[grx]

Hot topic, but your comment has some good points I'll try to add my experience to.

> I'm for removing barriers to anyone being able to be interested, educated, and encouraged to do the things they want to do. And we should work to make it easier for people to be identified as having skills and talent in whatever field they choose.

From my POV, as a white male, this relates to a misconception of what many "diversity" programs actually aim for: pushing underprivileged and disadvantaged people into positions from where they have better chances to even come in contact with their true interests and talents. The same goes for role modelling, which is not to be underestimated in the context of "do the things they want to do". If you are black or female, but 90% of an "industry" (whatever that is, just take a group of people representing the part of society which does $thing) is white and male, could you see yourself in this industry? I know this is an extremely controversial question, especially in discussions between white males. 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".

> Every field and industry and job will reflect the demographics of who is interested in doing that job, the pipeline of people who seek to become educated and qualified for it, and the proportions of who succeeds at showing their skills.

I would not follow this as straight as you have. The demographics in tech (and other fields, of course) could also show that once a majority is settled (here: white male), they tend to attract and recruit people who are like-minded and similar to themselves.

Example US: "Among chief executives of S.&P. 1500 firms, for each woman, there are four men named John, Robert, William or James", https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/upshot/fewer-women-run-bi...

Example DE: "The surnames Thomas and Andreas make up a share of 7%, more than the total shares of women", https://www.manager-magazin.de/politik/artikel/weniger-fraue...

----

I know what you mean, and for a long time I was in the same boat, looking for barriers like money and availability of time that might block minorities from entering higher education and the higher workforce. But the problems are of structural nature and they can only be solved by acknowledging that the main barriers are not forms, interest and intelligence, but identification, perspective and connections.

[kepler1]

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?

[grx]

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".

[luckylion]

> 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.

[grx]

> 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?

[luckylion]

> 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.

[grx]

> 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.

[wdroz]

> 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?

[grx]

> 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?

[manigandham]

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

[grx]

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

[goatinaboat]

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.

[grx]

> 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?

[goatinaboat]

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.

[grx]

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!

[flak48]

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?

[grx]

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?

[flak48]

> 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).