undefined | Better HN

0 pointsap2221310y ago0 comments

I got somewhat distracted by your use of words (e.g. pundit class) which seem to be meant to be purely inflammatory (not sure if you meant to be - but it is).

But, let's say I follow your logic on its own. Should I just believe that there's no systematic discrimination? How could I be confident that there's not any?

And, as a parent of a bright and mathematically-inclined daughter, should I discourage her from a field in technology because she likely has some otherwise hidden trait that will make her less useful or successful? How do I even know what that trait is? Is there a test for it?

0 comments

rewqfdsa10y ago

You're right that "pundit class" is too inflammatory. I've edited my comment.

> Should I believe that there's no systematic discrimination? How would I be confident that there's not any?

Nobody can prove the absence of systemic discrimination. You also can't prove the absence of lizard people. The burden of proof rests on those making the positive claim. Look at how the technology industry tries very hard to attract women. Look at the outreach programs, the hackathons, and the scholarships from dozens of foundations and open source projects. Look at the mentorship programs available for women. That's some evidence _against_ systemic bias.

Now look at evidence _for_ systemic bias _other_ than the gender disparity itself. We're left with, what, rugs about meritocracy and a few off-color comments about dongles in a private conversation between two friends at a conference?

I just don't think the non-gender-disparity evidence is strong enough to support a claim of bias.

> should I discourage her from a field in technology because she likely has some otherwise hidden trait that will make her less useful or successful?

You should introduce her to many fields and let her decide which one interests her most.

ap22213OP10y ago

Still not following. Believe me, I'm really trying, but something seems off. Maybe an analogy would help.

We have two populations A and B. A has walked slower than B. One individual, a1, says 'hey I suspect B (who controls the food) is withholding vitamin X'. Evidence is uncovered showing this to be true. A is given vitamin X, and A begins to walk faster.

However a subset of A still doesn't walk as fast. Again, an investigation is done, and it's shown that B has also been withholding vitamin Y. After vitamin Y is given, that subset of A also begins to walk faster.

Then, a smaller subset of that subset shows initial gains in walking speed, but recently their speed has dropped off significantly. So, A is given even more vitamin X and Y. But, that doesn't help. So, instead of suspecting that B is withholding vitamin Z, we should take them on their word that recently the terrain has changed so that B just naturally walks faster than A?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse