If there are no personal issues then your comment, honestly, comes across as a bit racist.
If there are no personal issues then your comment, honestly, comes across as a bit racist.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
We don't know nearly enough about each other from an online text forum to be able to make personal statements, so making them is presumptuous. If there's a substantive point beyond that, it should be easy to express in an impersonal way, and if there isn't, not posting anything is a better option.
If you read the comments at https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... you'll see a history of explanations about this.
Here on an internet forum, we have almost no information about each other. The risk of such comments doing more harm than good is much higher, partly because the potential for misunderstanding is so high, and also because people have often used this language in snarky ways, for personal attacks, and so on.
That doesn't mean you can't reach out to someone you're genuinely concerned for, but the burden in that case is on you to disambiguate your intention from anything presumptuous or malicious, and that requires a different communication style—much less generic and casual.
I recognize my own experience is more on the extreme end, but SWE and related interviews could be more mindful of different life experiences in general.
It's ignorant to not realize that all of these things are mental. Duh, therapy helps. Trust me, every single person of color who works in tech and sees a therapist talks through all this stuff with their practitioner.
Everyone on HN deserves that, but considering how even-keeled and respectful sbilstein's posts have been in this thread, on so sensitive a topic, I'd suggest 10x.
I'm saying that any internalized biases, anxieties, etc are deeply personal whether you are of an in group or an out group. It's totally a mental thing for me to get psyched out in an interview so of course therapy helps.
It's deeply personal but it's also something I know anecdotally is common amongst my peers of similar background. I'm pointing it out as one of the ways an interview can be unintentionally biased.
Here's from Michael Inzlicht, one of the people who started stereotype threat research in the first place:
> I edited an entire book on stereotype threat, I have signed my name to an amicus brief to the Supreme Court of the United States citing stereotype threat, yet now I am not as certain as I once was about the robustness of the effect. I feel like a traitor for having just written that; like, I’ve disrespected my parents, a no no according to Commandment number 5. But, a meta-analysis published just last year suggests that stereotype threat, at least for some populations and under some conditions, might not be so robust after all. P-curving some of the original papers is also not comforting. Now, stereotype threat is a politically charged topic and I really really want it to be real. I think a lot more pain-staking work needs to be done before I stop believing (and rumor has it that another RRR of stereotype threat is in the works), but I would be lying if I said that doubts have not crept in. ...
http://michaelinzlicht.com/getting-better/2016/2/29/reckonin...
It only got worse since 2016.