

Why Diversity Is Bad For Startups  - namzo
http://techcrunch.com/2011/10/23/why-diversity-is-bad-for-startups/

======
mycroftiv
I think this piece acts as a _reductio ad absurdum_ of some of its premises.
When your chain of reasoning leads you to the conclusion that "women are
likely to bring diversity to a male founding team, and that’s not what
founding teams need" it should be obvious that something has gone wrong, just
as you would conclude after a mathematical chain of reasoning yields the
conclusion "X is both even and odd."

In other words, this is an example of the pernicious spread of a purely
financial-utility-maximizing perspective on decision making within the startup
culture which deliberately ignores the necessity of making sure that all of
our actions stay within desirable moral parameters. The observation that a
smaller percentage of women than men in the current cultural context feel
motivated to create and work in startups should not be a justification for
ignoring the issue; it is a justification for interrogating our sociocultural
organization, and a motivation for directing energy and resources towards
making startups a positive force for changing prevailing cultural patterns.
Entrepreneurship is about _creating value_ and the reductionist idea that only
financial value matters must always be fought vigorously.

~~~
cousin_it
> _I think this piece acts as a reductio ad absurdum of some of its premises.
> When your chain of reasoning leads you to the conclusion that "women are
> likely to bring diversity to a male founding team, and that’s not what
> founding teams need" it should be obvious that something has gone wrong_

Nooo! Reductio ad absurdum means "obtaining two statements that contradict
each other", not "obtaining a statement that sounds immoral to me". If the
latter were valid reasoning, previous generations could have used it to prove
the existence of god, because disbelieving in god was immoral to them. I guess
we could call such arguments "reduction to enemy" instead.

------
jfarmer
I believe her broader point, but I don't really connect the dots from
"diversity in a founding team is bad" to "women shouldn't start companies with
men."

Ignore the gender issue for now. Having homogeneous founding team is valuable
because it reduces time-wasting arguments. That's really what it boils down to
-- I don't think it has anything to do with men vs. women.

A startup could just as easily be founded by two women with shared backgrounds
and values, e.g., RentTheRunway, BirchBox, One Kings Lane, etc.

Gilt's founding team included both men and women. Sugar, Inc's founding team
included four men and two women.

Homogeneity in values, diversity in skills is what's valuable for a founding
team.

~~~
dolphenstein
Homogeneous founding teams also bring no new novel insight to the problem at
hand.

I'd think time wasting arguments aren't a symptom of diversity, rather it's a
quality of pig headed dogmatists.

Diversity + open mindedness is the way to go!

------
rjd
Idealised, romanticaised version of what start-ups are.

Perhaps someone should burst a bubble and point out how many startups out
there are very well defined, funded, with solid business cases, research and
deliverables.

Worthless article.

------
alexkearns
I think that is probably the worst article on start-ups I have ever read.

------
egiva
Sorry to join the haters, but this Penelope Trunk doesn't know the first thing
about startups - this article was complete junk. I'm going to form another
startup with the goal of going back in time to get my two minutes of wasted
reading time back. I'll offer the service to others. We'll make millions.

~~~
pbreit
Her writing is provocative and contrarian but definitely not worth tossing out
simply because you disagree. There's a lot of truth in this post if you care
to look.

~~~
egiva
I'm speaking about this particular post and not her body of "writing" in
general. Rest assured, I don't share negative opinions very often on HN, but
when I do it's well supported by FACTS and not flippancy, as you suggest.

Small Stuff: Her syntax is poor, repetitive and shows very little organization
or proofreading. Case in point, these are her words: <<"You are likely to not
move fast enough and therefore run out of money. A startup at the very
beginning is about time and money. You need to get time in order to be able to
do the company, but if you take too much time, you will run out of money.">>
Note: that is just terrible. Sorry.

Big Stuff: She makes exaggerated leaps of logic, as if there are missing
paragraphs, and her mix of facts and disjointed statements make for some
terrible contradictions, some of which are insulting to the reader, such as
(again, her words): A) <<"...the vast majority of women do not want to run
startups.">> B) <<"...women care more about their personal life than men
do.">> C) <<"... women are likely to bring diversity [of opinion] to a male
founding team, and that’s not what founding teams need.">>

She basically broke the article into several disjointed sections, trying to
paste it all together with random facts showing "false causality" (look it up)
and the end result is very sloppy.

This article is a good example of how not to write. Ever. It's painful to
read. I stick by my original, unfortunately ironic, comment.

------
qzio
the 1950 called, they want their article back.

