Ask HN: I'm an old programmer, do I qualify for diversity consideration? - forgottenacc57
======
gracenotes
Maybe? The type of diversity that companies care about (to contrast with the
many strawmen out there) happens to be good for the bottom line. That is, a
team with 5 men and 5 women is likelier to perform better than one with 10 men
[1]. Some explanations I have heard are that diversity brings perspective that
wouldn't be present in a monoculture, and that it improves psychological
safety which is a huge determiner of team performance [2]. There are models
out there made by actual social scientists of why diversity helps. See [3] for
instance, has both elements.

It does seem like age-based discrimination would have a negative effect on
psychological safety, as with any discrimination due to conscious or
unconscious biases. Regarding perspective, an experienced individual could
either bring in valuable insight from their experience or constantly veer
towards the status quo, partly depending on how you want to look at it.

I think the answer is: it is complicated. You now have my ideas on why
diversity is valuable. Does age fit that model? (Even if not, of course, age-
based discrimination is not good.)

[1] [https://news.mit.edu/2014/workplace-diversity-can-help-
botto...](https://news.mit.edu/2014/workplace-diversity-can-help-bottom-
line-1007) [2] [http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-
learn...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learned-from-
its-quest-to-build-the-perfect-team.html) [3] [https://hbr.org/2013/12/how-
diversity-can-drive-innovation](https://hbr.org/2013/12/how-diversity-can-
drive-innovation) [4] [https://www.fastcompany.com/1841060/redefining-
diversity-new...](https://www.fastcompany.com/1841060/redefining-diversity-
new-global-workforce) \- bonus

~~~
throw_away_777
The sources you linked are rather weak evidence for your claims. This type of
observational research is difficult, and in the social sciences, especially
about political topics, you should be very skeptical. The majority of
published papers in this field are wrong. Diversity may or may not be good for
companies bottom lines, but there is no conclusive evidence (at least from
what you linked) - and it also matters the magnitude of the effect.

Some of these articles are implying a size of an effect that is completely
ridiculous, there is just no way that diversity "could increase revenue by
41%" \- we'd see way more diversity in work places if this was true. Here is
an article with a different conclusion - and here the "educational diversity"
only had a more reasonable 2% effect, while "demographic diversity" is
allegedly harmful [1]. But you have to be careful, all of these studies appear
to suffer from testing multiple hypothesis - breaking diversity down into sub-
categories and looking at each one independently should decrease confidence in
the conclusions of these studies.

[1] [http://ftp.iza.org/dp6973.pdf](http://ftp.iza.org/dp6973.pdf)

~~~
gracenotes
It's better to try to understand what's happening than handwave and say "it's
all bunk". That is way more political of an action than trying to determine
causality through data. The social sciences are valuable in that they're
trying to figure things out about the world which are critical to making good
policy, rather than winging it and accidentally or intentionally screwing over
people who are different than you.

> Some of these articles are implying a size of an effect that is completely
> ridiculous, there is just no way that diversity "could increase revenue by
> 41%" \- we'd see way more diversity in work places if this was true.

This seems to be rejecting data and substituting and a handwave. From the
original study, 41% is the actual coefficient, controlling for a ton of
things. Likely there are latent factors that make workplaces both gender-
diverse and performant, so just swapping out half of a workplace would not hit
all of these, which the paper acknowledges. We are seeing more diversity
thanks to studies like these and explicit diversity initiatives, but given all
of the biases that can exist in hiring pipelines, I can't think of any reason
why it would happen naturally.

The paper you link is trying to measure firm productivity (could not 100%
figure out what this means) based on data from Denmark, mainly non-white-
collar jobs. It notes that demographic diversity promotes "better problem-
solving abilities and more creativity and knowledge spillover" and can be a
"substantial competitive advantage", limited by people not
trusting/communicating with each other (i.e. integrating effectively).

------
purple-dragon
Serious question: are you trolling? I hire programmers for a startup. When I
do, we do not care at all how old you are. We care about attitude, skills, and
aptitude.

~~~
Yoric
That's nice to hear. However, based on my personal experience, I'm not
entirely convinced.

When _I_ hired programmers for a startup, I'm pretty sure that I had a
unconscious bias towards young candidates, which was at the time justified by
the blanket word "attitude" (or "cultural fit").

Now, I'm not claiming that you (or anyone specifically) have the same bias,
but I'm pretty sure that I wasn't the only one. You may be a nice exception :)

~~~
anexprogrammer
> justified by the blanket word "attitude"

I really wish people wouldn't hide behind cultural fit as justification. A
number doesn't reveal attitude. I'm past 50, but I haven't yet started to
aspire to being being middle aged, and have no slippers, cardigans or golf
clubs. If given a choice I'll take many a young startup or company over a
similar sized company of people my age.

When I look at people my age, I'd guess less than a third have settled into
some form of middle age, and those are the friends I've tended to lose touch
with. Of the rest, well we probably all-night party a little less, have a few
extra commitments, and the kids are a bit older. We all seem to get on with
people in their 20s and 30s far easier than my parent's generation did.

If attitude is a euphemism for "won't work extra hours and weekends almost
constantly", then yeah. Though I gained that attitude in my 20s six months
into my second or third job.

~~~
dalke
Slippers, cardigans and golf clubs are the sign of the 50 year olds of the
generation before you. They are not something you take on when you get to your
50s. (As a clearer example, Chloe and Emma are popular names for girls. 100
years ago they were Mary and Dorothy. If you know someone's name you can get
an idea of age based on its popularity. But today's Emma will not be changing
her name to Dorothy when she becomes a centenarian in the 22nd century.)

Modern 50 year olds have a different set of preferences than their parents.
Most do not wear the clothing and hairstyles of modern 20 year olds.

Will Smith on some interview for Suicide Squad talked about tattoos. All of
the younger cast got tattoos. He, as a 40+ year old father of three, didn't
feel comfortable doing that. I didn't find that specific interview, but it's
also mentioned at
[https://youtu.be/u3MgN0NimjY?t=220](https://youtu.be/u3MgN0NimjY?t=220) .

I can imagine that the 25 years olds of a modern startup might get a tattoo
together. Would you join them?

When I was in my 20s I would try out all sort of new technologies, for fun.
Now I rarely do that, because I think most of it is churn, redoing well-known
concepts but with a different flavor, and I think I understand the underlying
concepts well enough. But the 25 year old me might look at my lack of
experimentation and judge that I'm set in my ways.

I can easily believe that a modern startup with 20 somethings might think the
same thing about me now, and prefer to hire the 25 year old me than the 45
year old me because of it. At the very least, I'm more likely now to speak up
and criticize a technology choice, based on experience. That can easily be
interpreted as being a killjoy.

I know, because it's happened to me.

~~~
anexprogrammer
> not something you take on

For parent's generation it seemed to be very much something they took on. Or
there was an expectation to progress through phases of life/clothes/attitudes.
As I've got older it's apparent just how much wider the gap was compared to us
and the next generation. To look at my parents I see a different world, with
the kids it's very much the same world we just disagree on some details.

Tattoo? Probably not - but for the same reason I didn't in my 20s either. I
change mind on what I'd like too often to commit to skin!

I agree on tinkering, the enthusiasm has faded a fair bit. I can't remember
the last time something seemed genuinely new rather than yet another variation
on a theme. Yes I can see how pointing out the latest framework is a silly
idea might get interpreted as killjoy! It does get too easy to see the
negative sometimes. On IoT and security, to name but two, a little less blind
optimism and a bit more criticism wouldn't be a bad thing!

I've long known I think a little different. I prefer a healthy diversity and
range of perspectives to homogeneity. If I were recruiting at a company of
mostly 50 something males I'd be hoping to bring in some women and younger
people. By the same token most startups of 20 somethings could benefit from
the odd wise uncle or aunt even if they don't have reaction times to win games
sessions!

~~~
dalke
Perhaps we have different ideas of "take on."

First off, what you describe fits neither my father nor my grandfathers. As
far as I know, none ever played even a round of golf, much less pursued it.
Golf has a reputation of being a rich (upper middle class or higher), white,
suburban sport, for people with plenty of leisure time to get in a full 18
holes. The working class and lower middle class sport was bowling.

That makes me think it's more likely associated with social class dynamics of
the mid-20th century than waiting until one turns 50-something to take on a
certain role. That is, did your father at age 20 decide that at age 50 he
would get a cardigan and slippers? Or was it an image that was was marketed to
members of the professional class, which he adopted?

30 years previous, when he was 20, were the 50 years olds also doing the
cardigan, slipper and golf thing? Because I don't think that was the case. I
don't think he took on the role that was established for 50 years, but rather
helped establish the culturally correct role for people of his social class.

I agree with the "different world". While many like to hype the speed of
change in the modern world, I am of the minority view that the world has
changed less, in the social sense, in the last 40 years than the previous 40
years. Earlier this year I was reading some letters written in the late 1940s,
where the family was deciding to buy a fridge. The mid-20th century brought so
many changes that Toffler's 'Future Shock' became an international bestseller.

~~~
anexprogrammer
The golf was maybe of our location, there was a council course nearby. He took
it up sometime in his 50s, and I guess 5 years after he left the council for
the private sector. Maybe it was to progress at work or just for the friends.

We certainly weren't rich, going on the house and lifestyle, though with a car
not poor either. That highlights another difference, he'd never talk about
work much and money not at all. With our kids we were far more open about
work, less so about money - they don't need to share mortgage worries.

Of the rest I think you're entirely right, especially as he grew up in the
30s. The post war world would soon be unrecognisable. From the 30s through to
the typical home of 1970, the changes were dramatic and fundamental moving
from poverty to consumer society with healthcare.

------
jackyinger
Age based discrimination is a thing, but it is nearly orthogonal to the
context in which corporations think about diversity. This orthogonal its is a
product of senior folks supposedly expecting more pay, and lack of oversight
using age as a metric of diversity.

At the tech giant I work at, older technical folks seem to either climb the
corporate ladder a few rungs or get ground into contracting peons. It's not
pretty...

I find that a lot of 'new' ideas in computing are just the latest iteration.
So there's certainly value in having folks around who have seen many
iterations.

------
ewr24
Probably not as old (white?) male. But there is a simple way to increase your
diversity.

You could start identifying as a woman, it is just a verbal identification, no
other changes are required. This way you would also become lesbian.

In some countries you can legally change your race, by religious conversion
(Sikht in UK). Again, religion is just a verbal identification.

~~~
antiufo
That's some cartman-level trolling. It's of course not my job to distinguish
true and false trans people ("no true Scotsman") but if you're a stereotypical
male in all senses, it makes very little sense to use that label. (Disclosure,
genderqueer trans woman here)

~~~
ewr24
I am serious.

There is no such thing as _" stereotypical male in all senses"_, everyone is
gender-fluid . Most men were called a "pussy" or "not a real man" at some
point.

People come from different backgrounds. In my country people often changed
their religion or race, not doing so would bring unpleasant consequences. For
example my parents become atheists to get a decent jobs. Some people are also
distracted by feeding family.

"Being diverse" is simply just another job requirement for some people.

I personally spend one year at military outpost in mountains. I would be very
happy to give-up my "male privilege", and wear tutu with tiara on public for
that year. Work visa in US would be similar case...

As trans woman I would be outraged, that I am treated as lesser woman
(exclusion from sport events, included in Selective Service, exclusion from
women's prisons...). Not that more people choose to identify as trans.

~~~
antiufo
> There is no such thing as "stereotypical male in all senses", everyone is
> gender-fluid. Most men were called a "pussy" or "not a real man" at some
> point.

Pardon, in all or most senses. The point is that masculinity is often seen as
an arms race. Most men feel outraged if/when they are called pussies (or
compared/associated with something seen as feminine/"weak"). Other people have
opted out of that arms race and, whether they are male or female, don't feel
obliged to obey the gender roles about their clothing/style/personality (or
their bodies).

> everyone is gender-fluid

Say that to your average transphobic/antifeminist "activist". Do I fear being
discriminated by people like them in the job/housing market, or harassed? Yes.
Does it matter whether they are themselves people without self-acceptance? Not
much. Just like it makes little difference to be discriminated about
homosexuality by a fully heterosexual person, or by a repressed
bisexual/homosexual person.

> military outpost

Yeah I think military draft should be either mandatory for all genders, or
optional for all.

Edit: formatting

~~~
ewr24
There is sort of heroic stereotype of "real men" from the past. And today most
men have some feminine traits, and do not fit well into that stereotype. Here
is sort of example: [http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/rod-eccles/where-have-
all-...](http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/rod-eccles/where-have-all-real-men-
gone)

The point is the fact they were called "pussy", not the outrage. There was
some feminine trait for which they were called 'pussy".

> _Other people have opted out of that arms race and_

Majority of people have opted from traditional gender roles. Marriage is at
all time low.

> _don 't feel obliged to obey the gender roles about their
> clothing/style/personality (or their bodies)._

I assume you are talking about LGBT, more specifically trans. By being trans
you are expected to follow another gender stereotype (clothing, style,
personality). All trans are expected to overcompensate; wear similar makeup,
hairstyle, have mild depression, have certain political opinion. Also being
trans should be a result of deep existentialist crisis...

50 years old guy with a beard, truck, wife and kids. Guy who become trans for
some trivial reason (job, avoid draft), does not fit well into this gender
stereotype. And he _should not be_ a trans (but in theory he has a right to
be).

> _Say that to your average transphobic /antifeminist "activist"._

It depends how you phrase it. Those groups have a folklore about gender-fluid
women (hairy feminist). And most guys will agree they are not "men enough" to
marry.

> _Do I fear being discriminated by people like them in the job /housing
> market, or harassed?_

Guys after divorce have a similar problem. It depends a lot on a vibe.

Rest of the comment is pretty loaded. Feminist interests are not always
aligned with trans-gender interests (military service, prison rape..)

~~~
antiufo
> Majority of people have opted from traditional gender roles. Marriage is at
> all time low.

Machismo and sexism still play a significant role, especially in some
cultures. But still you can't of course compare the discrimination/harassment
received by trans people to those of unmarried, straight cis people.

> All trans are expected to overcompensate; wear similar makeup

This makes me wonder about the actual number of trans people you know IRL

> gender-fluid women (hairy feminist)

Straw man?

> Feminist interests are not always aligned with trans-gender interests
> (military service, prison rape..)

Are you talking about gender equality (eg. military service for all or none,
feminism) vs gender-segregated rules/facilities (eg. no mandatory military
service for trans, in addition to cis, women)?

The fact that prisons are divided by gender is because it's unfortunately well
known that there exists a group of people that is statistically more prone to
violence and harassment towards the other half of the population (I'm talking
about men and women). Trans women are statistically much closer to this latter
population, so it definitely makes sense not to include them with the first
group.

------
ThePawnBreak
No, diversity is doublespeak for women or black people.

~~~
Natanael_L
Doublethink, newspeak. (If you're referencing 1984)

~~~
ThePawnBreak
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak)

------
ddorian43
What about me? (I'm young but feel old from all the js-framework-of-the-
week/pico-services(a service for every non-constant value) /docker-in-
kubernetes-in-vm/golang mumbo-jumbo)

~~~
inyorgroove
I empathize, we are migrating from flat systemd services to
containers/kubernetes because its the new thing. I don't understand change for
change sake is somewhat annoying and pointless.

~~~
ddorian43
I once worked on a company that was using s3/sqs/etc even on dev/testing. I
grew old just from the latency!

------
hex13
how old? 60+? 50+? 40+? 30+? 20+? (I'm serious, sometimes even 25 year old
devs feel old).

~~~
kyberias
How do 25 year old devs "feel old"?

~~~
hex13
Don't ask me. They're exaggerating ofc but I sometimes hear that somebody in
his twenties feels old.

~~~
throw_away_777
At every moment in your life, you are older than you have ever been before. If
you compare your life when you are 19 to 25, that is a much greater difference
than your life from 50 to 56.

------
ntlk
Yes.

------
shams93
You might if you have a disability. Companies can get federal tax credits for
hiring disabled.

