The Oxymoron of “Data-Driven Innovation”(chelseatroy.com)
chelseatroy.com
The Oxymoron of “Data-Driven Innovation”
https://chelseatroy.com/2021/07/30/the-oxymoron-of-data-driven-innovation/
51 comments
I find it a reach that you're complaining about grouping when used in this context:
> For example, I once worked for a company that poured a lot of effort into inclusive hiring: they made an inclusion skills rubric, placed ads in “diverse” tech spaces, et cetera. Two years later, all the “diverse people” they had carefully collected had left, and the company had backfilled with almost exclusively cishet white guys.
This is a paragraph directly talking about an initiative to increase diversity that ultimately had little lasting impact, but is making no judgments about either the group of "diverse people" that didn't stick around nor the group of hires that followed.
There's no thinking about either group there as individuals, nor positive or negative overall descriptions of them, just an anecdote about an HR initiative at a particular company that didn't really meet its objectives.
What's there to be offended by, asks this person who hadn't even encountered the term "cishet" before this article but falls in the group?
> For example, I once worked for a company that poured a lot of effort into inclusive hiring: they made an inclusion skills rubric, placed ads in “diverse” tech spaces, et cetera. Two years later, all the “diverse people” they had carefully collected had left, and the company had backfilled with almost exclusively cishet white guys.
This is a paragraph directly talking about an initiative to increase diversity that ultimately had little lasting impact, but is making no judgments about either the group of "diverse people" that didn't stick around nor the group of hires that followed.
There's no thinking about either group there as individuals, nor positive or negative overall descriptions of them, just an anecdote about an HR initiative at a particular company that didn't really meet its objectives.
What's there to be offended by, asks this person who hadn't even encountered the term "cishet" before this article but falls in the group?
You're right it does seem like a small thing to pick on in this context.
I think it stood out to me because like you said it's not a common term. It gets used in specific communities and areas (academia) but it's a term that the group it is describing doesn't actually use, it's an outgroup indicator, and it's more negative than similar terms like poc, bipoc. It's a culture war signal, even when not intended.
Do I care about it? Not really, but it is a really small thing that would go a long ways towards inclusion as weird as that sounds.
I think it stood out to me because like you said it's not a common term. It gets used in specific communities and areas (academia) but it's a term that the group it is describing doesn't actually use, it's an outgroup indicator, and it's more negative than similar terms like poc, bipoc. It's a culture war signal, even when not intended.
Do I care about it? Not really, but it is a really small thing that would go a long ways towards inclusion as weird as that sounds.
The statement as a whole is equally effective with just "white guys" since most people can draw their connotations from the context and those that can't wouldn't know the word anyway (and researching it throws them into the deep end). Reading between the lines (fairly or not), adding that descriptor implies a value judgement beyond the baseline lack of diversity. It draws attention to the individuals as the problem rather than systemic or emergent issues.
About the cishet thing, I think that's fair use in this context. When discussing diversity, it is normal to name the groups discussed. As the cishet is usually seem as the default, I'd say it is important to address it properly, as not to assume that as universal. Is this divisive language? In some way, yes, but that's the point: we use it to discuss the divisions we observe in society.
Cishet white male shaming is one of the most pernicious festering culture sores in the world today. We exist, we are real people, we want respect and representation, and our voices matter.
[deleted]
>you say cishet white guys and you can group up a whole lot of people without thinking much about them as individuals.
I can empathize with the "turnabout is fair play" logic of it...
>Do you believe this is constructive language that bridges the divide that's part of these issues?
...but, like you, I question its effectiveness in bringing us all together. My guess is that it generally triggers a sense of awareness in those who are already somewhere on the "allied" spectrum and that it triggers defensiveness and entrenchment in those that are on the fence or further away. There is clear benefit in the former and detriment in the latter. As you said: "know your audience."
I can empathize with the "turnabout is fair play" logic of it...
>Do you believe this is constructive language that bridges the divide that's part of these issues?
...but, like you, I question its effectiveness in bringing us all together. My guess is that it generally triggers a sense of awareness in those who are already somewhere on the "allied" spectrum and that it triggers defensiveness and entrenchment in those that are on the fence or further away. There is clear benefit in the former and detriment in the latter. As you said: "know your audience."
There's no "turnabout" happening in being prejudiced against a group full of unique people, many of whom aren't so prejudiced.
I can't imagine that you are arguing that non-white, non-cis, and non-hetro people haven't been prejudiced against by whitecishetromales. That's where the "turnabout" comes into play.
If you are pointing out that the "turnabout" is also prejudicial, then I obviously agree. The point I was making is that when it is misapplied, it's potentially helpful (in creating additional awareness in those who are on some spectrum of "allied") and when it is accurately applied, it's detrimental (as it is likely to lead to "defensiveness and entrenchment"). In this way, it may also serve as a way to measure our own position.
Also, I don't think anyone knows whether "many" is accurate. The same point is made by saying "some."
If you are pointing out that the "turnabout" is also prejudicial, then I obviously agree. The point I was making is that when it is misapplied, it's potentially helpful (in creating additional awareness in those who are on some spectrum of "allied") and when it is accurately applied, it's detrimental (as it is likely to lead to "defensiveness and entrenchment"). In this way, it may also serve as a way to measure our own position.
Also, I don't think anyone knows whether "many" is accurate. The same point is made by saying "some."
> If you are pointing out that the "turnabout" is also prejudicial, then I obviously agree.
Yes. It's never really "turnabout" to employ prejudice, because by nature you're not targeting the people who targeted you, you're targeting a broader group and repeating the error.
Yes. It's never really "turnabout" to employ prejudice, because by nature you're not targeting the people who targeted you, you're targeting a broader group and repeating the error.
Labeling, as used in this article, is hardly even turnabout. The dominant group may not explicitly create a term to label themselves, but the act of exclusion requires separating out the "other," and so labeling the non-other isn't so much an act of "turnabout" as just putting a word to an already-created group.
The people originally assuming all white/male/heterosexual/whatever people can and should be lumped together are the ones who have and continue to try to restrict jobs, property, and liberty from being given to people outside that group.
People will go a very long rhetorical way to try to refute the idea that if you want to fix racism in the US you need to address the very real and still very powerful and connected white racists. That problem won't magically fix itself because the people who desire racism to continue actively pursue it. We can't even get rid of the confederate flag, for goodness sake.
The people originally assuming all white/male/heterosexual/whatever people can and should be lumped together are the ones who have and continue to try to restrict jobs, property, and liberty from being given to people outside that group.
People will go a very long rhetorical way to try to refute the idea that if you want to fix racism in the US you need to address the very real and still very powerful and connected white racists. That problem won't magically fix itself because the people who desire racism to continue actively pursue it. We can't even get rid of the confederate flag, for goodness sake.
> if you want to fix racism in the US you need to address the very real and still very powerful and connected [] racists.
Yes, exactly. And assuming all white/male/heterosexual/whatever people can and should be lumped together helps said racists, as might be expected from their being the ones who originally did so.
Yes, exactly. And assuming all white/male/heterosexual/whatever people can and should be lumped together helps said racists, as might be expected from their being the ones who originally did so.
That lumping is, again, descriptive. And it's an often-useful description/category in large part because of that historical racism.
Getting worked up over that is a huge waste of time, to the point that I now wonder if it's a sideshow. If we waste our time arguing about if this "the diverse hires left and the new hires after them were white" description is bad, we've been successfully distracted.
The idea that anyone is actually offended or feels harmed by that paragraph we're talking about is absurd - could you imagine how such people would feel if they were part of one of the out-groups instead and didn't just get lumped together but also had been attacked by the centuries of racism in the US?
This is the paragraph in question, once again:
> For example, I once worked for a company that poured a lot of effort into inclusive hiring: they made an inclusion skills rubric, placed ads in “diverse” tech spaces, et cetera. Two years later, all the “diverse people” they had carefully collected had left, and the company had backfilled with almost exclusively cishet white guys.
If you don't let yourself look at the demographics, you blind yourself to any ability to evaluate effectiveness in terms of fighting the historical and present effects of white supremacy in the US. Note that the "diverse people" are similarly lumped together because it's non-judgmentally discussing the effects of a policy, nothing more. I don't see any way someone takes offense at that paragraph, but I see lots of ways someone would pretend to in order to make reactionary/distracting claims about if we even need to try to fight that historical racism.
Getting worked up over that is a huge waste of time, to the point that I now wonder if it's a sideshow. If we waste our time arguing about if this "the diverse hires left and the new hires after them were white" description is bad, we've been successfully distracted.
The idea that anyone is actually offended or feels harmed by that paragraph we're talking about is absurd - could you imagine how such people would feel if they were part of one of the out-groups instead and didn't just get lumped together but also had been attacked by the centuries of racism in the US?
This is the paragraph in question, once again:
> For example, I once worked for a company that poured a lot of effort into inclusive hiring: they made an inclusion skills rubric, placed ads in “diverse” tech spaces, et cetera. Two years later, all the “diverse people” they had carefully collected had left, and the company had backfilled with almost exclusively cishet white guys.
If you don't let yourself look at the demographics, you blind yourself to any ability to evaluate effectiveness in terms of fighting the historical and present effects of white supremacy in the US. Note that the "diverse people" are similarly lumped together because it's non-judgmentally discussing the effects of a policy, nothing more. I don't see any way someone takes offense at that paragraph, but I see lots of ways someone would pretend to in order to make reactionary/distracting claims about if we even need to try to fight that historical racism.
> The idea that anyone is actually offended or feels harmed by that paragraph we're talking about is absurd
It surprises me that you don't see that language like this is the same language used against marginalized groups. Nobody but the person that is offended gets to decide how they feel.
We as people of lots of overlapping concerns have to be empathetic or we'll get more factionalism instead of unity and inclusion.
It surprises me that you don't see that language like this is the same language used against marginalized groups. Nobody but the person that is offended gets to decide how they feel.
We as people of lots of overlapping concerns have to be empathetic or we'll get more factionalism instead of unity and inclusion.
I don't see it as at all the same thing. People get offended at slurs and insults, and I don't see why I should interpret this usage as either. Do you think the "diverse people" referred to in that paragraph should also be offended?
Someone here is upset about the author "assuming all white/male/heterosexual/whatever people can and should be lumped together" - I fail to see how they're lumping those people in this story together any more than they are the other group.
Someone here is upset about the author "being prejudiced against a group full of unique people" - I fail to see the prejudice in the quoted paragraph.
Someone here is upset about "cishet white male shaming" - I fail to see the shaming.
I don't see marginalized minority groups getting offended at, e.g. academic studies of the Mexican experience in the US for that same sort of grouping.
That the term wasn't invented ourselves[0] seems to be the only real case being made here, but its an abbreviation of two technical terms, not an obvious slur. We could make an analogy to someone getting upset someone using one of one of "African American" vs "Black" vs another such term, but then we're getting pretty well into niche territory versus talking about something obviously offensive to everyone the term describes.
[0] as far as I know, anyway, though I suppose it could've been.
Someone here is upset about the author "assuming all white/male/heterosexual/whatever people can and should be lumped together" - I fail to see how they're lumping those people in this story together any more than they are the other group.
Someone here is upset about the author "being prejudiced against a group full of unique people" - I fail to see the prejudice in the quoted paragraph.
Someone here is upset about "cishet white male shaming" - I fail to see the shaming.
I don't see marginalized minority groups getting offended at, e.g. academic studies of the Mexican experience in the US for that same sort of grouping.
That the term wasn't invented ourselves[0] seems to be the only real case being made here, but its an abbreviation of two technical terms, not an obvious slur. We could make an analogy to someone getting upset someone using one of one of "African American" vs "Black" vs another such term, but then we're getting pretty well into niche territory versus talking about something obviously offensive to everyone the term describes.
[0] as far as I know, anyway, though I suppose it could've been.
> I don't see marginalized minority groups getting offended at, e.g. academic studies of the Mexican experience in the US for that same sort of grouping.
I see your point but I think you are making really big bunchings of value judgments. I live in a Hispanic community. There are lots and lots of people in that group that are cishet white males, their family members aren't going to call them that, though. Not a small number of them find being cishet as only morally acceptable.
It's similar to latinx. They are terms that are used in very specific groups and mean something important there but when they get used across boundaries different groups are basically talking about different things (it's a freedom fighter/terrorist issue).
I see your point but I think you are making really big bunchings of value judgments. I live in a Hispanic community. There are lots and lots of people in that group that are cishet white males, their family members aren't going to call them that, though. Not a small number of them find being cishet as only morally acceptable.
It's similar to latinx. They are terms that are used in very specific groups and mean something important there but when they get used across boundaries different groups are basically talking about different things (it's a freedom fighter/terrorist issue).
So would we be having this dicussion if the author had written: "Two years later, all the “diverse people” they had carefully collected had left, and the company had backfilled with almost exclusively cisgender heterosexual white guys."?
My guess from your comments is: probably not, from your perspective? Much of your original post that I disagreed with is about the use of the term itself.
But I don't get that sense from the reactions posted by others, since those other quotes I included don't seem to be justified by this article at all, to me.
My guess from your comments is: probably not, from your perspective? Much of your original post that I disagreed with is about the use of the term itself.
But I don't get that sense from the reactions posted by others, since those other quotes I included don't seem to be justified by this article at all, to me.
> could you imagine how such people would feel if they were part of one of the out-groups instead and didn't just get lumped together but also had been attacked by the centuries of racism in the US?
You do realize that the majority of white cis heterosexual people live outside the USA right? This is often a source of frustration for me, as people in the USA don't seem to realize the rest of the world exists. All of these things about whiteness, white cishet and white supremacy don't really translate well outside of that context.
You do realize that the majority of white cis heterosexual people live outside the USA right? This is often a source of frustration for me, as people in the USA don't seem to realize the rest of the world exists. All of these things about whiteness, white cishet and white supremacy don't really translate well outside of that context.
> The people originally assuming all white/male/heterosexual/whatever people can and should be lumped together are the ones who have and continue to try to restrict jobs, property, and liberty from being given to people outside that group.
Isn't that exactly what the author is doing by using the term "cishet white guys" though?
Isn't that exactly what the author is doing by using the term "cishet white guys" though?
[deleted]
I don't really understand the iPhone example. I doubt that the touch UI was the only thing that made it work, and it's followed by "In fact, most of the things you love about your smartphone started as accessibility features." without ever backing that up. And then there's "3. Orgs can achieve momentous victories by prioritizing marginal business cases." which isn't really backed up too. You could probably make an argument that anyone that has a problem that can be solved by a product that would make a successful startup (so a big pain point) is marginalized, but that sounds like a circular definition to me.
I feel like the whole post is playing a bit of a motte-and-bailey about the definition of marginalized people. A marginalized person could be "a formerly incarcerated black parent", that's the bailey. It could also be a small business owner that'd like a tool to see his cash flow, that's the motte. " We gotta get over this idea that we’re being mensches by handing over our stolen power to unworthy or inexperienced charity cases." is another example of the bailey.
Edit: corrected "It could also be a small business owner that'd like a tool to see his cash flow, that's the bailey." to "It could also be a small business owner that'd like a tool to see his cash flow, that's the motte."
I feel like the whole post is playing a bit of a motte-and-bailey about the definition of marginalized people. A marginalized person could be "a formerly incarcerated black parent", that's the bailey. It could also be a small business owner that'd like a tool to see his cash flow, that's the motte. " We gotta get over this idea that we’re being mensches by handing over our stolen power to unworthy or inexperienced charity cases." is another example of the bailey.
Edit: corrected "It could also be a small business owner that'd like a tool to see his cash flow, that's the bailey." to "It could also be a small business owner that'd like a tool to see his cash flow, that's the motte."
The argument that in the pre-internet area, "for a glimpse of time, these privileged kids experienced a marginalization that the web suddenly made addressable" falls extremely flat to me.
I've never seen anyone - in the tech industry or not - claim that they felt marginalized as a kid because they weren't growing up in NYC or Boston. So the idea that all these ideas popped up and had a market just because of this "geographic marginalization" is a huge reach.
Sometimes there is a demand for something new from a non-marginalized majority group, and that's extremely likely to be the case with new technology, because new tech is definitionally new to both the mainstream and the margins.
The claim that as an industry matures, new growth will start from the edges is not very different from our common use of "disruption" - neither the existing players nor their current customers anticipate the new thing - but it's also not really related to being "data driven" or not.
You can try to serve the mainstream/your existing customer base in a data driven way or in a non-data-driven way.
You can similarly try to find new opportunities with or without being data driven.
There's a point in there about how if you're looking for new opportunities you need to be sophisticated in how you use your data, since you need to look for new insights and things that maybe won't show up in means and medians, but it's buried here in hard-to-support asides trying to exaggerate the business or innovation impact of being marginalized.
I've never seen anyone - in the tech industry or not - claim that they felt marginalized as a kid because they weren't growing up in NYC or Boston. So the idea that all these ideas popped up and had a market just because of this "geographic marginalization" is a huge reach.
Sometimes there is a demand for something new from a non-marginalized majority group, and that's extremely likely to be the case with new technology, because new tech is definitionally new to both the mainstream and the margins.
The claim that as an industry matures, new growth will start from the edges is not very different from our common use of "disruption" - neither the existing players nor their current customers anticipate the new thing - but it's also not really related to being "data driven" or not.
You can try to serve the mainstream/your existing customer base in a data driven way or in a non-data-driven way.
You can similarly try to find new opportunities with or without being data driven.
There's a point in there about how if you're looking for new opportunities you need to be sophisticated in how you use your data, since you need to look for new insights and things that maybe won't show up in means and medians, but it's buried here in hard-to-support asides trying to exaggerate the business or innovation impact of being marginalized.
Completely agree. I actually do understand feeling like you're not part of the mainstream culture if you're not in a major city like NYC or LA. But that is not even close to the same thing as the problems of the marginalized communities the author wants to connect this to (who are either poor, have disabilities, have been targeted by racism, etc.)
I also find this whole style of argument very dubious. The author clearly started from the conclusion first here - that it's important to consider the needs of marginalized groups - which they believe in for purely moral/ideological reasons. And then they're somewhat awkwardly and very transparently back-fitting a different rationale in front of it and arguing that actually this is what's best for your business. The argument is flimsy, and it's also entirely beside the point. If convincing counter-evidence were brought up that shows this entire argument is flawed, is the author going to reverse their stance and say "ok, I was wrong, let's just ignore marginalized groups because they aren't that important to the bottom line"? Of course not.
I feel like this kind of back-fitting argument probably does more harm than good, and might just end up back firing later. Let's just be honest about what we're asking for here - we want companies to consider the needs of marginalized groups, for its own sake because it's the right thing to do.
I also find this whole style of argument very dubious. The author clearly started from the conclusion first here - that it's important to consider the needs of marginalized groups - which they believe in for purely moral/ideological reasons. And then they're somewhat awkwardly and very transparently back-fitting a different rationale in front of it and arguing that actually this is what's best for your business. The argument is flimsy, and it's also entirely beside the point. If convincing counter-evidence were brought up that shows this entire argument is flawed, is the author going to reverse their stance and say "ok, I was wrong, let's just ignore marginalized groups because they aren't that important to the bottom line"? Of course not.
I feel like this kind of back-fitting argument probably does more harm than good, and might just end up back firing later. Let's just be honest about what we're asking for here - we want companies to consider the needs of marginalized groups, for its own sake because it's the right thing to do.
> Let's just be honest about what we're asking for here - we want companies to consider the needs of marginalized groups, for its own sake because it's the right thing to do.
Precisely! "Right is right, even if nobody does it. Wrong is wrong even if everybody is wrong about it." [1]
[1] G. K. Chesterton, _Illustrated London News_, May 11, 1907
Precisely! "Right is right, even if nobody does it. Wrong is wrong even if everybody is wrong about it." [1]
[1] G. K. Chesterton, _Illustrated London News_, May 11, 1907
In the US at least this principal is true for all kinds of innovation - food, humor, clothing style, music, religion, science fiction, etc., etc. The boring homogenized dominant culture blands things out seeking an anti-creative hegemony, while the marginalized people keep things moving forward. From the 60s there was a truism that in a given situation the less powerful see more of the overall reality than the more powerful. The less powerful have to see things in the dominant world view and in their own world view of how to stay safe and get their needs met in the skewed system; seeing more of reality leads naturally to having better solutions to various problems.
Careful here. You list a ton of things with the implication that they are all independent. But, "style" can pretty much explain major shifts in all of the other items.
And the dominant culture is what drives a ton of... Well, everything.
To pretend that progress only comes from the marginalized crowd is as silly as claiming it only comes from the kids. Probably less accurate, even.
And the dominant culture is what drives a ton of... Well, everything.
To pretend that progress only comes from the marginalized crowd is as silly as claiming it only comes from the kids. Probably less accurate, even.
I'd argue that is true universally in all countries and not just in US. If TV is your source of news in any capacity, you are in that skewed reality.
> I'd argue that is true universally in all countries and not just in US.
The phrase "In the US at least" doesn't mean it doesn't happen in other countries. It just means that the US is OP's only frame of reference when making the claim.
The phrase "In the US at least" doesn't mean it doesn't happen in other countries. It just means that the US is OP's only frame of reference when making the claim.
> The less powerful have to see things in the dominant world view and in their own world view of how to stay safe and get their needs met in the skewed system
Very much reminds of me "Seeing Like a State".
Very much reminds of me "Seeing Like a State".
[deleted]
More time on this article and I think the body is just wrong. The visionary examples all highlighted seem more to be finding ways to leverage major technological changes that will be largely paid for by someone else.
This has been tough to reason on lately because it isn't that you don't need to invest a ton of money. You do. But, if you are investing where other investments are getting made, you have a faster road to success.
Now, granted, I can't really comment on the slack and Basecamp things... Largely, that feels more like a tempest in a teacup not realizing how big the rest of the world is?
But the rest of the examples? Which, seems to just be one example. Apple and the touchscreen revolution. It would have died quickly if not for everyone jumping on it and making them better every year.
There is an allusion to more examples in, "everything you love about smart phones". But for me, that amounts to an mp3 player and an audible app. Really only possible because of the minimization of storage and processing. And largely ignored advances in battery tech.
I still resonate with some of the conclusion. Most of it, even.
This has been tough to reason on lately because it isn't that you don't need to invest a ton of money. You do. But, if you are investing where other investments are getting made, you have a faster road to success.
Now, granted, I can't really comment on the slack and Basecamp things... Largely, that feels more like a tempest in a teacup not realizing how big the rest of the world is?
But the rest of the examples? Which, seems to just be one example. Apple and the touchscreen revolution. It would have died quickly if not for everyone jumping on it and making them better every year.
There is an allusion to more examples in, "everything you love about smart phones". But for me, that amounts to an mp3 player and an audible app. Really only possible because of the minimization of storage and processing. And largely ignored advances in battery tech.
I still resonate with some of the conclusion. Most of it, even.
I loved this. It crystallizes some vague ideas and feelings I've had floating around for a while. Like kneejerk distrust of the typical over-reliance on A/B testing, while still having enormous respect for what it can provide.
And on the many small tools I build for myself because the mainstream workflow just doesn't feel quite right. Some of them are a hit for other people, most not, but it doesn't matter that much to me because I really am building for myself. And yet, I'm often confused why nobody else is implementing something that is so obviously an incremental improvement in my mind, even if it's not something that's going to double your productivity or address the Real Problem or whatever.
And on the many small tools I build for myself because the mainstream workflow just doesn't feel quite right. Some of them are a hit for other people, most not, but it doesn't matter that much to me because I really am building for myself. And yet, I'm often confused why nobody else is implementing something that is so obviously an incremental improvement in my mind, even if it's not something that's going to double your productivity or address the Real Problem or whatever.
A small and non-relevant repair: Wayne Westerman didn't built FingerWorks for his mom. He did it for himself, he has difficulty using keyboards for a long time. A designer at Apple had a temporary injury and used it. The rest of the team loved and used it to build a touch interface for the Mac, long before they even considered a phone.
Source: The One Device, the secret history of the iPhone by Brian Merchant
There is also the OXO vegetable peeler. It was designed for the creator's wife, she had arthritis. Then the whole company grew from that.
Source: The One Device, the secret history of the iPhone by Brian Merchant
There is also the OXO vegetable peeler. It was designed for the creator's wife, she had arthritis. Then the whole company grew from that.
Also, in the first image one (or more) of those companies doesn't belong.
I like this, especially the quote
>Visionary ideas derive directly from centering people at the margins
But I think the conundrum is still one step further - in these instances of the rich college kids building for their marginalized selves, they had the means by which to do it. The big for-profit corporations have the means too, but their existence is credited to being for-profit, because the corporations exhibiting not-as-profitable behavior eventually shrink or disappear.
So I would say innovation still comes back to who can shoulder the risk. Wealthy college students can take the risks because they can always fall back on their trust funds or nepotic jobs, but decision makers at corporations can't because their not-profitable decisions affects their continued existence at a profitable corp.
That means "Data Driven Innovation" comes down not to be literally "Data Driven", but really about spinning a story with whatever data to convince corporate gatekeepers that this new feature for the marginalized isn't that risky an innovation. Unfortunately people do take it literally, which is why this piece is a great reminder about where real innovation comes from.
>Visionary ideas derive directly from centering people at the margins
But I think the conundrum is still one step further - in these instances of the rich college kids building for their marginalized selves, they had the means by which to do it. The big for-profit corporations have the means too, but their existence is credited to being for-profit, because the corporations exhibiting not-as-profitable behavior eventually shrink or disappear.
So I would say innovation still comes back to who can shoulder the risk. Wealthy college students can take the risks because they can always fall back on their trust funds or nepotic jobs, but decision makers at corporations can't because their not-profitable decisions affects their continued existence at a profitable corp.
That means "Data Driven Innovation" comes down not to be literally "Data Driven", but really about spinning a story with whatever data to convince corporate gatekeepers that this new feature for the marginalized isn't that risky an innovation. Unfortunately people do take it literally, which is why this piece is a great reminder about where real innovation comes from.
Oddly, including Amazon in that initial description sours the idea. It was decidedly not someone building something in a garage they thought was neat. Rather, it was chasing a long tail market by taking advantage of the large exposure of a website.
I am not sure this hurts the post overall.
I am not sure this hurts the post overall.
She did say -
“At that time, in situ “applications” like bookstores, post offices, and auctions had a service gap: location dependence. You had to be at the place. That limited access to folks with time & transportation. It limited access even for wealthy, well-connected college kids.”
Essentially saying in this case everyone was marginalized. Though I guess you’re right in that might diminish the point because the “data-driven” approach could be used to target these large groups of “marginalized” people.
“At that time, in situ “applications” like bookstores, post offices, and auctions had a service gap: location dependence. You had to be at the place. That limited access to folks with time & transportation. It limited access even for wealthy, well-connected college kids.”
Essentially saying in this case everyone was marginalized. Though I guess you’re right in that might diminish the point because the “data-driven” approach could be used to target these large groups of “marginalized” people.
I cede that I'm not sure it kills the point. Does dull it, though. Amazon becoming a thing was very much a business investment from the beginning.
There is also the very inconvenient fact that the value at the margin will, almost by definition, be lower than the majority. The only way to turn that, is by capturing the full margin.
You can see this with starlink. Getting some rural coverage for internet is not a large value proposition. Capturing all rural internet is.
There is also the very inconvenient fact that the value at the margin will, almost by definition, be lower than the majority. The only way to turn that, is by capturing the full margin.
You can see this with starlink. Getting some rural coverage for internet is not a large value proposition. Capturing all rural internet is.
I was interested in reading about data-driven product decisions and then the whole thing somehow ended up being about inclusion and the connection between the two seems really forced.
the underlying message boils down to:
* data driven = incremental improvement
* innovation happens when you target parts of long tail (margins)
these points are expressed from social group problems perspective. My personal takeaway is that targeting marginalized groups can produce significant innovation.
* data driven = incremental improvement
* innovation happens when you target parts of long tail (margins)
these points are expressed from social group problems perspective. My personal takeaway is that targeting marginalized groups can produce significant innovation.
while i agree with the spirit of the title, i find the specific conclusions dubious and the arguments presented unconvincing.
if touch ui wasn't more convenient for _everybody_, it would remain a weird niche use case. so it's still building for the majority use case - it's just building the right thing, not a "faster horse", so to speak.
the problem ive seen with data-driven design is overfocus on specific metrics, and the resulting tunnel vision leading to building "faster horses".
if touch ui wasn't more convenient for _everybody_, it would remain a weird niche use case. so it's still building for the majority use case - it's just building the right thing, not a "faster horse", so to speak.
the problem ive seen with data-driven design is overfocus on specific metrics, and the resulting tunnel vision leading to building "faster horses".
I like a lot of the ideas, even though they are a little disorganized.
Thought #1: I like the distinct recognition of benefits from "Building for yourself" and "Build for the margins".
But I don't think they are disjoint. No matter how "majority" someone is on some dimensions, we all have frustrations we share with smaller groups.
Thought #2: I liked the thought of designing for the ALL the marginalized in a given product area.
Designing for any small underserved market is a great place to start. But keeping in mind all the underserved around an existing market is a good way to narrow down initial solutions to ones that could eventually serve the maximum underserved people.
It is a good way to develop branding as the solution for everyone, despite starting with the few.
From a competitive standpoint, surrounding a big market from many underserved territories not only results in a Moore versatile product, but also sets up victory against incumbents before they see it coming.
Thought #3: I also like the idea of consciously serving traditionally sidelined groups or other minority groups with frustrations besides those that you are initially aiming to address.
For starters, almost any focus is good focus when starting out.
But beyond that, society is transitioning from one majority vs. many minorities, to a collection of a great many minorities. So thinking about market segmentation beyond obvious product segmentation will serve any company (and its prospective customers) into the future.
Thought #1: I like the distinct recognition of benefits from "Building for yourself" and "Build for the margins".
But I don't think they are disjoint. No matter how "majority" someone is on some dimensions, we all have frustrations we share with smaller groups.
Thought #2: I liked the thought of designing for the ALL the marginalized in a given product area.
Designing for any small underserved market is a great place to start. But keeping in mind all the underserved around an existing market is a good way to narrow down initial solutions to ones that could eventually serve the maximum underserved people.
It is a good way to develop branding as the solution for everyone, despite starting with the few.
From a competitive standpoint, surrounding a big market from many underserved territories not only results in a Moore versatile product, but also sets up victory against incumbents before they see it coming.
Thought #3: I also like the idea of consciously serving traditionally sidelined groups or other minority groups with frustrations besides those that you are initially aiming to address.
For starters, almost any focus is good focus when starting out.
But beyond that, society is transitioning from one majority vs. many minorities, to a collection of a great many minorities. So thinking about market segmentation beyond obvious product segmentation will serve any company (and its prospective customers) into the future.
> The company talks a massive game about how inclusive they are. But the messaging app company not only built direct messaging across Slack channels—it was even in production before anybody (anybody being, of course, the entire internet) pointed out that the feature could hardly cater to harassers and stalkers more perfectly.
Can somebody explain this for me? Should’ve slack not have any DMs, is that the point?
Can somebody explain this for me? Should’ve slack not have any DMs, is that the point?
Great post -- thank you for sharing. I love this quote: "Visionary ideas derive directly from centering people at the margins"
(Sorry for the offtopicness but could you please email [email protected]? I want to send you a repost invite.)
This click-bait and switch post is a nonsensical rant. Invest or waste your time elsewhere.
oxymoron
noun
a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction
noun
a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction
Interesting read. I found it racist and sexist. Yet, it attacks racism and sexism.
How the author portrays the Timnit-Gebru drama is unjust. It was Gebru who withheld her paper for internal review, trying to throw a monkey-wrench in the process by submitting too late.
> Jeff Dean’s subsequent decision to terminate her rather than discuss the improvements she proposed.
She proposed/demanded that the internal reviewers were de-anonymized. She told her underlings that they should stop working towards KPI diversity & inclusion goals, because it did not work, and that Google was marginalizing Black women like her before she got too powerful.
Diversity & inclusion for a commercial business are decisions where profit matters. Data matters. D&I at Google was hijacked by a political movement. Activists got so much leeway, because the topic is taboo, it can be very damaging, and society seems still ok with bashing "exclusively cishet white guys" and accusing them of racism or privilege. D&I got abused. By elevating these (social-media) vocal marginals.
How the author portrays the Timnit-Gebru drama is unjust. It was Gebru who withheld her paper for internal review, trying to throw a monkey-wrench in the process by submitting too late.
> Jeff Dean’s subsequent decision to terminate her rather than discuss the improvements she proposed.
She proposed/demanded that the internal reviewers were de-anonymized. She told her underlings that they should stop working towards KPI diversity & inclusion goals, because it did not work, and that Google was marginalizing Black women like her before she got too powerful.
Diversity & inclusion for a commercial business are decisions where profit matters. Data matters. D&I at Google was hijacked by a political movement. Activists got so much leeway, because the topic is taboo, it can be very damaging, and society seems still ok with bashing "exclusively cishet white guys" and accusing them of racism or privilege. D&I got abused. By elevating these (social-media) vocal marginals.
For example, please stop using terms like cishet. I know what that means. I know it is important to marginalized communities, but know your audience. There is nobody, nobody in today's environment that could get away with saying "a bunch of (blacks|indians|mexicans|asians|gays|women)" but you say cishet white guys and you can group up a whole lot of people without thinking much about them as individuals. Do you believe this is constructive language that bridges the divide that's part of these issues? Do you know where my abuelita was from just because you can see the color of my skin?
Second, I don't think the Slack example is really about inclusion. We all can be stalked and spammed, of course marginalized people more than others. However, Slack's slowness about this isn't nefarious, it's almost certainly they were making so much money recreating IRC that they didn't have time to worry about "minor" issues like that, the same way Hulu can ship a UI that works correctly on a phone but can't be bothered to fix bugs in the TV version that ships to 10 million people. It's not hatred or marginalization, it's just laziness and apathy, it's how our corporations work because they turn into these battlegrounds.
> Steve Jobs wasn’t some kind of genius visionary who independently thought that thing up.
Jobs was infamous about taking credit, but he never would have made claims like this. That product like all of his products at the time was built by a small team, guided by Steve, that bought up and used lots of existing ideas. There's a reason we like to quote "great artists steal". Hell, the Newton existed 10 years earlier and they had Tony Faddell from an even earlier time that tried similar tech. (Steve Jobs, Becoming Steve Jobs, General Magic)
Some of us are sympathetic to many of your points but outsiders don't only come in races or genders and the only way we get out of this collective stagnation is to stop tearing each other down with various narratives about what's wrong with them.