For black CEOs in Silicon Valley, humiliation is a part of doing business

Racism doesn't imply intent either. It absolutely can be the case that someone unknowingly makes a racist inference even with the best of intentions.

In some circumstances, it's not harmful to assume the person wearing a suit is the CEO, though you might not always be right. The person in the suit might also be head of sales, while baggy clothes is CEO. Generally, it's better not to assume at all unless you're forced to. Just ask.

But inferring that someone isn't the CEO because they're black? I'm sorry, but that's racism pure and simple. Stereotyping is one form of racism (not the only one). You have no reason to make the inference, and it's highly insulting if you make a mistake. And to assume that feelings wouldn't be hurt is... tremendously naive and blind to the reality of racism.

If a certain type of discrimination of perception arises due to stereotypes, but by and large affects certain racial groups, then is it racism ? It also affects women as it does those who do not abide by personality traits of the valley's cargo cult or the Ivy MBA.

> just accept the correction and move on

Yeah. I think in such cases a sincere apology is at the minimum warranted.

It can be both.

"Women drive badly" is a sexist stereotype, but not racism.

"Black people drive badly" would be both a stereotype and racism.

A better example would be, "women aren't passionate about driving". That's a stereotype, likely a correct one (i.e. substantiated by statistics... I mean, I'm not certain, but that would be my prior, but I'm very open to changing it), and most importantly: not harmful. It's just a stereotype.

I'm not denying that things could be harmful (racism, sexist, ...). But not all stereotypes are. Like guessing that "Alex" is probably a guy.

How about just not making any assumptions at all and ask and support people, be it white, black, male, female, trans, etc?

Citation on those not being harmful? Stereotypes like that seem to be a driving factor in why STEM fields are very male dominated.

"Girls don't like cars; go find some dolls to play with."

No, it's my experience showing. I grew up being basically ostracized (and also bullied) for being a geek. Little did I know it would turn out to be an extremely lucrative career. Simply, while other boys were out playing sports, or indoors playing computer games, I was programming. Because I was interested.

Having said that, I think it's also the case that some people are discouraged from doing what they want, because parents/society. I don't think I'm doing that though. If anything, I'd be more curious about someone doing something unusual (not even in an anti-stereotypical way, but like, generally - such as archery, or spear fishing, or (until recently) bread-making).

> How about just not making any assumptions at all and ask and support people

I definitely support people doing pretty much whatever. But experience shows that it's often better to e.g. lead conversations into interesting topics, rather than play a questions & answers game to find a common interest. The more you're able to do that, based on quick inferences, the better conversationalist you are (on average).

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/28/minecraft...

I’m over forty and and upper middle class. It’s a true stereotype that we don’t tend to be passionate skateboarders, but someone that met me in a skatepark would not draw the conclusion that I’m not interested based on my age and socioeconomics.

If you're a VC coming to a first meeting with a startup CEO and their team, none of whom you have met in person before, making an inference at all is simply unprofessional. You should be asking. The fact that the VC's inference was that the white person must be the CEO just adds the further insult of racist stereotyping to the insult of unprofessional behavior in this context.

My main takeaway from the article was not "lots of people in the startup world are racist" but "lots of people in the startup world are unprofessional assholes". I think the latter problem is what needs to be fixed.

And citation for that citation, ad absurdum.

At some point, we have to agree on what is actually going on in this world. We can't solely rely on citations, because I can just say that those citations are a result of an oppressive patriarchy and as a result, I don't accept your citation as valid.

Where do we go form here?

The basis for any possible discussion is solidarity - society doesn't work if people are constantly being pitted against each other.

If it doesn't promote solidarity - it's anti society, pro anarchy. If you want guns in the streets and children screaming, we're well on our way. I just don't know if those creating anarchy (all of corporate media including social platforms) are even aware of what they've done - they're undermining the foundation of society that makes their existence possible and they don't seem to care.

> Everyone knows that testosterone makes young men orders of magnitude more violent

You're using hyperbole but yes it's commonly understood that there's a link between testosterone and aggression, however you extend that claim to something completely different

> why is it inconceivable that they could also be 4 times more interested in more mechanic play? It’s been observed even in almost newborn chimpanzees for Gods sake.

I counter that this second claim is related to the first, is it that testosterone makes young males more likely to play with mechanical objects? There are a few articles that reference this study from 2008 [1]. It refers to rhesus monkeys not chimpanzees and their hypothesis at the end is much more nuanced

>We offer the hypothesis that toy preferences reflect hormonally influenced behavioral and cognitive biases which are sculpted by social processes into the sex differences seen in monkeys and humans.

Furthermore there is at least 1 meta-analysis from 2017 [2] that highlights

> Gender differences in toy choice exist and appear to be the product of both innate and social forces. > Despite methodological variation in the choice and number of toys offered, context of testing, and age of child, the consistency in finding sex differences in children's preferences for toys typed

Note they do not make the claim that testosterone is the cause of these differences. Scientists try to be careful about the language they use, we should be just as careful.

1: Sex differences in rhesus monkey toy preferences parallel those of children - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2008.03.008

2: Sex differences in children's toy preferences: A systematic review, meta‐regression, and meta‐analysis - https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.2064

It is not racist to assume that the person in the room most like the other CEOs you have met, is also the CEO. If I was in a foreign country, I would assume the CEO is the person most like the other people in that country. I never made any assumption about competence. Half the time I think the least competent person in the room is the CEO. Sadly that's how business works. There would be nothing racist - intentional, or unintentional - about my assumption.

I'm sorry, but your opinion here does not match with either practical, common, or academic definitions for racism.

People have internal biases all the time that cause them to be averse to particular racial groups -- particularly disadvantaged racial groups. They may not even realize they are doing it, but that doesn't mean that it's not racist. (For example, resumes with White names are more likely to receive callbacks than those with Black names. There may be no intent by the resume reviewer.)

Another example, asking to touch a Black stranger's hair is othering, which is a type of racist behavior. The person asking usually isn't intending to be racist, and is 'just' trying to satisfy their own curiosity. There's no ill intent, but that doesn't mean it's OK.

An example:

- I run into a white friend and call him Dave (another white guy I know), when his name is Mark. It happens, I apologize as I'm terrible with names.

- I run into a black friend and call him Dave (another black guy I know), when his name is Mark. It happens, I apologize as I'm terrible with names.

In the 2nd instance, you can guarantee someone will accuse me of bring racist.

Basically, people make mistakes and say rude things all the time. But throw race in there and suddenly everything is viewed in the worst possible light.

You haven't been exposed to a very broad range of parents. I've seen parents who very tightly control which toys, clothes, and grooming choices their kids make because they don't align with the parent's gender expectations. It's frustratingly common in the US.

Is it plausible to assume that STEM fields and female participation is a case where stereotypes have very little effect? I think I'd need some pretty strong evidence for the idea stereotypes had little effect on any kind of career choice. Even less so for fields where any mention of stereotypes and gender imbalance garners a furious insistence that the stereotype is [i] irrelevant to anyone's advice or decision making [ii] also such an accurate representation of biologically-driven preferences it would be unfair for the gender ratio to change

In the situations described in the article (VC pitch, sales pitch), just make introductions like a normal human being. "Hi, I'm triceratops nice to meet you <hold out hand, other person states their name in turn>"

If there are multiple people in the room, follow a fixed, consistent order. Options include nearest-to-farthest or left-to-right or starting from the head of the table.

Because of the reason given in the article. It starts the meeting off on a bad note by making the VC aware of their bias and embarrassing them. Often they just want to get the hell out ASAP to save face, which means the black CEO doesn't get a "fair go".

I don't disagree that some my find stereotypes alienating. But you're making a very big leap to claim that it's a "driving factor" as far as gender representation in STEM.

1. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more...

Specifically to quote your post: "toy preferences reflect hormonally influenced behavioral and..."

Everyone just hang out more with people "different" from you and recognize we're all part of the human race.

If you internally take a guess which is the CEO based on race, it may or may not be racist but it generally isn't harmful. If you make it clear that you guessed that? (as opposed to keeping your guess to yourself) That's harmful as well as just stupid.

Also, I would think that the person that claims discrimination would have the burden of proof.

Person A has illiberal views on race but is very good at recognizing black people's faces.

Person B has liberal views on race but is very bad at recognizing black people's faces.

From your point of view: Person A is not apparently racist and person B is a confirmed racist!

This is a good example of how mistaken the illiberal left has become on these issues.

>Gender differences in toy choice exist and appear to be the product of both innate and social forces.

Gender seems to make some sort of difference but social factors also seem to make a difference. There is no claim to which is stronger, just that there is a difference. Taking this a step further I hypothesize that social forces could be enough to meaningfully change the gender difference.

And yeah, I think it's a potential contributing factor (one of many). Kids in many parts of the country are socialized that certain things are only for certain genders. It sucks. Let kids like whatever they want.

Sorry, what? "Racism" is not a word with a clear definition over time. It didn't exist at all in popular usage until the past few decades.

I think what you're trying to say is that "racism" is supposed to connote direct discrimination, like support for segregation, slavery, stuff like that. And sure, lots of people use the word that way. Most of those people are the same people who want to argue that "racism is a solved problem", so it's easy to see why this definition is attractive to mostly-male, mostly-white, mostly-conservative people.

But it's not the way a lot of other people use the word, where it connotes broader injustice in society and not just individual opinions.

Basically: you're making a senseless semantic argument. Even if you win the dictionary war about what "racism" means, you're still not responding to the actual concerns being expressed.

If I were to meet/know/whatever 100 CEOs and 99% of them were not black and for example wore an expensive suit in a specific setting/environment, then is it racist to assume (based on my past experiences) that a particular black person wearing an expensive suit in this particular setting/environment is not the CEO? I honestly fail to see how making assumptions based on personal experiences and whatnot is racist. This is not equivalent to claiming that someone who is black cannot be the CEO, there is the possibility, most definitely. Denying this possibility based on race or skin color is what I would rather have a problem with.

Well yes, if stereotypes or discrimination play any role it at all in career selection, it rules out the possibility that the highly variable ratio of male to female computer scientists is determined solely by biology. This strikes me as a much stronger claim requiring much stronger proof than a statement to the effect that [the well-established existence of] stereotypes is amongst the driving factors in career selection; particularly given that the ratio of male to female computer scientists varies hugely by place and time in ways which would be very difficult to attribute solely to biology.

It means your behaviour is informed by racial profiling of an individual.

It means that you're not treating someone as an individual, but rather based on membership of a racial group he happens to be born in, which has statistical characteristics (e.g. lower chance of being a CEO) that do not necessarily have any bearing on the individual at all.

We define treating people distinctly like that because of their racial membership, as racist. That's really just the definition. You can have a discussion about whether you think racism is justified or not, and make your own value judgement. You could say that even if membership of a group does not necessarily say something, odds are that it can be a good way to infer things. And that's true, group-membership (e.g. your ethnicity) has many useful correlations from which to infer things. But to say it's not racist simply isn't factual, it is racist according to how we define it. What's left open for discussion is whether racism is okay or not.

Of course as a society we have indeed had that discussion and fortunately decided that racism isn't justified, not okay, and should be prevented as much as possible. I'm happy about that. Because even if group membership (e.g. race, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, religion etc) has correlations with all kinds of outcomes we may wish to approximate, as a society we agree that it is only fair to judge people on their individual merits, and not on the group that they belong to.

1. We make judgements on “group membership” all the time, and to the extent they’re correlated to the outcome (i.e. true) that’s not wrong or -ist. Example would be, do you avoid stepping in front of a car because you infer that the car might run you over, or do you just take your chances and hope that this individual car will stop. Ok, contrived example. How about this: people generally accept that men are more dangerous than women (e.g. when it comes to rape, stranger danger, domestic violence, courts, jails, ...) even though the vast majority of men aren’t violent at all! Is this sexist? Yes, to some extent, in particular when the state does that (e.g. always arresting men in case of domestic violence call). But at the same time, that kind of “prejudice” might just save your life; how wrong can that be?

2. Even if there’s no correlation to the outcome, not every inference is -ist. Example I mentioned downthread is, assuming that “Alex” is a man. Is that really wrong?

3. Which brings me to, you write that “treating people distinctly” is -ist. But what is treating? Again, people make inferences (that’s literally what intelligence is, short-term prediction engine). Sometimes that’s even embedded in the language (e.g. in Slovenian, you have to assume gender, unlike in English). But as long as we remain open to change, that’s fine! If the woman tells me that actually she’s “Alex”, the only actually sexists way would be if I refused to call her by her (masculine-ish) name.

TL;DR: if everything is racist, then racism cannot be immoral.

If it is based on ones favorite sports team, it is just stupid.

Since it's palpably absurd to attribute this to differences between Russian and other European female biology, I think you've just refuted the argument that biology is likely to be the sole factor determining career choices. Given that we have just proven that cultural attitudes do shape career choices to some extent, perhaps they are even partly influenced by some people's insistence that the only actually problematic attitude towards female participation in their field is considering women equally likely to be suited to the job?

Of course, and that's the danger of stereotypes. Now it's up to her to prove she's interested.

> It’s a true stereotype that we don’t tend to be passionate skateboarders, but someone that met me in a skatepark would not draw the conclusion that I’m not interested based on my age and socioeconomics.

This is a great example. If they saw you standing there watching, they would draw the conclusion you're there with your kid/working maintenance/etc. Pull a random gamer kid with no skating passion and stand him next to you, then ask people who the skater is -- I'd bet 99 times out of 100 they pick the kid. Only once you prove yourself a skater does anyone correctly evaluate you, and to anyone who wasn't there when you proved it, you have to prove it again next time (or someone from the in group vouches for you). Go to a different skate park and you have to prove yourself again. Every time you meet someone new, you have to do a little dog and pony show to prove you're a Real Skater™ [0].

Now replace skating with programming and it should be obvious why stereotypes can be harmful.

[0] Even Tony Hawk runs into this not infrequently (stories on his twitter) where people even after learning his name can't/don't accept he's the pro skater.

What a person feels is subjective and has nothing to do with what the other person intended to do. As you can't be in other people's head (except if you have that pretension ?) the only thing that matters is what your intention were.

In your study about hair : was it also done between chinese and indians, indians & eskimos and eskimos and swedish people? Because what those US academics brilliantly "discovered" is that people are more at ease with people that look like them. If you want to call it racist, at least have the honesty to attribute it to all human beings.

I don't really understand your logic. The biology is the same in both places, but we can all agree that Sweden is 100 times more progressive. Even if you claim there are still stereotyping here, their effect would be much much smaller. How can that be reconciled with the much larger disparities we see in Sweden?