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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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!
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.
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.
I think there's a meme about this. It's called "First World Problems." Sheesh!
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.
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.
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.
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.