These selective biases are far more pervasive than just sex parity at all stages of the pipeline and result in all kinds of malformed decisions.
> And even if we could meaningfully increase the number of women enrolling in CS programs overall, top companies have historically tended to favor candidates from elite universities (based on some targeted LinkedIn Recruiter searches, 60% of software engineers at FAAMNG hold a degree from a top 20 school).
That is a hiring bias offering very little to qualify a candidate's potential longevity in the field or their potential innovation performance. If employers really wanted to fix this sex parity problem (without sacrificing applicant quality) they could, but they would have to be willing to abandon certain premises they hold dear about hiring, candidate sourcing, and qualification criteria.
---
One example of a naive selective bias is the notion of the standard 4-year computer science degree as the path to excellent in corporate software. The 4-year degree exists to take a person off the street make them a credible hire as an entry level developer in the most generic way possible. That's it. You don't need any formal education to be an incredible developer might result in a far wider distribution of skills from self-education.
If your goal in life is to do something other than write C++ or Java, the most commonly taught languages in most 4-year degree programs, you need to find experience or training elsewhere. The inherent bias is that a person with a degree from an excellent school is well prepared for any aspect of software development, because its all just software. This is why so many entry-level front-end developers want their front-end technology to behave like Java or impose frameworks to make it so.
Its also why many software developers are over confident in their understanding of security when in reality they are grossly ignorant of it with a severely misplaced understanding of what security actually is. As an example many software developers might believe security is limited to something like intrusion prevention. Information security is actually: confidentiality, integrity, and availability (CIA). If you cannot keep your application from crashing or cannot keep it online that is classified as a priority security failure without regard for intrusion.
---
Another example, the one that convinced me to delete my Reddit account after being flamed multiple times by impassioned echo chambers, is the notion that Web Assembly will free the front-end from JavaScript. The most interesting thing about that conversation is that people most supportive of the idea that Web Assembly will replace JavaScript is that the DOM is a fantastic technology that will be the key to ultimate salvation without any understanding of or experience with the DOM.
As an aside most JavaScript developers dreadfully HATE the DOM and also have a poor understanding of its mechanics. Even still injecting the page's DOM directly into a Web Assembly instance was seen as ultimate salvation to replace JavaScript despite all evidence to the contrary merely because some developers hate JavaScript more than many JavaScript developers hate the DOM. This was 3 years ago, and this fantasy still has not come to pass, because its based on a dillusion of wishful thinking opposed to an investigation of technologies available or any consideration of data.
There is a technology that has made great strides in, at least superficially, replacing JavaScript: TypeScript. This is the opposite line of thinking of abandoning JavaScript for some drop in alternative. Instead TypeScript is a superset that requires embracing JavaScript.
---
The pitfalls of selective bias are personality failures rather than anything related to education or intelligence. Bias is formed either out of intellectual laziness or out of reinforcing some deeply held personal belief, but both are an absence of objectivity. When a bias is formed to reinforce some personal opinion it is done so emotionally, often non-cognitively, and often for a perceived security motive. Because a bias can be deeply rooted, non-cognitive, emotionally-based, and defensively focused in can result in really bad decisions resulting in subjective positioning to maintain a poorly-formed belief at hand (digging in). This is a cultural problem and education alone will not fix it.
> And even if we could meaningfully increase the number of women enrolling in CS programs overall, top companies have historically tended to favor candidates from elite universities (based on some targeted LinkedIn Recruiter searches, 60% of software engineers at FAAMNG hold a degree from a top 20 school).
That is a hiring bias offering very little to qualify a candidate's potential longevity in the field or their potential innovation performance. If employers really wanted to fix this sex parity problem (without sacrificing applicant quality) they could, but they would have to be willing to abandon certain premises they hold dear about hiring, candidate sourcing, and qualification criteria.
---
One example of a naive selective bias is the notion of the standard 4-year computer science degree as the path to excellent in corporate software. The 4-year degree exists to take a person off the street make them a credible hire as an entry level developer in the most generic way possible. That's it. You don't need any formal education to be an incredible developer might result in a far wider distribution of skills from self-education.
If your goal in life is to do something other than write C++ or Java, the most commonly taught languages in most 4-year degree programs, you need to find experience or training elsewhere. The inherent bias is that a person with a degree from an excellent school is well prepared for any aspect of software development, because its all just software. This is why so many entry-level front-end developers want their front-end technology to behave like Java or impose frameworks to make it so.
Its also why many software developers are over confident in their understanding of security when in reality they are grossly ignorant of it with a severely misplaced understanding of what security actually is. As an example many software developers might believe security is limited to something like intrusion prevention. Information security is actually: confidentiality, integrity, and availability (CIA). If you cannot keep your application from crashing or cannot keep it online that is classified as a priority security failure without regard for intrusion.
---
Another example, the one that convinced me to delete my Reddit account after being flamed multiple times by impassioned echo chambers, is the notion that Web Assembly will free the front-end from JavaScript. The most interesting thing about that conversation is that people most supportive of the idea that Web Assembly will replace JavaScript is that the DOM is a fantastic technology that will be the key to ultimate salvation without any understanding of or experience with the DOM.
As an aside most JavaScript developers dreadfully HATE the DOM and also have a poor understanding of its mechanics. Even still injecting the page's DOM directly into a Web Assembly instance was seen as ultimate salvation to replace JavaScript despite all evidence to the contrary merely because some developers hate JavaScript more than many JavaScript developers hate the DOM. This was 3 years ago, and this fantasy still has not come to pass, because its based on a dillusion of wishful thinking opposed to an investigation of technologies available or any consideration of data.
There is a technology that has made great strides in, at least superficially, replacing JavaScript: TypeScript. This is the opposite line of thinking of abandoning JavaScript for some drop in alternative. Instead TypeScript is a superset that requires embracing JavaScript.
---
The pitfalls of selective bias are personality failures rather than anything related to education or intelligence. Bias is formed either out of intellectual laziness or out of reinforcing some deeply held personal belief, but both are an absence of objectivity. When a bias is formed to reinforce some personal opinion it is done so emotionally, often non-cognitively, and often for a perceived security motive. Because a bias can be deeply rooted, non-cognitive, emotionally-based, and defensively focused in can result in really bad decisions resulting in subjective positioning to maintain a poorly-formed belief at hand (digging in). This is a cultural problem and education alone will not fix it.