"SV thinks it's extremely meritocratic. It's only very meritocratic. This is a big problem."

I would in no way say that SV is even very meritocratic. Compare start-up demographics numbers to population-at-large numbers... The fact that commenters like you would read this article, hopefully think for half a second, and then still insist that SV is "very meritocratic" is exactly the problem.

The problem, I think, is external to SV. It's not that women and minorities find themselves blocked within SV - it's that they don't get into that path in the first place. The problem starts long before someone gets the opportunity to drop out of Stanford CS to pursue their dream of selling Facebook for Cats to herd-mentality VCs.

Yes, there are too many pesky east-Asians and Indians.

There might be a Jewish problem as well.

I'm not sure if you are making an intentional reference to this or not, but it does make an interesting counter-point to the assertion that mathematics is a meritocracy: http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1556

"This is a special collection of problems that were given to select applicants during oral entrance exams to the math department of Moscow State University. These problems were designed to prevent Jews and other undesirables from getting a passing grade. Among problems that were used by the department to blackball unwanted candidate students, these problems are distinguished by having a simple solution that is difficult to find. Using problems with a simple solution protected the administration from extra complaints and appeals. This collection therefore has mathematical as well as historical value."

(Previously discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3096793 and here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4759642)

I don't think that's a counter point; it's a long discontinued practice of deliberately discriminating against people of a given race because other people of that race were too successful.

It's not something I support, by the way, in case the sarcasm in my above comment wasn't apparent.

It is one example (of many) of access to a mathematics education not being a meritocracy. In the linked discussions on that paper, there are people arguing that this practice is ongoing in the US (although tweaked a bit to be less obvious).

Regardless, I think it is important to realize that access to a [mathematics] education not being a meritocracy is different from mathematics itself not being a meritocracy. It is related, so this is only a partial counterpoint, but I think it is interesting to consider nevertheless. Certainly one has to keep in mind that biases in our education system will influence what we see in industry, even if the industry really is a meritocracy.

Isn't that the definition of "positive discrimination" and "affirmative action" ? Both of which are most certainly in wide use today.

SV believes so strongly that it's meritocratic, that every successful person believes they deserve it. That's a problem.

Why is that a problem? Because someone who can say with moral certainty "this is my money, I earned" is not an easy mark for the sort of people who produce nothing but demand an equal share of the work of others? Because they won't subscribe to the ridiculous notion that there is no virtue in creating wealth but only virtue in giving it away? Maybe that is precisely why those who produce nothing hate the concept of meritocracy so much. It makes it harder for them to guilt people into giving away what they rightfully earned.

It's important to be able to tell the difference between something you earned and something you were given without earning it.

If someone fails, does that necessarily mean they didn't deserve success? Or is it possible that external forces took from them something they had, "with moral certainty", earned?

The article points out that white males are overrepresented in SV success stories. Are you going to argue that they are dozens of times more productive than women, or non-white people?

Let me make the point in a way that does not pit groups of people against each other. If you do the same thing over and over, hustling and making pitches, and then one day you get someone to fund you, does that make you inherently better on that day? Do you have more "virtue" on that day than you did the day before?

Let's say someone founds a company and it fails. This person feels like they didn't deserve to fail, so they start another company and it succeeds. This person will take the success as s true measure of what they deserve, and will ignore the failure as a fluke. But they will look at failed companies around them and feel superior, even though they also failed once.

There are lots of people founding similar companies, making similar pitches to the same investors. I can't see an argument that they "deserve" wildly different valuations.

Holding wealth creation as a virtue devolves very quickly into worshiping money. Anyone with money is to be respected, and anyone who doesn't have money has nothing interesting to say.

You begin from the premise that everyone who believes they have earned their money is correct. This is why the phrase "born on third base, think they hit a triple" was born.

It's fine if your premise is that people who have money deserve it a priori. But let's be honest. A great many haven't worked orders of magnitude harder despite orders of magnitude greater wealth. A great many are not themselves (but for their wealth) orders of magnitude inherently more valuable to society than everyone who has less.

And what if it's only moderately meritocratic? Or even below average?

I'd love for PG to run an analysis once of what words occur most frequently in flagged posts and their comments.

I don't think you could get a better representation of this community's unspoken biases than that.

I'm also pretty sure you'd find that words like feminism, female, sexism e.a. would feature quite high on the list.

Maybe the community has a bias against pointless class warfare. You want to make an effective feminist statement in Silicon Valley? Start with a github profile.

Right, right. Let's skirt past the idea that men may be in any way responsible for the industry they dominate, and focus on the fact that women aren't creating enough GitHub profiles or having enough hackathons.

In addition to shifting the blame, this is a convenient way to avoid taking any sort of responsibility for our own behavior or our peers, so congratulations on squaring that circle.

This community, like most others, has an unspoken bias against third-wave feminist bullies.

Look what happened to the "Atheism Plus" communities. They have been completely taken over by bigoted "social justice warriors" and their activism.

Completely.

Atheism is almost never discussed. And when it is, it is always discussed in the context of third-wave post-modern feminism. Think I'm lying? Take a look at any Atheism Plus community. Any!

Once a community accepts the tenants of post-modern discourse, it's over.

In your mind, is it possible for someone to disagree with the article without "exemplifying the problem"?

That's the issue with first-world "social-justice warriors", like the author of the linked opinion piece. If you disagree with their premises on factual grounds, you're labeled as part of the problem. It makes honest discussion impossible.

For example, you completely ignored the point that PG made. You didn't even attempt to address it. You just labeled him as the enemy and went on to make your own point.

He made a good point, but in my mind, he didn't go far enough. Both (American) mathematics and SV are disproportionately dominated by east-Asians and Indians relative to their respective population sizes. Why does everyone ignore this?

In post-modern Marxist discourse, who is speaking matters more than what is being said[1]. There is literally no way a white male could win the argument. Since he belongs to the oppressive/over class, his viewpoint is corrupted and invalid.

By the way, this is the bread and butter of what they teach to kids in the soft majors in university nowadays.

[1] http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/~kwesthue/regiftedxmas12.html

"There is literally no way a white male could win the argument."

Where to begin?

"win the argument" -- in what other way could anyone "win" the argument? Who's the referee? This is such a backward and binary way of looking at this topic.

And that's as if the only way for this to move forward is to win or lose, and as if a white male must naturally adopt a dissenting opinion.

As for the rest, who knows? You can of course find the least articulate, most extreme examples of a heterogenous group of people and argue with that, and maybe you'll "win" the argument. But you haven't really contributed anything to the dialog except criticize something most people already disagree with. It's kind of a waste.

It's a shame that love and compassion has indeed left both the liberal arts educations as well as the worlds of business and entrepreneurship. But fear not, there is a coming Romantic Renaissance! Once again our children will turn to poetry, the arts and the love and celebration of their neighbors!

The danger isn't in rationalism, or in relativism, or in whatever weird and distorted man-made system of thought is de rigueur.

The danger is that the love of every man leaves our hearts and souls.

All systems of thought are ultimately erroneous because they must have been made by a single subjective vantage point. The truth comes from without, not from within.

This is the message in all great and lasting art. I dare you to find me a great song or a great poem where the messages of eternal and unending love for our brothers and sisters are not at the root of their creation!

I'd quote some poetry here, but I'm afraid the lot of your are quite illiterate! I apologize to those who do have a love of letters, but hopefully you'll grant me the license to call out this forum of philistines!

Art wins! Love is real!

I am seriously trying to figure out if you are trolling or not. I mean, there's something to what you're saying here. Just that you've picked the weirdest-ass venue for it. You're not supposed to give a shit about your fellow human being if he or she is (imputatively) genetically incapable of or unwilling to perform the same feats of achievement as you.

> " I dare you to find me a great song or a great poem where the messages of eternal and unending love for our brothers and sisters are not at the root of their creation!"

I am guessing he is not sincere, unless he has something against instrumental pieces...

I am completely sincere and I was referring to all manner of artistic creation.

Are you familiar with the concept of poetic license or has your digital life completely beaten out any sense of art from your world?

The main problem here is the age old dichotomy of Dionysus and Apollo... er, I'm sorry if I resort to stories, shall I instead delve in to the labyrinthine machination of modern philosophical thought? But then don't you see the amount of wasted effort that poets have to go through to "convince"? Again, the burden of proof shouldn't be on me to convince you that "seeing is not believing". I can't ever prove that to you, or to anyone. I'm not choosing the life of a missionary, rather a story teller.

If this doesn't make sense, I'm sorry, but I guess I need to enter your maze...

I think the main issue in Silicon Valley is the emphasis on rationalism. There is no art or love. There is rampant irreligious sentiment. There is rampant disbelief in the magical nature of our reality. You can say it isn't magical and it is completely rational, but the truth of the matter is you can't ever prove that. You can only theorize. The problem arrises when you start to put your misplaced faith in to science and technology. That's the fucking problem here!

Misplaced faith, faith in the creations of men, and not faith in fellow men, is the fucking problem.

Faith in Seasteading, Transhumanism... faith that men will become transcendent, hero worship... it is all signs that people have turned away from humanity!

Put your faith in to your fellow men directly, not through the lens of something else.

Stop building fucking mazes for your desires to get lost in to! Online dating sites? Social networks?

PG either failed to grasp or completely ignored the point the article made and immediately went on to reiterate how SV is nearly as much of a meritocracy as his perception of a near perfect meritocracy (math.)

By doing so he gave an almost painfully accurate example of the problem the article addressed, hence my use of the word "exemplifies."

As for the east-Asians and Indians; I've never heard anything but positive stereotypes about them when it comes to programming. It's worth considering that that itself might be contributing to their disproportionate presence to some degree (i.e. in which way does causality go in this case.)

> "As for [...] Indians; I've never heard anything but positive stereotypes about them when it comes to programming."

I find that incredibly hard to believe. There are a lot of racist ideas and stereotypes surrounding Indian programmers. For just a small taste of it, coming from or perceived by this community, search "indian programmers" with quotes on hnsearch. Pages and pages of people either making negative generalizations about Indian programmers, or pointing out that other people make negative generalizations about them.

This community tends to put a damper on that sort of thing, so rest assured that there are plenty of people who have opinions a lot stronger than they are willing to voice on this site.

You're correct. I should have limited myself to saying that at least there are stereotypes (and a few key public role-models) of well-adjusted, successful Asian and Indian entrepreneurs.

The point I was trying to make, staying with the spirit of the article, was that these stereotypes and the reality we see influence each other to a much greater degree than we often dare to admit.

To be fair, if you accept the premise that Silicon Valley is driven by power and prejudice rather than merit (for the record, I reject it), then clearly, pg is part of the problem. That doesn't mean you reject his argument, it means you ignore it as an irrelevant analogy.

I think it's a lot more interesting to take pg's argument in a different direction. If you accept the premise that intellect is evenly distributed regardless of race or gender (for the record, I accept it), then why is mathematics dominated by white males? Because it's an observable fact.

Start applying Five Whys and see what happens.