So the last line made me think: why do I hate the idea of the All-American Basketball Alliance[1], but support programs to increase diversity in software?
But it's not a contradiction: I have seen nothing to lead me to believe that a talented player of any race will not get a fair chance in the NBA. It's all about winning, but the opportunity is there for everyone.
So isn't SV all about winning too? Yes, it is—but we know a lot less about what leads to winning. There are no draft combines where everyone gets show what they can do. Nobody writes code competitively directly against other programmers on TV to prove they can produce at a high level. Companies play it by ear. The NBA knows how to evaluate talent. We don't.
Here's a fun example: "PayPal once rejected a candidate who aced all the engineering tests because for fun, the guy said that he liked to play hoops. That single sentence lost him the job. No PayPal people would ever have used the world “hoops.” Probably no one even knew how to play “hoops.” Basketball would be bad enough. But “hoops?” That guy clearly wouldn’t have fit in. He’d have had to explain to the team why he was going to go play hoops on a Thursday night. And no one would have understood him."[2]
Welp, guess I wouldn't have been able to get hired at PayPal. Not only do I like to play basketball, I've said "shooting hoops" a lot. You're going to turn down someone who aced your tests because of a hobby and the phrase he used to describe it? You really think that's the secret to success? You're flying by the seat of your pants in a world without good metrics and you don't know which things you did contributed to your success and which things didn't. You're actively discouraging diversity of culture (which is not directly the same thing as diversity of gender/race, but it makes it a lot harder to have the latter).
And it's that still-sometimes-present active discouragement of diversity that I find frustrating about many parts of the programmer community.
[1] a basketball league venture in the southern US that required players be white, that I believe folded quickly a couple of years ago
IMHO, it may be a contradiction - there is no need for any specific program to encourage some specific group (even if one is a member of a given group, and could take advantage of the program for profit in the short run, because one don't get better in the long run by having it easier it the short run)
I can't say anything about paypal - I wasn't there, and I don't like to pass judgements.
But if they indeed were that dumb not to hire a good candidate only for the sports he plays, it's no wonder their product sucks more an more. Personally, I'm eagerly waiting for a competitor until bitcoin gets more momentum.
BTW one thing I'd like to say - the opportunity in coding is there for everyone - it's even more open than the NBA because the judge is the market, and with the current technology everyone can easily start a tech company and compete globally.
It's a pure and perfect competition.
There's no need to be hired be a company - you create your company and show your product to the market. If it works, if it does what people need, you will get money.
I have to disagree with you there. Plenty of examples of poor kids getting into the NBA these days, but coding requires your parents to have enough cash to buy you a proper PC with development tools or a Mac. There are HS BB coaches, but very few programming mentors in the poor or rural areas. Heck, teaching programming went the way of vocational programs. It was once different, but that door closed hard.
Poor kids get into the NBA because they invest a lot into their physical training and game abilities. You know the 10'000 hours rule.
A ball may be less expansive than a computer, but a free access to a public library and following online programming courses is even less expansive.
IMHO, the only real difference is peer acceptance of an investment in sport, which still ranks much higher (socially) than investing time in computers and learning.
Your assumption that there is a public library available to kids to learn to program on is sadly not true for a lot of rural children. For the majority of my youth, a public library either required a parent's time investment or was not available at all. The situation hasn't changed. Online programming training and tools are also not exactly top notch, and I would not be surprised if the tip off some "dangerous" activity with the librarians.
When we lost the class of computers that the C64, Vic 20, Atari 400/800, TI99/4A, and Sinclairs made up, we lost a lot of the onramp to programming.
it's even more open than the NBA because the judge is the market
Interesting, I have the exact opposite viewpoint - I can see the result of a software project, but I have very little insight into the contributions behind the scenes. In sports, I (and the rest of the world) can see the contributions of the atheltes and judge merit for ourselves.
For example, I know the new iOS maps have problems, but (aside from press leaks) I don't have a lot of insight into who did what. On the other hand, I know from watching Knicks games last season that Jeremy Lin was the real deal. I know the result of the 2012 Super Bowl (Giants beat Patriots) and I also saw the contribution of the team members (for example, Tom Brady throwing a perfect pass to Wes Welker at he end of the game that Welker dropped).
I've always see athletics as the closest ideal to a meritocracy that we have in our society.
We do have opposite viewpoints because I see the one man company or consultant as the closest ideal to a meritocracy.
But still +1'ing for this very interesting opinion - because you're right, in a company which more than 1 employee it's hard to judge the individual performance.
I'm afraid you're glasses are a bit too rosy. It's true that while you're still at home you could start your own company. But some people don't get that inspiration until a bit later in life. Once you have a wife and kids, you cannot make a business unless you get funding. So if people who give funding are racist (I have no idea if they are) then minorities have less chance.
So at the very beginning anyone has a chance. But once you have some responsibilities white males still have a lot of opportunity to make their own business and other groups may not.
Uniformity of culture would presumably increase quality and speed of communication, and remove needless distraction from the process of producing. I can definitely see why even a company committed to diversity of gender, race, religion, and so on would want to hire only those who "fit the company culture".
The word "presumably" is the kicker. To "presume" is to "Take for granted in the absence of proof to the contrary." So, if you don't have any proof that barring people who use a word like "hoops" is bad, you take it for granted that it's good.
Somebody else can also go ahead and presume that in a company that is in the business of converting human capital into money, diversity of culture can bring new perspectives and ideas that may lead to higher performance. In the absence of proof to the contrary, they'd be taking their own biases for granted as well.
In the end, I'm not particularly impressed by the idea that company culture trumps the ability to perform the job in an exemplary fashion. As a long-time manager, I pride myself on getting results from people who have the necessary baseline skills to perform. In my former life as a Director of Development, I can't imagine saying to the President, "Sorry, but the reason we're slipping deadlines is that we can't hire enough qualified people. And thanks for that referral, but although he aced everything technically, he's a basketball player rather than a cyclist or rock climber, and worse, he used a word typical of basketball players. So that's why we're going to lose some money this quarter."
I don't play golf, but if you do and you're amazing, you're hired and one day you may be managing me and dropping hints that I ought to hit a few buckets of balls on the range. I'm ok with that :-)
I don't actually agree with (what I know of the) PayPal hiring decision in this case, but the part I was replying to, and should have quoted initially, is:
You're actively discouraging diversity of culture (which is not directly the same thing as diversity of gender/race, but it makes it a lot harder to have the latter).
My point is just that it's not at all clear that encouraging uniformity of culture is automatically a terrible, productivity-destroying bias, and that I have worked at places which strongly preferred that candidates "fit into" the organization's culture while at the same time being strongly committed to diversity in gender, race/ethnicity, and so on. These are definitely separable.
Sure, it sounds plausible that it would do that, but then I think about if my hobbies and work code interact at all, and it just hasn't happened. Have you seen it yourself? The software business has its own jargon, and in my experience it's entirely divorced from non-computer-related hobbies.[1] I played a lot of videogames in the past, but I've never used a videogame metaphor in describing a programming problem or requirement to a coworker. I've played and watch a ton of sports, but similarly that's never come up. And none of my coworkers with other interests (for instance, D&D, which I've only played once myself) have ever described stuff in those terms.
[1] If someone didn't have as much technical background or interest in the job itself, that's one thing, but when it comes to liking to go hiking vs liking to play board games? Is it really going to make a difference?
But it's not a contradiction: I have seen nothing to lead me to believe that a talented player of any race will not get a fair chance in the NBA. It's all about winning, but the opportunity is there for everyone.
So isn't SV all about winning too? Yes, it is—but we know a lot less about what leads to winning. There are no draft combines where everyone gets show what they can do. Nobody writes code competitively directly against other programmers on TV to prove they can produce at a high level. Companies play it by ear. The NBA knows how to evaluate talent. We don't.
Here's a fun example: "PayPal once rejected a candidate who aced all the engineering tests because for fun, the guy said that he liked to play hoops. That single sentence lost him the job. No PayPal people would ever have used the world “hoops.” Probably no one even knew how to play “hoops.” Basketball would be bad enough. But “hoops?” That guy clearly wouldn’t have fit in. He’d have had to explain to the team why he was going to go play hoops on a Thursday night. And no one would have understood him."[2]
Welp, guess I wouldn't have been able to get hired at PayPal. Not only do I like to play basketball, I've said "shooting hoops" a lot. You're going to turn down someone who aced your tests because of a hobby and the phrase he used to describe it? You really think that's the secret to success? You're flying by the seat of your pants in a world without good metrics and you don't know which things you did contributed to your success and which things didn't. You're actively discouraging diversity of culture (which is not directly the same thing as diversity of gender/race, but it makes it a lot harder to have the latter).
And it's that still-sometimes-present active discouragement of diversity that I find frustrating about many parts of the programmer community.
[1] a basketball league venture in the southern US that required players be white, that I believe folded quickly a couple of years ago
[2] http://blakemasters.tumblr.com/post/21437840885/peter-thiels...