[theuttick]

The one thing that he never explains is exactly what "diversity" he is looking for at Twitter. It seems that the only thing that matters to him is the color of the person's skin. In other words, an African-American MIT CS grad that grew up in Iowa is somehow going to come at problems differently than a white guy from the same town and school and with the same background. I wouldn't really call that diversity, that's just racism in that one man's view on a technical matter is somehow different because of his race.

What they should look to do is recruit people who got to programming or designing through paths other than MIT or Stanford. Hire the guy that was a painter and then started building website UIs when he saw how those skills transferred. Hire the guy that graduated from the small state school and spent all of his free time web programming. That - at least to me - is the kind of diversity that comes at problems from various angles.

The VP idea with names was stupid, but if I walked away from a job every time one guy had a stupid idea i'd be locked in a closet somewhere howling at the world's stupidity.

My 2 cents. I got to get back in my closet.

[ksenzee]

In point of fact, an African-American guy and a white guy from the same neighborhood and school will have had different experiences growing up. For example, the white guy probably never had the cops called on him for wandering down a dark street wearing a hoodie. He probably also got more job interviews, if his name sounds white and his friend's doesn't. These experiences will have shaped the two men differently.

That doesn't mean they'll give different answers to a question on how to traverse a linked list. But they'll give different answers on how to build a content moderation feature, how to prevent abuse, how to protect freedom of expression on the platform.

[mazerackham]

Huge upvote here. As much as we would like to forget about race in America, the fact is: Race Matters.

The way people look at you, talk to you (or ignore you), talk about you, extend invites, etc..that ALL changes with your race.

[yummyfajitas]

Yes - I'm treated very differently from most of my coworkers on account of race. I could give lots of mildly interesting examples - it certainly means my dating life is very different.

But how does it affect me on the job? I write quantitative software, and spend lots of time thinking about bayesian hierarchical models and multiple comparisons. You are suggesting I have some unique power. I'd really like to know how I can use this power.

[ksenzee]

If you're in the (to me, enviable) position of never building a user-facing feature in a piece of software -- if you purely get to think algorithms all day, and you never draw on any knowledge or experience you've gained outside a classroom or a book -- then who knows. Maybe it doesn't matter what life experiences you've had. I personally have never had a job like that. My interests, personality, experience, and wisdom gained outside of work have always made a difference to what I do.

[yummyfajitas]

I think about user facing features all the time. For example, should we display midpoint estimates, or just stick to credible intervals? Can we give an empirical conversion rate %, or will customers misunderstand and make a bad decision based on it?

But ok, lets say I'm a typical software engineer, building a CRUD app used by banks to set up a new customer with an HSA. What's my unique non-Indian perspective on that?

I can understand how there might be a useful purpose for token diversity on the UX teams for some consumer products. That's an exceedingly small part of the tech world.

[theuttick]

A very, very good answer. However, in this case the diversity the man at twitter should be looking for has everything to do with a person by person case and nothing to do with race.

[deskamess]

I do not understand the latter half of your 2nd paragraph as I do not see the parent was suggesting you have unique powers. It seemed to me he was just acknowledging that race plays a part in professional America.

As far as how it affects you on the job.... well, in the subject under discussion, they candidates are not even considered for the job because of their race. We have not got to the point where they are even 'on the job'. Per the article, when a diverse candidate was bought in, they performed well.

Perhaps I misread and misunderstood your response and my reply just builds on the confusion.

[yummyfajitas]

I'm replying to: "That doesn't mean they'll give different answers to a question on how to traverse a linked list. But they'll give different answers on how to build a content moderation feature, how to prevent abuse, how to protect freedom of expression on the platform."

The article and the comments here don't even begin to support the claim "candidates are not even considered for the job because of their race".

[Lawtonfogle]

>In point of fact, an African-American guy and a white guy from the same neighborhood and school will have had different experiences growing up.

The differences between their experiences is smaller than the differences between that black individual (sidenote: I was recently told by a black guy that African American is worse than black when used as an identifier) and someone of the same race who grew up in a significantly different socioeconomic class. If we want to increase diversity, the best would be to do so by class first, gender second, and race third.

[bduerst]

I agree, but socioeconomic class is already highly correlated with race (and sometimes gender), leading to race being used as a possible signal for class.

I think their point was that passive racial biases lead to class differences that can't be summed up in a hypothetical comparison.

[sokoloff]

How would socioeconomic class be highly correlated with gender?

Is there some strange biologic selection mechanism at play?

[bduerst]

Sometimes correlated with gender, such as the gender income gap. I don't know what you mean by biological selection.

[Lawtonfogle]

>Sometimes correlated with gender, such as the gender income gap.

You mean the one that has been shown to not exist?

[hguant]

RE your side note - in the preface to a study on ethnic politics in America, the authors of the study explain why they use the demographic terms they do. Latino, Asian-American, and black. Their data showed that there was a 1.1% difference of preference in Americans of African descent between being identified as black or African American. They also pointed out that black Americans have been discriminated based on their color, rather than their nationality throughout all of American history, and that's unique to blacks, and is the best identifier for that culture group/identity.

The study is in "Can We All Get Along", by McClain and Stewart. Really interesting book that does a good job of making you think.

[Nadya]

How is someone who was more likely to be harassed by LEO's going to have a different outlook on the engineering/programming of an internet-based social media service? Not buying it. Is it more diverse? Sure. Does it matter at all for the task they are performing? I don't see how it does.

>(sidenote: I was recently told by a black guy that African American is worse than black when used as an identifier)

For some - it's putting the `African` before the `American`. For others, it is putting `African` at all (not all blacks identify or hail from Africa). Ultimately, offense is taken and not given. You'll also find people who take offense at being called `black` over `African American`.

Either way - I don't think you need to justify your use of calling them `black`, at least in this context.

[Lawtonfogle]

>How is someone who was more likely to be harassed by LEO's going to have a different outlook on the engineering/programming of an internet-based social media service?

One potential example would be that someone who has unfairly been targeted by the police may have higher privacy concerns and also be more aware of possibilities for the government to abuse information and even violate rights; things that can happen with regards to social media profiles.

For a more concrete example, a gay individual who grew up somewhere where being gay was punished (either codified in law or where the law turns a blind eye to the discrimination) is likely to be far more concerned about systems that can leak sexual orientation, for example an eye tracker/pupil measurer that makes an attempt to determine who a subject finds attractive or not. The average heterosexual may understand that leaking this information could be embarrassing for some, but they may not be as aware it could be life threatening.

Yes, an aware individual not of that background could develop the same concerns after thinking long enough, but they will not have the same immediate concern about any system that interrupts a person's ability to 'pass'.

[Nadya]

I'd like to take the time to thank you for answering in good faith - rather than assuming I had asked in bad faith. So, thank you.

Unfortunately I'm not able, in good faith, to take a stand for or against your argument. Consider this conceding the argument, but not being entirely convinced (allow me to explain).

Initially, I would like to reject it. Because as a libertarian-leaning trans, I fall under both examples you cited. Concern over potential abuse of PII, government overreach, and sexual identity (the concern over gender identity is similar in that regards). But I also fall under the "white, male" label.

However, I do understand the argument that a more targeted individual may be more capable of identifying potential issues. I feel this is contextual and often results in too many "maybes", "potentials", and "possibilities" to be entirely convincing.

"They maybe might have the potential to maybe see a possibility for something that might have the potential to maybe have the possibility of being abused." is not something I find convincing. Though it is technically correct and I have to concede that.

[Lawtonfogle]

The key thing is that I'm on neither side of the debate. I see merits to both sides and look for a way to work out both. Also, I like to work on arguments for any side even if I don't agree with that side (I have sometimes devil advocated for positions just because no one else would touch them).

Personally, at the current time, I see too many problems with quotas for them to be useful. Namely is the perception problem, where people (including the one hired) will think that their race/gender/etc. had more to do with them getting hired than their skill, causing all sorts of problems. At the same time, I do see merit in fighting against known biases and issues that push out minorities.

I dislike both the over PC nature that leads to Donglegate and the bro-culture that leads to common inappropriate comments and behavior.

[dcole2929]

A good engineer isn't just sitting at a computer coding algorithms they are actively engaged in helping guide the direction of whatever product they are working on. For something like Twitter, I can see any number of ways in which having a diverse view point could make significant impact on the direction of product. Take for instance the existence of "Black Twitter". That is a very unique use of the platform and community that has arisen over the years. It encompasses everything from #BlackLivesMatter to awards show coverage. It drives a lot of the media coverage of the platform but if you aren't a part of that community, if you don't understand the slang, if you have never engaged in any of the conversations, if you don't know what things those users care about how can you make educated inferences on what features those users need, want and care about.

[theuttick]

Yes, white and black people will likely have different experiences growing up. Most white people that I know - including myself - were routinely attacked at school because of their race. Every white person that I know has had to look at a job interview and wonder if he didn't get called back because the job was only for certain people.

However, none of this would help the white person build a content moderation feature or prevent abuse or protect freedom of expression better than the black person.

May I ask specifically how a person's belief that their name was the cause of failing to get a job leads them to create a better content moderation feature?

[jarfil]

> But they'll give different answers on how to build a content moderation feature, how to prevent abuse, how to protect freedom of expression on the platform.

I don't think it's the tech department's job to define those.

[muuh-gnu]

> These experiences will have shaped the two men differently.

You are implying that those negative experiences are a product of racism and not of simple statistics.

Maybe, only maybe, people _dont have_ as many problems with white guys wandering down a dark street wearing a hoodie as they have with black guys wandering down a dark street wearing a hoodie, so they dont call the cops on the former and call the cops on the latter.

Youre implicitely ruling out the mere _possibility_ that there maybe, only maybe, _might_ be a problem with blacks, that isnt a problem with whites, asians, indians or hispanics.

[beat]

There's a basic fork in logic. Blacks are observably, measurably treated worse than whites by police and courts. There can only be two causes for this:

1. The system is unjust due to institutional racism. 2. Blacks are inherently more violent and criminal than whites.

You seem to be arguing the latter.

[bduerst]

Their entire argument is a cognitive dissonance with the facts.

Even with non-violent drug use, rates are similar across all races yet blacks are measurably discriminated against in searches, arrests, and sentencing.

[brbsix]

Rates for what? Rates for murder and violent crime are not similar across all races. They vary significantly. In order (from highest to lowest) they tend to be as follows: Black, Hispanic, White, Asian. Coincidentally (or not), IQ tends to follow the same pattern, from lowest to highest.

Just looking at murder, blacks accounted for 52.5% of homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008. Looking at offenders per 100,000, it is 34.4 for blacks versus 4.5 for whites. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

There have been many studies, not just from the arrest, sentencing, and imprisonment side. There are studies in which random people are polled and asked whether they have been victimized. It is not poverty alone. Homicide among impoverished whites is nowhere near the levels seen among blacks.

[bduerst]

>Rates for what?

Non-violent drug use - it's in the same sentence, come on.

Unlike drug use, violence is tied heavily to socioeconomic status and environment [1], which is only correlated with race, not caused by it [2]. You do know what cognitive dissonance is, right?

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449156/

[2] http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.74.8.8...

[mazerackham]

So Eric Gardner probably deserved to get choked out because he sold cigarettes illegally on a street? And Michael Brown was probably a thug, so deserved to die?

[tzs]

It's Eric Garner, not Eric Gardner.

There was not any really good reason to try to arrest Garner at the point they tried to restrain him. Chokeholds are banned by that police department, so when they did try to arrest him they went about it in the wrong fashion.

The Garner case raises lots of questions, including whether or not he would have been treated the same way had he been white.

Brown, on the other hand, was walking down the middle of the street with goods he just stole moments ago. Police had good reason to stop him. A white kid doing the same would have been stopped.

Brown attacked the officer and tried to take his gun. A white kid doing the same would have been shot. And a white kid who fled after being shot, then turned around and continued approaching rather than obeying an order to get down would get shot more, just like Brown was.

The forensic evidence combined with the eyewitness accounts provides a pretty clear picture that Brown got what pretty much anyone would get in those circumstances, regardless of their race.

Lumping Garner in with Brown is very disrespectful to Garner and his family.

[tptacek]

In fact, a white kid in Michigan was shot, in more sympathetic circumstances, months later in Michigan.

In both cases, there was misbehavior by the suspect and misconduct by the officer, but the more important unifying circumstance was the fact that officers on routine patrol in both cases were armed with lethal weapons, so that hand-to-hand conflict was almost guaranteed to escalate instantaneously to deadly force.

[muuh-gnu]

> And Michael Brown was probably a thug, so deserved to die?

He didnt "deserve" to die, but the fact that he violently robbed a store minutes before he died, maybe, _only maybe_, contributed to his violent death, dont you agree?

[MBCook]

Really? Less than 5% of staff are non-white and you're arguing he needs to explain what "diversity" is?

Come on. At under 5% basically ANYTHING ELSE is diversity.

Also, he does touch on this in the article. He says that Twitter relies heavily on a few schools for hiring so even if they get 'diverse' candidates from those schools they've still had a very similar experience compared to people from geographically diverse schools. That alone would add one form of diversity. He said he's seen this resulting in group think, and I can believe that.

But really? You want people to define diversity in this situation? That seems like a 'no true scotsman' setup to me.

[uxp100]

about 5% of staff are non-white, for a definition of white that includes hispanic and asian people.

[serge2k]

Cause not-black => white isn't a racist statement.

[bobcostas55]

44% are non-white. There's a table with the numbers right in the article.

[mazerackham]

Wow, trying to redefine racial diversity as racism.

Having a different skin color makes a HUGE impact on the way you experience life, especially in America. Holding all other things equal, that alone will give you a different outlook on life, and likely different ideas too.

[muuh-gnu]

> Wow, trying to redefine racial diversity as racism.

If a diversity quota decides about you gettnig a job or not getting a job, then it is indistinguishable from a race quota, i.e. racism.

[mazerackham]

literally never discussed the idea of a quota in this particular thread, so you're jumping to conclusions here.

[jbob2000]

Yes. This. My company makes a point to hire out-of-field engineers. I'm a self-taught developer with a philosophy degree. My coworker has a degree in astrophysics. We have a linguist, a theater major, some people with diplomas, and a "dropout". Shooting for Diversity with a capital D is misguided.

[MBCook]

At one point the author talks about the issue that the majority of Twitter hires come from just a handful of schools.

I assume he (or she, don't remember the name) is looking for any kind of diversity, although their experience (and the chart posted) clearly talk about ethnic diversity, which may be what they have the most direct experience with.

[gotchange]

> that's just racism in that one man's view on a technical matter is somehow different because of his race.

It's just ethocentrism or more specifically in his case Afro-centrism. Racism as a condemnation shouldn't be bandied about this lightly. The US media already devalued it and made it a joke by their excessive and irresponsible use of the term.