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

> You wouldn't believe how lonely it is. In my team of 150 people, we were two black people.

This is a huge part of the problem isn't it?

I believe these painful interactions would be much less common if tech culture were more diverse in the first place.

Women share a similar fate. Whenever I hear some of these stories I cringe. Some of them are surprising/shocking even.

But this seems important. Hearing those stories including the ones you mentioned. Not necessarily to point fingers (although sometimes we should) but rather to fight this common, widespread ignorance.

> This is a huge part of the problem isn't it?

I think this is the problem.

Say a black guy with gold teeth, tons of tattoos and colorful dreadlocks and a middle aged white guy walk in. One of them is a rapper. Who is it?

Based on experience, most people will certainly assume the black guy is. What if it turns out it’s the white guy?

Are they unconsciously racist against white people or are they just following experience-based heuristics? Would they have decided differently if rappers were commonly middle aged white guys?

I say for sure. If black people in tech become more common this particular problem will solve itself.

It certainly makes sense to assume (in your head) the black guy is a rapper, and the white guy is a tech CEO.

But when you know how it makes people feel when you make your assumption visible, you understand the need to act like anyone could be the CEO, the developer, etc. Same goes for women devs who at tech conferences who are too often "assumed" to be girlfriends, recruiters or other non-tech participants.

Yes, the problem will solve itself if black people in tech become more common - but:

1. it's not going to get solved if we make them feel out of place in tech by always assuming they're "the wrong guy".

2. let's try not to make the life harder to the very few black people (and other minorities) who are already in tech?

> I believe these painful interactions would be much less common if tech culture were more diverse in the first place.

I have this bias that people who get into programming as kids tend to end up as the strongest developers. My own personal effort to try and help tech diversify is support and promotion of https://www.blackgirlscode.com/

When I've worked in London I've been often surprised at how diverse QA teams are, especially compared to dev teams. I wonder if that's related.

> I have this bias that people who get into programming as kids tend to end up as the strongest developers.

I don't think this is true. I think that this bias is pushing away a lot of people who could be those strong developers, but think it is already too late for them.

I’m not arguing that you should make your assumptions visible (I agree it’s better to just ask), I’m just saying racism isn’t the root cause here and any attempts to fix this issue assuming that it is are going to be ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst. We should work on fixing the actual issue.

> But when you know how it makes people feel when you make your assumption visible...

How people feel depends on their own assumptions on why you made the mistake. Say that yours was a perfectly natural mistake based on innate heuristics, and there is no value judgement implied. If this is the way your mistake is interpreted, no feelings are hurt. But if you spread the idea that this is racism and a value judgement is implied, then feelings are hurt, and it becomes a serious issue.

So the way you frame the issue actually ends up creating the issue.

> Are they unconsciously racist or are they just following experience-based heuristics?

Both! Today's discussion about racism isn't (mainly) about critiquing the motivations in peoples' deepest heart. It's about acknowledging that the outcomes of this kind of assumption can be racist, regardless of whether any harm was intended.

The person who is assumed to be subordinate, or less educated, or more prone to criminality will be given fewer opportunities. Society will systematically fail to recognize and utilize their talents, and can ultimately do them great harm through neglect - even if the individuals involved were "just following experience-based heuristics".

Acknowledging your potential to participate in racism doesn't mean admitting you have a cartoonish hatred. It means recognizing that it requires a proactive effort to keep assumptions from becoming self perpetuating in harmful ways.

This is what is meant by systemic racism.

> If black people in tech become more common this particular problem will solve itself.

I suspect there will not be more black people in tech, until they are not treated differently based on skin color.

In general people who never suffered from this kind of profiling have a hard time understanding what's the problem. "I just called him a rapper". No, you just profiled someone who is sick and tired of being profiled. So the examples meant to convey the message better have to be a bit exaggerated.

Imagine calling every white, bald guy "a neo-nazi". A reasonable person who just didn't get the problem suddenly finds the heuristics explanation as no longer appropriate. An unreasonable person probably doesn't want to understand anyway so any effort is wasted on them.

> systemic racism

Can't we just call it Bayesian profiling?

That white guy is Pitbull.

Early exposure has some impact.

> In general people who never suffered from this kind of profiling have a hard time understanding what's the problem

I'm assuming you're directing this towards me since you mentioned my example. I am myself a minority. Do you realize that you just racially profiled me based on my opinion?

Yes, it is experience/learning/environment based heuristics. And to me, there's nothing wrong with that. As humans, that's what we are programmed to do. It's completely natural. I would argue that it's pretty much inevitable.

Let's take your example and let's make it realistic and say there are 2 people in suits, one black and one white. Which one is the CEO? Heuristics say it's the white male. What is the difference between experience based heuristics and unconscious racism? It has to be internal to the person who is making the call. Because from any other perspective there is absolutely no difference.

As the parent said, these are honest mistakes. Based on what we learned from our parents, our culture, our peers. Based on our observations. We all have these prejudices. I certainly do. You call it experience based heuristics. I call it racism. Maybe it's not the technical definition of racism, but to me, if the only determining factor is the color of someone's skin, to me that is racism.

So is there a problem? I think we all agree there is. You even mentioned in your comment that this is a problem. Is it your fault? No. So if we agree there is a problem, the question you are asking is... should we do anything about it?

I am an optimist. And I do believe that eventually it will solve itself one way or another. But we can help. We can make it happen faster. This is a spectrum. One end is saying that it will happen anyways so why do anything about it? You could say a similar thing about any effort. Why contribute to cancer research? We will figure it out eventually. The reason is that we want it to happen faster. Because people are actively suffering, people are dying. This is happening to Black Americans right now and for centuries! The other end of the spectrum is equally ridiculous. Should you feel guilty and spend all your time on this cause? No.

I want to make one more point. I used to argue for experience-based heuristics. So. What is the argument in favor of experience-based heuristics? Well, the argument is that it's useful. It's a tool for making quick decisions that help you. It's most useful in situations where your safety is at risk. And yes, it's racist, but I'm not going to deny that it's useful for you to use heuristics to decide to walk quicker when you are walking through certain neighborhoods. I certainly would. But is it useful for you to assume that one person is a CEO? Or even a rapper? I'm pretty sure your safety is not at risk or there is an urgent need for a quick decision. I would argue it's actually starting to become harmful in today's environment to make these assumptions. And that's a great thing. Yes, it does suck for the people who were inadvertently caught between the old paradigm and the new paradigm. And I genuinely empathize with that and feel sorry for those people. And I wish we could all be more empathetic to that and seek to help those people rather than punish them. The new paradigm is better for us. For our society and for the majority of people. We are making progress. And we can accelerate that and make it happen faster.

This should definitely correlate. If you want to be strongest in sports you have to start early. Same with programming. You will not only have more experience timewise, but also brain is more malleable in the young age to make the person naturally have the correct mindset.

>I’m just saying racism isn’t the root cause here

There is the idea that all people are unconsciously racist based on cultural inheritance of the last centuries (imperialism). It is just assumed by everybody that white people are superior in some way. Evidence based reasoning ( few black CEO => it's unlikely to meet a black CEO => this black guy there is not a CEO )is welcome (defensive) argument. Yes, it would help to increase the number of black CEO's, developers, ... But it's only a part of the problem.

I just want to point something out -- it's not clear that you're making the mistake I'm referring to, but it's a common bone of contention.

Your second sentence is an "ought sentence". It's about how we would like the world to be (a world where everyone who has the potential to be strong at something doesn't get discouraged)

Your first sentence is an "is sentence". It's a statement about how you think the world is.

Putting the second sentence after the first makes some people think that you're confused about the relationship between "is" and "ought". This is a criticism often levelled at the more daffy left-wing/liberal/progressive extremes -- that they refuse to confront the distinction between how the world is and how we would like it to be.

People who want liberal/left political thought to be rescued from dumb 21st century "progressives" find this sort of thing upsetting when it comes from someone who, as in your case, obviously is expressing a worthy sentiment.

> you just racially profiled me based on my opinion

This argument makes no sense. I based my words on your statement not your person and it wasn't even addressed to you. I picked up your argument and from personal experience explained why those people that you described see it like that. Making a very wobbly assumption based on criteria that puts one in a protected group is profiling and it gets old when you keep hearing it again and again. Moreover the same reasoning can lead to far more offensive conclusions then calling someone a rapper.

I never mentioned your race and it would make no difference to the argument: a black person in Africa will have just as little experience being profiled as a white person in the US. My "prejudice" wasn't towards you but towards the people who think making such assumptions is normal. Pulling this absurd "you racially profiled me based on my opinion" card now suggests to me that minority or not perhaps you also do not understand the real issue.

I would have thought that people who suffered this kind of profiling understand why it's a problem and actively steer away from doing it or even condoning it without the need for further explanation. And I get it that some are doing it without realizing it's a problem. I'm not assuming bad faith, just lack of understanding.

> Today's discussion about racism isn't (mainly) about critiquing the motivations in peoples' deepest heart. It's about acknowledging that the outcomes of this kind of assumption can be racist, regardless of whether any harm was intended.

Words have meaning. If an act wasn't done with a racist motive then it isn't racist. As the previous commenter said, it's just heuristics : they can be more or less in tune with reality. The only way to make someone change his heuristics is when reality and his map of reality become too different from one another.

> Acknowledging your potential to participate in racism doesn't mean admitting you have a cartoonish hatred. It means recognizing that it requires a proactive effort to keep assumptions from becoming self perpetuating in harmful ways.

So now people have to go against an evolutive and efficient process that enables them to not spend 1h thinking about how to behave in front of a lion or a boss ? The self-perpetuation will stop by itself when people's experience will change.

With such wishful thinking are you conscious you could then ask people to believe anything you want, regardless of reality?

>Are they unconsciously racist against white people

That is not possible in this country.

You were imlplying people who "don't understand the problem" (as in, they share my opinion) are generally lacking certain experiences, which is fundamentally nothing different than profiling them based on superficial attributes, which is exactly what's being criticised.

I'm not taking issue with you doing that, I was just aiming to illustrate the fact that everyone does this constantly. It's easier than thinking - it saves energy, we evolved to do it. It'll be hard to get rid of this and therefore maybe shouldn't be in the focus as much as it is.

The attempt at hidden messaging in the way the "who is it" question is posed, is _exactly_ the problem.

Most of this thread - and the entire concept of "systemic racism" - is about outcomes that impact minorities, not about what drives specific individuals to stereotype.

For what it's worth, I agree that people shouldn't be villified for having evolved heuristics. Many people who care about - and especially many that have been directly harmed by - systemic racism are extremely realistic about how common these heuristics are. But, once you are aware that some of your heuristics harm others, you do have a revealing choice to make.

People go against evolved heuristics all. the. time. Often to make society work, which is itself an evolved impulse. Our layers of evolved reasoning are in constant conflict. Should I eat this thing that's tasty or impress that potential mate? Should I stay home and lie on the couch or keep my job and the respect of my family? Should I punch the guy who cut me off or stay out of jail? It's disingenuous to say, "I manage all of those things, but I'm helpless about my assumptions based on race."

We talk about things like anger management and racism in order to develop new heuristics that let us thrive together efficiently. You don't have to suppress your internal guess about whether someone is a rapper if you learn to invite people to introduce themselves. You can invest in confronting your biases in high stakes situations like performance reviews and project assignments, when you should be engaging your cognition anyway.

> The self-perpetuation will stop by itself when people's experience change.

This is a literally saying "the beatings will continue until morale improves". What makes it self perpetuating is that people can't disprove stereotypes with a boot on their neck.