On Thu, 2014-04-10 at 15:25 -0600, Roger Critchlow wrote: > So, what's the question here? [..] > Or are you thinking that maybe all those white male losers got their > skills and jobs through some sort of structural inequity that tilted > the competition in their favor?
There's a third possibility, which is that while there is inequity, the stereotypical silicon valley brogrammer is actually good at their jobs, in spite of having this defect. I would say it is (relative) privilege that gave them the opportunity to develop the skills they have. Mostly what makes software engineers valuable is skill, judgment, and literacy, and that mostly comes from lots of practice -- which is to say, starting young. Being especially intelligent helps, but I think does not fully replace experience. > That a kind of in-group altruism is operating here, where white men > give each other a pass while agreeing to allow the jerks among them to > beat up the women, persons of color, and non-normative gender > identities so those uppity not male, not white, not straight > competitors have to wade through piles of shit that straight white men > never meet? So, if you buy the argument above, then a selection criteria for who to put in your company is to select someone like yourself: Someone you understand. Not for altruistic reasons, but for selfish reasons. While perhaps egotistical, it would be a crude way to model how they would work out. Credentials like open source experience or education add to that, but there to there is inequity inherent in those experiences too. In contrast, doing something unfamiliar could seem riskier. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
