> I am less inclined to believe there is systemic bias against women, and minorities, and instead a culture difference between groups who are well represented in engineering, and groups which are not.
This reveals a complete misunderstanding of how "systemic bias" occurs and persists.
[Edited with further thoughts]
"Cultural differences" don't just appear out of nowhere. Culture itself is an amalgamation of different human experiences that have combined and recombined over tens of thousands of years. It's not static. The things you deem "cultural differences" have many causes, and "differences" can and do change all the time.
When we throw up our hands and say "cultural differences", it implies that we don't need to ask why such differences might exist and whether we should actively seek to change them. That's an important conversation.
"Systemic bias" may or may not exist in this case, but if you think cultural differences themselves can't lead to systemic bias then you are mistaken.
What bias exists that targets women, and minorities, but doesn't also target Indian, Chinese, and Russian woman, and Indian and Chinese men[1]?
> When we throw up our hands and say "cultural differences", it implies that we don't need to ask why such differences might exist and whether we should actively seek to change them. That's an important conversation.
Except the article (and conversation) isn't about cultural differences, but instead about "diversity problem[s in tech]" and in this case, how the technical interview unfairly penalizes underrepresented groups.
1: I believe that in general, Caucasian Russian males can be safely lumped into the "white male" category that dominates the tech industry.
> ... in this case, how the technical interview unfairly penalizes underrepresented groups.
If this was your big takeaway I think you should read the article again. It's not about unfair penalization.
People fail at technical interviews all the time, men and women alike. The article doesn't assert that there's the kind of simple bias that would cause women to unfairly receive lower marks in an interview compared to an equally-qualified man.
The article reveals that women react differently to negative signals from the technical puzzle-based interview process.
You've tried to assert that this is due to "cultural differences" (your words, not mine or the article's). And I'm saying that's too naive an explanation, and we should look further.
The reason this comment is getting downvoted is not because it's (necessarily) incorrect, but because saying only "You just don't get it" in fancier words contributes neither to understanding nor to the discussion.
This reveals a complete misunderstanding of how "systemic bias" occurs and persists.
[Edited with further thoughts]
"Cultural differences" don't just appear out of nowhere. Culture itself is an amalgamation of different human experiences that have combined and recombined over tens of thousands of years. It's not static. The things you deem "cultural differences" have many causes, and "differences" can and do change all the time.
When we throw up our hands and say "cultural differences", it implies that we don't need to ask why such differences might exist and whether we should actively seek to change them. That's an important conversation.
"Systemic bias" may or may not exist in this case, but if you think cultural differences themselves can't lead to systemic bias then you are mistaken.