Hacker News Reader

Comment by J-dawg | Hacker News Reader

As a man who struggles with low confidence and self-esteem, I hate the way women are given special attention over this stuff.

I frequently don't apply for jobs I see that I could probably do, for all of the reasons listed in the article. A couple of times I have even pulled out after a successful first round interview due to anxiety about continuing.

This is an example of how the "women in tech" movement alienates men who would otherwise be potential allies.

Instead of focussing on women, why not leave gender out of it and focus on "low-confidence candidates" (or whatever you want to call this cohort of people). That way if it's true that women are more likely to be "low-confidence" then you'll end up helping more women anyway, but you'll do it without alienating men.

Ignoring the root cause and jumping straight to helping women is exactly what what makes feminists look like man-haters.

I'm sick of the stereotype that because I'm an oh-so-privileged white male I must have had a ridiculously easy life and be full of confidence.

View on HN

I'm sorry for your situation but articles like these are looking at trends across groups. They're not meant to insinuate that every man is in a better position than every woman. The article talks about surveying 1,000+ men and women. Undoubtedly, some of the men in that sample had less confidence than some of the women. It doesn't make it invalid to analyze statistics across the group overall.

why doesn't it make it invalid? there are many situations where considering the mean is so deeply distorting as to make any conclusions drawn from it either unreasonable or outright false.

I think calls for greater clarity and attention to detail when doing data analysis are well-considered and we should be _deeply suspect_ of claims made based on statistical aggregates, and particularly the mean average which is one of the most distorting and lossy aggregates there is.

I don't argue that statistical analysis can be distorting, in fact, of course it can be. All data collection of any sort is at best a limited picture of what we think is reality. But that doesn't make aggregates useless because outliers exist. Just because Stanford freshman swimmer Katie Ledecky is faster than some Olympic gold medal-winning mens relay teams [0] doesn't invalidate the observation that the average man is a faster swimmer than the average woman.

In the GP, I don't think he's making a "well-considered" call for "greater clarity." He's using the fact that because he lacks self-confidence, that focusing on women as a group is bullshit, as if the purported problems that women face are only substantial once it can be proven that all women are worse than all men.

[0] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/katie-ledecky-is-the-pr...

>as if the purported problems that women face are only substantial once it can be proven that all women are worse than all men.

This is a total misrepresentation of what I'm saying. I'm more than fine with women being helped. What I'm saying is, don't do it in a way that excludes men with the same problem.

Where does this article exclude men with the same problem? You're mad because this article focuses on what the author found interesting in her survey of professionals, a survey she conducted because she was initially skeptical of a widely-quoted aphorism from pop best-sellers like Lean In?

The article's author decided to challenge that belief with a systematic analysis and she reports that it is not confidence that is the main factor. Yet you choose to interpret the problem as self-confidence because you, yourself, feel a lack of confidence. Furthermore, you accuse the author of excluding men, because you choose to see her efforts as a zero-sum game.

Yeah, you know what ol' saw applies here?

The plural of anecdote is not data.

Lots of men have a shitty time in the workforce, in life, or whatever, and individually they probably don't do as well as a given woman. But that's not the point.

None of these broad trends mean anything when you look at an individual. The individual is a molecule in a gas.

(And I can't quite figure out why someone would read a piece on trends and immediately go to "but what about MEEE?" ... the whole thing is based on large-scale data, not the individual, so what about you? Nothing about you. This isn't about you.)

Sorry for this nerd-interruption: The plural of anecdote is data, at least as said by that aphorism's inventor, Raymond Wolfinger:

http://blog.revolutionanalytics.com/2011/04/the-plural-of-an...

https://web.archive.org/web/20080523225000/http://listserv.l...

Both variations are insightful; I like using Wolfinger's because it is an accurate observation that all data start out as anecdotes, and are influenced/distorted by the collection and filtering process. Still, this also implies that one outlying anecdote is not enough evidence alone to dismiss the aggregate findings across all of the other anecdotes.

> I'm an oh-so-privileged white male I must have had a ridiculously easy life

Been waiting for that privilege to kick in yet... however, after reading all those articles about women in tech and realizing that a) I tend to not negotiate and avoid conflict b) terrified (for my family's wellfare) of confronting my boss when I feel I'm being unjustly compensated\treated, c) shitting my pants when the next round of layoffs is leaked and d) being an introvert makes me not speak up as much in meetings to 'establish dominance', maybe I'm a woman after all?

Rather than being upset that the focus is on women, why don't you be grateful that there's so much attention given to the problems people experience due to low confidence and self-esteem, and use the various bits of advice given "for women" to help your own situation too?

Trying to help one group doesn't mean you're trying to hurt another group. Focusing on women doesn't make someone anti-men. That's what groups like "all lives matter" fail to understand, and what you don't seem to get here.

Sorry for repeating myself, but why bring gender into it at all?

If we have collectively decided that helping people with low self-confidence is a good thing, why not leave it at that?

If more women than men get helped in the process, then I'm fine with that.

It's much easier to make a study comparing women to men than one comparing "low self-confidence people" to "highly-confident people".

Helping in the form of advice to the job seekers: as Mike said, the advice applies equally to the men in the same situation.

Helping in the form of making employers aware, so they can optimize their job descriptions: It incidentally helps men of low self-confidence too. Notice, tough, that being socialized into assuming a requirement is hard instead of "not really" isn't the same as not being confident. And that some commenters here are defending that a candidate that lacks the confidence to even apply for a job isn't worth their time considering.

Let me ask the opposite question: why does it bother you that they bring gender into it?

As for why they do it, it's because women have historically been oppressed, and a lot of people now try to pretend like it's all over and done with when it clearly is not.

Does it even matter why? They do. It's there. You can be thankful for what they're doing to draw attention to problems you face, or you can be upset that they haven't explicitly included you in the group they focus on. I don't see why you'd pick the latter.

Gender has a bit to do with it currently tho. I have met people who openly questioned my choice of career based on gender and stopped only when I proved myself - that made me assume I am less likely to suceed by bluffing like many guys do. I still think so.

You don't have that factor, through your condition sounds pretty bad.

> feminists look like man-haters.

there isn't a single, unified thing that is "a feminist". however, some factions that call themselves feminists are legitimately man-haters.

One of the key points in the article was that confidence isn't the whole story.

> According to the self-report of the respondents, the barrier to applying was not lack of confidence. In fact, for both men and women, “I didn’t think I could do the job well” was the least common of all the responses.

All of the responses listed in the questionnaire loosely relate to confidence, and that's the sense in which I was using it.

Confidence means not being afraid of bluffing your way through an interview when you only have 60% of the required skills, for example. Note that more men than women didn't apply to jobs for this reason.

Sadly, you are showing with this post that you actually would not be a good potential ally. Seriously, by focusing the discussion on this point and in this fashion, you are literally stalling progress.

If there are problems that can be fixed, fix them. If you have concerns that we are leaving more feminine men in the back ranks, address those. But to turn the discussion into chastising people is to hurt the debate.

And I am fully sympathetic to your point. I feel that way for a lot of things. I have come to realize that at best you are falling victim to "perfect being enemy of the good" and at worst you are allowing yourself to be a weapon that the those actually abusing power use against those they are abusing their power against.

I think that good start would me not to imply he is feminine for having low confidence. For that matter, not to call guys feminine ju because they have something in them that is more likely to be found in women. It is like calling women masculine just because she likes hardware.

I think that this matter if your goal is equality. People being afraid to show side of them that is not stereotypical matters.

I appreciate your comment. I also wanted to mention the "feminine" thing but feared it would look overly sensitive. Personally I don't think confidence is a masculine or feminine quality at all.

I wouldn't call being worried about "feminine" over sensitive. I would argue it is misguided.

You may not think confidence is a masculine quality. Just google "confidence gender" and see that it is a well established thing that men are more confident than women.

Still, if you were insulted by my implying you are a more feminine man. My apologies. Insult was not intended. I do urge you to move beyond those views, though. Feminine men should be no more an insult than masculine women. Descriptions that offer no value judgement.

You are implying that feminine is somehow a bad trait. That is terribly misguided.

That is, if you want progress, stop seeing "feminine men" as somehow a derogatory statement. If you see women arguing for things that you feel you don't have as a man, realize that there is something that would have to set you apart from many men for this to be true.

Now, should overconfidence be a masculine trait? I'd argue not. But I would not place confidence on anyone claiming it is not seen that way in the present world.

It's not about whether feminine or masculine are positive or negative traits. They are labels that are being misapplied, and in this case not relevant. They do imply bias on behalf of the user, especially in a discussion oriented around male/female roles.

Better to use the terms provided, 'low confidence individuals', etc.

I don't understand your logic here.

If we're saying that losing out on good but low-confidence candidates is a bad thing for a company, and we want to fix it, why don't we adapt our processes to favour the people being disadvantaged? If this ends up helping women more than men, then fantastic.

But why bring gender into our solution at all? Focussing on one gender just because we think they are more affected by an issue just introduces more unfairness. Focus on the issue itself.

Evidence shows that it does affect one gender more than the other. There is no "thinking" involved with this. Raw data showing that we pay women less than men is plentiful and fairly conclusive.

So, my logic here is your debate is to simply get people arguing that are on the front lines. You are the one that "thinks" you are just as affected as women in this. If you truly feel that you want to help, drop your self persecution and help.

Again, do I think you are purposely sidelining actual progress? No. I doubt that. However, I do think discussing what are feminine and masculine traits is a distraction. And the most likely outcome from the position you are advertising.

The article says the exact opposite of what you are complaining about. It says women do not lack confidence, they lack good information about how hiring works.

I did read the article. Maybe I'm using a loose definition of "confidence" but it still all comes down to confidence. Applying to a job when you don't strictly meet the guidelines is a form of confidence.

Side note: I noticed the article was quoting tired old tropes like "women are socialised to follow the rules", without evidence.

I am generally sympathetic to your view that a lot of women do things that actively alienate men, but you come across here as having baggage and just wanting to vent, not discuss the actual points of this actual article.

So, I think this is sort of the pot calling the kettle black.

You should be happy, not angry.

If companies work to eliminate the low-confidence barrier in hiring it will benefit you as side-effect.

Then why bring gender into it at all?

Because it's the issue du jour. Because it's the issue du jour it's going to get a lot more attention, money and effort.

It's almost as if companies don't really care about fairness and instead care about aligning themselves with the issue du jour. Imagine that!

According to article, lack of confidence was NOT the issue in play.

So this is more about you making assumption

That's not what privilege means, it's not an on-off switch. It's just about recognizing factors out of your control that might give you slight advantages over other people. When people talk about "white privilege" they don't mean your life must be great because you're white, they mean regardless of your situation, you have more opportunities because of your skin color, which increases the odds of having a better life.

Some people take it too far, but the next time you hear someone talk about privilege, try to interpret it to mean "marginal advantage" rather than "privilege=wealth", because that's probably what they mean.

Also, "alienates men who would otherwise be potential allies" doesn't really make sense. Your support for gender equality in tech should not depend on how inclusive and understanding feminists are, it should depend on whether or not you think women deserve equal rights and access in the workplace. Obviously the world is a better place when we all work together and get along, but I think you should strive to make sure your beliefs are not affected by how much you dislike other people who share those beliefs.

> Your support for gender equality in tech should not depend on how inclusive and understanding feminists are

who appointed you the gatekeeper of what another thinking, feeling human being ought to think or feel?

maybe you should interpret this as a call to introspect certain trends in feminist politics and communication strategies. if someone tells you "I am feeling alienated because of X" rather than thought-police that person and tell them "no you're wrong and you WILL feel the way I tell you to feel" perhaps it would be of greater utility to consider what the other person is telling you.

I of course do not have any say over other people's feelings, and I think it's obvious that asking someone to strive for something is not the same as forcing them. But the belief that women deserve equal rights is also not just a feeling, it's a core principle that you either agree with or you don't. What I am recommending (not demanding) is that people try to separate feelings and principles, so that your morals aren't determined by who has been nice to you recently.

but what you said is "you SHOULD feel this way" not "I have a vision of a better world were we all strive for greater equality". your word choices matter.

also, while we're on the subject of communication, I would like to point out that there has been enormous and widespread political backlash that is due in no small part to the poor communication strategy by many leftist movements.

many (most?) people absolutely do agree with the proposition "women are humans just the same as men and deserve to be treated as such." a lot of those people, however, really do care about how they are spoken to. tone and language choice matters. it is not effective communication or politics to be constantly making accusatory remarks. people really do respond based on their emotions and will oppose those who have been "mean" to them recently, just because of that mood affiliation.

I mean we're all human, we all have biases, and we're all affected by interactions, so I get what you're saying. I care about how I'm spoken to as well, I don't mean to act like some superior being unaffected by human emotions. To use your phrasing, I would like to live in a world where equal rights is such a fundamental moral truth that the communication style of its supporters doesn't really matter. I too am frequently annoyed and angered by people marching under the flag of feminism, but I try my best to judge everyone's arguments on their merits rather than their fans. I think everyone would personally benefit from this, it makes life more pleasant, and that's what I wanted to say in my comment.

I would also like to live in a world where people give each other the benefit of the doubt. When you read my initial comment, did it really seem more like that I was trying to police someone's thoughts, rather than just recommending a different way of thinking? Especially on a casual internet forum, I generally try to interpret a comment in the best way I can. If someone is really intending to be an asshole then it'll become clear soon enough.

I approach stuff like this from a position of cognitive liberty. People are free and will think and feel whatever it is that they think and feel. Those thoughts and feelings inform their decisions and thus their behavior, and the behavior is what we ought to care about. Speech is a type of behavior and we ought to care about it because it influences culture and politics and everything else that arises from acts of communication.

I make one assumption, which I think is well founded (based on utility), which is that it is impossible to persuade people through direct confrontation. Effective persuasion is based on presentation of facts and ideas to those who are receptive to them, but nobody ever became receptive by being confronted directly, and that can be counter-productive. It can make a potentially receptive person become closed to persuasion. They will, in essence, deny facts (even to the point of rejecting empirical proof) and go entirely with mood affiliation and tribal loyalty.

When trying to do political communication of any kind the decision becomes a decision between trying to persuade someone or trying to "other" them and therefore signal to your in-group that they are an enemy. American political communication has really stopped trying to persuade anyone of anything and is now focused entirely on "othering". When I read your initial comment it came across as "othering". You spent a lot of words telling someone that their interpretations were wrong, that they should think and feel differently than they expressed thinking and feeling, and that their disagreement with your position was fundamentally unreasonable.

The premise of cognitive liberty is an assertion that our own thoughts and feelings are just that: our own. They may or not be rational or reasonable or even useful. They might indeed be bad ideas, that do more harm than good. Still, we are free creatures, and we are free to have those thoughts and being criticized on the grounds of what you think is an untenable argument to make because it denies that fundamental freedom.

All of this is just a long-winded way of trying to motivate my next sentences. Disagreement is natural and unavoidable and I believe it is beneficial to tolerate it in most circumstances. Othering and/or thought-policing those who disagree with us is actively harmful, and we've seen the consequences (his name is Donald). The tacit assumption that "my worldview is the best one and my morals are unassailable and those who disagree with me are irrational and/or immoral" is a serious problem. I've seen worse examples of it than your post, but your post was an example of it.

I understand what you're saying, I guess I just disagree on the significance. For me there is very little meaningful difference between "I think murder is wrong because x" and "you should think murder is wrong because x". I don't see "you should" as trying to force a thought because that would be ridiculous, it's obviously impossible to forcibly change someone's thoughts.

What I think is a much bigger problem is "you are a bad person because you don't believe x", which is quite common American politics and is very counterproductive. There's a big difference between "I hate your beliefs" and "I hate you because of your beliefs".

Basically, I agree that confrontation is not useful, I just find it hard to believe that "you should" is enough to make reasonable people close off. At least in my experience, if you're having a polite conversation with an average person, these minor phrasing choices are not very important.

Finally, as a genuine question, are "who appointed you the gatekeeper" and "maybe you should interpret this as a call to introspect" not just as if not more confrontational than whatever was in my comment? I'm not making an accusation, I had no problem with your phrasing, I just want to understand exactly what you're talking about so I can communicate better.

I was being confrontational and not trying to be persuasive. My point wasn't to change your mind but to signal to other people reading the thread that your post had some issues. I could have been more delicate about it. I'm sometimes a bit of a hypocrite. C'est la vie.

This approach may work (I say "may" because most of the time it's not actually backed up by hard evidence free of confounding variables), but it's also lazy; there are vastly more accurate predictors of a priori success rate than race or gender. It's especially lazy for organizations that have access to those more accurate predictors, like universities, to use race and gender instead.

More accurate predictors include parental education, family wealth, social connections, etc. Mostly what people would describe as social class.

You don't have to pick just one though, right? Gender clearly has an effect even if it's less predictive than other factors, so why not try to account for every factor you know of?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com