[Chicago] ChiPy Organizers Meeting

Fri Feb 21 19:47:44 CET 2014

... and just when I've stopped looking at this thread, and thought of
completely silencing it (for a while at least), I see this gem from Jen...

On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Jennifer Leadbetter <jleadbet at gmail.com>wrote:

> I realize with the pace this mailing list moves, I'm a bit behind and this
> discussion may be winding down. I'm mostly an observer, but I'd like to
> present an outsider's perspective, because I've been seeing what I feel to
> be some really poor responses to the concepts of "exclusivity" and
> "diversity" from all sides of the issue:
>
>
> 1) "Diversity isn't just about skin color and gender. I may a white male,
> but I'm definitely different from other people in the group"
>

Point, and goal:   self-awareness is good (as is self-acceptance);
 empathy, being able to read and appreciate other's experience is about
"connecting".   Disconnected groups ... well, aren't groups.  They
self-select for those "who all experience alike".

And if you're wondering "who cares? I mean, really - isn't this hair
splitting?" - then think about the analogy to design and interfaces - and
bugs:  failure to see use cases (experiences) from other perspectives
means... "fail".

To get good at code, get good at "loving-kindness" (including empathy,
welcoming behaviors, etc.).
It's irrelevant that "you think" you already know that, or get that - it's
only relevant how others perceive you getting them.

> It's true that everyone has something that makes them stand out from the
> crowd. However, several studies have been done on organizations that have
> tried to increase diversity by teaching "general diversity" (i.e., we're
> all special). They don't work, and actually have the opposite effect of
> reinforcing the exclusivity.
>
>
> Being a hobbyist versus being a professional is not the same level of
> diversity as, say, being an African American or being a woman, because
> hobbyists probably haven't grown up with a "hobbyist" identity their whole
> lives (and dealing with all the social ramifications that shaped their
> personality and the way they interact with and view the world). If you want
> diversity, you actually have to recognize and target the specific
> populations where you want to increase diversity.
>
>
> 2) "Our group is completely friendly. When I came to the group I was
> totally welcomed."
>
>
> First, I recommend researching the phrase "stereotype threat". When people
> are reminded that they're part of the "out" group, it drastically affects
> the way they act, think and perform (and also how likely they are to stick
> with the activity).
>

There is a more general version of this, and it has roots in brain
structures, what drives us, and affect.  Dan Siegel (neuroscientist) in his
book about brain development in the "adolescent" stage (which he describes
as 12-24) talks about how the brain takes on and begins to mirror the
messages we hand it (intentionally or inadvertantly).

"Irresponsible teen" - is that kind of thing.
"Your not employable" w.r.t. financial crisis of 2008-2009 is that kind of
thing (think about the last time you stopped to talk to a homeless person
and treat them like a human;  how must that affect them - all day long -
from the receiving end).

This is fundamentals of social organization.

Jen is dead on.

>
> What's welcoming and friendly to you, may be completely hostile to another
> person. You're obviously in the group because you feel welcomed, and you're
> trying to figure out why other people don't feel welcomed. The best
> response is to listen to what they have to say and acknowledge that perhaps
> the group has unconscious behaviors you haven't experienced.
>
>
> 3) "You just need to introduce yourself more."
>
>
> The problem isn't shyness. It's feeling unwelcome (see problem #2). Asking
> the person to introduce themselves to more people that make them feel
> unwelcome is not going to improve the issue and make the person want to
> come back.  To fix the problem, people who already feel welcomed need to
> take the initiative in meeting newcomers, not the other way around.
>

Another "point and goal".

Since "care" is from a fundamental brain structure, we look for that from
others before we join socially (play/joy).
See my diagram on http://gotlove2do.eventbrite.com

>
> The problem isn't shyness. It's feeling unwelcome (see problem #2). Asking
> the person to introduce themselves to more people that make them feel
> unwelcome is not going to improve the issue and make the person want to
> come back.  To fix the problem, people who already feel welcomed need to
> take the initiative in meeting newcomers, not the other way around.
>
>
> This whole discussion was started because people felt the criteria for
> showing up to the meeting were too exclusive, and I'm inclined to agree. I
> have no "skin in the game", so to speak, because I don't live in the area
> and rarely come to ChiPy. But I do have a stake in the outcome -- I stay on
> the list because I have friends in the organization and I love the things I
> learn from being on the list. And I do want an organization where, when I
> do show up, I feel welcome to participate.
>
>
> I understand wanting a base level criteria for people who are going to run
> the organization. But the criteria seem to self-select for keeping more of
> the same 'exclusive' behavior in the guiding principles of the
> organization. Even though it was unintentional, the message sent was "We
> don't want you here".
>
>
> I believe that the best course of action is to open up the first several
> of these meetings to whoever wants to participate, regardless of whether
> they fit the criteria, and then create a group of governing members from
> the people who keep showing up.  Perhaps you'll get the same group of
> people you always get, who meet the exact criteria you've outlined; but
> perhaps you'll get what you've actually been asking for: a broader group of
> people.
>

Open to whoever wants.

I am +1,000,000 on this.

Brian R.'s fears of "hijack by the noisy, ill-intentioned"  should be
moderated "by those who keep showing up".

(anyway, the general welcoming-ness or lack thereof, intentional or
unintentional, has me pretty much "out" for now, not interested).

>
> And now I'll go back to being a silent lurker. :D
>
>
> Jen
>

Thanks for the well reasoned comments Jen.

>
> _______________________________________________
> Chicago mailing list
> Chicago at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/chicago/attachments/20140221/d6eb4840/attachment.html>