Vivek Wadhwa on the Gender Problem in Silicon Valley
Vivek Wadhwa is a Distinguished Fellow at Carnegie Mellon University's College of Engineering. He is a globally syndicated columnist for The Washington Post and author of The Driver in the Driverless Car: How Our Technology Choices Will Create the Future; The Immigrant Exodus: Why America Is Losing the Global Race to Capture Entrepreneurial Talent, which was named by The Economist as a Book of the Year of 2012; and of Innovating Women: The Changing Face of Technology, which documents the struggles and triumphs of women. Wadhwa has held appointments at Duke University, Stanford Law School, Harvard Law School, Emory University, and Singularity University. You can follow him on Twitter @wadhwa.
Vivek Wadhwa: I've been researching entrepreneurship, I've been researching immigrant entrepreneurship in particular, and what I learned was that Silicon Valley was amazingly diverse. That 52 percent of start-ups were founded by people like me; people who were born abroad. And I thought it was a perfect meritocracy. And we moved to Silicon Valley about four, four and a half years ago. And I do a lot of writing. I wrote a blog for TechCrunch. And my wife and I happened to go to a TechCrunch event called the Crunchies and it was a great event, the Oscars of the tech industry. And in the middle of it, my wife says Vivek, do you notice something strange? I said yeah, we're sitting next to Mark Zuckerberg. Isn't that cool. She said no, look around. What don't you see here? I mean she was getting frustrated with me. And I didn't notice anything strange. And then she said where are the women? And there was like a light went off in my head saying what is going on here? It's a surreal experience, Twilight Zone sort of that you notice something is completely missing. So I started noticing what was happening on stage. About 100/150 people on stage, not a single woman other than a couple of staff.I started looking around at the composition of Silicon Valley companies, hardly any women. I started looking at the boards of companies, started looking at the websites, no women. And it was a surreal experience. I mean what is going on here? Why aren't there women in Silicon Valley? How can you have the most innovative land on this planet not have women? How can you be leaving out the most productive part of our population? So that's really what triggered this whole reaction often and why I become so vocal about the lack of women in innovation.
I happened to write a blog entitled Silicon Valley You and Your Venture Capitalist Have a Gender Problem. I basically detailed my observations about there not being women, and then I detailed some of the academic research I had done. I was stunned at the negative reaction to it. I was stunned at the volley of criticism on social media, the angry comments posted online. I was stunned at the emails I was getting, even from my friends. You’ve got to realize that I know who's who of Silicon Valley and some of these are the moguls over there. They advised me to stay off this topic. They advised me that look Vivek you're new to Silicon Valley. If you want to make it here this is not the way. If you're trying to get laid we can help you. Those are the type of comments I was getting back. And I was actually shocked. I mean I was insensitive to the issue of gender. I've never been at one extreme or the other, but this sort of opened my eyes to the harsh reality. And what my wife Tavinder said was Vivek, look at what you're going through. Imagine what women go through every day of their lives. And that is really what put me on this crusade to try to fix this gender gap and to be vocal about it.
It starts off with these sexist attitudes that men have. It starts out with their sense of superiority. And then it's also the upbringing the women have that from childhood they're giving Barbie dolls, the guys are given masculine toys. And then women are discouraged from studying computing and science and engineering because those are guy's things. And some of them do have enlightened parents who encourage them to achieve their potential and to change the world. And they go to school and they're treated different because they happen to be interested in science and engineering and mathematics they're called – women are considered geeks and nerds or worse they're looked down at. And they get into college and they're one of the very few women in it. They struggle, they defy the odds, they get into the workplace and guess what? It's all male. And they're one of the few women in their workplace and they're treated differently. Even though they may be as competent, they may have better skills than the men do, they don't get the same promotions. They get looked down at.
And it's even worse than that. I tell you, the type of stories I've heard really disturb me. Women being raped, groped, I mean just I don't want to repeat it, it's just sort of horrible the stories I've heard from women, heart wrenching stories of how women have been treated by men. This is just outrageous. It is not acceptable. I mean this is a civilized society we live in. How dare we treat the better half of our population like this.
First of all if you look at the graduation rates, there are 140 women for every 100 men now coming out of higher education. Women are equally proficient in mathematics, sciences. Every field of education you look at, women are equal to or better than men. Then when it comes to the technology sector in particular, if you look at the way the venture-capital system works, it's based on a failure rate of 80 or 90 percent. That's because they invest in all these brain dead companies and the founders spend money like there's no tomorrow and they lose all this money. And venture capital, as an asset class, is in decline because of that. So in other words we're wasting tens of billions of dollars on funding brain-dead companies. What's the difference with women? Women tend to be more sensible. They also tend to have more empathy. I'm not trying to say that women are better or worse than men over here, but women have a maternal instinct. They have more of a desire to care for others than do men. So when it comes to things like design, it's all about empathy. If you can feel what your users need you can design better. So therefore women should make better designers.
Women are also more sensible. It's again getting into the maternal instinct that they know how to manage budgets better. They're more responsible because of the roles that they've had. So if they become CEOs they produce better financial results. And these are backed up by research. When they join boards, when you have enough – when you have critical mass of women they guide the companies better, the companies produce better performance. So you have more innovation, you have better financial management, you have greater success rates by having more women. Why leave them out? They're half of our population.xx
All of the research that's been done says that companies founded by women have higher success rates; they spend less money, they produce better results. It's really that simple that financial management is better and they tend to do more sensible things than these brain-dead companies built by my brat friends in Silicon Valley.
Vivek Wadhwa points out the lack of women in the technology sector and discusses the negative public backlash to his coverage of the issue. Wadwha is a fellow at Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University, director of research at Center for Entrepreneurship and Research Commercialization at Duke, and distinguished fellow at Singularity University.
Once a week.
Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.
New research from the University of Granada found that stress could help determine sex.
Stress in the modern world is generally viewed as a hindrance to a healthy life.
Indeed, excess stress is associated with numerous problems, including cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, insomnia, depression, obesity, and other conditions. While the physiological mechanisms associated with stress can be beneficial, as Kelly McGonigal points out in The Upside of Stress, the modern wellness industry is built on the foundation of stress relief.
The effects of stress on pregnant mothers is another longstanding area of research. For example, what potential negative effects do elevated levels of cortisol, epinephrine, and norepinephrine have on fetal development?
A new study, published in the Journal of Developmental Origins of Health and Disease, investigated a very specific aspect of stress on fetuses: does it affect sex? Their findings reveal that women with elevated stress are twice as likely to give birth to a girl.
For this research, the University of Granada scientists recorded the stress levels of 108 women before, during, and after conception. By testing cortisol concentration in their hair and subjecting the women to a variety of psychological tests, the researchers discovered that stress indeed influences sex. Specifically, stress made women twice as likely to deliver a baby girl.
The team points out that their research is consistent with other research that used saliva to show that stress resulted in a decreased likelihood of delivering a boy.
Maria Isabel Peralta RamírezPhoto courtesy of University of Granada
Lead author María Isabel Peralta Ramírez, a researcher at the UGR's Department of Personality, Evaluation and Psychological Treatment, says that prior research focused on stress levels leading up to and after birth. She was interested in stress's impact leading up to conception. She says:
"Specifically, our research group has shown in numerous publications how psychological stress in the mother generates a greater number of psychopathological symptoms during pregnancy: postpartum depression, a greater likelihood of assisted delivery, an increase in the time taken for lactation to commence (lactogenesis), or inferior neurodevelopment of the baby six months after birth."
While no conclusive evidence has been rendered, the research team believes that activation of the mother's endogenous stress system during conception sets the concentration of sex hormones that will be carried throughout development. As the team writes, "there is evidence that testosterone functions as a mechanism when determining the baby's sex, since the greater the prenatal stress levels, the higher the levels of female testosterone." Levels of paternal stress were not factored into this research.
Previous studies show that sperm carrying an X chromosome are better equipped to reach the egg under adverse conditions than sperm carrying the Y chromosome. Y fetuses also mature slowly and are more likely to produce complications than X fetuses. Peralta also noted that there might be more aborted male fetuses during times of early maternal stress, which would favor more girls being born under such circumstances.
In the future, Peralta and her team say an investigation into aborted fetuses should be undertaken. Right now, the research was limited to a small sample size that did not factor in a number of elements. Still, the team concludes, "the research presented here is pioneering to the extent that it links prenatal stress to the sex of newborns."
Stay in touch with Derek on Twitter and Facebook. His most recent book is "Hero's Dose: The Case For Psychedelics in Ritual and Therapy."
The world's 10 most affected countries are spending up to 59% of their GDP on the effects of violence.
- Conflict and violence cost the world more than $14 trillion a year.
- That's the equivalent of $5 a day for every person on the planet.
- Research shows that peace brings prosperity, lower inflation and more jobs.
- Just a 2% reduction in conflict would free up as much money as the global aid budget.
- Report urges governments to improve peacefulness, especially amid COVID-19.
What is the price of peace?
Or put another way, how much better off would we all be in a world where armed conflict was avoided?
To give some context, 689 million people - more than 9% of the world's population - live on less than $1.90 a day, according to World Bank figures, underscoring the potential impact peace-building activities could have.
Just over 10% of global GDP is being spent on containing, preventing and dealing with the consequences of violence. As well as the 1.4 million violent deaths each year, conflict holds back economic development, causes instability, widens inequality and erodes human capital.
Putting a price tag on peace and violence helps us see the disproportionately high amounts spent on creating and containing violent acts compared to what is spent on building resilient, productive, and peaceful societies.
—Steve Killelea, founder and executive chairman, Institute for Economics & Peace (IEP)
The cost of violence
In a report titled "The Economic Value of Peace 2021", the IEP says that for every death from violent conflict, 40 times as many people are injured. The world's 10 most affected countries are spending up to 59% of their GDP on the effects of violence.
Grounds for hope
But the picture is not all bleak. The economic impact of violence fell for the second year in a row in 2019, as parts of the world became more peaceful.
The global cost dropped by $64 billion between 2018 and 2019, even though it was still $1.2 trillion higher than in 2012.
In five regions of the world the costs increased in 2019. The biggest jump was in Central America and the Caribbean, where a rising homicide rate pushed the cost up 8.3%.
Syria, with its ongoing civil war, suffered the greatest economic impact with almost 60% of its GDP lost to conflict in 2019. That was followed by Afghanistan (50%) and South Sudan (46%).
The report makes a direct link between peace and prosperity. It says that, since 2000, countries that have become more peaceful have averaged higher GDP growth than those which have become more violent.
"This differential is significant and represents a GDP per capita that is 30% larger when compounded over a 20-year period," the report says adding that peaceful countries also have substantially lower inflation and unemployment.
"Small improvements in peace can have substantial economic benefits," it adds. "For example, a 2% reduction in the global impact of violence is roughly equivalent to all overseas development aid in 2019."
Equally, the total value of foreign direct investment globally only offsets 10% of the economic impact of violence. Authoritarian regimes lost on average 11% of GDP to the costs of violence while in democracies the cost was just 4% of GDP.
And the gap has widened over time, with democracies reducing the cost of violence by almost 16% since 2007 while in authoritarian countries it has risen by 27% over the same period.
The report uses 18 economic indicators to evaluate the cost of violence. The top three are military spending (which was $5.9 trillion globally in 2019), the cost of internal security which makes up over a third of the total at $4.9 trillion and homicide.
Peace brings prosperity
The formula also contains a multiplier effect because as peace increases, money spent containing violence can instead be used on more productive activities which drive growth and generate higher monetary and social returns.
"Substantial economic improvements are linked to improvements in peace," says the report. "Therefore, government policies should be directed to improving peacefulness, especially in a COVID-19 environment where economic activity has been subdued."
The IEP says what it terms "positive peace" is even more beneficial than "negative peace" which is simply the absence of violence or the fear of violence. Positive peace involves fostering the attitudes, institutions & structures that create and sustain peaceful societies.
The foundations of a positively peaceful society, it says, are: a well functioning government, sound business environment, acceptance of the rights of others, good relations with neighbours, free flow of information, high levels of human capital, low levels of corruption and equitable distribution of resources.
The World Economic Forum's report Mobilizing the Private Sector in Peace and Reconciliation urged companies large and small to recognise their potential to work for peace quoting the former Goldman Sachs chair, the late Peter Sutherland, who said: "Business thrives where society thrives."
Evolution doesn't clean up after itself very well.
- An evolutionary biologist got people swapping ideas about our lingering vestigia.
- Basically, this is the stuff that served some evolutionary purpose at some point, but now is kind of, well, extra.
- Here are the six traits that inaugurated the fun.
Natural selection, after all, has no reason to clear away unnecessary traits if they pose no evolutionary disadvantage. And when we say "started the whole thing," what we mean is that, this being Twitter, some arguing was inevitable. Some people took issue with Amir's use of the word "vestigial." One issue with the word is that early traits may still be beneficial in ways we don't yet know — the microbiome-managing appendix and the immune system's tonsils were both considered among these for some time. A trait's stated assumed value is also always just our best guess, so a certain amount of uncertainty is understood to be baked-in. It's important to remember, too, that if a mutation just happened to happen and persisted because it was useful, it's not the same thing as saying it has a reason to exist. The reason was randomness, unless one doesn't believe in evolution.
The plica semilunaris
The human eye in alarming detail. Image source: Henry Gray / Wikimedia commons
At the inner corner of our eyes, closest to the nasal ridge, is that little pink thing, which is probably what most of us call it, called the caruncula. Next to it is the plica semilunairs, and it's what's left of a third eyelid that used to — ready for this? — blink horizontally. It's supposed to have offered protection for our eyes, and some birds, reptiles, and fish have such a thing.
Palmaris longus muscle. Image source: Wikimedia commons
We don't have much need these days, at least most of us, to navigate from tree branch to tree branch. Still, about 86 percent of us still have the wrist muscle that used to help us do it. To see if you have it, place the back of you hand on a flat surface and touch your thumb to your pinkie. If you have a muscle that becomes visible in your wrist, that's the palmaris longus. If you don't, consider yourself more evolved (just joking).
Darwin's tubercle. Image source: Wikimedia commons
Yes, maybe the shell of you ear does feel like a dried apricot. Maybe not. But there's a ridge in that swirly structure that's a muscle which allowed us, at one point, to move our ears in the direction of interesting sounds. These days, we just turn our heads, but there it is.
Goosebumps. Photo credit: Tyler Olson via Shutterstock
It's not entirely clear what purpose made goosebumps worth retaining evolutionarily, but there are two circumstances in which they appear: fear and cold. For fear, they may have been a way of making body hair stand up so we'd appear larger to predators, much the way a cat's tail puffs up — numerous creatures exaggerate their size when threatened. In the cold, they may have trapped additional heat for warmth.
Image source: Decade3d-anatomy online via Shutterstock
Way back, we had tails that probably helped us balance upright, and was useful moving through trees. We still have the stump of one when we're embryos, from 4–6 weeks, and then the body mostly dissolves it during Weeks 6–8. What's left is the coccyx.
The palmar grasp reflex
Palmar reflex activated! Photo credit: Raul Luna on Flickr
You've probably seen how non-human primate babies grab onto their parents' hands to be carried around. We used to do this, too. So still, if you touch your finger to a baby's palm, or if you touch the sole of their foot, the palmar grasp reflex will cause the hand or foot to try and close around your finger.
Other people's suggestions
Amir's followers dove right in, offering both cool and questionable additions to her list.
Lower mouth plate behind your teeth. Some have protruding bone under the skin which is a throw back to large fangs. Almost like an upsidedown Sabre Tooth.— neil crud (@neilcrud66) January 16, 2019
Hypnic jerk as you fall asleep
What about when you “jump” just as you’re drifting off to sleep, I heard that was a reflex to prevent falling from heights.— Bann face (@thebanns) January 16, 2019
This thing, often called the "alpha jerk" as you drop into alpha sleep, is properly called the hypnic jerk,. It may actually be a carryover from our arboreal days. The hypothesis is that you suddenly jerk awake to avoid falling out of your tree.
Nails screeching on a blackboard response?
Everyone hate the sound of fingernails on a blackboard. It's _speculated_ that this is a vestigial wiring in our head, because the sound is similar to the shrill warning call of a chimp. https://t.co/ReyZBy6XNN— Pet Rock (@eclogiter) January 16, 2019
Ok what is Hair in the ears for? I think cuz as we get older it filters out the BS.— Sarah21 (@mimix3) January 16, 2019
You may be onto something. Tooth-bearing with the jaw clenched is generally recognized as a signal of submission or non-threatening in primates. Involuntary smiling or laughing in tense situations might have signaled that you weren’t a threat.— Jager Tusk (@JagerTusk) January 15, 2019
Sometimes it feels like my big toe should be on the side of my foot, was that ever a thing?— B033? K@($ (@whimbrel17) January 16, 2019
Twitter should always be so much fun.
The lush biodiversity of South America's rainforests is rooted in one of the most cataclysmic events that ever struck Earth.
- One especially mysterious thing about the asteroid impact, which killed the dinosaurs, is how it transformed Earth's tropical rainforests.
- A recent study analyzed ancient fossils collected in modern-day Colombia to determine how tropical rainforests changed after the bolide impact.
- The results highlight how nature is able to recover from cataclysmic events, though it may take millions of years.
About 66 million years ago, a massive asteroid slammed into present-day Chicxulub, Mexico, triggering the extinction of dinosaurs. Scientists estimate the impact killed 75 percent of life on Earth. But what's remained more mysterious is how the event shaped the future of plant life, specifically tropical rainforests.
A new study published in Science explores how the so-called bolide impact at the end of the Cretaceous period paved the way for the evolution of our modern rainforests, the most diverse terrestrial ecosystems on Earth.
For the study, researchers analyzed thousands of samples of fossil pollen, leaves, and spores collected from various sites across Colombia. The researchers analyzed the samples to determine which types of plants were dominant, the diversity of plant life, and how insects interacted with plants.
All samples dated back to the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary, some 70 million to 56 million years ago. Back then, the region's climate was mostly humid and hot, as it is today. However, the composition and structure of forests were quite different before the impact, according to the study results.
Tropical jungle with river and sun beam and foggy in the gardenSASITHORN via Adobe Stock
For one, the region's rainforests used to have a roughly equal mix of angiosperms (shrubs and flowering trees) and plants like conifers and ferns. The rainforests also had a more open canopy structure, which allowed more light to reach the forest floor and meant that plants faced less competition for light.
What changed after the asteroid hit? The results suggest the impact and its aftermath led to a 45 percent decrease in plant diversity, a loss from which the region took about 6 million years to recover. But different plants came to replace the old ones, with an increasing proportion of flowering plants sprouting up over the millennia.
"A single historical accident changed the ecological and evolutionary trajectory of tropical rainforests," Carlos Jaramillo, study author and paleopalynologist at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama City, told Science News. "The forests that we have today are really the by-product of what happened 66 million years ago."
Today's rainforests are significantly more biodiverse than they were 66 million years ago. One potential reason is that the more densely packed canopy structure of the post-impact era increased competition among plants, "leading to the vertical complexity seen in modern rainforests," the researchers wrote.
The extinction of long-necked, leaf-eating dinosaurs probably helped maintain this closed-canopy structure. Also boosting biodiversity was ash from the impact, which effectively fertilized the soil by adding more phosphorus. This likely benefited flowering plants over the conifers and ferns of the pre-impact era.
In addition to unraveling some of the mysteries about the origins of South America's lush biodiversity, the findings highlight how, even though life finds a way to recover from catastrophe, it can take a long time.