Hacker News Reader

I disagree with your being downvoted. But I also disagree with your points.

Because "role models" and "acknowledging barriers... identification, perspective, and connections" are codewords and a shield (and highly subjective and limitless ones at that) for making others adopt inappropriate solutions to a much earlier problem. Maybe not you personally, but that's where it inevitably leads.

It leads to people wanting to take the easiest path and just change the outcome by force at the last step. Rather than making the harder, longer lasting (and responsible) change to the pipeline and environment that produces people interested in whatever jobs or careers we're talking about.

I don't have a white male name. And yet I don't find your quoted stats surprising or offensive (or outrage-worthy), given the proportions of who have made up the pipeline of people skilled and interested in working at those levels of employment in the decades up to now.

It's up to [whatever demographic group you happen to feel like it's appropriate to segment people into] to train their kids, encourage them to pursue fields of interest, and the rest of society to make sure that barriers don't exist to their advancement.

It's not for you to decide on your own to adjust the percentage of some group until you're satisfied, and perhaps someday decide, because you saw enough inspirational "role model" stories, that we've achieved enough.

As an intellectual honesty check, I ask you to answer the question Justice O'Connor asked when she was deciding the last case about this. "When does it end?" All your steps and corrections to the rules and outcomes -- when does it end? Or did you already lose interest after putting in some temporary band-aid rules and assuming it fixed everything? And just for the group you were interested in? Or everyone?

Thank you for your reply! To my surprise, you say you disagree but are very close to what I wrote before.

> for making people adopt inappropriate solutions to a much earlier problem

I don't see where we are disagreeing here, because..

> Rather than making the harder, longer lasting (and responsible) change to the pipeline and environment that produces kids interested in whatever jobs or careers we're talking about.

is exactly what my post was about. The point of entry, which must be discussed is NOT "how to enter CS and produce more female engineers" but "how can I get kids from underprivileged families to even consider taking their chance in CS".

> It leads to people wanting to take the easiest path and just change the outcome by force at the last step.

Sorry if this argument could be taken from my previous post. This is of course in no way what I'm rooting for. On the contrary: do you know what I don't like in the current system? That only privileged people have a the chance to "inherit" a freedom of experimentation where they can try themselves without the risk to e.g. go into debt. This privilege should be granted to every one at a young age and then we are where you - we both - would like to see children and teenagers. We are on exactly the same page here: the problem that kids face today are unfair chances in finding their talents and getting on board of the respective educational and professional tracks.

What they do with it is their thing to solve. I'm not arguing about anything related to "equality of outcome", whatever that is. Sounds like the attempt to produce a 50/50 graduation ratio, which in no way helps anybody.

> And yet I don't find your quoted stats surprising or offensive

They were not meant to be, it's just a good statistical observation to see that there are inter-generational patterns.

> It's up to [...] to train their kids, encourage them to pursue fields of interest, and the rest of society to make sure that barriers don't exist to their advancement

My point as well! And what my addition to this is that not every parent has the possibilities to do so. And these kids must be supported through programs and given what their parents could not give them: perspective. Example from Germany: there is a group called "Arbeiterkind" which support children from "Arbeiterfamilien" (worker families) to be the first generation of their family to enter university and finish their studies. From what I learned is that most of these kids would never consider trying higher education, because the environment in which they are raised discourages them to delay earning a living (by going to university for 3-5 years). They need someone to teach them about their better chances and possibilities of financial support (BAföG, student loans).

In this context TheOtherHobbes' post is very related.

---

> It's not for you to decide on your own to adjust the percentage of some group until you're satisfied, and perhaps someday decide, because you saw enough inspirational "role model" stories, that we've achieved enough.

That's why I hate discussing this topic on US-heavy tech sites. Where did I say any of this?

---

To add to your edit:

> "When does it end?" All your steps and corrections to the rules and outcomes -- when does it end?

I don't know. As a white male from Germany, I have no idea how much changes underprivileged groups need. That is where I'm advocating listening to them. My experiences lead me to the conclusion that encouraging and empowering children and teens in experimenting with their interests is what might lead to the best "results".

> As a white male from Germany, I have no idea how much changes underprivileged groups need. That is where I'm advocating listening to them.

If you ask people to a) declare whether they are underprivileged and then b) declare how many advantages they need to become equal, you're really just incentivizing everyone to loudly claim that they have it the absolute worst and need the most help.

And then you'll need somebody to decide whose complaints are true and whose are fake, aka you'll need somebody to feel truth and rule accordingly.

> you're really just incentivizing everyone to loudly claim that they have it the absolute worst and need the most help

I understand where you are coming from. What this argument highlights is that there are black sheep everywhere. Should this be the reason to toss support for the rest out of the window? In fact your argument can be applied to every social program, and it is. And to the surprise of every one, it is mostly brought up by privileged people (politicians, lobbyists, employers) who e.g. like to cut social spending.

> And then you'll need somebody to decide whose complaints are true and whose are fake, aka you'll need somebody to feel truth and rule accordingly.

Does this not already exist in other parts of social security programs? Or taking loans? What is the difference, what is new?

> What this argument highlights is that there are black sheep everywhere.

No, the point is that you turn everyone into a black sheep. If you make taxes factually optional by simplifying the form to "do you have income tax to pay, if so, how much?" with no checks and control, you're creating an incentive to lie, and people will lie.

The same happens when you put "subjective feeling of how much money you deserve" on the list of criteria of how much money to pay that person.

> Does this not already exist in other parts of social security programs? Or taking loans? What is the difference, what is new?

It does not. Means tested social security programs are individual. You make less than X, you're eligible for rent support. Grievance studies are not, it's "you're gender x, ethnicity y or subculture z, you get extra bonuses, don't need to reach the same scores for qualifications etc". It's not individual, it's based on some arbitrary group identity.

What you throw out of the window with that line of thinking is the fundamental possibility that innate interests (for gender) and culture (for some minority groups) have anything to do with success. The idea that you just need to pretend that somebody is X to make them value X and put an emphasis on X for their children is completely backwards.

> No, the point is that you turn everyone into a black sheep

What do you mean? I wrote "there are black sheep everywhere" as in "yes, it happens that there will be people who will try to exploit the system". That does not justify not striving to support those who would benefit from it, which most probably are the bigger group.

> If you make taxes factually optional by simplifying the form [...] people will lie.

As the people who understand how to game the system already do?

> how much money to pay that person.

Money is not the only thing people can be provided with. Supporting children from underprivileged groups can also mean supporting single mothers with child care, providing more accessible health care or providing mentors and tutoring.

> Means tested social security programs are individual. You make less than X, you're eligible for rent support

> It's not individual, it's based on some arbitrary group identity

You contradict yourself here. Your first example based on income is also grouping of individuals, exactly what you criticize in the second part. To add to your point: one could even say that the income base lines for eligibility in social programs can be seen as arbitrary as well. Do you think the Mindestlohn is based on an objective, most fair judgement of what people need? It's already an absurd system when you just look at the regional differences of cost of living throughout Germany.

Ignore the trigger words ("gender x, ethnicity y or subculture z") and you'll see that we don't diverge much. The point I'm trying to make is not to find out, how $skincolor_x can be pushed to represent a greater share of graduates. It is to find out how we can lift everyone to have the same chances at the beginning, taking structural and unconscious factors into account.

Incentives. When you give people an instrument to achieve success by making claims, they will make claims to become successful. When you make that official policy, you will create lots of "black sheep" (that is: people abusing the system) because abusing that system will be easy ("claim to be underprivileged") and profitable ("get more money, work less").

> Your first example based on income is also grouping of individuals, exactly what you criticize in the second part.

No, not on some kind of identity. There is no "makes less than X" group, anyone can be a part of that group and anyone in that group can stop being a part of it. That's not true for gender, ethnicity, political convictions etc.

> It is to find out how we can lift everyone to have the same chances at the beginning, taking structural and unconscious factors into account.

Take everyone's children away from their parents, make the state raise them. If you want to exclude the parents' culture and values and the peer group of children from having influence on their future, that's the way. It's not a particularly nice thing, and I doubt that many people want it though.

> One could even say that the income base lines for eligibility in social programs can be seen as arbitrary as well.

Absolutely, they are. But they are the same for all, gender and ethnicity don't play a role. The SJW-alternative is having different laws for different people "to right a historic wrong". Which is pretty much incompatible with anything that wants to call itself democracy.

Thanks for the quick reply! I'm really in the same boat as you, as I do not want to create a system where an "identity police" can create eligibility by the length of noses.

> When you make that official policy [...] abusing that system will be easy

Are you not seeing that this exists already? There are people claiming to be unemployed, receiving unemployment money, and work without registering their income. That's where I wish people would differentiate more. These problems you listed already exist and must be solved either way! But should we therefore not make attempts to get more talented people into the right careers?

> Take everyone's children away from their parents [...] exclude the parents' culture and values and the peer group of children from having influence on their future, that's the way

Why? Why eliminate their environment, instead of - as I proposed - enriching it by providing additional access to opportunities?

> But they are the same for all

They are not, that's the point! Only because you can measure income does not make this barrier objective. It was set by humans, who were biased in their decision (hence why the committee which negotiates the Mindestlohn is composed of multiple interest groups). Again, I am not advocating that using lengths of noses is comparable, but stating that "gender and ethnicity don't play a role" is plain wrong. They do not play a role at the time you ask for it, yes, absolutely. But they do play a role in the negotiation phase and in the overall structure of social programs.

You're right, abuse always exists, and I doubt that we'll ever get rid of it completely. It's important not to create additional incentive for abuse. I don't believe it's a giant number that is abusing the current system, though I do believe it's too many, because people in general don't like abuse and the abuse damages support for the system. However, if we added incentive and made the abuse easier, we'd create more abuse.

That's the plan for accelerationists: increase abuse until the population withdraws support for the abused system, or the system crashes by itself.

> Why? Why eliminate their environment, instead of - as I proposed - enriching it by providing additional access to opportunities?

Do you suggest the same additional access for everyone? Otherwise you're assuming that there's an invisible hand holding somebody down and doing so without merit. What if that invisible hand is their parent not making them go to school? What if that invisible hand is their parents giving them all the opportunities they could wish for and the majority of the group then deciding to go into certain jobs and not others because they are truly free to decide since they lack the economic pressure? That seems to be the reason why you see much more "traditional" gender roles in choosing careers in Scandinavian Countries than in e.g. India. Economic pressure is relieved, people do what they want. Why would we want to interfere with them doing what they want?

> Only because you can measure income does not make this barrier objective.

The point is that they are the same for all identities. It does not matter whether you're a woman, a man, transsexual/transgender, whether your ancestors fought the Roman invasion in a German forest, stayed in Bavaria after Napoleon's wars, or recently immigrated from Turkey.

> But they do play a role in the negotiation phase and in the overall structure of social programs.

No, they don't. You will of course see different groups vary in success in modern societies, and therefore make use of social programs at different rates. But eligibility for said programs does generally not depend on ethnicity or gender. It's specifically outlawed to make them so, with the exception of women, which I believe was very much valid in 1950 but is anachronistic in 2020.

> But from what I learned from underrepresented people during the years is that role models and identification plays a HUGE part in "making a free choice".

How about teaching kids to pick role models regardless of their gender or color?

> How about teaching kids to pick role models regardless of their gender or color?

How would you do that? What is a role model in your opinion? Can you teach children to ignore their sex and color? Can you teach children to ignore external influences like media and advertisements? And what about parents? Can they be taught to shield their children from their own biases?

How would you do that? What is a role model in your opinion? Can you teach children to ignore their sex and color? Can you teach children to ignore external influences like media and advertisements?

By your definition, isn't the main characteristic of a role model, that they didn't need a role model of matching genitalia and skin pigmentation and dietary preference themselves? Otherwise how could anyone be the first?

So yeah, choosing a role model without regard to those things is perfectly possible, and not long ago was considered completely normal.

> By your definition, isn't the main characteristic of a role model, that they didn't need a role model of matching genitalia and skin pigmentation and dietary preference themselves?

No, for me a role model is someone that I can relate to, leading me to imagine myself being in their position in some time in the future.

Do you mean that "role model" stands for a person who "has made it"? Then we differ here.

> Otherwise how could anyone be the first?

You have hit the nail on the head. That is the exact problem: what needs to be done to empower people to be "the first of their kind"?

> So yeah, choosing a role model without regard to those things is perfectly possible, and not long ago was considered completely normal.

This made me curious: did you have a role model yourself? Where do you take "not long ago was considered completely normal" from?

This made me curious: did you have a role model yourself?

I'm BAME and Welsh and my role model was Scotty, who was white and Scottish. I consider myself to be completely normal. A million white kids idolise black sportsmen and musicians. It's completely normal, or it was.

It's only in the last few years that it's been race, race, race. From my perspective things have taken a huge step backwards. Take it from me, this "role model" stuff is harmful to the very people who you claim to want to help.

---

Replying here as I am "posting too fast" (code for upsetting the moderators)

Yes, I believe that teaching people in general and children in particular that their skin pigmentation is their defining characteristic harms progress. I believe that teaching people that unless they have a matching role model they can't do something harms progress. I believe that hiring people to make up quotas harms progress. Things are worse now than they were 10 or 20 years ago in terms of race relations.

Thank you for sharing your experience! I see "race" as a problematic variable as well. That's why I like to talk about origin, as in "what did the parents do?", "do the kids have access to careers outside of what their family showed them?".

When you say "taken a huge step backwards", do you mean the discussion actively harms progress? Or that you do not support the way it is discussed?

---

adding to your edit:

> A million white kids idolise black sportsmen and musicians. It's completely normal, or it was.

If I see correctly, the choice of "identification variables" is what you primarily criticize (here: race). We don't differ here.

---

adding to your second edit..:

> Yes, I believe that teaching people in general..

I'll take this with me, thank you!

Pretty sure children naturally ignore sex and color. They have to be taught to care about them.

+1, and that is why the question "And what about parents?" might play an even bigger role than others.

How did other industries that were once historically male dominated overcome this 'identification problem' atleast in terms of gender if not race? (Professions like biologists, psychologists, forensic scientist, vet for example all of which are around 75%+ female today, except for biologist which is bit more even)

And why haven't we seen the same pattern in tech?

Good question, and since I am not a sociologist, I can only guess. One thing in advance, and as a reaction to the received downvotes: my usage of the word "identification" has nothing to do with "identity politics" that are raging in the US and elsewhere. In German, saying "to identify with someone" is more meant as "seeing myself becoming the person that I can identify with" or "I could see myself in this persons position". Like a 1:1 connection.

> How did other industries that were once historically male dominated overcome [...] in terms of gender if not race?

Based on what I wrote above, I have shortened the quote. And my guess would be the advancement of female integration into higher education, participation and choice of profession. Keep in mind that women were not allowed to vote until some time in the 20th century. With a lot of steps, women and daughters gained more empowerment. All in all, men and women have more aligned chances in today's workforce (details debatable), but the changes need to be done first. And they were not gently handed over by people (men) who were in advanced positions before.

> And why haven't we seen the same pattern in tech?

The tech industry is pretty young compared to the other fields of study you mentioned. I guess social changes will also ingest the tech industry, because they follow a progressive cycle that repeats every x years. Of course there might be more to it, if you take into account how many aspects of human life are affected by technology today (and how fast these changes arrived..).

What would your opinion be on that matter, answering your own questions?

> What would your opinion be on that matter, answering your own questions?

I'm honestly perplexed. Maybe I should study what those fields did, if they made any conscious efforts to address diversity mismatch (compared to demographics of the general population) . Or if some other barriers came down that allowed male dominance to reduce in these fields(in some cases to be replaced by female dominance).