zlacker

>>zdw+(OP)
As usual, the actual numbers don't back up the narrative. For example, significantly more men in the study left due to unfairness than women do: 40% vs. 31%. So either women are treated more fairly or these numbers don't mean anything, yet you would never know it from the text, which is all about the horrible things that happen to women.

Hmmm...

>>mpweih+D4
The willingness to slog though abusive working conditions is one of the most highly-selected-for trait in tech. Mature people are, on average, are less willing to do this than young people of the customarily military age range.

>>whatsh+e5
I think this point (the military age thing) is often overlooked in discussions about [age|race|gender|socioeconomic] diversity in tech. Rather than a single problem, I think it's actually two separate, intersecting problems.

The first is a recruitment/sourcing problem. There are many demonstrable factors, such as educational availability or social norms/pressure, that serve primarily to influence entrance rates into tech among different groups.

The second problem is a retention problem. Other social and cultural traits, like the aforementioned willingness to "sacrifice for the cause", place work above family, and so on, are also not evenly distributed among different [age|race|gender|socioeconomic] demographics; I think these traits (or lack thereof) are more strongly correlated with leaving (or being forced out) of tech. To some extent, these might also serve as cooling effects for entrance as well, but I'd hesitate to make any claims about the strength of that effect.

Perhaps by explicitly addressing these two issues independently, rather than by evaluating a "where are we at this current moment statistically" snapshot, this issue can be tackled more effectively?

I think many current approaches fall into the trap of evaluating the snapshot, effectively saying "How has it come to this?!", and then trying to treat the symptom, rather than the cause.