above it?

> majority of programmers used to be women

I read that article too. You don't mention that "programming" back then was largely data entry.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com