Slashdot Mirror
Programmer Privilege
An anonymous reader writes "Philip Guo, an Asst. Professor of Computer Science at the University of Rochester, has written a thoughtful article on his education in programming. Guo explains that he was no particular coding wizard while growing up, but when he jumped into a CS major when he went to college at MIT, he received all sorts of passive and active encouragement — simply because he 'looked the part.' He says, 'Instead of facing implicit bias or stereotype threat, I had the privilege of implicit endorsement. For instance, whenever I attended technical meetings, people would assume that I knew what I was doing (regardless of whether I did or not) and treat me accordingly. If I stared at someone in silence and nodded as they were talking, they would usually assume that I understood, not that I was clueless. Nobody ever talked down to me, and I always got the benefit of the doubt in technical settings.' Guo compares this to the struggles faced by other minority groups and women to succeed in a field that is often more skeptical of their abilities. 'I want those people to experience what I was privileged enough to have gotten in college and beyond – unimpeded opportunities to develop expertise in something that they find beautiful, practical, and fulfilling.'"
If you actually didn't know what you were doing and they tasked you to accomplish something?
Not very long.
Frankly, this is another story about nothing.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Well, you act as though you understand, look at them and nod intelligently. You act the part. Then people take you at the face value. Is that your complaint? What do you expect? Everyone to quiz everyone and test their knowledge and understanding? Do you realize how insulted you would have felt if someone asked you, "hey, do you understand what I am talking about? or you are just standing there nodding like a dimwitted sheriff from Mayberry?".
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
I've been guilty of this too.
When I meet a programmer who is a woman, an attractive woman, a much older person or a non-Caucasian & non-Asian man my automatic thought is "really?" despite my conscious mind knowing better.
Back in the dot com era I went to work with my hair pulled back in a pony tail and it had a similar effect as the author of the article described. Having it was like wearing a power suit in a law office.
Get rid of racial preferences in admissions and hiring and no one will question the ability of minority groups and women. We are logical (and smart) -- we can't simply turn our brains off and ignore the elephant in the room.
This is exactly the problem with technical fields these days. People who do not know what they are doing, but look the part, are in technical positions and making horrible decisions. They are easily able to fool their equally non-technical managers.
I'm not a greybeard by any means, but I was coding and finding bugs in TCP stacks and making web pages when the web was young back in the 90s, and because I don't have the right "look" (unattractive, not "chiseled" face), the right stature (under-aver height), the right clothing, etc., I am constantly fighting an uphill battle to be taken seriously.
I was hired full time as a "programmer" at a Fortune 100 company. My entire job involved a suite of approximately 50 ksh scripts. This alone is absurd, but I also had a coworker doing the same. However, he routinely intentionally didn't fix bugs so that he could make a big show of getting up in the middle of the night to manually run processes, and would get praise and rewards from the manager. I just made my stuff work and got no attention.
Maybe I'm the dope for not playing the game, but I can't make myself be mediocre on purpose. But that's usually what I end up having to do a lot of the time anyway. I've made my way in this world by being a contractor, which allows me to avoid the politics and bullshit to a large degree. I'm aware that my life would be a lot easier if I had a lot less ego.
Yes, this is sour grapes. Once upon a time I was respected for knowing what I was doing.
I am going to break the pattern here and not assume that Philip Guo knows what he is talking about and not at his arguments. These are feel-good assertions and anecdotes, where is the evidence?
I got my CS degree and by Biology degree and I can attest at times there were lectures or meetings where stuff was flying miles over my head, but that was true in both departments. The general assumption, I think, in any department is that once you get by the entry level, you're assumed to know stuff, sometimes way beyond what you probably actually know. I think it is just human nature. You go into a group of people that you figure know a topic, you don't give them all background checks to ensure they do actually know the topic, you tend to assume it. The best you can do as someone bringing the topic up is ask if people are really following you and hope they are honest.
My experience was the exact opposite of Guo's experience—you might say, I got treated like a minority or a female.
So, what do you say now, Guo?
The reason you didn't have these problems, Guo, is because you—like many successful people, especially at places like MIT—are a natural confidence artist. Look! You said it yourself:
If I stared at someone in silence and nodded as they were talking, they would usually assume that I understood, not that I was clueless.
Your mistake in this whole issue is assuming that other people who are like you have the same experience, and that being "like you" means—for some reason—having both a penis and lighter skin. However, this is what it really means to be like you: Lying publicly about your private throughts—being a con man who works the con so hard that he finally becomes what he's pretending to be.
Hey Dan,
This weekend why don't you head on down to your closest 'hood' and try to get in on a decent level pickup basketball game. Please let me know how that turns out and if you feel that you were welcomed as an equal possessing equivalent skills
I would think being at MIT CS means +3SD minimum. Any CS department is likely to be mostly +1SD to +2SD students.
While I agree with your premise, you are foolish in dissing the sentences you quote.
We are not all scientists. Furthermore, we are not all hard science scientists. And there is meaning there. Why you gotta hate?
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
"Privilege" is a term used by those who feel they didn't earn what they have, that really offends those who have earned what they have. Sure, no one earned their IQ, and in that sense any direct benefits you get from IQ are a sort of privilege, but you really can't get very far on IQ alone, any more than you can on natural good looks or physical strength.
You have to actually go do something useful and productive with you gifts to be rewarded once you leave school (and you'll discover there's far more to a programming job than abstract problem-solving) - at which point, if you're contributing more than the next guy, it's only just that you get more in return.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
... people think he knows what he is talking about.
Will the never ending garbage ever cease? The truth is he might have not felt qualified, but he was admitted to the CS program at MIT, one of the few elite CS departments that really means you are at least +1SD above average IQ, and quite likely +2SD or +3SD.
The entire article is just naked assertion:
[M]icro-inequities often had serious cumulative, harmful effects, resulting in hostile work environments and continued minority discrimination in public and private workplaces and organizations. What makes micro-inequities particularly problematic is that they consist in micro-messages that are hard to recognize for victims, bystanders and perpetrators alike. When victims of micro-inequities do recognize the micro-messages it is exceedingly hard to explain to others why these small behaviors can be a huge problem.
This is garbage. We are scientists. Quantify, describe, theorize and prove. If you can't explain it, and you can't define it, and you can't trace it back, perhaps it's not real.
If someone came across my office for an interview talking about this vague non-specific garbage I would sent them over to copywriting or HR.
As the 6'3" black guy with should length dreadlocs and a beard, I would respectfully disagree. I'm sitting here in a comfortable network engineer position that I worked hard to get. I started as an intern, worked at help desk, then desktop support, then finally beat 10 other applicants after working at the same company for 6 years, with an additonal 8 years experience outside the company to be where I am today. I've applied for the position multiple times over the course of 6 years, and finally got it. I have a Computer Science degree and relevant certs, but it does not matter. I sit here and see other people *start* out of school with no certs with the position I worked hard to get and cherish. I have friends (mostly black, or women) who applied for the same position year after year and do not get it. Why? They "look" the part; eg: white or asian. It does exist, but unless you are on the other side of it, you will never know.
I call bullshit.
What are we going to start talking about mechanic's privilege because people think I can fix their car if I wear coverall and have grease on my hands?
I know a lot of fake it till you make its IRL
I'll nod and agree to that. You obviously know what you're talking about.
It's not difficult to look like a geek, if you really wanted to look like a geek.
The problem is that looking like a geek has enormous down-sides, such as getting beat up, and being rejected by the opposite sex.
Maybe "tiger moms" force their kids to dress like geeks so that they get treated like geeks?
Table-ized A.I.
Is the new staying at Holiday Inn Express.
Right here. There's plenty of 'em where I work. IT just ain't what it used to be 15 years ago. No need for ongoing quotas or diversity hires, just grab the best candidate, thank you.
It offends people who don't want to be challenged on their assumption that they're god's gift to the world, just like mommy said.
There are plenty of technologies that I am asked to work with every now and then that I haven't touched before. That doesn't mean I cannot simply go along with what is being said then do my research into the topic. That is what it sounds like he was doing, not just bullshitting.
Except that the amount of eye contact you use and the way you move your head differs by gender and culture. There's a related phenomenon of people being better able to asses the ability of people who are "like them".
You're also human. You aren't immune to bias. It's a genetic legacy we carry from when we didn't have the luxury of not fighting for survival every second of our existence.
Do you "Quantify, describe, theorize and prove" or your bias or lack of bias? No, you don't. And you probably don't for your peers. If you were somehow able to log your entire life and looked at it later through a sanitized, objective view of data you'd bee disgusted with yourself.
This guy is putting forth a theory that I think has a lot of merit. He's put in to words what I've been unable to. That statement you quoted is deeply profound and the fact that you take offense at it shows a lot about yourself more than anything else.
What he's really saying is that if he were a woman, the combined bias of his peers would discourage him instead of encourage. He says he's a bad coder, yet the bias of his community tells him he is.
I think he's trying to say that not everyone gets the benefit of the doubt. Sure, he was pretty much qualified, but a lot of people don't have the chance. He's not blaming anyone for his privilege, he's not saying he is wrong to have this privilege, he's saying it's wrong that so many other people don't.
This is a specific example of a more general phenomenon. Why do people where business suits? It is so they look the part. Why do kings hold an orb and scepter? ... so they look the part.
Why do I say 'I have some experience with that.' When what I really mean is 'I read a Slashdot post about that.'? It is so I sound the part.
There is nothing good about pretending you've understood something. One of my employees did that a while ago, and his work was late and inadequate.
If there is something you don't understand, it's better to just say it so that it can be explained again and progress can be made.
Possibly. But the point is that because he looked the part he was able to more effectively utilize his intelligence than someone who did not look the part.
If his appearence had been different then there would be obstacles to overcome that he did not have to face.
Never underestimate the power of looking like you're supposed to be there, doing that.
You have no idea how many "secure" facilities I've been given full access to, just because I dressed and talked like I knew exactly what I was doing.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Will the never ending garbage ever cease?
Um, by definition, I guess that's a no.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Enjoy that while it lasts. Soon enough, only AI's will be trusted to write good code. The age of the smelly, surly, bug-prone, human coder is coming to an end.
Though more commonly, it offends people who have their self image tied up in the idea that they fully earned what they have with no inherent advantages. Bring up the idea that some particular factor made things easier for them somehow invalidates everything else they have done in their minds.
To those of you saying that this is garbage, I'd like to briefly tell you about the technical interview my (highly competent) friend went on where she was asked if "she even drank beer".
I sometimes wonder if those of you who rail against these articles are the ones who ask those types of questions...
This sort of thing has actually made me miserable several times in my career. I don't necessarily 'look the part' of a programmer. It's very frustrating when dorky looking people who don't really know what they're talking about get promoted to the point where they're dictating the technical direction of what we're doing - when I could actually do it much better. It happens all the time. Lots of these people learn how to play the part and 'geek speak' instead of learning how to actually code or design functional software. The management - who generally don't understand technical subjects - are more easily impressed and convinced by such people. This is how and why we produce a lot of crap in America.
We are not all scientists. Furthermore, we are not all hard science scientists. And there is meaning there. Why you gotta hate?
The author of TFA does claim that label. And, in an way oddly apropos to his premise, we ascribe to him the style and clarity of thinking that goes along with that label.
Funny, I wonder if that would annoy him.
You have an automatic advantage in many technical fields in the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Western Europe and most of Eastern Europe and probably other places as a white male. In engineering fields people of East Asian descent are also afforded an advantage, because they are assumed to excel at math and by extension all technical fields.
That is why it is very important in the fields of computer science, programming, and software engineering (and where the three overlap) to assess people based upon as broad criteria as possible. White men are a tiny minority of the world's population, and even in the United States do not represent the majority of users of computer software.
I'm not advocating that we hire less talented individuals. What I'm saying is that we're not measuring talent correctly. I think most of you know that already when a recruiter asks you about specific skills in a certain computer language or maybe a specific database rather than focusing on your ability to design software, your ability to manage other programmers, and your ability to see an idea all the way through to completion. Beyond this, think about how software can benefit from different perspectives and ideas from different cultures and backgrounds. Software today comes from an awfully homogeneous pool and we all should know by now that the best software comes out of as many competing ideas as possible. And not necessarily one idea will win. Many times several (and a lot of times two) ideas are equally as good.
I think he's trying to say that not everyone gets the benefit of the doubt. Sure, he was pretty much qualified, but a lot of people don't have the chance. He's not blaming anyone for his privilege, he's not saying he is wrong to have this privilege, he's saying it's wrong that so many other people don't.
What privilege? Being able to fake knowing something isn't a privilege. It's just a silly parlor trick.
How many times have you been hired for your "skills" only to have the direction changed and you find yourself cramming for other tech from books you Fedex'd from Amazon (in the old days we went to Borders because they had an AWESOME tech section - immediately - NO extra overnight charges. (Yeah, and they served onion belts at their coffee bar...)) ?
Signs of ignorance in this very broad and expansive profession is a sign of stupidity. One MUST know EVERYTHING in CS or else you are labled as stupid or worse - unqualified.
You know, it's been 20 years since my degree, and I was asked to code Fibonacci numbers.
I couldn't even remember WTF they are because I spent my last 20 years soving REAL problems!
Of course I was cast aside for being unqulified and stupid.
Whatever.
All YOU people who say you can't get qualified people are the morons.
I try to always look pissed off -- on the verge of snapping -- and in a hurry. It makes it seem like I'm busy. In reality, I'm on my way back to my office so I can take another nap under my desk. I'm not sure what an MCSE is supposed to be doing, but apparently I manage to get it done. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go exercise some gaskets.
Have high schools learned not to heap shit all over students that show unusual aptitude with computers yet?
Heroes fix problems that everyone can see.
Ninjas fix things before anyone can see a problem.
I prefer the ninja approach myself (as you seem to) but it does require either an informed manager or a lot of PR work on your part.
And since we know that informed managers are few and far between ... looks like you'll have to be your own PR agency.
Totally agree dude, know what I'm sayin'?
Not sure where the con is when he's telling the truth now..
You sound grumpy and jealous. Sure you want to project that onto someone else?
Captcha: bogeymen
I would think being at MIT CS means +3SD minimum.
Seriously?? Have you met those guys? There are as many idiots there as anywhere. MIT CS means "plays with computers all day", not some inherent increase in IQ... you take some "average" person and force them to spend as much time in front of a computer, they'd be most of the way to being fine at MIT too.
It's also important to note that reverse discrimination can occur in the corporate world for 'techie' people who look the part. Being too technical can be a great reason for a unsupportive manager to prevent one from getting higher leadership roles :(
Just like wearing glasses:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=szuP0oBZX4g#t=200
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I find the opposite. It's the pampered well-to-do who most often sound off in Universities about "privilege" and its evils. And, hey, the concept probably applies to such.
Its the false logic of "some people gain success through an unearned advantage, therefore all success is unearned" that is quite offensive to those who worked hard and sacrificed significantly to get where they are.
We can recognize that some have an unearned advantage while also recognizing that success comes to others in a very deserved way.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
It signifies "From this point on this piece will consist of far-left victimhood identity politics grievance-mongering bullshit." It's an all-purpose "get-out-of-rational-debate free" card.
Anyone spouting it should be ignored.
here's the important message of the whole thing:
academia is typically a very alienating place...in college/undergrad I saw many people discouraged form EE who would have been very good at the actual work of an EE in the real world, but couldn't/would not get past the insane 'weeding out' classes.
in my experience (I changed my major before I started classes but I attended a class just to see what it was like) these were classes all Engineers must take, usually taught by a prof that looked well qualified on paper but was horrible.
The only way to pass the class was to either a) know the material already or b) study all night with other Engineering students in the class
There really wasn't an option to 'have a life'...some tried but one or the other would win out. In order to get an EE degree you simply MUST become a dork. or at least 'dork' in the colloquial sense of looking neutral/unstylish at best, poor social skills, lacking manual skills, etc etc...which would inevitably remain under developed due to a lack of formative experiences, time spent instead in dark rooms eating breadsticks looking at computer screens. Yes alot of good work has gotten done this way, but that doesn't mean you use it as a way to 'weed out' students from the industry!
It was possible, but you had to fight against the grain all the time, and few did it.
Thank you Dave Raggett
The article was adapted from a longer blog post. In the adaptation, they linked to Psychology Today (ugh) to discuss "micro-inequities" as the initial term for phenomena that were later covered under the term unconscious bias or implicit bias. Having it doesn't make you racist or sexist; it's as human as risk aversion and loss aversion, both well studied. But like risk aversion or loss aversion, implicit bias can dissuade humans from making an optimal, economically rational decision. It takes self-awareness and practice to overcome these tendencies (and then only sometimes).
These have been studied for decades in psychology, social psychology, and sociology. Do you really expect a full lit review in an article in the popular press, adapted from a blog post by an academic who is speaking from personal experience about topics not in his core field?
We are humans. With quirky, bug-prone wetware.
The first job I ever applied for the two other candidates were a black guy and a woman.
I'm a white man.
Who got the job?
Am I dumb enough to imagine that I was clearly the best candidate?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Sure, in principle that's cool, but the idea of "inherent advantages" so oversimplifies people that it is itself an offensive stereotype IMO.
Almost everyone has a mix of some above-average qualities and some below-average qualities. Realizing that success lies in doing what you're good at, instead of what you enjoy, is the first of many sacrifices needed for earned success. If you happen to love what you happen to be good at, hey, nice for you: people should feel good about that sort of thing. Long term, I think most of us come around to enjoying what we're good at, eventually, in any case.
But saying that someone's success is unearned because of some "inherent advantages" is a very overused idea because of this. Take up a line of work where one's normal distribution of (dis)advantages gives a net benefit is normal, not privilege. And there are very few lines of work where you can get by merely on one thing that you were born with (like IQ, or very high natural testosterone levels, or whatever) without also needing a bunch of other qualities, which often are below normal.
Sure, there people with a very rare collection of "happened to be good at"s that all line up to give them a real advantage, but then by definition that's a very small pool of people, and not a useful stereotype.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I want those people to experience what I was privileged enough to have gotten in college and beyond
yes, and i want the same opportunities a hot blonde (or her male equivalent) receives in life ... but i won't get it\
If I stared at someone in silence and nodded as they were talking, they would usually assume that I understood
and that's a good thing?
Thank God someone has finally let me know that all the years of hard work, study, and practice that I did had nothing to do with my position. It was all a result of me looking like a nerd! Oh man, I feel so silly now, all that hard work when I could have landed the same job just by looking nerdy! Such privilege. Like, you know, the privilege of going through hell in my earlier years because I was socially awkward and had hobbies nobody could relate to. Man, I was such a privileged fuck. I think I'm going to go out and apologize right now to everyone that I caused to go through the awful, horribly painful experience that bullying me must have been for them.
Fuck you, Soulskill. Fuck you for greenlighting this kind of shit all the time. I am where I am because I worked my goddamn ass off, not because I was born into the wonderful "privilege" of being socially inept for half of my goddamn life, and even if that was why I am where I am, I sure as hell didn't ask for it. I didn't ask for a childhood where I was bullied and treated like human shit. I hate you so fucking much right now that words cannot begin to express it, and I hate every single person pushing this whole "nerd privilege" shit like it's some glorious thing that we were born into. The fact that I don't have all of the same problems as whoever happens to be pushing this agenda does not mean that I live a life of luxury as a result of my genetics or the status of my parents, and I'm sick of people suggesting otherwise. Now, fuck off.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Can't relate to what you've experienced but as a tall white guy I have found that if I project an air of confidence people are more than willing to heap responsibility on me regardless of experience or credentials. I don't think the article is off the mark.
love is just extroverted narcissism
That's pretty much what it means. Agree, but not really. Or I sort of agree with you with stipulations. Or you are a stupid person that I can't/won't say I disagree with, even though you are completely wrong.
It is the non-committal, as apposed to the affirmative or negative. We have the shoulder shrug which itself is NOT universal, but it's not a 1-1 to the bobble.
... people would assume that I knew what I was doing (regardless of whether I did or not) and treat me accordingly. If I stared at someone in silence and nodded as they were talking, they would usually assume that I understood, not that I was clueless. Nobody ever talked down to me, and I always got the benefit of the doubt in technical settings.'
So if he did nothing but nod his head in agreement with someone else, they assumed he "knew what he was doing", and he got some "benefit of the doubt". Gosh, you mean if you agree with everything everyone says, they'll believe you are smart? By doing nothing, you get the benefit of the doubt that you know what you are doing?
I was on the phone yesterday with a support person from a large computer company. I would tell her something about the problem I was having with their hardware and she'd respond "uh huh. okay". I started assuming she was listening and actually processing what I told her. After about the third time she "nodded" in approval and said "okay" and then continued by asking me a question that demonstrated that she hadn't heard a single word I had said I stopped giving her the benefit of the doubt, and by the time she'd asked me the same question nine times, getting the same answer each time, I decided this CS rep gets a zero rating should that company send me the traditional after-contact survey.
I find the opposite. It's the pampered well-to-do who most often sound off in Universities about "privilege" and its evils. And, hey, the concept probably applies to such.
That's not "the opposite." That's educated people being self-aware. Pompous dickbags aren't usually among the most educated.
Its the false logic of "some people gain success through an unearned advantage, therefore all success is unearned"
Said no one ever. Of course it's fucking easy to deconstruct this argument that isn't being made. I'm sorry, but society does have stereotypes that help some people and hurt others, and it requires intentionally trying to ignore it not to notice.
I'm for equality and all that, but this guy seems to be asking for equal tratment of impostors of all minorities? If you're not qualified, get the fuck out, no matter what you look like.
--
Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!
Why would you assume that somebody standing in front of you at a technical meeting/conference did not understand the subject matter when they listened with no expression?
This is so true. It's easy for people to see their own hard work as justification for their position because they never see the hard work that others who never got a chance put in.
Tess Rinearson's blog post (referenced by Philip Guo) at https://medium.com/tales-from-the-front/cc9ed433ec3c is as strong as Philip's - well worth reading.
Will the never ending garbage ever cease? The truth is he might have not felt qualified, but he was admitted to the CS program at MIT, one of the few elite CS departments that really means you are at least +1SD above average IQ, and quite likely +2SD or +3SD.
Yes, when I was there most of us had graduated in the top 1% of their high school classes. This year, 25% of entering freshmen had perfect scores on the math portion of the SAT. (Think about that, a 799 would drop you to the 75th percentile.)
Anyway, my real point: I, my classmates, every interaction with a TA that I observed, and every interaction with a professor (except for 1 chauvinist pig whom we got into deep shit by going to the department head about his bullshit), always assumed that the (few) women in our classes knew what they were doing. We didn't talk down to them, we didn't grill them when they offered an opinion, we didn't doubt their answers.
The old joke that "there are no girls at MIT, just guys who worked their balls off in high school" appears sexist on the surface, but it's really not, it's really an acknowledgement that we're all the same in that way ;-)
I think you both have a point. As I see it, both TFA and your comment point out that people often make assumptions of others' ability based on their appearance and the image they project, using stereotypes.
Some people, naturally or not, play into these stereotypes by projecting knowledge, confidence, etc.
Some people's image, perhaps because of their age, skin color, sex, or some other irrelevant factor, may project an image that doesn't match the viewer's stereotype.
I think the point is that people use image and stereotypes more than they might think. As such, it is something that we should be aware of and try to guard against in our own behaviour.
Have you tried turning it off and on again?
No, it's offensive because it suggests that people are where they are *simply* because of societal bias. It's a way for people who have not achieved something to explain away their lack of success (and other people's success) by reference to societal barriers and advantages. I consider it to be another variation of "everybody who is rich got there by exploiting other people (possibly illegally)." It's a way to hate on other people while coddling the underdog's feelings.
I recognize that we aren't all exactly identical in the way other people perceive us. I also recognize that there is a bias against (say) women and minorities in computing. I think it's fair to attempt to change that. Using loaded words like "privilege" however, is really just an exercise in giving the have-nots an excuse to hate the people who have. It's also worth pointing out that words like "privilege" are actually simplistic explanations for what's going on. You'll generally find that people (white, black, male, female) have a variety of different advantages and disadvantages in comparison to other people. As a white person, if I say I'm going to be a rapper or a pro-athlete, people will be more skeptical than if I were black and saying that. Based on the way "privilege" is being used, we could say that black people are "privileged" in that narrow area. I'm sure we're also well aware of the fact that women are "privileged" in the fact that men want them and they have easy access to sex. That's the other reason I hate the word "privilege" because it's used like it's some kind of widely-valid general statement about a group of people, when it's actually a statement about some very narrow aspect of their lives. It's more accurate to say that this or that person has an advantage in aspectd x,y,z of their lives while having disadvantages in aspects a,b,c of their lives.
If you look and act like Guo, and you don't know what you're doing, you lose.
What he's saying is that if you don't look and act like him, you often don't even get the chance to try. You lose before anyone gets to see what you know.
It's not an all-or-nothing thing, but it's probably accurate that if you're a white or Asian dude of a certain age, people are willing to give you a shot that they won't necessarily give to others. That's the privilege.
I'm was out of shape and not the best at basketball in college, yet I routinely was able to join in pick up games at the athletic center. Quite often playing with/against those that were on the school's basketball team. That's a roughly equivalent example to yours.
Maybe you should have gone with, why don't you head down to your closest NBA team and try to get on that professional team.
You have to actually go do something useful and productive with you gifts to be rewarded once you leave school (and you'll discover there's far more to a programming job than abstract problem-solving)
Yes, but having the confidence to actually go and do something useful is in itself a privilege. The reason so many (socially and economically) underprivileged kids fail at school is because others expect little of them, and they learn to expect little of themselves. When kids want to learn, what do they do? They ask a question about whatever it is they don't understand. If the teacher sighs and looks at them like they're stupid, that stifles the kids eagerness to ask questions, and kills their ability to learn.
A hell of a lot of what we get in life is sheer luck. We shouldn't feel devalued by this, but it's important to remember that the homeless drunk you step over in the street might have been living the same life 12 months ago that you're living now.
at which point, if you're contributing more than the next guy, it's only just that you get more in return.
Whereas in the real world, it's the bankers who get the big bucks, and the guys who produce the actual value get made redundant while watching the value of their pension pot shrink year on year....
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Nobody really "looks like a programmer" until they are hauling in $150+ per hour in billings poking around a PC while sitting at home in their housecoats unshaven and unbathed. Oh, and you gotta have a beard.
This happened to me the first time I went to a bodypainting convention.
Wow... instant acceptance ( I dressed the part ).
Yes, there is racial discrimination, but computer programmers don't have the social status, or income, of investment bankers, or doctors. H-1B's have hurt computer programmer wages. Black people, the most politically powerful ethnic minority in America, don't want to be geeky computer programmers. If black people don't care about computer programmer racial discrimination, then it is unimportant to the american public.
If you think your appearance is holding you back professionally why don't you do something to help solve that problem? While it's true you can't do anything about your height or skin color, you could certainly cut your hair, shave and possibly dress more conservatively (even better, dress/look like those who have the position you want). It's up to you make sure you fit the image of who you want to be professionally.
If you really don't know where to start, here's a good article with some basic advice of how to dress yourself appropriately for your office environment.
Knowledge Brings Fear
that really means you are at least +1SD above average IQ, and quite likely +2SD or +3SD.
What's that in Mean Deviations?
Have you read my blog lately?
He's being modest. Sure, looking the part will get you pretty far, but I don't think you will get to the assistant professor level at Rochester without some above average skills.
If you run off and research all the areas you are deficient soon after it's not such a bad trait.
love is just extroverted narcissism
I don't know where you live, but 12 percent of the U.S. population is listed as African-American. They're not curiosities from the land of Prester John any more.
Said no one ever.
Even as hyperbole, that doesn't really stand up. Plenty of people have been saying this in politics for a while now. "It's OK to take money from The Evil Rich(TM) because none of them really earned it / they only got there due to privilege / etc". I think it's important to emphasize that making broad public policy based on simple stereotypes is foolish, and from your post I'm guessing you agree.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
So if i have a mullet and wear an alabama t-shirt New Yorkers are going to look down on me. Similarly if I attend a NAACP rally wearing a T-shirt that says 'I hate Niggers' I will be trounced upon even if I am the most pro black affirmative action liberal. Similarly if I go in the studio and make a great hippity hop album, noone will buy it just because I am white, and more specifically look very white. Similarly if someone is trying to work at a software company, and they wear their pants are falling off, and their hat is ten sizes too big and they wear a 'stop snitchin' t-shirt, they are likeley to be looked down upon. It would be great if people would not judge ourselves by appearances, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Everyone says whitey is always looking down on blackey, but in my experience, black folks are ten times more likely to judge you by appearance. It is always black people that are making fun of you if you have busted ass shoes. How are you supposed to ignore someones skin color, when you can't even get over the type of shoes they are wearing.
I wish people would get over white guilt.
February if black history month. That is the month all the white people get together and say 'Gee black people are very special. They can even do things that white people can do'. Let us celebrate this very special contribution that all black folks have made. Clue: If someone gives you a month and calls you special it is not a compliment. Jews don't have a 'special' month for them. They don't need it. Blacks don't either.
Realizing that success lies in doing what you're good at, instead of what you enjoy, is the first of many sacrifices needed for earned success. If you happen to love what you happen to be good at, hey, nice for you: people should feel good about that sort of thing.
Being someone who is both good at technical stuff and loves it, ive never really understood this. A lot of the reason I am good at what I do is because I love doing it; I would not know how to decipher a wireshark dump if I hadnt been curious so many years ago as to "what does a packet look like?"
I see a lot of people in the IT field who do not care about IT, and they are invariably bad at IT. Why should you ever strive to learn things not directly related to your job if you dont care about the field? And how can you ever be good in a field that demands a very wide base of knowledge if you dont learn those things? So those people tend to always say "I dont know, Ive never done it before,ask someone else" when tasked many things, and wonder why their enthusiastic colleagues tend to be moving so far ahead.
It sounds somewhat arrogant of me to say this, and I apologize: but it is the truth. All of the things I have been complimented / praised for in terms of my expertise came from random side experiments where I spent a weekend learning something. I guess I just dont see how one could be more than mediocre if they were in a field they didnt enjoy.
Yes, but having the confidence to actually go and do something useful is in itself a privilege. The reason so many (socially and economically) underprivileged kids fail at school is because others expect little of them, and they learn to expect little of themselves.
This just doesn't hold up in a society of "participation trophies" and valuing a child's self-esteem and confidence over everything else in school. We did that experiment. It solved none of society's ills. Time to admit it was a mistake and move all.
Also, can we please stop calling any advantage in part of one's character privilege? That's not what the word means. Everyone has a mix of good and bad, advantageous and disadvantageous qualities. If everyone is "privileged" as a result then the word is meaningless.
Whereas in the real world, it's the bankers who get the big bucks, and the guys who produce the actual value get made redundant while watching the value of their pension pot shrink year on year....
Yes, all systems have political corruption. Doesn't change my point that if you're contributing more than the next guy, it's only just that you get more in return. Not achieving justice in every case doesn't change what is and isn't just!
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
What the GP pointed is not about not knowing something it is about not being able to perform well at it after been instructed, which in the case of programming happens to all but a few human beings.
There is no such a thing as "hard" scientists. There are scientists and those clowns, like the one who wrote this article, who think they are scientists because they do something they decided to classify as "human sciences".
[..] with should length dreadlocs and a beard, I would respectfully disagree.
Well, we respectfully disagree with you too. Now please, shave your beard and trim your hair. No one wants to have a hobo-looking person on their team, or someone that makes them uncomfortable for whatever reason. Everyone puts in a little bit of effort to look neat/presentable when in a work setting, and perhaps you're being skipped over for promotion because you're not doing the same.
There are all sort of bias that we have studied for a very long time. It is up to the individual however to decide if they will let that bias hold them back. I'm black and (like everyone) I encountered people who helped and others who despised me. (OP's post is saying that if you look like the people who can help, you get more help :) )
I decided to change the things that caused people to dislike me.
For example, I grew up in the inner city and it took years to lose my brooklyn accent.
Many minorities don't like to make the large changes required to fit into a non-minority environment.
They want to be accepted for who they are (and it has gotten easier for this to happen over the years).
I changed because I think it is bs the way black culture has evolved (in the context of slavery/racism in the US).
But honestly, it would have been very hard to make this change without the help of my white and asian friends.
For example, I had two friends, lets call them Leonard and Sheldon; BTW they are very well-known and respected dotcom millionaires now.
I met them in college and they were fast friends with each other but Leonard encouraged my friendship and Sheldon ignored me.
From my friendship with Leonard, I learned how to become friends with Sheldon.
Learning how to become friends with Sheldon was very helpful because there are a lot of Sheldon's in the upper end of the computer field.
This wouldn't have been possible without my friendship Leonard.
My experience was the exact opposite of Guo's experience—you might say, I got treated like a minority or a female.
If being a minority or female doesn't cause you to be treated differently (just whether you're a con-artist or not), then how the heck do you know you were "treated like a minority or a female"? Doesn't this prove his point, that such people generally encounter a different category of treatment (that you, for some other reason, found yourself subjected to)?
I think there's a meme about this. It's called "First World Problems." Sheesh!
Yes, almost everyone has a mix of qualities, in much the same way that almost everyone has a mix of genes and developmental factors that affect height. That said, men are still, on average, taller than women. The existence of a large within-group variance does not negate the presence of across-group mean difference or its significance. Yes, as a man you may be shorter than a particular woman. You may have a harder time dunking a basketball because you're clumsy. You may find it easier not because of your height but because you worked really hard to learn. But on average, men are still at an advantage dunking basketballs. And if you, as a man, were paired up against a woman who was *identical to you in every way* except for the sex contributions to height (but including the practice time, natural ability, etc), you'd have an advantage.
That's basically how unearned privilege works. Yes, I've had my own particular struggles, but *in general* I've still had it easier in life than someone who wasn't born a straight white man in a more or less stable family. I get higher pay without having to negotiate for it, find it easier to get housing, have obtained loans when my credit was marginal, and cops treat me politely, just to name a few for which there's actual research.
Do I feel bad about any of that? Hell no, I didn't get a choice in any of that, why should I feel guilty? And I've certainly had my share of disadvantages and hardships. But I'm aware of it, and throughout my life when I find myself wanting to give up, it helps to remind myself most people in the world have it a lot harder than I do, so I should suck it up and try harder.
I know it's challenging when one is successful to consider that a part of one's lot in life is due to luck. There's the Just World Fallacy, of course, but having an internal locus of control is generally beneficial. But there's plenty of evidence, both anecdotal and scientific, that life just ain't fair. Whether we should try and make it more fair or not comes down to your morals and what you think is feasible, of course.
It turns out there's a whole field full of people who study this sort of thing, and they even have a term for what you're describing (intersectionality).
I'm sure that, when laypeople "discover" this concept, assume nobody ever thought of it before, and then dismiss the concept of privilege outright, they probably cringe the way I do when creationists start babbling about eyeballs and transitional fossils, or the way climate scientists do at "so how come we can't predict the weather next week smartypants?"
One of the worst things about the Internet is the way it's led people to believe they're fucking experts on everything and delude themselves into thinking they have an informed opinion. Fuck those people who actually spend decades of their lives learning and studying and practicing, what could they possibly know that you couldn't pick up in your echo chamber?
So then, your assertion is that his difficulty is due to being unusual, as opposed to being black. If so, then a rare white person in a group of black people should experience the same amount of bias as a rare black person in a group of white people.
Have you thought to consult the actual research on the subject?
People nice; man shocked.
No beer and no TV make Homer something something
First job vs 6 years. Sorry bro, I think in the albeit-contrived world of anecdote grading, he wins.
Another thing is that this sort of thing has been tested and quantified. Of course, any study that touches politics is controversial (ie., upsets people's long held convictions/prejudices/biases), but this sort of discrimination is out there and has been documented. I guess whether the reverse happens (this whole "privilege" thing) would be a nice thing study, imho.
"but you really can't get very far on IQ alone, any more than you can on natural good looks or physical strength."
this may not actually be true. and the amount of ADVANTAGE that you get from it may far override any semblance of effort.
people aren't that complex. you can study them and their behaviors like you could study monkeys or whales.
people who are tall and/or good looking get TREMENDOUS advantages and opportunities that people who are not don't enjoy.
sure, weasel over there may be rainman great at accurately counting toothpicks but that doesn't account for much in the social world we live in.
when all is said and done, we have "earned" nothing on our own merit. every single thing that we have is due to advantage that we did not control.
- health (mental, physical, deformities, etc)
- race
- intelligence
- height
- beauty
- constitution and the very ability to work hard
- place of birth
all of these things are crap shoots that we did not earn. few people who are beneficiaries of good luck admit it as such. glad that this professor guo has the ability to do it. but the people who are the bad side of it can see it as clear as they can see their misshapen hand in front of their face and its veracity is unequivocal.
to admit that the race is not fair is simply to be rational.
not just societal bias... but luck and fate in general.
you have NOT earned ANYTHING you have fair and square. you owe EVERYTHING to a fate and destiny that you had NOTHING to do with:
- health (mental, physical, deformities, etc)
- race
- intelligence
- height
- beauty
- constitution and the very ability to work hard
- place of birth
only the delusional think they'd be in the same place they are now if they were retarded, with no limbs, cancer ridden and born in botswana.
your very ability to pursue your own good are byproducts from essential factors that you are blessed with.
it's not insulting because nothing you have is rightfully "earned" in the way you mean it.
A million times this
Well, we respectfully disagree with you too. Now please, shave your beard and trim your hair. No one wants to have a hobo-looking person on their team,
Ha ha ha ha.
RMS:
https://www.google.com/search?q=rms+stallman&client=firefox-a&hs=zHz&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=PkjXUq64JIS3qgGmlIGAAQ&ved=0CLYBEIke&biw=1920&bih=970
John Maddog Hall:
https://www.google.com/search?q=rms+stallman&client=firefox-a&hs=zHz&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=PkjXUq64JIS3qgGmlIGAAQ&ved=0CLYBEIke&biw=1920&bih=970#q=john+maddog+hall&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch
Alan Cox:
https://www.google.com/search?q=rms+stallman&client=firefox-a&hs=zHz&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=PkjXUq64JIS3qgGmlIGAAQ&ved=0CLYBEIke&biw=1920&bih=970#q=alan+cox&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch
Eric S. Raymond:
https://www.google.com/search?q=rms+stallman&client=firefox-a&hs=zHz&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=PkjXUq64JIS3qgGmlIGAAQ&ved=0CLYBEIke&biw=1920&bih=970#q=eric+s+raymond&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch
Only if your definition of "earned" is so warped it has nothing to do with the real meaning of the world. Anybody who provides services, goods or anything people willingly decide to pay for has earned his money, it doesn't really matter if his luck, place of birth, race, beauty or whatever was part of what made it possible for him.
The obvious counter to your assertion is your post itself. It indicates natural advantages. You are an organism with both the intellectual capabilities and physical abilities to type somehow on a computer and make an intelligible post in English. However, did you magically acquire those skills as part of your mere existence? Not at all. You had to expend considerable effort to learn how to do all that.
Similarly, you spent some amount of effort actually writing the post. You weren't created with the magical ability to type this post as it is.
Alternately, did someone do all the work for you? Did someone else learn English and typing so you didn't have to? Did they do the thinking for your argument too? Somehow I doubt that as well.
So there is something beyond mere advantage required to explain your post, much less the complex world of human accomplishments. This simple accomplishment required considerable effort on your part just to do that.
Now, let's look at the language of this thread. We are speaking of "earning". I gather that means here that I did something that I think was a lot of work and as a result I think I deserve the positive consequences of that effort.
Obviously, that doesn't always hold just because I put in a lot of effort. Sure, it might have been a lot of work to strangle Grandma and bury her, but society harshly punishes murder. Here, society works overtime via law enforcement and court systems to prevent me from "earning" from the act of murder.
Or your example above, where I can count toothpicks. It was perhaps a lot of work to learn, but it's just not useful to anyone. I don't "earn" any sort of reward just because I can count a lot of toothpicks fast and accurately.
But it strikes me that if I learn something or do something that is of considerable value to others, even if it isn't much work for me, then I deserve some reward for my efforts. This usually is accomplished via a voluntary trade, my effort for some reward by the party receiving the benefit.
To say that I didn't "earn" the reward, ignores that my effort probably wouldn't happen without some sort of reward. And the reward in a trade tends to be commensurate with the value of the activity being rewarded. So we can talk about whether or not I "earned" it, but if you want that activity to continue, it needs to have a reward.
And the presence of a high reward is a strong indication that more parties need to be providing the good or service being rewarded. If that is taken away on the basis that the reward was not earned, then much of the incentive to provide additional goods or services of that sort goes away.
So even if we dismiss the idea of "earning" from a moral point of view, it can still have considerable value pragmatically in a market-based economic system as a means to reward people for effort or unusual, valuable capabilities, and to compete in endeavors that are otherwise poorly competitive due to lack of people with the necessary abilities or skills.
I also think there is a considerable danger here of downplaying peoples' accomplishments. If you didn't "earn" something from effort, then it is a very simple step to rationalize taking away whatever the fruits of that effort were. I think that is folly since the usual result is that society loses the fruit of that effort as well since the person stops doing it. But nonetheless that strikes me as a common destination for this sort of reasoning.
What I don't understand about articles trying to increase the CS/STEM workforce whether that be minorities or just in general is that ultimately these people that are being encouraged to join these fields will take your jobs when you are no longer the "right age" no matter how good you are at whatever you do. Not to mention the impact on salaries the extra workforce will have.
Dude, it's entirely because of privilege. You don't fit the norm. You're not one of them. It sucks, huh? I never knew how bad privilege was abused until I came out as a transgender woman. You're treated worse or passed over by any cisgender-het men worse than any black guy or woman. Yes, privileged men can be this bad!!! They say they respect us and like to hang out with us but reality? When we have our issues and need a man to stand up for us they run a mile. I don't think it's just not understanding. I think they're scared of us.
I know a lot of middle aged women flirt with sex tourism. A friend of mine went on holiday to Jamaica for a fling. It's not just the sex. She needed a man. I really surprised myself but white guys? They're so privileged and spoilt and in another world they're too high maintenance. A black guy with an education and a steady job? Smart? Articulate? I could go for you. Def-in-ate-ly.
i know you. I've seen your office. It is a converted janitors closet.
So if programmers were made to wear those fake-muscle shirts, put in some tanning bed time, and wear lifts in their shoes, the external perception of "privilege" would be erased? We would call it 'Vonegutting',and it would be a standard corporate program administered by HR.
It's true even within that "+3SD" at MIT. The women were implicitly, and explicitly discouraged, and many minorities were condescended to by TA' who ignored non-white, or for a few TA's non-Chinese students. I struggled wildly with the preliminary computer courses, and saw some brilliant women, especially, pushed out of the department by the constant condescension and the unceasing sexual pursuit. (We were lonely boys, thee weren't many women in the department.)
MIT is also notorious for teaching even the freshmen to ignore credentials and status and go right after the science and engineering. A lot of people are conditioned by their long youths as minorities to "not challenge authority" and "don't make waves". This approach was *death* on your grades during my later years, because the professors wouldn't remember you or what you did. So the arrogant white guys had an *enormous* advantage.
As it was, I got to do amazing science and engineering, together, with what I learned. There were people who blamed their social problems on their minority status unfairly, but the only one I met was Steve Hernandez. Political activist wanna-be, kept blaming Campus Police throwing him off campus on being hispanic. They just thought he was an interfering jerk, which he was. Heck, I still remember a very nice but unaware, very pretty student blaming the Campus Police for racism handling Steve, I said it wasn't racism, she said I wouldn't know. It took me 10 minutes to stop laughing: she didn't know I was Cuban. (If you're going to be a successful minority, *lose the accent!!!*)
I don't think I posted in this thread yet. But here are a few thoughts...
Shaved face, short hair, where did this all start?
Why should cosmetically changing one's body affect somebody's ability to get promoted?
Why stop at shaving and cutting hair? Aren't there skin lightening procedures, and perhaps radical surgery to make people shorter (or longer; seen leg lengthening things I think on the show Taboo)?
What I'm getting at is that we're all different in our own ways, and we need to stop this. Unless hair length provides a safety hazard, we should embrace our (cultural) differences.
Anyone else bothered by that poster mentioning, "No one wants to have a hobo-looking person on their team, or someone that makes them uncomfortable for whatever reason."?
Should we only tolerate making people change their bodies when it's financially/easily feasible to do so? You know, in the name of making sure others don't feel "uncomfortable".
Sure, looking the part will get you pretty far, but I don't think you will get to the assistant professor level at Rochester without some above average skills.
You would not believe how far average skills can get you if you can convince "the right kind of people" that you are one of them. Writing an article about how all your success is caused by cisgendered heterosexual white male privilege is a great way to convince them that you are.
Not everybody gets to be at MIT, and i sincerely do not believe that placing a programmer in a cocoon is gonna make him/her any better. Flame wars and code flame is what actually make people better at programming, that's just my honest opinion, the entire world can disagree. If you don't tell someone he is a noob and why he is a noob, he will not evolve. Insulting people's intelligence is constructive both for the one insulting and to the one being insulted. Lol what now, females wants to be cared for in the field? definitely these creatures always asks for favors everywhere.
The interesting thing about this sort of privilege is that people who have it don't notice it, because it isn't overt.
As a white, heterosexual, middle class male in pretty much any western nation, if you're reasonably intelligent and work hard, you're pretty much guaranteed to succeed. Hell even if you don't work hard you're pretty much guaranteed to at least reach mediocrity. The deck is stacked in your favor in a truly fundamental way, you will be given opportunities and second chances just as a matter of course, people will pretty much expect that you're capable of doing things and any confidence in your abilities will be treated as confidence and not as arrogance. For the most part you can substitute "part of the majority ethnic group" for white and apply the same rule to any country, though not always. Those same opportunities aren't available to everyone. Doors aren't necessarily locked, but they aren't wide open either. It's not impossible to succeed, but it's nowhere near as easy.
It's one of the reasons why libertarians are almost exclusively white middle class males. The belief that hard work will be rewarded requires a life where that actually happens.
> Pompous dickbags aren't usually among the most educated.
You obviously haven't attended many faculty steering committee meetings!
I recall once being surprised during a technical discussion to find out that the guy who had been nodding, didn't understand at all. I didn't have the chance to let it color my perception of him though, because shortly thereafter there was a layoff and he was on the list. I must say though, that I would have respected him more if he'd had the guts to ask questions.
Except that it does.
The important question isn't about whether you've earned your fortune, it's about whether others have earned their misfortune.
When you start to realize exactly how much of what you have is the result of things you have no control over and perhaps even more importantly when you realize that some of those things could be taken away from you in an instant due to no fault of your own, you begin to develop some compassion for those who don't have your advantages, or at the a rational self interest to realize that as the old saying goes "There but for the grace of god go I".
I quote:
"her aunt—whose son had been rejected—congratulated her by saying, “Well, you only got into MIT because you're a girl.”)
Over a decade later, she now does some programming at her research job, but wishes that she had learned more back in college."
Obviously now we see that "she does some programming" and that she apparently didn't learn much. You do not learn programming in college, you learn it in your house for the pleasure of coding. If she hasn't been able to understand that so far, i believe she is a failure. She definitely took the place of someone else who could have fared better in MIT. That is what happens with capitalism. I would not go as far as saying she got in because she is female, but that could contribute to a certain sense, because political wise it sounds a lot more fair when we show statistics of higher number of females being at college and studying IT.
"Writing code for a living isn't like being a Navy SEAL sharpshooter. Programming is seriously not that demanding, so you shouldn't need to be a tough-as-nails superhero to enter this profession.
Anyone with enough practice and motivation could have done our jobs, and most other programming and CS-related jobs as well. Seriously, companies aren't looking to hire the next Steve Wozniak—they just want to ship code that works."
This is what makes the industry so shitty. This is what make advancement in the technological field so sluggish. The very idea that one doesn't need to hire a programmer who can think properly is evil. Pfft practice doesn't make perfect in programming according to me, you are either born to think as a programmer OR NOT.
You missed the part where my anecodote confirms his.
He saw other people do like me, just cruise in, "looking the part" and getting the job that took him 6 years to work his way up to.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Being someone who is both good at technical stuff and loves it, ive never really understood this. A lot of the reason I am good at what I do is because I love doing it; I would not know how to decipher a wireshark dump if I hadnt been curious so many years ago as to "what does a packet look like?"
I see a lot of people in the IT field who do not care about IT, and they are invariably bad at IT. Why should you ever strive to learn things not directly related to your job if you dont care about the field? And how can you ever be good in a field that demands a very wide base of knowledge if you dont learn those things? So those people tend to always say "I dont know, Ive never done it before,ask someone else" when tasked many things, and wonder why their enthusiastic colleagues tend to be moving so far ahead.
It sounds somewhat arrogant of me to say this, and I apologize: but it is the truth. All of the things I have been complimented / praised for in terms of my expertise came from random side experiments where I spent a weekend learning something. I guess I just dont see how one could be more than mediocre if they were in a field they didnt enjoy.
Interesting you should say this - I started long ago (in HS) on a TRS-80 and Apple-II, but I learned both from a hardware level and software level (built my own simple hardware), so things like that wireshark dump, or reading 'hex/ascii dumps' of any kind really, comes naturally (I can still come up with some 8080/Z80 opcodes from memory (C3 unconditional jump, I think CD is unconditional CALL)... mostly I can convert hex->decimal in my head (up to 4 hex digits anyways). I got into IT because I was raised around electronics, and computers were interesting and just came 'naturally' to me in a sense out of my electronics interest. And it has been a great/fun career for most of it...
The past few years though I've found my interest in it as a career waning, at least from a 'working in corporate America' perspective... more and more I've encountered the "I don't know, ask someone else" mentality you mentioned (which often wound up being asking me, because "you know everything" - which I don't of course, but I know how to figure things out when I don't). Most of them want to be told what to do, and go off and do "their task" (if they can) and have zero desire to come up with new ideas, other(/better?) ways of doing things, etc. And few are willing, at all, to 'speak their minds' to management and even *suggest* better ways/other ideas, they're simply there to 'follow orders and collect a paycheck'. (And not that I expect any suggestions of better/other ideas to be taken by management 100% of the time, there are budgets and other considerations of course, but if you aren't willing to 'think outside the box' and they aren't willing to listen to your thoughts, that's probably not a job I want to stay in).
Unfortunately that's been the norm in my last few jobs (last 10-15yrs), at least for large corporate America.
Thinking more about how to 'strike out on my own' these days... y'know, having done well and pushing 50 I have a paid off house, zero debt, savings, and can actually live on a lot less than I have been making (or less 'consistent' income), probably time to think about doing something more interesting to me, where I'm actually learning new/interesting things.
No, it's offensive because it suggests that people are where they are *simply* because of societal bias.
No. It does not. It suggests that a certain level of societal bias has helped you along. That your 95% dedication wasn't quite enough, but 5% privilege was also necessary. This idea is vehemently opposed by people who have their whole self-image built upon the idea that everything in life is their whole doing. They also assert that every story about discrimination is wrong with no first hand knowledge of anything but success after their hard work despite lots of examples of people who have failed after a very similar series of hard work. They still maintain that everything is due to them, despite the fact that if you were the daughter of child-beating and molesting parents from the favelas (I'm just adding up bad things, not saying people from favelas are molestors) you would be extremely unlikely get as far with your hard work as some male kid from decent parents from a lower-middle-class background from the US.
Succeeding in life is not a simple matter of privilege or hard work. It is a series of factors including (but not limited to) genetics, social privilege and hard work which affects your probability of success.
How did you miss the point of the GP being about race? It wasn't subtle
I really think you're overestimating IQ in computer science. And overvaluing IQ in general.
No one says that. Unless you're talking about taxes, in which case you're an idiot. Because no one says the rich don't deserve money because of privilege.
Being a computer scientist is a privilege. Having to work with it is a curse.
Please don't be an offensive superficial jerk. Not everyone wants to look and dress like you. I imagine few want to have much in common with someone so concerned with superficial traits such as facial hair.
>We are scientists
No. We're not. We're engineers - in the old and proper meaning of the word: we apply science to the solving of practical problems. Science is about understanding things not making them. Engineering is about making things not understanding them.
The two are symbiotic but they are definitely not the same and the kind of approaches they require and attract are (correctly) very different.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
You act the part. Then people take you at the face value. Is that your complaint?
No, he's complaining that other people who also act the part are not taken at face value, primarily because of how they look. In fact the point he makes if you read TFA (cue you must me new here jokes) is that compared to a lot of people his acting the part was 50% bluff and yet he still taken at face value unlike others who did not share his looks.
His article basically says that he observed lots of low-level small scale discrimination correlated with looks and this adds up.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I have to agree with the 6'3" black guy... I'm not black but I am the same height, I've got bleached hair (sometimes red, sometimes green), I'm loud and come across as aggressive (over confidence combined with over assertiveness according to my wife and shrink), I have a naturally noticeable "presence" in any room and my voice naturally booms. I don't have official qualifications, I do, instead, have over 15 years of on the job experience and a lifetime of "tinkering" (think ZX81, Amstrad 6128, C64 and the like).
You would not believe the times I've seen recruiters cower behind their desks when I walk in the room only for me to turn round and walk back out again! They don't want a big guy like me working with a bunch of bespectacled 8 stone when wet people, I'll "scare" them. All of you humans should know, first impressions count and to a 5'5" Asian / White / Ginger recruiter I look like the devil incarnate!
>It doesn't mean that you have been victimized.
Actually the very fact that some looks are "unusual" in jobs is itself victimization.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
So your answer is that he should sacrifice the most important and basic of human freedoms: the right of self expression, to fit a norm he doesn't agree with, or accept being discriminated against because of something that has exactly ZERO bearing on his abilities or the value he ads ?
Now here's the clencher: I'm a very well paid engineer - top of the payscales in my country (and in the top 2% of earners in this country in all fields), I drive a lovely German car and own the house I live in.
I also have a beard and my hair is dyed in bright, punk colours (currently: race-car red with blue and purple streaks) and hangs down to my waist.
I just happen to be white...
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Amazing you got anywhere really with the utter lack of reading comprehension you display.
You did read TFA, right? Right? (maybe I'm new here etc etc).
If you read TFA, which I shall give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't than you'll realist that your complaint is crap. He says nothing about how the hard work and study didn't contribute. In fact as far as I can see it is an article entirely about the people who did study and work hard.
Study and hard work is necessary. Looking the wrong way will make it even harder.
The fact that I don't have all of the same problems as whoever happens to be pushing this agenda
The author of TFA does not have the problems. However he did see good, hard working people pushed out by a continual stream of low-level discrimination. I'm guessing the author has identified that this is not really a good thing.
Now, fuck off
OK.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Yes, but having the confidence to actually go and do something useful is in itself a privilege. The reason so many (socially and economically) underprivileged kids fail at school is because others expect little of them, and they learn to expect little of themselves.
This just doesn't hold up in a society of "participation trophies" and valuing a child's self-esteem and confidence over everything else in school. We did that experiment. It solved none of society's ills. Time to admit it was a mistake and move all.
That's not the same thing at all -- it's a horrible charicature of it.
The psychologists looked in the school environment and saw that every mistake drew the teacher's attention and disapproval, while most successes passed without comment. This meant that kids were more aware of their failings than their strengths, and grew despondent. I don't remember the exact figures, but it was something along the lines of kids who got 75% of answers right in tests saw themselves as only getting 50% right. Intelligent kids thought they were thick. Psychologists simply told teachers that they should provide positive emotional feedback when kids get things right -- no more impassive "yes... yes... correct... right" followed by a deeply disapproving "no!", but "yes" with a smile, "perfect!", "that's right!"
The pedagogues messed up the message entirely, because doing what the psychologists asked is actually pretty hard. You try nodding enthusiastically and smiling every time a pupil or student gets an extremely simple question right. As a teacher, you always feel under pressure to get the simple stuff out of the way so that you can move on to the more important stuff, and it's easy to forget that what seems simple to you is completely new to them, and the simple stuff actually is the most important stuff.
Participation certificates are a cheap and easy way for the teacher to pretend that they're giving positive emotional feedback, but it misses the point: in order to encourage children, you have to reward successes as and when they happen, as the child will be conditioned to seek the reward and the feeling of achievement. If the "reward" is not given as and when the success occurs, the child is not taught to seek the reward through succeeding. So no, the experiment has not been done yet.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
I could just as well say that about the people who study "that" sort of thing. You're making an appeal to authority.
Sociology isn't a science. You're comparing the study of social issues with the study of biology, evolution, and climatology. Social studies do not have the same academic rigor that the hard sciences do and ultimately it's an exercise in the expression of opinions that are biased by your own perceptions, perhaps even your own privilege as well.
The problem I have with sociology majors, professors, and others who are in the social justice scene - it's filled with people who are more interested in raging at people who don't subscribe to some particular orthodoxy rather than engage in a meaningful fact-filled rational discourse. You just exemplified the former.
Said no one ever? This argument is made all the time. You may be rational enough to see how ridiculous the argument is, but the social justice movement itself is full of very vocal people who believe in such ridiculous hyperbolic concepts of privilege.
You need to own up to the fact that while you may not hold such views, many do and they are the ones who represent the face of the social justice movement because they're the loudest and most obnoxious.
It was a poor title and leading summary, at the very least.
And you're sitting here talking about IQ and physical strength as things that just happen or that are granted from birth. IQ and strength are earned items. No studies or hobbies, no IQ. No bodybuilding or manual labor, no strength. Your argument is invalid.
I'm 6'1 white guy, with shoulder length hair and a massive beard. My ancestory is Irish, my people were slaves of the English, of less value than a black and more disposable. I earned my first computer delivering several paper rounds on top of school, against the background of the Yorkshire Miner's strike. Mid 80's UK. The whole community living on zero income. I've been told, to my face, that I should lose the regional accent of my people, by my employers. I have no comeback, because the working class white male is an unprotected group.
One reasons blacks and women are discriminated against is that they have more worker rights than whites. I'm easier to fire than a black, or woman because I don't have anti-sexism or anti-racism rules to reference to ensure my case is processed fairly, instead there are a number of societal rules which can be used against me, without question. He's a sexist, we let him go.
Also blacks look good on 'diversity' statistics, I do not. The difference between that situation and now is twenty years of seventy hour work weeks, a good answer to bias in the workplace is to start a company you control.
You're not on the other 'side', the reinforcement of 'sides' is sexist, racist, based on your seeing only gender, seeing only colour. You're simply grouping all people who aren't black or women into a stereotype. You've ignored all other information to create a bias based on identity, ignoring individual skills across identity stereotypes.
> It does exist, but unless you are on the other side of it, you will never know.
This is simply a way of excluding my viewpoint based on the stereotype associated with my skin colour. I'm physically incapable of understanding due to the colour of my skin.
The Walking Dead comic book has a case study in this subject going on right now, with Ezekiel - an actor who played the part of a strong leader, even keeping a pet tiger, to hold a band of survivors together. His veneer worked, as long as nothing serious happened, but he's currently falling apart over a botched raid that cost him many men killed.
So your answer is that he should sacrifice the most important and basic of human freedoms: the right of self expression, to fit a norm he doesn't agree with, or accept being discriminated against because of something that has exactly ZERO bearing on his abilities or the value he ads ?
You're making the assumption that AC disagrees with the norm in his profession, but essentially yes he should accept that that is the way the world works.
Do I think it would be better if everyone was judged with no regard for their appearance? Actually, no. That would be a horribly inefficient way for a society to run. Quick judgements are necessary and how people present themselves should be taken into consideration. It would be better, however, if we were better at discounting stereotypes based on inherent physical characteristics like race and sex. And I try all I can to understand and minimize any such unfounded biases in my own decisions. But it would be foolhardy to cultivate a personal style that is far outside the norm or one that is antithetical to the norm in my chosen profession and expect people not to consider it in their opinion of me.
Knowledge Brings Fear
And you're missing the part where your anecdote depends only on colour-of-skin data. There are many reasons you may have got the job. It's likely you were simply the best candidate, diversity statistics aside, companies which employ based on 'enjoying working with dudes' are likely to fail to companies employing the best candidate in spite of gender or colour.
Another solution which fits all evidence is that, in general, white males are more often the best candidate.
Congratulations on your job, you likely worked hard to earn it, and you have no reason to be ashamed of this.
>Do I think it would be better if everyone was judged with no regard for their appearance?
Absolutely. And it can, actually, be MORE efficient if you do it right.
In fact, we're moving toward that already - in this day and age where your first (sometimes your first two or three) interviews are usually telephonic - you have every opportunity to assess the employee's skills long before you ever see his face - if you're going to judge him on appearance during the final interview, then you're an idiot.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
In the end it is irrelevant if you are better than someone else because of genetics, luck, effort or a combination of those. The fact is that you are better and that is what matters.
If you "deserved" or "earned" this status is subjective, dependent on what you think this words mean and totally irrelevant for any practical purpose.
No, no it isn't. It's what you close your eyes and imagine every time someone tells you are an idiot for claiming "x deserves what happened to them" in some sort of just-world bullshittery, and you should know it.
Hahaha. Dream on.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Which part do you disagree with please ? It's important to remember that all careers require different skill sets, and the belief all evolutionary environments provided identical output 'people', seems foolish.
He's six foot three, did he get exactly the same intelligence and more height ? Is that equal ? Heightism exists and he's proudly stating his domination. Height remember is a common criteria of female sexual selection, & likely indicates greater physical power. Do you deserve recompense for his extra height and attractiveness to women ?
Maybe he's taller, and you're more intelligent, and this career depends on intelligence. Another job interview may be for a top basketball team, they earn much more than computer scientists, and you are disadvantaged in this measure. Do you deserve a place on team because it would be unfair to discriminate against you ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence
You might also like to research altruism by race. Which groups are providing for others with negative return ? Which groups are not ?
I suppose we might as well do gender also. It's pretty simple, females enjoy working with people, males enjoy working with systems, so nursing is female dominated, and tedious to most people abstract system engineering is male dominated.
Interestingly, the more you free people from gender roles, the more they use that freedom to do what they enjoy, which has been set by evolution to be gendered. Norway is regarded as largely gender equal, and has larger divisions in career choice than before they started the gender equality process.
They call this the gender equality paradox.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70
In the UK at least it's illegal to employ a white male when a female or minority shows approximately the same level of competence. A white male must be without doubt the best candidate, by law.
Again, congratulations on your job, you proved you're the best choice at interview. You should be proud.
Any reasonably intelligent, hard working, middle classed person is pretty much guaranteed to succeed in a western nation. It's the middle class part that is important.
Your increasingly racist, sexist, drivel goes completely off the wall here:
In the UK at least it's illegal to employ a white male when a female or minority shows approximately the same level of competence. A white male must be without doubt the best candidate, by law.
[ CITATION FUCKING NEEDED ]
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Oh please. So you're going to assume that because I'm a white guy with glasses, I don't know where the lines are? In actual fact, I might know better than you do. See, my daughter's black - which you're not going to know, when you interact with me - so I know quite well the difference between unearned privileges and the results of hard work.
At this point in the USA, the unearned privileges of Asian males (which result from our cultural assumption of high academic skills) are more financially rewarding than the unearned privileges of black females (which results from our cultural assumption of high physical rhythm and grace). Computer programmers are paid more highly than dancers, essentially, and black females with high math skills have to work harder to make an impression. But these things change over time - it wasn't too long ago that Asians were thought to be mentally inferior, so much so that we called people suffering from Down's Syndrome "mongoloids".
"White" people are assumed to have received a better education and to have social networks that include a higher socio-economic class. This will change as people like yourself gain more economic clout. Be proud of your achievements, but don't assume you know what it's like to be me, just because some people who look like me are sloppy-thinking assholes.
Sexism and racism are serious charges, please defend your anti-social behaviour by quoting the parts you believe sexist or racist. Reverse charge is that you are casually judgemental, offering dehumanisation rather than empathy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_employment_equality_law
If the workforce does not reflect society's makeup (e.g. that women, or ethnic minorities are under-represented) then the employer may prefer the candidate which would correct that imbalance. But they may only do so where both candidates are of equal merit, and further conditions must be met. This type of measure is also known as positive action.
In the narrow scope of job interviews for technical positions (without face to face customer interaction), judging solely on technical competence and phone etiquette probably is the best approach. Appearance isn't a critical factor in their job performance. Outside of that environment, society doesn't and shouldn't function that way. Personal appearance is a medium to convey a message, just like language. Society being blind to that would only limit a person's ability to express himself, not give him more freedom.
Instead, it seems what you want is to send a message with your appearance, but then expect people to ignore the parts that don't suit your goals. Communication just doesn't work that way. It's up to you to convey the message that you want others to understand. Either that or challenge the status quo (as you appear to be doing quite successfully) and accept that there may be some misunderstandings along the way (this is the part you seem to be objecting to).
By the way, I'm an engineer as well and have had long hair and a beard. No fancy colors though.
P.S. (pedantic statement) - In your prior post it's clincher, not clencher.
Clinch - seal, close or end conclusively
Clench - grasp or hold tightly, contract or tighten (esp. in reference to a body part)
(Sorry, I had to get that out there. Any time I see those sorts of substitution errors in grammar, every muscle in my body involuntarily clenches)
Knowledge Brings Fear
And how exactly would you propose to do that? Social phenomena are among the hardest things to measure concretely on the planet. Which is why most social scientists understand that they may have to deal with ideas and behavioral trends that simply cannot be measured. It would be like measuring how good the entire population of New Jersey is at doing a British accent.
My example: say a teacher doesn't like you, and is mean to you. But teachers can't just break the rules or verbally abuse students, so the teacher does it subtley. They still have deniability. You have no proof. But it happened! Most of racism and sexism isn't breaking rules and straight-up abuse. It's little unproveable stuff like this. It's "not what they said, but the way they said it". Only now imagine if ALL your teachers hated you (or rather,. all your teachers assumed you were dumb, and your classmates much smarter) -- now see why working in a tech field as a minority is no fun?
If you are in the tech sector, you will benefit from being white and male. That's what privilege means. It doesn't mean you didn't earn what you have -- it means you were given THE CHANCE to earn it.
Mostly, nowadays, "privilege" is a word used by conservatives to mock the idea that other people might face problems they haven't faced and don't understand.
Any reasonably intelligent, hard working, middle classed person is pretty much guaranteed to succeed in a western nation. It's the middle class part that is important.
Same difference. How does one enter the middle class in the first place? If you're not born into a middle class family, you'll have to work harder to get into it. So your lineage matters, which then brings us to "has your people ever been second citizens?"
No, privilege doesn't say that success is unearned. It says it's easier for some people than others. Sort of like four years ago, when Republicans thought Obama was telling them they didn't build their own businesses. He was saying, well, you did, but it was easier for you because of all these advantages provided for you by other people (in this case, the government).
Privilege doesn't mean you didn't earn your success. It means it was easier for you to succeed than for someone else. I think we should at least be able to admit to that much. It's plainly the case.
""Privilege" is a term used by those who feel they didn't earn what they have, that really offends those who have earned what they have. "
Not quite. Privilege is a term used to mean that it is easier, right now in this society, for some people to succeed than others. Which, you'll notice, it is.
I don't think "is bad at organizing data" falls into the same category as "is black". The fact that, right now, it does? Is the problem.
If it is the same difference then why did Eskarel have to add white and male into the mix?
There's a reason I don't agree with you - I am paid for 8 hours work a day (though like most people in I.T. it's frequently more) - but I have 16 hours a day (twice as much) that belong to me.
How I look should make me happy in that other 16. I object to the idea that somebody thinks just because he pays me for my skills he gets a say in my personal life.
Judging somebody's abilities based on style is no less discrimination than doing it based on race or sexual orientation.
Telling me I have the choice to change my style is no less evil than declaring that a gay person can always just marry the opposite sex for appearances. A significant portion of our personalities is born in - and I believe that if we lose the capacity to express ourselves then the legal right to self-expression has become entirely meaningless.
The point is - my personal style is dictated by things that are no less important than my career - by the peer group I identify with on a friday night at the local metal club, by the things that, not to beat around the bush - makes my wife wet and by the things I love and that appeal to me artistically.
I should not have to suppress these things in my job - as that would make it impossible to have them in my personal life.
That's an unreasonable expectation - now yes, I've been highly successful in my career despite making stylistic (and educational) choices that I was constantly told would doom me to poverty (hint: never trust career experts I outearn them all and nothing they ever told me has been true, I don't look like they thought and I didn't specialize - I studied all the things I loved - literature and drama and compsi and philosophy and I worked as a sysadmin and worked as a programmer and ended up being very well paid in the devops field exactly because long before that term was coined I couldn't choose and refused to specialise and cross-trained).
That's not enough though - I am also proof that my lack of a 'corporate' look has zero impact on my ability to excel at my job - so I am sympathetic to all those who say that their personal style (and the one described here happens to be one dictated by at least one religion - so THAT freedom now also comes into play) is held against them - in field where there is ZERO business motivation for doing so (the GP is also working in tech and not customer facing). At least for customer facing I can see there may be a reduction in your value if your look puts of some (more conservative) customers - but for the vast majority of us who are not in such positions - why do these ridiculous judgements persist. They have no positive value, but they can cost you a fortune (and if you're a company that could have hired me and chose not to because of my looks - they have).
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
It's not impossible to succeed, but it's nowhere near as easy..
[Citation Needed]
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Was I replying to what Eskarel said?
No, I was replying to what you said. You said middle class is the important part. I'm pointing out that race and gender are important parts to getting an easy/early entry into that middle class. Ergo, same difference
I was directly replying to Eskarel. Ergo you were part of the same discussion. And why did you take such issue with me bringing up what Eskarel said and then went on to explain that you agreed 100% with them?
There is no easy entry into the middle class by non middle class people. It is always extremely difficult. Also I am pretty sure little female babies are born into middle class families at approximately the same rate as little male babies.
As to white correlation to middle class. That is partially because there tend to be more white people in western countries (because they were originally settled by Europeans). Family lines have had longer to establish themselves (again, being settled by Europeans it follows that Europeans have been there longer). A poor Georgian is going to be at the same disadvantage as a poor Angolan when immigrating to a western nation.
I do not reject the existence of racism but I do reject the scope and how "systemic" certain people claim it to be. But more importantly I take issue with how they say it.
Saying that it's the "same difference" to say that white people are privileged as it is to say there are a lot of white people whose families have been in the European settled western nations for many generations is just not true. It is a generalisation that seems to lay blame on people for being born into a certain socioeconomic status (but only if their skin is a certain colour). It is pretty much logically equivalent to saying that black people are criminals. We know that a large number of African people are born into poverty, we know that a lot of Africans are black and we know that poverty and crime are very strongly correlated. So would you say "same difference" there? I know I wouldn't.
Three interesting assertions without an argument for any of them there.
But to the extent that your culture/values give you a (dis)advantage: that's good and right and just. Some approaches to living life are foolish, others are wise, and its completely appropriate for the wise to prosper while fools suffer. That's not anything you're born with, it comes from believing what people teach you. Best to get beyond that early in life, if success is your goal.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
As the 6'3" black guy with should length dreadlocs and a beard...
Well, there's your problem right there – you're playing on the "Legendary" setting. Cut your hair, shave your beard, and you'll dial back to "Heroic" at most.
Signed – guy playing at "Novice" (fat white guy with a baby face).
You say that it's the institution? Well, you know, better free your mind instead.
You say you got a real solution? Well, you know, we'd all love to see the plan.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Will the never ending garbage ever cease? The truth is he might have not felt qualified, but he was admitted to the CS program at MIT, one of the few elite CS departments that really means you are at least +1SD above average IQ, and quite likely +2SD or +3SD.
The entire article is just naked assertion:
[M]icro-inequities often had serious cumulative, harmful effects, resulting in hostile work environments and continued minority discrimination in public and private workplaces and organizations. What makes micro-inequities particularly problematic is that they consist in micro-messages that are hard to recognize for victims, bystanders and perpetrators alike. When victims of micro-inequities do recognize the micro-messages it is exceedingly hard to explain to others why these small behaviors can be a huge problem.
This is garbage. We are scientists. Quantify, describe, theorize and prove. If you can't explain it, and you can't define it, and you can't trace it back, perhaps it's not real.
If someone came across my office for an interview talking about this vague non-specific garbage I would sent them over to copywriting or HR.
You guys are living in a delusional world if you think going to MIT means you are smarter than 99.5% of people. You're also missing the point of the article, which is that looking a certain way means people will assume you are smarter than you really are.
I assume you're somehow enamored with the idea that MIT is a mythical place nurturing mythical intellects, but truthfully, it's just a place with some people. It's a great environment for nurturing extant intellect (which you have in abundance, I am sure).
So you're saying that if someone who likes to wear suits and ties goes to a metal concert, he wouldn't get funny looks or be judged negatively for it? Of course he'll be considered an outsider. He's giving off an image that represents something antithetical to values of the group. You're doing the same, or rather expressing views orthogonal to the group. It puts you at a disadvantage compared to those that conform to the image of the group they're trying to become a part of. I'm not advocating that you should change to fit in if it would betray your personal values, that would be hypocritical. Just understand that image is a useful tool in conveying what you value and that will be used to your advantage or disadvantage as it aligns or conflicts with the values of the groups you interact with.
Basically, all I'm saying is that you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Knowledge Brings Fear
Seriously? What has his appearance to do with how he does his job? He's a Network Engineer! He could be naked and painted blue and I wouldn't give a damn or even realize it half the time if he was good at his job.
You really seem to believe that success comes only from inner qualities and character. What I'm telling you is, you also need the help of other people. Yes, you, because literally everyone does. Some of us get that, or get more of it; others, simply by virtue of their appearance (not their "lifestyle", by the way -- their appearance) do not, or get less. What every study has overwhelmingly shown is that this treatment correlates, very highly, with success in life. This is not something one overcomes; this is about how one is treated by others. Not to mention, even if this system of rewarding the just with employment and shorter prison sentences weren't based on race and other irrelevant factors, how exactly does each employer know who's a good person with a acceptable lifestyle or who's bad with an inappropriate lifestyle? Who judges who gets into heaven, here? You?
One more assertion I take issue with. You're talking about obstacles you've never faced. I can't respect that.
Again, nobody wants a hobo-looking person on their team. While I think John Maddog Hall cleans up nicely for a meeting, the others, no. I find your suggestion that RMS is a team player particularly vexing.
Let's look for a random other, well-kown programmer: https://www.google.be/search?q=mark+russinovich&safe=off&espv=210&es_sm=93&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=MYTYUojzCozB7AaNjIDYDw&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1846&bih=995
Again, you're talking past me. There are advantages and disadvantages we each are born with. But mostly we all have some of each, and can pick a career where our advantages are useful. There are advantages and disadvantages that are an accumulation of the choices we have made in life, but we deserve those. Natural skill at "getting help form other people" is certainly one part of that, for which you may have an advantage or disadvantage, both from factors beyond and under your control.
As time goes on, the accumulation of your choices matters more and more, but the factors beyond your control will always be there too. Playing to one's strengths is therefore wise.
You're talking about obstacles you've never faced. I can't respect that.
What obstacles do you have in mind? You know nothing about me. Growing up in poverty? Yup (as much as what we have in America can be called poverty - a trailer sure beats a tin shanty). Schooled in an area with the one of highest illiteracy rates in the country? Sure. Worked in environments where those of my ethnicity were quite rare, and watched managers who didn't match the dominant ethnicity get pushed out one by one until all the managers looked the same? You bet. Terrible, terrible people skills? You would not believe the asshole I was at 20.
Not smart enough to be a programmer? Lacking fingers with which to type? Nope, I didn't face those obstacles, but this wasn't my first choice of career either. I was not very wise in my youth, but I eventually ended up in a field where I had something going for me.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
This article is such a breath of fresh air. As a young, thin, fit, pretty, Latin-American electrical engineer, I completely feel the effects of people treating me like I don't know a single thing. It's infuriating and discouraging. I even wonder sometimes if I was hired just to fulfill some female or minority quota.
>So you're saying that if someone who likes to wear suits and ties goes to a metal concert, he wouldn't get funny looks or be judged negatively for it?
Actually, no he wouldn't. Not here where I live in Cape Town anyway - the alternative crowd here (which is per capita among the largest of any city in the world) is all about respecting somebody's right to express themselves without judgement or exclusion. A few of them wear suits, a few of those do it ironically - either way - nobody treats them any differently.
The only difference is, when the night advances a bit, which girls are grabbing them for drunken make-out sessions (that would be the ones who think suits look good).
I am part of a massive community built on the premise that you have no right to have an opinion about somebody until you know them well enough to base that opinion on their BEHAVIOUR - and it works wonderfully (and it's sufficiently large that the businesses in Cape Town have, for the most part, adopted that value - they had too, there is just too many good employees who embrace that culture, it's impossible to staff a high-skill company without accepting this fact)
That said - there is another factor that makes it irrelevant anyway even where there is no such cultural group changing the values of the society: there is no power relationships in my personal life. If I am late to a metal concert - nobody is going to fire me from being a metalhead and tell me I can't go them anymore. Nobody has authority over me, nobody can pressure me to obey or threaten to remove my livelihood if I don't.
Employers DO have a power relationship and that, by itself, is justification to restrict and limit that power to the bare minimum that is needed.
Anarchist values say that whenever somebody suggests one person should have power over another the burden of proof is on the wielder of power to show that the power they want is
1) a true necessity - i.e. the system in question could not function without somebody having it and no alternative method of functioning is available.
2) The bare minimum amount of power to satisfy section 1.
I believe it's been shown that the power to dictate dress and style is not in any way required for the functioning of a business. There may be exceptions - in those cases, the burden of proof is on those businessmen to show that their business would be harmed by the lack of clothing rules and that this harm would exceed the harm that having clothing rules do their employees.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
It's only irrelevant if you're a sociopath.
Someday you'll be old and useless and I hope that you don't get treated as badly as you believe others should be treated.
So we both agree there are things in one's control and things beyond one's control, and using the things you're best at is the best strategy. Well and good. But that leaves plenty of room for the fact that some people face problems that they really shouldn't have to deal with, that are devaluing and dehumanizing, and most importantly, preventable. Why should we shrug our shoulders and say, well some people have disadvantages others don't, when we can help those people or prevent those disadvantages? As someone who has experienced poverty, would you really want some rich person walking by to shrug and say "well, everyone has advantages and disadvantages in life"? Even if what they're saying is ultimately true, it's ignorant of the fact that we can change certain things, that certain things are avoidable, and certain things -- like people harming each other -- should be prevented. Overall, racism harms people. Hence, it should be stopped.
"What obstacles do you have in mind?"
I guess I was talking about racism. Systemic, societal-level racism, where people fear you walking down the street, and where you're taught every day to hate your own coloring. I was basing my assumptions about you on your blasé attitude toward discrimination.
Everyone is god's gift to the world. Privilege-speak implies that equality is not to be achieved by elevating the social condition of those who are mistreated, but by bringing down those who aren't. So long as _everyone_ is treated like shit, I think you'd be happy.
No stereotype is helping anyone. Nobody should be pulled over as if "driving while black", or followed harrassingly around the expensive store by security guards. The treatment of the "priveleged" is not privelege - it's how everyone should be treated.
By the way, you sound very much like a "pompous dickbag".
You can't sure society's ills, further it's not your duty. Your arms aren't long enough. But you can be the best you you can be, and maybe that will change some attitudes. Obsessing over racism only cements it in society - treat it like it's unimportant and make it unimportant.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
then I would have an excuse for my inadequacies.
You said:
In the UK at least it's illegal to employ a white male when a female or minority shows approximately the same level of competence. A white male must be without doubt the best candidate, by law.
Your defense of this ridiculous claim is to quote a wikipedia article that says:
. If the workforce does not reflect society's makeup (e.g. that women, or ethnic minorities are under-represented) then the employer may prefer the candidate which would correct that imbalance. But they may only do so where both candidates are of equal merit, and further conditions must be met.
You've misread a "may" as "must".
I wonder why?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Yes well done on finding a nit to pick, you're responding to about 2% of my argument, ignoring that you seem to think wikipedia is racist. If your job was in the UK and the majority of employees at the job were white males legislation exists which can only be used to promote non white males. It could have been used for the other applicants, but was not. Companies are pressured to provide diverse workforces.
The reverse of this is that the same protections make white males much easier to fire, so they have a short term employment advantage there.
Amended. Ok ? Anything else ?
'I wonder why ?' is a cowardly ad hominem, it means you don't have an argument. Back up your claims of racism and sexism or understand that you're arguing simplistic ideological bias against evolutionary biology.
Likely because you enjoy seeing yourself as morally superior, via a power hierarchy of labelling others unjustifiably.
Recommend you watch the video, read the page, you'll gain granularity of thinking on this subject. You attacking less people via stereotype is better for society. Yes? You not having such a poor view of your own people is better for society. Yes?
It's not a nit you nit. It reveals your post as the simple lie it is.
End of discussion you boring racist, sexist troll.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Hahaha. I literally can't stop labelling people with stereotypes, look at me, I'm a machine, I can get four in a sentence ! I'm ethical ad hominem man and you're barely human.
I retract, your footer hyperlink doesn't work and you've reacted to complexity with verbal violence, a sign of low intelligence. I wouldn't hire you based on this so you're probably stupid but kept in work by oppressive white privilege. You should resign and let someone less privileged have your role. Racist.
As the 6'3" black guy with should length dreadlocs and a beard, I would respectfully disagree. I'm sitting here in a comfortable network engineer position that I worked hard to get.
Half of the network administration team at my current client is black. I guess our anecdotes just canceled each other out, hmm?
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Interesting, it seems where you live my choice of examples was a poor one. Maybe this one is extreme enough to make my point clear: If someone shows up to an interview for a position at the NAACP with a shaved head and swastika tattoos wearing a German SS style uniform, would he get the job? Should he? I think in this case the answer to both is no. He obviously wouldn't fit in with the culture of the organization and trying to ignore that would only cause disruption to the workplace environment.
True that isn't realistic example, but it illustrates the point that social groups, by definition, have some distinguishing characteristics (looks and/or behavior) and have a mostly coherent set of core values. I think using those to assess how well people will work (or socialize) together is acceptable as long as it is used carefully, erring on the side of tolerance when there is any doubt. Although, that is just my personal opinion based on how interactions between groups in the societies I have been exposed to are generally handled. Your society may have different views on this and that's okay.
From your description, it seems like Cape Town has a rather unique culture that is far more accepting of superficial differences than those of most other places. Actually it reminds me a bit of Austin Texas or Portland Oregon. Both of those cities have adopted the slogan "Keep $CITY_NAME Weird". Where I live (Southwest US) is more moderate in that regard. Some people walk around in a cowboy hat and boots with a six shooter strapped to their hip, but it isn't that common and there is a general expectation that how you dress is associated with your career. Although, we aren't anywhere near as restrictive as in (for example) New England. There, especially in New York, it's expected that anyone who is a professional will wear a suit and tie to work and keep up a similar style of appearance after hours.
Which of these approaches is better? I don't know of a good way to judge that. There isn't much correlation with successful economic outcomes. And it seems most people tend to prefer whichever system they're a part of, though the trend does seem to be toward more tolerance of personal style than away from it right now.
As far as the "power relationship" thing goes in employment, I think that is entirely dependent on the dynamics of the local economy. In places with a limited number of employers who dominate the market and little, if any, employee organization it is a serious issue and could warrant more stringent regulation on how they can discriminate during hiring. Other places are on the opposite end with the employers beholden to strong unions who set the hiring policies and, in that case, the unions should probably be required to accept any qualified member. But there's also a third option that I think doesn't require as much regulation. When there are a large number of employers with different corporate cultures and expectations and there is enough employee freedom to organize or not as they see fit, there are enough options that employers and employees are on roughly equal footing and strictly regulating their interactions isn't necessary.
I don't know if you can tell, but I'm more Libertarian than Anarchist. There are some interesting parallels and differences between those philosophies, that volumes could be written on (and have) without adequately addressing.
By the way, this has been a good conversation. It's not often that a discussion concerning topics people are passionate about can go on this long without flames erupting and name calling, especially on the internet.
Knowledge Brings Fear
Let's use your example. Now imagine that the first thing that person says in the interview is this:
"You can see on my body, the history of my life. I was raised in a neo-Nazi culture, surrounded by it my whole life and embraced it as all I knew, the very basis of all my pride and knowledge - but adulthood brought experiences that shook the foundations of that belief system - gradually it was torn down and I came to recognize the horror and injustice it truly represents. I am here, because I wish to atone for what I did in the time before I made that realization, to fight for the very rights I helped undermine".
Do you think he deserves a chance or should his swastika tattoo forever punish him for a belief system he has rejected ?
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
No, my friend sociopath is the guy who thinks that everybody should be coerced to follow him in his crusade against "inequality" .
The truth is: albeit success is a combination of factors, some within your control and others outside it, in a stable country like US, if you work hard you will get a very reasonable life. You may be unable to become rich because of genetics, lack of luck or whatever, but you won't become miserable if you are ready to work and put effort in your life.
Therefore I couldn't care less if in your vision an Olympic Athlete does not deserve to have more success than Mr John Normal, because he was genetically privileged. Mr John Normal can still have a pretty good life, and a much better life than he would be able to have in countries that tried to enforce your distorted views of "equality".
Eh. I apologize.
Do you think he deserves a chance or should his swastika tattoo forever punish him for a belief system he has rejected ?
Absolutely, he should have the opportunity to be free from future judgements based on values and beliefs he no longer holds. Especially so if he's trying to make up for past transgressions on his new found values. I just think it would make it easier to do so if he were to cover up the tattoo and wear clothes that don't give others the impression that he still carries the beliefs he has rejected.
Knowledge Brings Fear
No, we're currently treating it dismissively, and the result is that racism isn't going away. If we need change, we need to address the problem for once. Treating unequal voting rights as unimportant didn't make it go away. Also, you'll notice the people treating it as unimportant were mostly dudes. It's a lot easier to tell someone, it's not important, when you don't have to suffer through it. Throughout history, we've never solved social ills until they've been addressed by society at large. Your philosophy is very zen, but it's simply not how reality works.
Nae problemo.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
look just deal with it
I know it may seem insensitive or mean to call someone a 'dork' but for the life of me I couldn't & still can't think of a better way to describe it.
It's a concept everyone knows. Like 'slut'...you immediately have an impression of some key facts about a person if you are told by someone you trust that some chick is a 'slut'.
geek, nerd, etc...I picked 'dork' because, unlike 'geek', there is no movement to make it a complimentary term ("geeks get things done"). Obv. /. is news for 'nerds' so that's out. Dork is universally known slang that has a bit of..um..whimsy to it. It's not as mean as calling someone an 'aspie' for ex.
I think my comment elicited such a response from you because you *lived* that whole thing I described, hated it, and pushed through anyway telling yourself,
"This is what a person has to do to succeed"
Which is fine. My comment is a gripe against your drive to get a good education and do good work.
I'm mad that the situation exists in the first place. It's not necessary...it's a continuation of bulling/pecking order male heirarchal behavior.
Dorks are as bad as 'jocks'!
It's all bullshit and it's only in the very abstract related to success in the industry.
Thank you Dave Raggett
Plenty of long haired hippie looking dudes where I work. My bosses boss is a long haired hippie. The company is a highly successful internet company. I find your comments very strange. Why does appearance matter so much? It's seen as effectively meaningless to us. Dreadlocks, crazy hair, crazy beards, ancient clothes. None of it matters. What matters is the people.
"The space elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing." - Arthur C. Clarke ~1980
This is something that can be learned. I did. It helps to have the intelligence to pull it off but if you spend just a couple of weeks as a door-to-door or house-call salesman you'll probably learn it too.
yeah it must be hard for you to realise that some of us, who were like you in our pursuit of 'side-learning', still didn't get jobs we liked, but then hey, without money you're fucked.
If the author has considered he's been lucky the fact he's benefited from getting in technical field such as programming, that double side sword surely will hurt if he ever wants to get in managerial fields, sales, politics etc., Being stereotypical works both ways.
see, your impression is wrong...only frat-bro & the Bud Lite crowd think like you ascribe to everyone:
one of the things you learn by interacting with others is that there are **MANY** people and 'types' that think the statement "you need to go out drinking to have a life" is bullshit just like you
there are all kinds of things going on Friday night besides playing Starcraft or going and getting completely shitfaced at some bar
**if you got out more you'd know that**
Thank you Dave Raggett
The frequent argument from "hands off my money" people against any kind of redistribution of wealth center around the concepts of "earning" and "deserving", these are therefor concepts which are worth investigating. How much of what you have you "earned" and how much you "deserve" and by contrast how much of the misfortune of others is "earned" and "deserved" is really rather important.
You seem to be a textbook example of what this actual article is about. Just because life was easy for you and I, doesn't mean that it's easy for everyone. I had parents who could provide me with enough food to eat so I could grow up, I wasn't exposed to lead paint, my mother didn't drink or smoke when she was pregnant. I got to go to good schools and live in safe neighborhoods. I was able to go to a high quality public university that I could afford due to the assistance of the taxpayers in providing a guarantor for my student loans. I'm also of above average intelligence, though I'm nothing special. Life has always been reasonably easy for me, there have never been any barriers which I could not overcome with a little bit of perseverance. Throughout my whole life people have been working to help me succeed. Many people, both in the US and elsewhere do not have these opportunities, not because they are bad people, or even lazy people. Many of America's working poor work much harder than I or in all likelihood you, have ever done in my life.
TL;DR YOU ARE NOT BETTER, I AM NOT BETTER, WE BOTH ARE EXTRAORDINARILY LUCKY AND THAT LUCK COULD DISAPPEAR TOMORROW.
i am categorically saying the opposite
I'm saying its wrong to 'weed out' potential engineers and computer programmers by tolerating bad teaching & tacitly encouraging a culture that fosters alienation of women, isolation, obsessive computer game playing, and an in-major pecking order that hurts students
you're just waaaay off
Thank you Dave Raggett
wow like magic you seem to have gotten my point and managed to identify it & make a coherent counterpoint
an incorrect counterpoint, but one I can engage with
no...I changed my major before classes began b/c I was in Air Force ROTC & tested high on the ASFAB so I had a job as a navigator waiting for me no matter what my major as long as it had a technical component & i didn't screw it up
I was **placed** in the dorms by the university with other EE & ME majors because my school tried to put people near each other who were in the same College w/in the school.
Not only that, I've talked at length with *most* CS majors & engineers throughout my career because i make it my business to learn what schooling works and why, inlcuding my time as a professor teaching human/computer interaction.
Add to my personal 1st hand experience, the experience of my direct peers and friends in college, the experience of engineers & computer scientists I've met all over the world (I did a semester of research in france)...
**So no, it's not because of anything you say at all.**
You want others to suffer needlessly & people like you are hurting both the tech industry & academia.
You finally were forced to engage my point, but all you did was Ad Homonym attack me...
My point was about Academia & how it fosters a poisonous environment & you can't counter it because its TRUE!
Thank you Dave Raggett
again, you are plainly making a logical fallacy
THIS PROVES MY WHOLE POINT
that the culture I describe is not necessary to educate engineers and programmers
Thank you Dave Raggett
no. it proves you are bad at analogies.
I'm not telling anyone how to live their life. My logic is sound. I honestly don't know why you think we disagree?
what's your point of contention?
are you saying 'dork' culture as I described isn't part of academia in those fields?
are you saying that students arent commonly 'weeded out' via abstract & non-work/education related hurdles in those fields?
don't put words in my mouth and dont ad homonym attack.
it's similar to 'hazing' in some ways but only in the same way the 'dork' pecking order is similar to the 'jock'/Wall Street trader type.
it is always wrong to waste people's time with pointless time consuming activities (like participating in 'dork' subculutre) in an educational/professional setting...no matter what analogy you use, be it boot camp or w/e, I'll always go to that heuristic
Thank you Dave Raggett
you want to make trouble
I'M NOT SAYING THIS:
I'm saying that often times **many** programs do...not "all" you fsckface...a sizable number of programs. Just because you can think of an exception doesn't prove me wrong b/c I never said "all".
You understand but you'll still troll me forever.
This conversation is over.
Thank you Dave Raggett