
The Empathy Gap in Tech: Interview with a Software Engineer - Radim
http://quillette.com/2018/01/05/empathy-gap-tech-interview-software-engineer/
======
katzgrau
From one of the comments (author, Nathan Spears):

> People with Asperger’s can navigate social situations remarkably well after
> they learn “the rules” of social interaction.

That's my experience. I too, was socially awkward kid who taught himself basic
programming by reading computer manuals around the age of 10. I constantly got
picked on though out elementary and middle school. In high school it got a
little better because I started to imitate social behavior and personal style
that I picked up in other (cooler) people, mainly as a survival strategy.
Spend more than 5 minutes talking to me though, and you'd be looking for a way
to mosey out of the conversation.

I went into software development where I felt that I'd truly found my breed.
Then I started a software (product) company where suddenly I had to attract
customers and pitch them my product in demos.

I will say this: forcing myself to learn sales was monumental both
professionally and socially. I am now pretty smooth in nearly any social
interaction and even when things don't go perfectly, I keep a general "fuck
it" attitude in my back pocket (which is quite handy for avoiding that
paralyzing over-analysis following a misstep).

The point is this: if you think you're somewhere on the subclinical spectrum,
don't just give yourself that label and wait for the world to come around to
you, or avoid doing the things that you don't think you're suited for. Do
things that make you uncomfortable. Grow and improve on every front. As an
aspie, you're probably pretty damned good at actively learning the traits that
seem to come naturally for other people.

~~~
auxym
I took a quick look at the ASQ test mentioned in the article [1]. A lot of the
things in there, I would have answered "definitely agree" when I was a
teenager.

Sometime in college, I forced myself to socialize, and did everything I could
to learn what I needed to fit in. For example, I learned from the internet to
dress and care for myself so I didn't look like a 17 year basement nerd, and a
bunch of other things I guess most people just pick up naturally by being
around other people in high school.

Today, edging towards my 30s, looking at the questions on that test makes me
feel surprised at how "well adjusted" I've become compared to how I was at 15
years old.

[1] [https://psychology-tools.com/autism-spectrum-
quotient/](https://psychology-tools.com/autism-spectrum-quotient/)

~~~
privacypoller
Don't discount how much the things that made you a social pariah in public
school make you unique and interesting by the time you hit your mid-twenties.

I played a lot of varsity sports which shielded me from much of the abuse, but
otherwise was pretty different socially. When I went away to Uni I had a
chance to "start fresh" and that same quirky personality, combined with
forcing myself to be a little more outgoing (i.e. share my true self), went
over great. A big part of it was the natural filtering of the people in my
environment; a lot of the "cool" kids peak and become irrelevant after high
school.

~~~
katzgrau
One of my favorite Oatmeal strips:
[http://theoatmeal.com/pl/senior_year/pe](http://theoatmeal.com/pl/senior_year/pe)

------
Niksko
This article is going to rub lots of people the wrong way, I suspect, but it's
level headed, well reasoned and well written. Although I ultimately disagree
with some of the conclusions drawn at the end, (particularly:

> Because contemporary moral codes delineate women as vulnerable or
> marginalised, we stop seeing them as individuals with unique talents and
> idiosyncrasies, but as representatives of a victimised class.

I think labeling or delineating women as 'vulnerable or marginalised' and
ignoring their unique qualities and idiosyncrasies is robbing Peter to pay
Paul. Acknowledging that women are 'vulnerable or marginalised' shouldn't
remove their individuality, you can easily have both, but that's beside my
point here)

I legitimately didn't realise what the tone or conclusion of the article were
going to be when I first started reasoning, because it does a good job of
presenting scientific research without any inherent judgements. The other
thing this article achieves that the cited manifesto failed to achieve was not
to necessarily provide judgement, criticism or suggestions around 'what should
be done about problem xyz'. It presents some facts, presents some opinions,
and then (thankfully) doesn't decide to rip the hard work of well intentioned
people to shreds. And for that, I think this should be commended.

~~~
stupidcar
> Acknowledging that women are 'vulnerable or marginalised' shouldn't remove
> their individuality, you can easily have both, but that's beside my point
> here)

I don't think you can easily have both, and this problem underlies much
contemporary political conflict. At its core is a pervasive hypocrisy: people
readily engage in broad, often negative, stereotyping about groups they
oppose, or are not a member of, while aggressively resisting and resenting any
attempt to stereotype about their own group, or groups they favour.

So, in the aftermath of a terrorist attack, some people will make broad
statements about Muslims, and the need for collective action within Islam to
address religiously motivated violence. Others will reject this, and say
Muslims in general cannot be held responsible for the behaviour of a minority
of extremists.

Then, in the aftermath of a sexual harassment scandal, some people will make
broad statements about men, and the need for collective action by men as a
gender to address sexual harassment and sexual violence. Others will reject
this, and say men in general cannot be held responsible for the behaviour of a
minority of harassers.

Oftentimes, the same people will be on the complete opposite sides of each
debate. And they will unthinkingly employ language and rhetorical tactics in
one that they would utterly reject in the other. This behavior can be seen in
almost all discussions across or about political affiliation, race, religion,
gender, sexuality, and just about any other cleavage you can think of.

This is the real empathy gap. People reflexively respond to any criticism of
their own groups with hostility, while attacking others without restraint, and
dismissing hostility from members of that group as an overreaction. They
recognise a degree of individuality and diversity within their own favored
groups that they simply can't or won't recognise in others. They use tactics
against their enemies that infuriate them when used against themselves. In
some cases, they may recognise that those tactics are wrong in specific cases,
and even in the abstract, but defend their use by themselves or their allies
with excuses based on cambatting political correctness or appeals to
historical victimhood.

Making all of this worse is that statistical thinking about groups _is_ a
necessary of component of any mature political debate. Certain traits or
behaviors often are more prevalent within some groups, for a variety of
reasons, and being able to recognise and talk about this is basic prerequisite
for any attempt to address social and political problems.

In theory, people should have no problem recognising statistical differences
in a group, while also recognising and respecting the inherent right and
diversity of individuals within that group. In theory, people should be able
to hear comment, even criticism, about their own groups, and judge it purely
on its statistical reality, without feeling that it is a personal slight upon
them. But in practice, this doesn't happen.

Besides the reflexivite hostility discussed, statistical thinking often does
give way to blind stereotyping amongst outside observers, and this
stereotyping gives rise to discrimination. Causal factors are ignored, or
distorted, and adaptive traits are portrayed and inherent, and vice versa.
Instead of helping to inform rational debate, this discrimination entrenches
and exacerbates division. Soon, _any_ statistical thinking about a group that
carries an implied or perceived criticism becomes tantamount to
discrimination, and groups become hypersensitive to it.

All of this is probably just an inherent flaw in human cognition, and likely
unfixable, without some kind of attempt at species-wide genetic engineering
that completely reconfigures our co-operative behavior.

~~~
fnl
Excellent summary of the core issue. Though I think there should be room for
some nature vs. nurture debate. Exclusively attributing this behaviour to our
genes seems a bit like the "lazy excuse" to me. I don't see why properly
educating ourselves could not lead to a population with improved inter-group
empathy (or both, i.e., trigger that evolution at the generic level, too). But
yes, maybe changing our educational system is as hard as finding a genetic
engineering-based solution...

~~~
Niksko
I agree with you and the grandparent partly, but if you take an intersectional
view of diversity issues, solving diversity and (as you put it) increasing
inter-group empathy are effectively one in the same. For me, the constant
rearing of this connection (societal scale problems being solved in tandem by
solving other societal scale problems) is what convinces me that ideas of
intersectionality are real, but sadly leads to the conclusion that yes, the
problems are extremely difficult and operate on generational scales.

~~~
fnl
The upside here being that societal evolution seems to be accelerating, just
as nearly everything else.

------
j9461701
>Gideon tells me that in his experience there are many autistic traits that
don’t fit at all with our cultural conception of masculinity. Hypersensitivity
to sensory stimulation is one of them, as is the tendency for those with
autism to develop anxiety and depression—conditions that in the general
population are higher in women than in men—the predilection of autistic people
to prefer consistency and predictability also contrasts with the masculine
trait of risk-taking.

This is unsurprising, considering autistic males tend to display slightly
feminized neurological structure and behavioral traits compared to control
males.

[http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/2/116.full](http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/2/116.full)

[http://www.jaacap.com/article/S0890-8567(14)00725-4/pdf](http://www.jaacap.com/article/S0890-8567\(14\)00725-4/pdf)

Likely relatedly, the incidence of gender coherence issues (up to full gender
dysphoria) are over 7 times more prevalent in the autistic community than the
general population.

[https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/11/the-
link-...](https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/11/the-link-between-
autism-and-trans-identity/507509/)

------
fouc
Does anyone feel anti-social after a full day of programming? I always
suspected that programming can temporarily reduce empathy at the end of the
day. I don't have asperger's but I often feel a lot closer to that after a
really intense day of speaking a machine's language.

~~~
danieltillett
I don't lose empathy, but I lose the ability to understand or speak English.
If someone interrupts me when I am in deep in the groove I can tell someone is
talking to me, but I can't understand what they are saying and I can't reply.
It takes me around 5 to 10 seconds to context switch back into English.

Amusingly my wife assumes that I am deliberately ignoring her when she
interrupts me and storms off in a huff half the time. My staff and students
have just learnt that you have to say my name and wait a bit before speaking.

~~~
afarrell
> my wife assumes that I am deliberately ignoring her when she interrupts me
> and storms off in a huff half the time

If you are interested in tools to reduce this sort of thing, my wife and I
developed protocols that help. I've rot13'd them in case you are the type of
person who hates unsolicited advice and would prefer to skip it:

\- Jura bar bs hf vf qevivat n pne (NXN 2-gba-qrngu-znpuvar) naq jr ner
pbairefvat, gur qevire pna fnl "cnhfr" naq gung rkcraqf bhg gb "V erfcrpg lbh
naq gur guvatf lbh unir gb fnl. Ubjrire, V hetragyl arrq gb fuvsg zl nggragvba
gb guvf bgure gnfx oevrsyl. Cyrnfr cnhfr fcrnxvat hagvy V fnl 'erfhzr' fb gung
jura lbh ner fcrnxvat, V pna qribgr fhssvpvrag nggragvba gb yvfgravat gb lbh."

\- Vs bar bs hf vf qbvat be guvaxvat nobhg n guvat naq gur bgure nfxf n
dhrfgvba, jr vzzrqvngryl fnl "hzzz" gb fvtany gung jr ner guvaxvat. Guvf bar
unf gnxra zr n juvyr gb ghea vagb n unovg orpnhfr frireny lrnef ntb V gevrq gb
genva zlfrys _abg_ gb rire fnl "hzzz" ba gur nqivpr bs zl choyvp fcrnxvat
pynff va hav.

Vs lbh guvax guvf fbeg bs guvat zvtug or urycshy, lbh arrq gb gnyx nobhg vg
nurnq bs gvzr gb npghnyyl qrsvar lbhe cebgbpbyf. bgurejvfr, gur zbfg yvxryl
erfhyg vf pbashfvba.

~~~
Veelox
Fyngr fgne pbqrk zhpu?

~~~
afarrell
V va snpg npghnyyl qb.

~~~
Veelox
Bayl bgure cynpr V unir frra guvf pbqr hfrq. V tb ol gur fnzr hfreanzr bire
gurer jura V pbzzrag.

------
infinity0
I always felt that the fact that the tech industry is so welcome to techies
and people with "aspie"-type personalities, indicates that in fact we as an
industry have more empathy than other industries (or social groups) that shun
these types of people (myself included) for what I believe are very
superficial reasons.

So, I think the title of the article is extremely biased and draws the wrong
conclusions from the writer's own research.

~~~
probably_wrong
I'll have to disagree with your conclusion. If a group is composed mostly of
members of a shunned social group, do they have more empathy than others just
because they are friendlier to members of that specific shunned social group?

I am immensely grateful for the nerd-friendliness of the tech industry, as I
spent my teen years being mocked for being a nerd. But if the tech industry
has a higher-than-average number of members who are slightly anti-social, is
it really surprising when people accuse this group of having little empathy to
members of other social groups?

It is entirely possible for the tech industry to be nerd-friendly _and_ women-
hostile at the same time. I'm not saying it _is_ the case, but it _could_ be.
And while I've been vocal against the idea of "hide the nerds so girls won't
be scared of joining CS programs", I think it's worth considering whether we
are being welcoming enough.

~~~
infinity0
I never said techies have "more empathy". I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy
of media attack-pieces blasting techies for having "less empathy", something
that is entirely at odds with my own experience.

edit: apparently I did say that. It was in reaction to an inflammatory title I
feel is deeply wrong.

People, including the writers of articles like "techies aren't empathetic",
like to talk about virtues like "empathy" and apply them positively or
negatively to groups they feel part of / outside of. Much of the time, it has
nothing to do with the actual virtue, but with this tribalistic instinct of
being part of or outside of different groups.

Pretending the discussion is about "empathy" is really doing a disservice to
analysis of social groups. Some less-systematic people are annoyed that more-
systematic people do better within the tech industry, which in today's world
is becoming more and more important for economic success. So they want to
explain this away as "more-systematic people are less empathetic". What is
actually the case, is "more-systematic people are less empathetic to less-
systematic behaviour". But we're plenty-empathetic to people that "get us".
And in the other direction, people that this author assumes are "more
empathetic" are actually _really really extremely non-empathetic_ to more-
systematic people.

edit: assumed the article was another "techies are less empathetic" hit-job,
but turns out it is making a different point from all the rest

------
Semkas
I have aspergers, and empathize with the feeling that society doesn't much
care about our struggle (or, for that matter, knows how to deal with anyone
who isn't neurotypical).

One thing I have come to realize though (and I know this will be controversial
on here) is that SV and tech in general is this special place where people
with limited social skills can go to work for really high salaries to create
things of often dubious societal value.

I remember reading in a similar article that many "classical-liberal" types
think that the wage-gap between man and woman may be caused by the fact that
woman are naturally less competitive. Meaning that they are less careerist.
This is of course a failure of meritocracy, in the same way that charisma
often trumps skill at a job (which is the big problem for anti social men).

Here is my point: we have these different failures of meritocracy affecting
different people, but for people (mostly men) with aspergers there is this
special, well paying, industry. So I don't know that we have it that bad, or
that efforts to attract more woman (even if you consider the given reasons to
be bogus) are really misguided.

~~~
catdograbbit
> I remember reading in a similar article that many "classical-liberal" types
> think that the wage-gap between man and woman may be caused by the fact that
> woman are naturally less competitive. Meaning that they are less careerist.
> This is of course a failure of meritocracy, in the same way that charisma
> often trumps skill at a job (which is the big problem for anti social men).

How is this a failure of the meritocracy? To me, this is the meritocracy
working correctly and succeeding. A competitive person will naturally work
harder to improve their skills because they have a greater desire to be the
best. In a true meritocracy, you'd expect them to outperform less competitive
people.

~~~
mcguire
Are you really faster if you won the race by tripping your competitors?

------
spodek
> _the third factor, Gideon said, was the empathy gap, where we tend to be
> more receptive to women’s pain than men’s. When women talk about being made
> to feel uncomfortable at work, or being sexually harassed, we feel empathy
> and want to punish the wrong-doers. But we don’t have the same reaction for
> “geeks,” or “techbros”. Because our understanding of neurodiversity is
> painfully lacking, our culture tends to view men as a homogenous category,
> seeing all men as inheritors of privilege and all men as possessing the
> masculine traits that foster toughness and resilience. We have a habit of
> ignoring those who don’t, and when they do talk about their vulnerability,
> we are inclined to ignore, or ridicule them for it._

The book The Myth of Male Power [https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Male-Power-
Warren-Farrell/dp/042...](https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Male-Power-Warren-
Farrell/dp/0425181448) explores and describes this factor and many of its
ramifications, which are huge and tragic.

~~~
vkou
This is one very obvious critique of the patriarchy, that is also advanced by
feminism. Traditional, toxic masculinity does not recognize 'non-manly' roles
for men, their emotional and intellectual needs, etc.

It does not, however, follow, that it does not repress women. "But not all
mens!" is true, but is also a bit of a red herring. Most members of both
genders suffer it to their detriment.

~~~
mpweiher
If the "patriarchy" is perpetrated by both men and women and negatively
affects both men and women, maybe "patriarchy" is a bit of a misnomer?

~~~
pasquinelli
why quibble over the word? you're talking about gender roles, men are supposed
to be big and tough and take charge, and womem are supposed to be nurturing
and demure and receptive to being taken charge of. it's a model with men in
control, patriarchy is a fine word for that. of course if you can't hack your
assigned gender role you'll catch shit from those that can. those that can
hack their gender role may be men or women; those that can't may be men or
women-- this is your observation. but how do you go from that to patriarchy is
a misnomer?

~~~
malvosenior
It’s not a useful term because it bakes a ton of political ideas into a
concept everyone is expected to accept. Mainly that our society is somehow
intelligently designed to put men in charge and that it’s not a mix of biology
and random happenstance that got us where we are today. It also implies that
men actually are in charge. Some men may be but the vast majority are not. If
incarceration and university enrollment numbers are examined, it might even
look like men as a class are the oppressed not the oppressors.

~~~
pasquinelli
"Mainly that our society is somehow intelligently designed to put men in
charge and that it’s not a mix of biology and random happenstance that got us
where we are today."

i don't believe anyone thinks this a or that anyone cares if we're here by
accident of history or by intention.

"It also implies that men actually are in charge. Some men may be but the vast
majority are not."

of course, and the vast majority of women aren't in charge either, but the
topic has been gender roles, not who's in charge. recall that i was
questioning the claim that patriarchy is a misnomer because it's bad for men
too. the subject at hand is gender roles and gender expectations.

"If incarceration and university enrollment numbers are examined, it might
even look like men as a class are the oppressed not the oppressors."

yes, patriarchy is bad for men. and if you look at the number of people
murdered by their spouse it also looks pretty oppressive to women. that's the
point, patriarchy is oppressive to everyone.

~~~
mpweiher
> claim that patriarchy is a misnomer because it's bad for men too.

Nope. What I wrote that it is perpetuated/enforced by both men and women
(arguably by women more than men) and has both negative and positive effects
for both men and women.

~~~
pasquinelli
yeah, that's the one. thanks for clearing up any confusion that i might have
caused by not reproducing your post verbatim.

anyway, gender roles and gender expectations.

~~~
mpweiher
Yes. "Gender roles exist, and they come with expectations for everyone" is a
_lot_ different from "the evil patriarchy is a conspiracy by men to oppress
women".

------
aperrien
> What we do know, however, is that while girls and women do meet the
> diagnosis for

>autism spectrum disorder, the ratio between men and women sits somewhere
between 5:1 to

>3:1. We also know that men and women’s interests diverge in ways that are
congruent with

>Baron-Cohen’s systematising- empathising spectrum. Women overwhelmingly
prefer working

>with people, and have “artistic” and “social” vocational interests, and men

>overwhelmingly prefer working with things and have “investigative,”
“enterprising,”

>“realistic,” and “conventional,” interests.

I feel, after having worked with kids (boys and girls) with Asperger's, that
we as a society have historically missed (or dismissed) the signs of
Asperger's in girls, and have done them a disservice in life by not helping
them with those challenges. This book opened my eyes to some of the specific
problems that girls (particularly young ones) face:

[https://www.amazon.com/Aspergirls-Empowering-Females-
Asperge...](https://www.amazon.com/Aspergirls-Empowering-Females-Asperger-
Syndrome-ebook/dp/B00GDJQNO4/ref=mt_kindle?_encoding=UTF8&me=)

I realize that only recently have we begun treating boys who are on the
spectrum, and I'm happy about that, but we need to do better with girls and
young women as well.

~~~
bap
In case you're interested and aren't already aware:

UC Davis seems to be investing a bit in ASD research. This one, for instance,
focuses on girls:

[http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/mindinstitute/research/gain/ind...](http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/mindinstitute/research/gain/index.html)

..and there are a few others. Most focus on the intersection of Children and
Autism in some form or another.

Alternatively SciAm ran an article a while back around just this issue of how
and why we're "missing it" when it comes to recognizing ASD early (or at all)
for girls.

[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/autism-it-s-
diffe...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/autism-it-s-different-in-
girls/)

------
dijit
His childhood mirrors my own, although academic success is inverted.

I wonder if there is some trait which transfixed us for life, I am certain
that the interviewee (Gideon) and I are not alone.

It also beggars the question. Although very non-PC. That were I a girl I would
not be dissuaded from this course. I know this because there was literally
zero support from anyone regarding computing as a hobby or profession. In fact
the opposite, they actively fought against it.

Again. I think I'm very unalone in this regard.

~~~
watwut
I have seen multiple women express surprise that I am programmer because "but
you are women" or "I did not knew women can do that". I live in a bit behind
the times place, obviously. Conversely, I have seen parents shocked that
someone would put boy on art lesson.

Is that part of your answer?

Nevertheless, among my friends, parents agains boy doing computing were
practically nonexistent. Computer was usually in boy room and boys were
heavily praised for every tiny thing they knew and expected to deal. Their
sisters largely aware that it is for boys and not expected of anything (not in
my familly I found out only much later).

Note that my parents seen spending much time with computer as waste of time
and were systematically attempting to send me out - but they did not seen it
boyish nor seen me fundamentally incapable to master it. I had reasonable
access to computer and to some books that were in household.

~~~
dijit
> Computer was usually in boy room and boys were heavily praised for every
> tiny thing they knew and expected to deal. Their sisters largely aware that
> it is for boys

Thats notable. I can see the opposite is true among my friends who are
younger, the girls got laptops because they need to socialise (and privately).
Boys use the family computer placed in a communal area for fear they were
going to watch porn I suppose. But I'm older and when I was young the Internet
was not entirely common. Computers were not ubiquitous and those who worked
with them were considered sub-human. I can understand a parent not wanting
their child to be a "loser" and I believe it cuts over gendered lines.

~~~
watwut
I count myself lucky to never having to deal with that "who uses computer is
subhuman" thing. It was more of admired, because it implied that you have
money. But interesting thing is, most of the time people back then speent on
irc and muds.

I frankly find this setup quite unfair too, but don't see it around me being
repeated. Not just because of boy access to private chat, but because of
assumption parents openly makes about him. "You would mostly watched porn" is
terrible message to the kid. I am also trying to teach my kids that computers
are for more then just socializing and porn and show them productive things
and puzzlers and such.

------
seanhandley
> Because contemporary moral codes delineate women as vulnerable or
> marginalised, we stop seeing them as individuals with unique talents and
> idiosyncrasies, but as representatives of a victimised class. The reverse is
> true of men. Because women are now a victimised class, men are increasingly
> seen as victimisers, irrespective of their individual attributes or actions.

I cannot agree with this more. Very, _very_ well observed and phrased.

~~~
danieltillett
We really have to stop seeing people as members of a group first and an
individual second. It is lazy thinking.

~~~
kazinator
Survival on planet Earth has critically depended on lazy thinking:
generalizing from incomplete scraps of information, and acting in real-time.

~~~
TeMPOraL
While true, our current environment of organized society of billions of
humans, all within the same info-sphere[0] is significantly different than the
environment our species developed in. A lot of our natural tendencies end up
being maladaptive in this new world.

\--

[0] - communication transcends distance now, and if something of importance
happens _anywhere in the world_ , almost everyone else on the planet knows
about it in real-time.

~~~
kazinator
It's the same zoo out there, only with mass communication, transportation,
comforts and gadgets.

You meet someone in a deserted street, you have the same three seconds to
evaluate their threat potential that your ape ancestors had.

~~~
TeMPOraL
No, it's not the same zoo, unless you live in Somalia.

Rule of law and working policing changes _everything_ about your reactions to
other people. In a typical western country, most of the time you feel
threatened just by seeing someone on the street, you're imagining it (proof:
count how many times "feeling threatened" turned into "actually being
threatened"). Other people don't want to go into jail either, and violence
achieves very little compared to patience and civil agreements.

But this is a sort of thing we still can handle real-time, reading things off
each others' faces as we go along. Where the charade breaks down is all of our
intuitions about state of the world, as we consume mass media.

Humans run on availability heuristic[0]. Quoting from the Wiki, "availability
heuristic operates on the notion that if something can be recalled, it must be
important, or at least more important than alternative solutions which are not
as readily recalled". Mass media give us heavily filtered view of the world,
which does not, in any way, correspond to the real world we live in. Thanks to
news reporting, you feel like you're surrounded by rich and beautiful people,
constantly threatened by gangs and terrorists, and that everything around you
is going to shit. None of that is true, and yet even knowing that, we all have
trouble handling it in our heads.

The heuristics we are born with were optimized for small and very localized
group of people, not for large, dense populations, and constant light-speed
communication with everyone else on the planet.

\--

[0] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic)

------
sanxiyn
> The technology industry is one of the most Aspie-friendly places that there
> is.

Amen. I think this is something we should be proud of.

------
jancsika
> But we don’t have the same reaction for “geeks,” or “techbros”. Because our
> understanding of neurodiversity is painfully lacking, our culture tends to
> view men as a homogenous category, seeing all men as inheritors of privilege
> and all men as possessing the masculine traits that foster toughness and
> resilience.

Back in reality, the stereotypes of male nerds/geeks are:

* not interested in activities that leverage masculine traits, like sports

* not interested in the "rough" and often physically abusive hazing activities that go along with sports

* publicly ridiculed for being socially inept, having a hard time interacting with members of the opposite sex, not grooming in the typical way "tough and resilient" males do

Like any stereotypes those are often wrong. Nevertheless they come with
_enormous_ empathy-- most humans I know don't condone adolescents getting
choked by bullies and will get sad when you tell them stories about it.

Furthermore-- and I don't think I'm alone in this-- my own empathy gap between
my stereotype of male "geeks" and male "techbros" couldn't be any wider. I
thought people only referred to each other as ${topic}bros to be ironic, the
joke being that anyone who would do that seriously is worthy of derision.

~~~
Joeboy
In the wider world, the stereotype of male geeks seems to be that having
endured all the above we're seeking revenge on society (and especially women)
for the wrongs they have inflicted on us. Admittedly in my actual life I don't
perceive my actual self to be judged harshly by actual people, but in the
abstract I get the strong impression that people like me are pretty awful.

Edit:
[https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=tech+industry+men](https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=tech+industry+men)
. You might get different results but for me the first "positive-looking"
story is on page 4 - "The Fittest Guys in Tech - These 10 men break the tech-
guy stereotype".

~~~
greenrd
I guess it's an incentives thing. How much pushback do journalists ever get in
their lives for writing lazy, uninformed and inaccurate articles like that?
I'd guess jack squat, because we probably all think we have better things to
do with our time than write letters of complaint to the editor. And we're
probably right to think so.

------
walshemj
Using a "car company" Like tesla as an example of the tech industry's misogamy
is just fracking stupid - does the Atlantic even have an "industrial
correspondent"

Teslas a car company and the sexism in those sort of blue collar traditional
company's is way more prevalent

To use a slightly more tech example in telecos when was the last time you saw
a female lineman (engineer in UK terms)

~~~
walshemj
To follow up my point using an example from a totally separate blue collar
industry with massive gender imbalances and much more overt sexual harassment
and discrimination allows hr in the tech industry to discredit the journalists
and article in question.

------
namenotrequired
The Wikipedia article on Asperger's doesn't mention hypersensitivity to touch,
but this research suggests that a link does exist:

[http://docs.autismresearchcentre.com/papers/2006_Blakemore_T...](http://docs.autismresearchcentre.com/papers/2006_Blakemore_Tactile_sensitivity.pdf)

------
slowwriter
Became curious and took the Autism Spectrum Quotient test and got a score of
35. Huh, who gives

------
auvrw
from the article

> I had also heard something years earlier about autistic people having issues
> with certain types of clothing similar to my own.

similar in what way? from
[https://www.autismspeaks.org/blog/2017/06/05/autism-and-
resi...](https://www.autismspeaks.org/blog/2017/06/05/autism-and-resistance-
change-winter-summer-clothes)

> We know that many people on the autism spectrum prefer relatively snug-
> fitting clothing that covers their arms and legs.

...i did not know that. however, i did know that _incredibly fashionable
people_ prefer relatively snug-fitting clothing that covers their arms and
legs, thank you.

------
watwut
Majority of people in tech are not autistic stereotype. The actually autistic
were definitely not among the best I have worked with.

~~~
blablabla123
Yeah I also observed that most people in tech seem to be kind of
"statistically normal". However seeing myself more on the spectrum side and
also being perceived as that, I noticed workplaces preferring me and similar
people to rather work alone. It matches very much the traditional stereotype
of putting the programmers in the cellar, not sure if that makes the
workplaces more sociable - probably not.

There's in my opinion a lot wrong in tech but I think one cannot say that it's
the fault of a certain group. It's rather the habits and "traditions" of the
people working in the tech industry that need an upgrade.

~~~
watwut
Do you see that working more alone as a bad thing? One of my gripes with scrum
and such is that such a thing is not possible.

~~~
blablabla123
I like working alone when building new things, so I can do what I want. (Also
at that stage there is little risk of possibly annoying discussions.) But when
there are problem, whether dev, op or requirements related, then being alone
sucks.

I was working at one place for almost 2 years and I ended up working almost
completely alone on the dev side (+ most of the ops). Things worked actually
quite well and I could even work with some really crazy JS framework but it
just started to become boring as hell. Because with work colleagues I could
only talk about the superficial parts of my job - the rest was some kind of
rabbit hole.

Not sure about the Scrum. I mean when the colleagues rather work alone, I
guess each task can be done in solitude. That's at least more or less the case
where I work.

------
tzahola
The author is walking on thin ice by suggesting that sexual dimorphism has a
significant effect on cognitive abilities. For her own safety, I hope she
doesn’t live in San Francisco.

~~~
nukeop
You think it doesn't?

~~~
domlebo70
They are suggesting that SF has a reactionary view to that notion.

------
TheAdamAndChe
> He said that society increasingly sees groups instead of individuals, to the
> extent that group rights may supersede individual rights in all sorts of
> contexts, including politicised work environments. Because contemporary
> moral codes delineate women as vulnerable or marginalised, we stop seeing
> them as individuals with unique talents and idiosyncrasies, but as
> representatives of a victimised class. The reverse is true of men. Because
> women are now a victimised class, men are increasingly seen as victimisers,
> irrespective of their individual attributes or actions.

> The second factor, he thought, was an attachment to an outdated, blank slate
> view of human nature. He says that many people still insist on seeing the
> human brain as predominantly moulded by culture, despite scientific evidence
> to the contrary. There tends to be a hesitancy towards attributing any
> differences between people to any cause that is biological in origin. This
> hesitancy has been around for decades, and appears like it will not be
> alleviated anytime soon.

I agree with the first paragraph here, but not the second. I really believe
that culture plays more of a part than most people think. Cultural differences
would explain the higher wages among Asian Americans and Jews, this despite
the historic racism that both of those groups have experienced. Both groups
are minorities, yet on average still exceed in our society more than others.

~~~
dang
Please don't take HN threads on generic ideological tangents. Didn't we just
discuss this? They lead to the same few black holes over and over again—as
demonstrated below.

~~~
TheAdamAndChe
I was discussing one of the major topics of the post. Quoted directly from the
article:

> He said that society increasingly sees groups instead of individuals, to the
> extent that group rights may supersede individual rights in all sorts of
> contexts, including politicised work environments. Because contemporary
> moral codes delineate women as vulnerable or marginalised, we stop seeing
> them as individuals with unique talents and idiosyncrasies, but as
> representatives of a victimised class. The reverse is true of men. Because
> women are now a victimised class, men are increasingly seen as victimisers,
> irrespective of their individual attributes or actions.

If you don't like discussions on this topic, then perhaps you should stop
allowing such topics on this site.

