Hacker News Reader

Comment by PrimalDual | Hacker News Reader

So there are somethings I don’t quite understand about the pro-diversity argument. My understanding of the claim is that companies should want to have a diverse workforce because people of different backgrounds are fundamentally different. Different to the point that without inclusion of all their viewpoints you will fail to optimally solve some problems. It makes sense that if you don’t have enough women in tech your company, may fail to notice opportunities that cater specifically to women. Still, if women, men and people of different ethnicities and races all have such fundamentally different backgrounds, why would you expect them all to choose the same fields in the same proportion? Furthermore, is proportional representation necessary to achieve optimal gains from having diverse viewpoints?

View on HN

I disagree with your post, and a lot of other commenters on here, as to the primary reason for the pro-diversity argument.

The reason promoting diversity (e.g. in tech) is good is because there is a shortage of qualified people. If we have certain populations that could work in the field, but don't, for whatever reason, then we want to find those causes and stop them. And if those causes are historical (e.g. past discrimination), we might even go so far as to take that into account.

E.g. take affirmative action for African Americans (in America). Yes, it's partially there to have equal opportunity. But (perhaps more) importantly, we know that because of past diversity, most African Americans have a harder time in education growing up. This probably shows up as people have e.g. lower scores on tests. But what we should be thinking is: "If they got slightly lower scores, but we know that it was harder for them, then imagine what they could do if we help them out with better education!".

One could argue (and other commenters do so) that we should care more about the moral "everyone should have equal opportunities" argument. I agree, but I much prefer to show why diversity tends to be a win-win, not a "you lose so we can win" situation.

> The reason promoting diversity (e.g. in tech) is good is because there is a shortage of qualified people.

Are you implying that for some reason we don't hire qualified women if there are no men to fill in the roles? Would love to see your sources.

> If we have certain populations that could work in the field

Why not look to see how can we get more white men to work in the field?

> , but don't, for whatever reason, then we want to find those causes and stop them.

What if it's cheaper to just get more men instead?

> Yes, it's partially there to have equal opportunity.

It's not equal opportunity, white people won't get it.

> But (perhaps more) importantly, we know that because of past diversity, most African Americans have a harder time in education growing up.

I've heard it's because of socialism, can you prove that that's not the case?

> This probably shows up as people have e.g. lower scores on tests.

Me having a lower score on a test, doesn't mean that it's because I was historically oppressed.

> imagine what they could do if we help them out with better education!

Imagine if education would be just be better in general for all, I wouldn't leave out the uneducated white men.

> I agree, but I much prefer to show why diversity tends to be a win-win, not a "you lose so we can win" situation.

I have yet to see any solid evidence why having a majority white male tech population is a bad thing(and I'm not even going to get into the are Asians white or not argument).

Overall my issue with your point of view is that I have yet to see any proof for anything that it's based on. Most people with your point of view will point to some statistics that are convenient to them (earnings of all women vs. men) and ignore inconvenient ones(male vs. female mortality rate) and interpret it the way they want it (we less women in tech, must be because of sexism).

You might not expect the gender and ethnic background proportions to 100% reflect society (I won't get into that) but even if that's the case Software Engineering is far more skewed than most comparable industries (science academia, other engineering fields etc) suggesting that we've not hit natural diversity levels yet.

> suggesting that we've not hit natural diversity levels yet.

What is the natural level and how did you find it?

I'm not suggesting there is one, I'm deliberately not taking a view on that. What I am saying is that if one does exist, as some commenters are saying, we're likely still not there yet as many other similar industries have far higher levels of diversity.

I'm not a huge fan of the utilitarian argument for diversity because it suggests the primary motivation should be the benefit to the employer and that the underrepresented group needs to provide EXTRA value over their over-represented peers to make it worth including them. To use your example, that women are only worth hiring if they can find opportunities their male counterparts can't. They don't just have to be equal, they have to be better.

I think a better argument for diversity is that people who are underrepresented in a job deserve the same opportunities as everyone else, not because they bring wise insights not otherwise attainable.

What disturbs me about that argument is the implied "consensus builds better products" axiom. And yet, over 15 years in software I've seen time and time and time again:

1) every last big company fires people until everyone "believes" this to be true, because not doing so would incite rebellion internally. Are you not a team player ?

It is also what every product manager always goes for, mostly because it allows them to deflect responsibility for the inevitably mediocre (at best) product that comes out of it. Usually, they also succeed in angering "small" subgroups of users while doing this at an absolutely enormous cost in bad PR.

2) it is most definitely not true at all. A vision by a single mind that really works at it (and is thus by necessity someone who is both technical, knows the code AND uses the software AND talks to the users) will blast any consensus product out of the water.

The thing is, small failures by a single person's vision will have an outsize impact on their career. Total failure in a consensus product is not just not punished, it is actually rewarded : Aside from the obvious "you don't need maintenance for a failure" there is the fact that there aren't any users to actually criticize the failure. Therefore the internal feedback for participants is going to be about how they "successfully" organized a large effort by a large group and fought heroically to keep it going. Promote this failure NOW !

The argument is two-pronged (probably more, but let's restrict it to two): firstly, yes, that diversity can improve gains, but secondly that the current skewed proportions were created by both active and passive discrimination which, to some extent, still exists today (though mainly in the passive form). Considering it from a purely utilitarian perspective doesn't quite do the issue enough justice.

It's essentially a moral argument: women and minorities deserve equal treatment and opportunity, but due to stereotyping and social inertia (i.e. girls don't grow up seeing many women in technical fields, so they aren't compelled or don't even think to join them), they don't currently get it.

To answer the question:

> Still, if women, men and people of different ethnicities and races all have such fundamentally different backgrounds, why would you expect them all to choose the same fields in the same proportion?

I think we'd like to assume that everyone can essentially do whatever they want, but just choose not to, but we simply can't because we've never had an equal starting position to begin with.

I think it's similar to the reason we have public education. It's a recognition of everyone having equal potential but that most people will not realize their potential because of cultural expectations creating self fulfilling prophecies or moats being dug with wealth.

The argument for diversity is that by not actively working for diversity, we will reflexively hire people like ourselves, which for the most part are white males. In addition, we are talking about groups which have been historically discriminated against. Affirmative action is about fairness (of opportunity), more so than goodness (for the company).

I think that's a solid argument, but shouldn't the goal be to hire based on merit, not "hire people like ourselves" or "try to avoid hiring people like ourselves by erring towards hiring people not like ourselves"? I think blinding as much as possible in the interview process is fairer and, in the long run, simpler for everyone involved.

Blinding your hiring process may actually make things more lopsided sometimes; i.e., technical screenings without seeing identity. You may find even less minorities hired.

Isn't technical screenings without seeing identity helping to remove bias and discrimination, which is our goal in the first place? I don't think I understand your comment.

Yes, the goal is to hire on merit. By only hiring people who look like us we're both hiring people who lack merit purely because they're white men, and failing to hire people who have merit purely because they're not white men.

The "but we want to hire on merit" argument is clearly fucking bullshit if you've ever had any involvement in recruitment and seen how flawed it is.

I never said people who want to hire on merit necessarily achieve their goals, just that we should actually remember the original goal and try to achieve it.

It's much harder for white men to preferentially hire white men if as much of the interview process as possible is blinded.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com