Martin Fowler: The Fallacies and Reprocussions of Diversity Imbalance

I don't get this. Maybe it's because I'm a white male, but it still doesn't make sense to me.<p>Why is there such a resistance to the idea that there might be differences in what groups of people are interested in at any given time? Not an issue of genetics or competence, but a complicated web of social influences that make people less likely to be interested in one path or the other?<p>If there are truly unjust and discriminatory barriers, then by all means let's remove them. But if we succeed, and it doesn't change the numbers much, does it matter?<p>If certain groups really think it's a problem then let them do the work of encouraging their group members (alert, this feels condescending - who says they'll even self-identify with that group) to get into tech.<p>It's certainly not my fault. I'm a cheerleader for tech careers. The more, the merrier. But if you're not into it, then you're not into it. There's a lot of things I'm not into, either. Whose fault is that? And why should it matter?

Edward de Bono once talked about how words become loaded with emotional connotations and value judgements to the point where it is hard to argue for or against certain positions.<p>Eg: You can make an argument for or against a mixture of two things in differing ratios, but the moment you use the words "balanced" and "unbalanced" to represent the two states, the it is harder to argue for the "unbalanced" side. Likewise for "core" vs "surface" (de Bono's example) Who would want to argue against balance, 'core', or in this case, "diversity"?(What are you, some kind of bigot?).<p>"Diversity" is automatically assumed to be a positive, <i>before</i> the argument on whether it is desirable begins, and there isn't a value neutral or value positive word that is its opposite.<p>Specifically in this post, there are plenty of value laden words - 'diversity', 'meritocracy' etc put together to slant in a particular direction. Not much solid argument or content there - the power of the argument comes instead from the values attached to the specific words used, which makes it a bit iffy - Martin is a gifted writer and clear thinker - this just isn't one of his better efforts.<p>[Due Disclosure: I know Martin from my days at ThoughtWorks. I respect him immensely and think he is a very impressive person, who has given me a lot of very useful advice on many occasions.]

He talks about diversity of sex and race being necessary to have a diversity of viewpoints. If that is true doesn't that imply that that different sexes and races have fundamental differences based on those attributes? If so shouldn't we expect a diversity imbalance in every occupation. That is, people with fundamental differences will tend to want to do different things. If it's not true then why care about diversity of sex or race.<p>Also I disagree with this line from the article: "A diversity imbalance suggest that there are many women, who would have good careers as programmers, who are not getting the opportunity to do so." If women are denied opportunities as programmers there will be an imbalance. An imbalance can be caused by any number of other factors.

I was under the impression that most people had accepted that the reason more men than women do software development is that more men find it interesting than women do, not because women are less intelligent or because there's a conspiracy to keep them out. Too bad, I guess not.<p>As an aside, my boss at the moment is a woman, and a few years ago she had to staff up significantly and hired several young women at the junior level. The interesting thing is that her team hasn't really changed because of "the diversity" since it turns out that women who like programming act pretty much like the men who like programming: they're kind of socially awkward, have sometimes unreasonable expectations that the world will be a meritocracy, make a fetish out of liking cartoons and movies that most people don't, and so on.

Although it's easy to become accustomed to it, it's pretty obvious the child care world has some serious issues in diversity. By this I mean that it has some notable differences in proportions of people compared to the general population. One of the most obvious differences is the low proportion of men, which is true all over the world. In the US, where I spend a good chunk of my time, the over-representation of Latinos is also obvious.<p>One point of view I hear fairly regularly is that these diversity imbalances are natural - because men don't have the aptitude or inclination for child care. The big flaw here is a simple one of evidence. There are (roughly) 50% men in the world, so we should expect the ratio for men in child care to be 50% - unless there's real evidence that some other ratio is natural.<p>This waste hurts our society, too. We need more and better child care to nurture and support the next generation. By not bringing enough men into the profession, we are handicapping ourselves. How can we say we are hiring the best people when we ignore significant chunks of our population?

[reads all the comments about how no one wants ladies in their field anyway]<p>And people wonder why the ladies don't want to hang out with you kids all day. Could it be that ladies are smart enough to figure out when and where they are unwelcome? UNPOSSIBLE<p>signed, a lady who is interested in programming

I want more competent people in all jobs regardless of their genetic and cultural makeup.<p>In software development, we seem to be beset by an astonishing array of incompetence. The bar is so low that nobody should argue that any particular sub-group of the population would, by nature, be worse.<p>However, I am always intrigued that when people talk about "diversity", they always look to balance the high end of the spectrum, and never the low end.<p>For example:<p>Between 2003 and 2008, over 39 out of every 40 deaths in (US) military operations in Iraq were men. Where's the outcry about gender imbalance?<p>Who is in prison, the world over as criminals or political prisoners? The vast majority are men. Where's the outcry about gender imbalance?<p>In the US, most homeless people are men. Where's the outcry about gender imbalance?<p>Over 90% of people killed while performing their job are men. Where's the outcry about gender imbalance?<p>Men on average die three of four years younger than women. Where's all the research into finding out why?<p>Why on the news, when reporting exam results, is it a triumph that girls have outperformed boys for the last several years?<p>I read an article once that said that two industries showing the greatest gender imbalance were "programming" and janitoring. The article then went on to talk about systematic gender discrimination in the software field (yes... "geeks" and "nerds" came into it a lot). But why did the article make no more mention of the need to get more women into janitoring?

Recommended reading on this topic: Ensmenger's "The Computer Boys Take Over", or the more scholarly "Gender Codes" edited by Thomas Misa.<p>The latter in particular gives lots of detail, not just in describing the situation (the imbalance isn't the same everywhere, in every company or in every job description) but also in in explaining how (historically) and why (causally) the situation became what it is today.

&#62;Men have spent centuries using this kind of argument to deny women equal rights in all sorts of fields. Over the last century we've seen tons of evidence that this isn't true elsewhere, so why should it be true in software?<p>True. But are underrepresented groups being actively denied access as was the case in the example above? Apple and oranges. Not saying there isn't a problem, just saying it's a different problem. I think in this case more passive cultural than active cultural problem.<p>There are imbalances everywhere. Line cooks. Where are the women line cooks? Photography. Where are the women in professional photography -how many women street photographers do we know, other than Vivian Maier? Where are the straight people in fashion? I think, at least in some cases, there is self selection going on. Different airports have different pluralities of ethnicities doing lots of the service work. SFO is different from JFK is different from BOS, in that regard.

It's fun to take apart the logic, rhetoric, and nitpick on every word of this post. We could argue the premise all day long -- and 5 years from now there will be fewer women, minorities, etc, than there are now.<p>Instead I prefer to take constructive action to change this, without worrying if (1) it is natural or unnatural or (2) it would be better. I accept that the current state is unnatural and a more balanced population would be better.<p>If you agree, please post replies here with what you think can/should be done (or what you are already doing). If you disagree, please reply to one of the other threads.

I'm having a problem with this as well. I'm sure I get the bozo bit flipped on me but...<p>Let's pick some other topics. What's the percentage of men vs women that knit as a hobby? Crochet? Cross Stitch? Scrapbook? Ok, those are hobbies. But I'll bet if you asked most programmers, at least the good ones, they got started programming as a hobby and that happened to end up leading to a career.<p>How about nurses? In the USA is 93% women. 7% men (or was 14 years ago, not sure about today)<p>Are you going to argue that 50% of the participants of all those things should be men and that something is wrong because they are not at 50%?<p>I 100% want to see more women programmers but I'm at a loss on how to get more women interested in being a programmer. Should we try to do more? Of course! But there's a part of me that feels it's like saying "I wish more people didn't like pop music". I can wish all I want but if the biggest problem is culture it's going to take some serious concentrated effort to change. I'm talking like every 5th Hollywood movie and every 4th TV show needs to start showing women as programmers and in positive light the same way in the 70s they all started making anti-discrimination stories and girls can do anything stories. It's going to take women's magazines running articles on how awesome programming every month for years. It's not enough just to say women can do anything. If you want to change culture it's going to take a lot more than just a few words on a blog or a few more male geeks being aware of things they do that drive women off.

I feel like this imbalance is going to correct itself over the coming decades. As people become more connected, and are introduced to computers at a younger age, the diversity of those interested in them to the point of wanting to work with them as a career will increase.<p>The stereotype of the white pasty male computer nerd is vanishing. With it is the pressure for those who don't fit that stereotype to choose a different field (Fowler mentioned this). I feel like this lack of diversity was almost purely societal and as society changes this will.<p>You are already seeing the enrollment of women at universities increase from its post-bubble years. It will probably keep going up. I don't think it will ever be on par, but it will get closer.

Some people bring a cult-like mentality to the discussion of diversity and related issues. Dissent is not welcome, unpleasant facts and observations explained away often in contrived ways. Why is it so hard to imagine that maybe there are meaningful group variations within the human species?

"But making statements with inclination is little better than with aptitude - there's still no evidence and it has just the same shoddy history"<p>Sorry, but that is just bullshit. Everybody who is in IT and has talked to a bunch of women in his life has collected some evidence on this. When would Fowler accept it as evidence? If you have asked 100 women, or one million, or one billion, if they are inclined to go into IT? What do you suppose would be the result if we asked everybody on HN "what percentage of women you know have an inclination to go into IT"? I think there would be thousands of samples with a fairly obvious result.<p>Why there is little inclination is another question, but the logic Fowler employs here is simply bullshit. It matters because I don't think he'll be able to sway people's opinions if he simply dismisses the evidence they personally collected for themselves. Who are people supposed to trust, if they can't even trust themselves? Also, if he deals with evidence like that, I can not trust his argumentation because it seems as if he only wants to see or accept "evidence" that supports his viewpoint.

My argument for improved diversity (racial, gender, economic, et al.) in the software world is simple and wildly unscientific. It would be lots more fun. Every time I've worked on diverse technology teams it's been more enjoyable and I feel like I've done better work. I know this is a facile argument, but it's definitely the driving reason I work for this change in the software world.

I hate to pick apart Fowler -- probably a good way for folks to call me an idiot -- but I have to.<p><i>here are (roughly) 50% women in the world, so we should expect the ratio for women in computing to be 50% - unless there's real evidence that some other ratio is natural.[2] So far there's no such evidence.</i><p>But, er, doesn't the observation that the actual ratio is different evidence constitute "evidence"? Aside from direct observation, what other definition of "evidence" would you use? Or are you assuming that because one ratio exists in one set (the general population of humans) it must exist in any subset? This would require that the subset have no defining characteristics, which effectively prevents it from being a subset. (A bit loose with my language, but you get the gist)<p>Then his sheer audaciousness when he calls observation of the data circular logic! If I there are 20% blue trees in the world, and I see a lot with 40% blue trees, is it not natural to conclude there is some agency at work here? The question becomes one of intelligent design -- was there a external intelligent agent causing the blue tree delta? With complex systems, this is as much a religious question as anything else. We simply don't know. Very intelligent people could creatively speculate on all sorts of prime movers, natural or not.<p><i>Men have spent centuries using this kind of argument to deny women equal rights in all sorts of fields. Over the last century we've seen tons of evidence that this isn't true elsewhere, so why should it be true in software? As far as I'm concerned this shoddy history should make us doubly wary of the any suggestion that a diversity imbalance is natural.</i><p>I'm really not sure what to do with this. Is he arguing that since a certain type of rhetoric has been used to ill purpose in the past that it should be looked upon extra critically now? If so, how would I go about picking and choosing which methods of reasoning might be better or worse to use? It seems to me that he's arguing that based on some conclusion to the argument (there might be a natural difference) that we should hold the methods of reasoning suspect. But if we got a different conclusion using the same methods, that would be okay? This is like a generic ad hominem -- don't trust that reasoning because it's been faulty in the past! Well sure, all kinds of ways of reasoning have been faulty in the past. This has nothing to do with anything.<p><i>That is, given we have a unnatural imbalance, is it a problem that's sufficiently serious to spend energy on fixing it?</i><p>But he hasn't shown an unnatural imbalance at all, he's just made broad statements about how he feels about certain kinds of tools being used in the discussion.<p><i>Lack of diversity is itself a problem. Different people think differently, and consequently come up with different ways to solve problems. If you have a bunch of people with the same background, they miss lots of ideas - leading to inefficiencies and lack of innovation. A diverse group is usually more effective.</i><p>See here I completely agree with him -- a lack of various backgrounds, opinions, and personalities hurts small groups. But he seems to be saying that these good qualities -- opinions, backgrounds, personalities -- are inherently part of being a female, being a Norwegian, or of being black. So it's okay for him to say that in general being Norwegian is cause to make you so different you have value as a team member, at the same time he's saying that there are no natural differences to account for the difference in observed ratios? Huh? Who is using circular logic again?<p>Fowler seems like a nice guy, and I'm sure he likes puppies and ice cream and all of that, but this is tripe. I am a firm believer in having as much possible diversity as possible in my teams as long as we can hold the group together. So count me in as being a huge proponent of diversity.<p>But diveristy is all about things that you can't see -- not bullshit like your skin color, how tall you are, or your gender. Lots of teams fail because nobody on the team had good empathy skills. Nobody fails because there wasn't a person on there wearing glasses. Don't confuse the true greatness of diversity with some kind of flavor-of-the-week political bullshit.<p>Here it is: nobody knows. It's a complex system full of individuals all acting in their best interests, not something you can perform a logical proof on. The variables and systems involved are legion. If you would like to discuss the story of just one person, we could do that with some clarity. But if you start waving your hands around and claiming you already know the answer -- whether you want it to be a natural ratio or whether you see prejudice in the world -- we're not going to get very far. I can assure you that whatever happening is natural, but by "natural" I mean it might be that the society at large has major problems that need to be fixed. Or maybe not. Beats me. This is a topic for moral discussion, not logical discussion, and bringing these kinds of logic tools to the table only makes things worse, not better.<p>Must be in angry-old-guy mode again today. Sorry about that. I'm just really disappointed that Fowler couldn't see the errors of his own thinking and then presumes to lecture us about it. Man I find that really annoying.

I thought someone would have mentioned this by now, but in other cultures (my sample: India, China, Ukraine), there /are/ more women programmers. At least, I've worked with proportionately more women from the above nations, than white American women. Meaning it's culture and not ability or /native/ inclination, at least.

Diversity is a good thing. That's been stated as axiomatic on these discussions and it's probably true.<p>But what kind of diversity will have the greatest effect? I posit that there are far greater kinds of diversity that will have a bigger impact than gender: language, culture, education.<p>I would also be interested in studies in why girls aren't as interested in science and computing as boys. When I started no one around me knew what a computer was. I'm kind of puzzled why I was interested at the age of 11. I was also discouraged from doing it at school, but it didn't stop me.<p>I take issue with te while geek thing. It may be true of some devs, but most I know don't fit into that stereotype, they have a wide range of other interests. I wish people would drop it.

"Girls aren't supposed to get involved in robotics" was the answer I got from a high school girl on why more girls weren't in the robotics club. All the stats about girls not doing well in math etc. just tell me that gender stereotyping is alive and well.

This footnote drew my interest:<p><i>Although female programmers are rare now, that wasn't the case in the 70's. That shift is another argument against the natural balance hypothesis.</i><p>I am too young to know, but is this the experience of others as well?<p>Again, this is based purely on anecdotal experience, but I wonder if women programmers tend to concentrate into particular industries (for whatever reason). My wife was a programmer at a contractor for a large government agency, and it struck me that there was a higher concentration of women there than in other industries or in the start-up scene.<p>If this is generally the case, I am not sure to what extent this would support any given hypothesis.

Also: This sentiment that women <i>should</i> be interested in programming jobs, but aren't because they've been damaged by the patriarchy in some way, and now it's up to (predominantly) men to fix this for them - strikes me as a bit sexist.<p>We could potentially take the Avatar/Dances With Wolves approach. A really awesome superstar male programmer could start dressing in drag and lead female programmers to victory. Or at least 50% representation.

Why are we having this debate? Shouldn't we focus on developing awesome software?

For a given value of true, Programming is just normal human language literacy with slightly stricter syntax rules.<p>As such I say there should be as many good women programmers to good male programmers as there are good women writers.

<a href="http://www.slideshare.net/terriko/how-does-biology-explain-the-low-numbers-of-women-in-cs-hint-it-doesnt" rel="nofollow">http://www.slideshare.net/terriko/how-does-biology-explain-t...</a>

I wonder if Nurses, Social Workers, and Daycare teachers are writing these same articles about how there are not enough men in their fields.

Martin says that we are turning away qualified female candidates right now. That's not the case. Only one female candidate comes through my door for every 7 or 8 males. We are meritocrats like Martin and would be happy to hire females. But first they have to show up.

Amazing, but unsurprising, that the first slew of comments are all about tearing down the post.

Reprocussions is a word?

&#62; A diverse group is usually more effective.<p>Does this mean the problem will take care of itself? That is, if it is true that a diverse group is usually more effective, the products and startups that succeed should have teams which tend to be more diverse than the ones that fail. And as that happens, founders interested in succeeding would pay more attention to the diversity of their firms.