What happens to all the Asian-American overachievers when the test-taking ends? - <AUTHOR> http://nymag.com/news/features/asian-americans-2011-5/ <comment><USER5> How I did it:

1\. quit my corporate software engineering job (it was slowly killing my soul)

2\. went surfing in maui for 2 weeks then bali for a month. when there was no waves, there were parties on Kuta beach

3\. opened an English bookstore in Southeast Asia(highly risky considering I knew nothing about the local market or government censorship) Everyone I knew thought I was crazy. But I DIDNT care! For the first time in my life I was doing something meaningful, to me and to society.

4\. met tons of babes (locals, other asian babes, europeans, americans) by going out every single night for 1 year straight (averaging 4 5 clubs per nite). Plus did tons of traveling around asia, south america and north america. Trust me you are forced to socialize when EVERYONE at the hostel was happy go lucky young backpackers. And the bookstore also attracted lots of girls (which was NOT the reason why I opened the store :)

5\. Now I m back in Silicon Valley and guess what it is still the same (nice guys toiling away in front of their laptops while life, and hot babes, are passing them by) And I smile to myself. It is me who has changed!

<comment><USER6> How old were you when you did this? It sound like you were beyond the typical early 20's backpacker age - weren't you the weird old guy around? (I feel like this in many situations already, I'm 31).

<comment><USER5> I was 27. I quit after 3 years out of grad school. But you are right. I dont think its just age. It is also the differences in the backgrounds. You just need to adapt and mirror the other person. It is easier said than done but my social skills improved a lot because of that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > "If you're East Asian, you need to attend a top-tier university to land a > good high-paying gig. Even if you land that good high-paying gig, the white > guy with the pedigree from a mediocre state university will somehow move > ahead of you in the ranks simply because he's white."

That's false. The mediocre guy moves ahead of white geeks too. The problem, as with white geeks, is that Asian-Americans disproportionately aren't learning how to bs, how to promote themselves and their products, how to become salesmen. See Jobs vs Wozniak, etc.

<comment><USER8> > The problem, as with white geeks, is that Asian-Americans disproportionately > aren't learning how to bs, how to promote themselves and their products

Actually it is the attitude like this -- the attitude that equates self- promotion with bullshit -- that causes problems for people with an engineering mindset. Not only does such attitude (1) show that you consider yourself superior (bravo) to people who are doing the hard and often boring job of marketing/campaigning, but it also underscores (2) that you, at a fundamental level, do not value communicating with other people, and therefore do not value other people (marketing, at its basic, is communication), and (3) that you will not make a good leader because you lack the social intelligence needed to observe others, learn from your observations, and to pay attention to the details of your and your company's public image.

Social skills are not bullshit; they are intelligence just like everything else. The fact that you only know how to do math does not show that you are intelligent; it only shows that you are specialized. The fact that women prefer men who are good at socializing is, ironically, direct Darwinian selection for intelligence.

<comment><USER9> I reject that set of skills not because I don't value communicating, but because I think it's a terrible way of communicating. The world has an unbelievable, enormous, tedious, completely indefensible surplus of self- promotion and marketing. Marketing fills every public space and enters every public discussion. What good is it? Look, you have made entire hard and boring jobs of it. Are you doing something useful? Who is it useful to besides you?

Buying into an obnoxiously self-promotional attitude is defecting in a giant Prisoner's Dilemma. It's enriching you only by taking away from others, and at the expense of filling the world with crap. It serves only to make my life and others' a little worse as I filter through "good self-promoters" to find people who are good at ordinary, interesting, non-self-promotional things, who do and say things I actually want to pay attention to. So no, I don't think people who engage in a bunch of self-promotion are stupid or inferior, just selfish and shameful. I will leave money on the table all day in order to not deal with the crap.

Hey, it's relevant to the article:

 _Having glimpsed just how unacceptable the world judges my demeanor, could I too strive to make up for my shortcomings? Practice a shit-eating grin until it becomes natural? Love the world twice as hard?

I see the appeal of getting with the program. But this is not my choice. Striving to meet others' expectations may be a necessary cost of assimilation, but I am not going to do it._

<comment><USER10> How is self-promotion enriching yourself at the expense of others?

"Hey everyone, I'm really good at iOS development." <\-- How is this at all harmful to anyone, and how is it bullshit, or making the world worse?

This illustrates an incredibly entitled view held by some geeks - that it is the responsibility of everyone else to come and discover how awesome you are. That is, to be blunt, a load of bullshit worse than any bullshit crockery the worst MBA could come up with.

If you are good at something, how is anyone supposed to know about it unless you make it a point to tell them? How is it someone's fault that they bothered to let their abilities be known to the community at large, and that they got chosen over you?

Quite the opposite in fact - self-promotion can (and does) do more good for the world than quietly assuming that people will realize your brilliance in your silence. Look at all of the code blogs out there offering insight and advice on our industry and our craft - each one authored by someone who is no doubt using it as a tool for self-promotion. Demonstrating their abilities and knowledge by giving it away for free, how is that taking away from others?

<comment><USER9> Consider the following three approaches of communicating that you are good at iOS development:

1) You write interesting blog posts about iOS development and discuss it with other people working on related projects.

2) You write apps and open-source them or publish them and their utility yields lots of great reviews.

3) You write some mediocre apps, but you make sure to tell people stories about how good you are at iOS development, and you network your way to a piece in every tech blog to advertise your apps.

The difference between 1, 2, and 3 is that your actions in #1 and #2 are actually evidence that you _really are_ good at iOS development, whereas your actions in #3 are not evidence of anything! Nobody with a healthy sense of skepticism "knows" that you are good at something because you make a point to tell them about it, because it doesn't take any skill (in that thing) to do the telling. Someone is supposed to know because you _do it_ and you did a _good job_ and your work _helps_ other people. This apparently sensible approach would work even better if everyone else in the world were not screaming from the rooftops how good they were.

The code blog author writing useful advice is great. That same blog author submitting all his posts to Hacker News contributes nothing more to his greatness.

<comment><USER11> > The code blog author writing useful advice is great. That same blog author > submitting all his posts to Hacker News contributes nothing more to his > greatness.

Submitting his blog to HN is part of communicating - and - spreading his advice to an even wider audience. And it's these sort of people who develop a following, influence and success.

You seem to be under some misguided belief that technical excellence is mutually exclusive to communication skills. On the contrary, what the other posters have been saying to your post is that you need both to be truly successful - they are both important and both need development.

A marketer who has nothing worthwhile to market is no better than a technical person who can't communicate his achievements.

<comment><USER12> > A marketer who has nothing worthwhile to market is no better than a > technical person who can't communicate his achievements.

I disagree; working code speaks for itself. The real point is that the marketer and technical person are complementary.

<comment><USER11> Code only speaks for itself to other coders. If all you seek is to mix with other programmers or work on a small self-contained project that is purely code based, then that is fine (I say this in a non-derogatory manner).

But most things in life are not self-contained - you have to mix and interact with people who are not subject matter experts - and with no communication skills, or a belief that 'people should recognise good code when they see it', you'll never go as far as you could if you had accepted that self-promotion is a necessary part of interacting with others.

<comment><USER13> he specifically said working code. the software actualized by code DOES speak for itself to anyone capable of using it. self promotion is bullshit.

<comment><USER11> To a degree yes it does. But an inability to self-promote will, in most cases, limit your influence/reach. Good example is Chrome/Safari/Firefox/IE - <USER2> all do roughly the same things, for most people, there is little difference between them.

Google realises the need to self-promote ... they just released their 'Dear Sophie' ad pitched at a wider audience than just the tech community.

> the software actualized by code DOES speak for itself to anyone capable of > using it.

And this is the point that one of the parent posters made - this attitude of 'people should be able to tell how brilliant my code/software is' is really arrogant (the parent posters words, not mine). Your customers/users will almost never be more knowledgable about your software than you are - so by not self-promoting, you will actually be losing customers/influence/users because they will pass on your products if they don't understand the benefit to them. This applies to the most brilliant of customers to the dumbest.

<comment><USER13> any yet the self-promotion of browsers has NOTHING to do with their quality!

ms did a great job of self promoting ie and it's a piece of shit.

firefox gained a huge market share because the actual experience of the code is brilliant, not because of any self promotion.

all self promotion does is add a layer of noise over figuring out what to use. that is the ONLY reason google advertises chrome - _because all the marketing scum out there has made it necessary_.

<comment><USER14> So now we've reached the conclusion that marketing in of itself is bullshit? The evolution of marketing has lead us to cause the so called "scum" to exist because of how traditionally effective marketing has been. Now that it's so widespread its becoming increasingly ineffective. Thus, enters the scum, or in other words more creative ways to interrupt your attention.

The techie (or Silicon Valley) view of the economic world, while fruitful, is a very meritocratic. We only believe that cream of the crop always rises to the top. Unfortunately this is not how the world works and the OP's suggestion about self-promotion is evidence of such (read - Jobs v Wozniak). We read stories from Steve Blank and PG about "just make a good product and the rest will follow". While good advice, I can count on my hand the number of products that "suck" that are way more successful than the ones that don't suck. It's the reason SAP, MS, and Oracle still exist.

Why are techies like this? I believe its because we are extremely analytical pattern hunters - we hate replication and deficiencies. Marketing to us represents an inefficiency in the system because it doesn't represent 1 or 0.

<comment><USER8> > Why are techies like this? I believe its because we are extremely analytical > pattern hunters - we hate replication and deficiencies. Marketing to us > represents an inefficiency in the system because it doesn't represent 1 or 0

Actually it's not just that. True, techies recognize that marketing represents an inefficiency in the system, but, lacking social skills, techies are naive enough to think that they can _improve_ the system. They can't, and they don't understand why (but look ma, I made a goooood product, why won't anyone buy it?). They assume that everyone has plenty of time on their hands to read the latest reviews on the product they buy, to compare specifications, and then to trial-test the product themselves, all the while being careful so as "not to fall into a marketing scam." No, most people are not like that. Most people make snap judgements in a split-second about whether or not to buy a product and if they feel like they spend too much time deciding then they simply move on. Techies specifically choose to ignore things like public image and social status (actually they replace the status ladder by their own one), and consequently suffer from it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It's become pretty popular these days to devalue asian immigrant culture, but most of the commentary misses the point. The intro piece to the article states exactly the facts that "Tiger Moms" are concerned about: Asians are more educated and make more money on average.

Asian parenting is about downside management. Yeah your kid might not end up a top CEO, but he's also less likely to end up as a plumber. There are worse things than ending up in middle management at IBM making six figures...

Also, as someone who went through the whole "asian education treadmill", I'll make two observations:

1) The point about Stuyvesant is dead-on. My high school was also a public magnet school and the culture was the same way: the people at the top were both pretty and smart. However, the take-away isn't really what what the author makes it out to be. The popular white kids weren't gunning any less hard than the asian kids. They socialized then went home and studied just as hard. The problem isn't that asian parents emphasize hard work in lieu of socialization, it's that they just emphasize hard work, largely b/c coming from a different culture socialization isn't something they can really help their kids with.

2) The PWC example is also dead on, but again, the takeaway is different than what the other concludes. In a law, accounting, financial firm, you don't get pigeon-holed for being a hard worker. The white guy who makes partner (or managing director or whatever) works every bit as hard as the asian guy, but plays the politics on top of that. Being "too good for bitch work" is a sure way to get yourself fired at a law firm or an investment bank. At the same time, schmoozing with a partner to get better assignments is absolutely not at odds with working hard and being the guy who can get things done.

These articles consistently manage to misunderstand both asian culture and american culture. Succeeding in America does not require rejecting asian work ethic. Americans work as hard as anyone. That high school football star has a dad who pushes him to practice just as hard as any "Tiger Mom" would. Succeeding in America does require a forthrightness and social perceptiveness that many asians choose not to develop, but that is absolutely not at odds with an asian upbringing.

</comment><comment><USER16> A friend from high school - he got top grades, got into a great school, got a MD _and_ a PhD, married a beautiful, smart wife, became a surgeon, and had a healthy son.

After all of this, he went back to his grandfather overseas (who was very old) and told him, "I _did_ everything you told me to do".

<comment><USER17> so he didn't want to be a Doctor? He didn't want a wife? who was smart? beautiful? He didn't want to be wealthy? He didn't want a family?

I don't get what you are trying to say here... Maybe you are trying to say that he wasn't happy? If you get all of that and you aren't happy, what will make you happy? being unemployed? being famous? maybe infamous?

<comment><USER18> With the emphasis on 'did,' I would assume that the grandfather was still acting like he hadn't done enough and, "I _did_ everything that you asked me to," is the rebuttal to that. Sort of like this scary Asian dad that my wife encountered on the subway once (yelling at his ~7 year old kid):

      This is not perfect! It must be perfect! Not 80%.
      Not 90%. That's not perfect! Must be perfect!

<comment><USER16> The gist was that his grandfather had pushed him very, very hard to study and work very, very hard from a very early age. And he was finally able to tell his grandfather that he could no longer tell him what to do/order him to work hard - he had done it all - he had done everything that the grandfather had pushed him to do. It is a sense of closure, more than anything but still very significant. My friend had ulcers in high school, if that is any indication of how hard he studied.

<comment><USER19> Don't mean to hijack the thread but ulcers have nothing to do with how hard you study or how stressfull your life is; it is a misconception that really needs to be put to rest.

Most ulcers are caused by h. pylori infection (and sometimes by over- medication in childrens cases).

Your friend most likely ate unshashed fruits/vegetables overseas, or had access to someone who did

<comment><USER20> We all have h. pylori in our stomachs, but only some of us have ulcers. This is because stress plays a role in weakening the stomach's defenses, giving h. pylori a chance to create ulcers.

<comment><USER21> i believe the nobel prize committee begs to differ: [http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2005/p...](http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2005/press.html)

<comment><USER22> > Helicobacter pylori is a spiral-shaped Gram-negative bacterium that > colonizes the stomach in about 50% of all humans.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I found the last two sentences to be the most telling part of the whole piece:

>>There is something salutary in that proud defiance. And though the debate she sparked about Asian-American life has been of questionable value, we will need more people with the same kind of defiance, willing to push themselves into the spotlight and to make some noise, to beat people up, to seduce women, to make mistakes, to become entrepreneurs, to stop doggedly pursuing official paper emblems attesting to their worthiness, to stop thinking those scraps of paper will secure anyone's happiness, and to dare to be interesting.<<

Degrees and certifications certainly don't make you interesting. But neither does wallowing in your own self-pity while yelling "fuck the system".

Passion makes people interesting. It doesn't matter if you're passionate about making pork buns or writing code. Huang (pork bun guy) sure sounds a hell of a lot more interesting than the author does. The best way to find your passion is to get out there and do things. Set goals. Accomplish them. If you focus on being miserable and espousing things like "fuck humility and hard work", how the hell are you ever going to be passionate about anything. And, so, how the hell are you ever going to be interesting?

Yang makes some decent points about Asian culture, but his idea that he's somehow the squeaky wheel or the loudest duck is laughable. He's the miserable whiny guy who everyone ignores, who decidedly isn't interesting. Guys like Tony Hsieh, the guys who don't shut up until they accomplish their goals, they're the only ones who ever get any grease.

</comment><comment><USER24> The fundamental fallacy of this article is that being the founder of the next Facebook or CEO of a large Fortune 100 company equals success. These Asian parents simply want their children to do better than they did when they came to the US, which pretty much means a comfortable white collar job over a back- breaking blue collar job.

<comment><USER10> But what is doing better?

As an Asian immigrant myself I have no shortage of people in my circles who are absolutely _miserable_ being upper-middle class white collar workers.

Asian upbringings do not optimize for happiness, nor even physical well-being. It seeks to maximize income - and it does quite well at that.

We're taught from a young age that we must work hard in school. Why? So we can test well and make it into a good high school (it works that way in much of Asia). Then we must study hard - to make it into a good college. Then we must study ever harder - to excel and be considered for a well-paying job.

Then the progression stops, and the advice runs out. All your life the entire raison d'etre for you has been The Next Step, but now there is none. You've done it, you've hit the end, trumpets are supposed to blare, and... and...

And then what?

You have an entire generation of people who pushed, prodded, and hauled their entire existence to work hard so they may have a good life - but in that process they were never taught what a good life _was_.

I found myself in that position going through college. I sacrificed socialization in exchange for raw academic performance, and found myself unable to connect with the people around me. I was making six figures out of college, but had nothing to spend it on, save gadgetry and fast machines - tools that allowed to bury myself in a world where I wasn't a mostly socially- retarded 20-something that had stunted social skills, no artistic or creative inclinations, no hobbies, and a circle consisting mostly of equally lost young professionals like myself. It's taken every ounce of effort and time (and a not insignificant sum of money) to start digging myself out of this hole - <USER3> I suppose my warning to people is to never dig that hole in the first place.

If you're going to waste away your teens just so you can waste away your twenties catching up to the rest of the world, don't.

<comment><USER25> About a month ago I was doing some nonprofit work for a local youth organization, and was working with a 16 year old who was already taking college level pre-med classes. He explained that he was going to be either a doctor or an engineer "because, you know, I'm Asian". Someone else later asked him if he wanted to be a doctor, and he replied "it's sort of the family business", as though he had no choice in the matter. (his father is a doctor at a very prestigious clinic).

All the while, he seemed very interested in the development work we were doing, but being "merely" a web developer would not be an appropriate profession. I got the feeling that even if he had no interest in medicine or engineering he felt compelled to pursue one of those careers to satisfy expectations. I wanted to tell him just to slow down and enjoy being young a bit, but it wasn't any of my business, and it wouldn't matter anyway. I just feel bad that this poor kid is going to miss out on some of the best parts of college because he's too focused on reaching a goal he probably doesn't even really want.

<comment><USER26> Arnold Kim got his MD and even practiced for a while before retiring from medicine to work on Macrumors.com full time.

<comment><USER27> And wouldn't it have been nice if he could have saved himself a decade of the pain that is medical school, residency, and practice, by leaping into the tech industry earlier?

It would be one thing if he had been making all his own choices, but Arnold Kim lost several years of his life strictly due to his parents' misguided ideas. He very likely could have found the thing he loved sooner without their overbearance. That's a tragedy.

<comment><USER28> I feel obligated to respond, since I was mentioned, though I'm not sure I have any great insight into the matter.

It's one of those situations in life in which where you end up makes sense only in retrospect, as all those steps led you to where you are. What would have happened if I didn't go the pre-med/medschool route? I'm not entirely sure. I was a computer science guy in college, so absent pursuing a medical career, I probably would have ended up as a programmer somewhere after college ('96). Maybe I would have gotten rich in the craziness or maybe I would have been a victim of the .com crash.

I do think that if I was in college in the past few years, the startup culture and iphone app opportunities would have infected me, and I probably would have had to make an earlier decision.

Though, if I hadn't gone down the path, I don't think MacRumors.com would exist, as there was a timing/luck element to it. Not that I think success is entirely dependent on luck but a matter of taking advantage of circumstances as they arrive. I got married and had kids during that med school diversion, so certainly have no regrets there.

As for parental pressure/expectations on kids, it's something I've thought about especially after becoming a parent. I think as a parent, in many ways, you try to right the wrongs, fulfill the desires, or fix the challenges when you grew up. For immigrant parents, financial stability is probably the #1 hurdle they had, so they want their kids to go to college, get a white color job. That's what they've been struggling with. As someone who grew up financially stable, and being well off now, my priority for my kids is more of a focus on happiness and doing what they want. But that's a luxury that you can afford once financial stability is a given.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> This is one of the best descriptions of minority life in the US (or anywhere else) that I've read in quite a while.

I wish similar pieces would be written by and embraced by African-Americans. Sadly whenever such thoughts are expressed, they are met with negativity.

<comment><USER30> Are you really suggesting that similar pieces haven't been written by African Americans? To my mind, the first several paragraphs were practically an homage to Ralph Ellison's "The Invisible Man." And Yang mentions Baldwin by name.

It seems to me that when those authors were writing (and earlier poets like Langston Hughes), the problems of assimilation and alienation were both more apparent (as in "WTF!!!") and at the same time more vague (as in "WTF???"). It demanded the attention of artists. It was the same era that included the most creative period in the development of Jazz and the Civil Rights Movement itself. I wonder if Asian-Americans find themselves at something of a similar juncture.

Ultimately, and unfortunately, I think the direction of African-American cultural identity ended up following in the direction Yang has set for himself. Yang says:

"The first step toward self-reform is to admit your deficiencies. Though my early adulthood has been a protracted education in them, I do not admit mine. I'm fine. It's the rest of you who have a problem. Fuck all y'all."

He's obviously a bit tongue-in-cheek here, since earlier he wondered if his "defiance is just delusional, self-glorifying bullshit that artists have always told themselves to compensate for their poverty and powerlessness." I'm sure he's (ironically) comparing himself to African Americans (otherwise, why the black vernacular "Fuck all y'all"?).

Something he touches on but doesn't really flesh-out is the problem with defining yourself in the negative -- that is, defining yourself in terms of things you won't do because you've already established a social identity where you _aren't that thing_. When he says "I love this hard and unyielding part of myself more than any other reward the world has to offer a newly brightened and ingratiating demeanor, and I will bear any costs associated with it," I hear the the constant refrain in the African-American community to "keep it real", where what this really means is "don't range widely." And incidentally, this is also recognized by African-Americans -- see Dave Chappelle's sketch "When Keeping It Real Goes Wrong."

(btw, I'm an African American software engineer, so issues of race and culture are unavoidably fascinating to me)

<comment><USER29> No. My observation was that ( _as a general tendency_ , a lot of exceptions, of course, exist) self-criticism in the African-American community is usually met with attacks ranging from "you are hitting below the belt, these are poor, choice-less people" to the more crude ones along the lines of Uncle Tom-ism and being an Oreo (compare with OP's "Twinkie").

I haven't read Ellison much but am familiar with Baldwin and the vicious attacks leveled at him from the black community (coincidence: I was reading about his years in Turkey just yesterday : [http://www.dukeupress.edu/Catalog/ViewProduct.php?productid=...](http://www.dukeupress.edu/Catalog/ViewProduct.php?productid=15339)). Remember how Cosby was vilified for his (somewhat simplistic) remarks about low-income black families in 2004? Many other examples can be given, I think.

I totally agree with your points, esp. "defining yourself in the negative", which I observed the case to be with many African-Americans I've met in college (at work such topics are rarely discussed). Unfortunately, as far as I can see, negative stereotypes are continuously being glorified and perpetuated within the community. When I was watching _Waiting for Superman_ I was blown away by Geoffrey Canada's no-nonsense approach, I think more of that needed.

You, of course, have firsthand experience. It would be great if you can elaborate on some of these points.

<comment><USER30> Apologies for unfairly characterizing your statement. And I do agree that self-criticism in the black community is very typically met with hostility, and that "negative stereotypes" are perhaps too frequently glorified.

Regarding Cosby's remark about black families, I certainly understand his sentiment, but I agree it was somewhat simplistic. My father (and my grandparents) all had a pretty similar view to Cosby's. In the particular black neighborhood of Philadelphia where he was from, that type of conservatism was the norm. By the early '70s, several of his friends (along with him) had graduated from college and moved out of the cities into the predominantly white suburbs, and this cohort was for the most part extremely successful. Not everyone managed to get out of the city, though, and it wasn't because the ones who stayed behind were necessarily lazier or less hard working (though certainly many of them were). For the most part, the opportunities just ran out.

With that came, I think, a lot of the anti-assimilationist sentiment you see today. Yang mentions something similar in his article. When you work your ass off to excel in all of the culturally approved ways, but nonetheless you are passed-over for someone who worked half as hard as you, what are you to think? There's a whole generation of older black men who were stung in this way (and, as Yang mentions, a whole generation of Asian men in a similar, but largely better, situation). (And incidentally, I'm speaking about men instead of women because women face different challenges that I'm not qualified to discuss). In many ways, I don't think the situation is much different than what lead to hooliganism in the UK during the '80s.

So is the situation getting worse, better, or staying the same? Economically, it's a hard time for a lot of people. Kids graduating from college (of any race) are having a hard time finding jobs. Thirty-somethings who saved up to buy homes in 2005 are underwater. As global inequalities are being addressed, global competition is at its highest, particularly for jobs that previously would have been "entry-level". These are also the sort jobs which are most prone to nepotism.

Its hard to say what lessons will be drawn from this period. It seems entirely possible that many of the hardest working, most optimistic young black people of this generation will find themselves out of work, disillusioned, and wondering why they didn't just have more fun in high school (and passing that attitude on to their kids).

BTW, you might (should) say "Don't Asian Americans face the same economic difficulties? They're employed at the highest rate of any ethnic group in the country." This is true, of course, and there's a lot to say about that. But I think this post is already too long, and none of this has been particularly relevant to hacking, except maybe societal hacking. Maybe I can end with a question: why don't white kids, generally, work as hard as Asians, especially when they are being out-competed for valuable educational opportunities?

<comment><USER29> michaelf, I have to say: you are one of the most eloquent commenters I had a chance to correspond in HN. I would very much like to continue the discussion with you, if you want.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> 1 page print version, for convenience: [http://nymag.com/print/?/news/features/asian- americans-2011-...](http://nymag.com/print/?/news/features/asian- americans-2011-5/)

</comment><comment><USER32> It sounds like they are only meta-gaming. They aren't doing anything because they are genuinely inclined to do so. It is hard to show heart and passion when your only ambition is to attain a level in society for the sake of levelling. It's called -> you're trying too hard!

Weird that Asians behave like this given the wealth of zen philosophy in the east : 'A good traveller has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving.' ~Lao Tzu

<comment><USER33> Lao Tzu was a Taoist. "zen" refers to Zen Buddhism. The two are completely different things.

<comment><USER34> Indeed they are. As I commented on here recently, it's difficult to imagine Lao Tzu beating disciples with sticks.

Nevertheless the GP raises the interesting question of why the Asian stereotype is to "attain a level in society for the sake of levelling" when a wealth of Asian religious traditions teach just the opposite. (Taoism and Buddhism aren't so different as not to have this in common.) I suspect part of the answer is that these traditions are not that widely practiced.

<comment><USER32> thank you gruseom. Afterall, little-z zen was meant to cast a wide net - <USER4> any specific school of thought. Tzu's quote is zennish, yes?

Addtionally, it should be said that Asians are not the only folks guilty of this - they're just the best at the meta-game (e.g. preferring to learn about playing the system over learning about the material itself).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> This was a very interesting and long read as an Asian American Tiger child myself. There are things that I agree with and things that I disagree with. There are a lot of numbers tossed around in the article but definitely not enough numbers. I can say with confidence that the reason behind Asian Americans not saturating the CEO population in fortune 500 companies is not related to how we were raised. Off the top of my head, gather the age and experience of current fortune 500 CEO's, gather the age of the current generation of Tiger children, and then you can see where I'm going from there. One thing is for sure, the author doesn't know what it's like to be a Tiger child and his interviews feel very one-sided. There's a lot more to this story.

<comment><USER36> >I can say with confidence that the reason behind Asian Americans not saturating the CEO population in fortune 500 companies is not related to how we were raised.

Don't take this the wrong way but why? The age argument, if true, simply says that the current numbers don't mean anything. It doesn't say anything about why the future is going to be different though.

I also think the story is one sided in terms of portraying all "Tiger children" as being socially inept but I do think it did a relatively good job of presenting the complexity. It was certainly a better article than I was expecting having read the title here on HN. No doubt it played on a stereotype but stereotypes do tend to be an exaggeration of the truth rather than complete fabrications.

<comment><USER35> You're right it doesn't say anything about the future. But my point was simply that he drew conclusions from numbers that shouldn't mean anything yet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Off-topic, but when mainstream American press uses the word "Asian", why does it typically mean the yellow half of Asia?

<comment><USER38> What do you consider to be the non-yellow half?

<comment><USER39> He's referring to South Asia. The answer to his question is that "Asian" implies "East Asian" in American English because the majority of Asian Americans are East Asian. In the UK, "Asian" implies "South Asian" (for the same reason).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> _"Listen," he told Hong, "I'm going to be honest with you. My generation came to this country because we wanted better for you kids. We did the best we could, leaving our homes and going to graduate school not speaking much English. If you take this job, you are just going to hit the same ceiling we did. They just see me as an Asian Ph.D., never management potential. You are going to get a job offer, but don't take it. Your generation has to go farther than we did, otherwise we did everything for nothing."_

</comment><comment><USER41> I am always slightly astounded by people who are completely cut off from their cultural roots. Likely because I am a white Australian guy with English parents and am envious of those around me with (to me) more interesting and varied cultures.

<comment><USER42> Once in high school, I asked a few Asian looking guys about where they're from, they said "We're Canadians". I went "wtf?" in my head, and instead asked them about where their parents are from.

What astonished me is how the seemed to "reject" their roots. Or at least that's how I interpreted it. I would seriously hate it if my children rejected their origins.

EDIT: To clarify, I'm not white myself.

<comment><USER43> They weren't rejecting their roots, they were answering the question you asked: they were from Canada.

"Where are you from?" isn't synonymous with "what is your ethnic background?", especially when there are 3rd and 4th generation Canadians of Asian decent.

A lot of people will recognize when being asked that "Where are you from?" is supposed to be a politer way of asking "So why aren't you white?", but refuse to play along because it feels kind of asinine to say you're "from Taiwan" when your family has been in Vancouver for close to a century and you've never even been to Taiwan.

<comment><USER42> > A lot of people will recognize when being asked that "Where are you from?" > is supposed to be a politer way of asking "So why aren't you white?"

In my case, I'm not white myself, so there's no way my question would be perceived as "so why are you different from us?".

<comment><USER44> It doesn't matter if the questioner is white or not; they likely reacted as explained in msburnett's interpretation. As worded, the question seems to presume that they are foreigners/immigrants and the follow-up question that their parents are foreigners/immigrants.

<comment><USER42> Part of what astonishes me is why people should feel "ashamed" or even "bothered" that they have a different cultural background. I _am_ an immigrant, so what? Why should I or anyone else take offense to that?

<comment><USER45> Do you usually ask the same question to white Canadians as well ("Where are you from?", "Oh, where are your parents from then?")? It would be safe to assume that white Canadians are generally confronted with those questions with much less frequency than Asian Canadians are.

May be some do have a sense of self-hatred like you said, but I would guess most people are simply annoyed by those questions so they respond adversely. Like others have mentioned already, it's really frustrating from a point of view of a person who might be a 3rd generation Canadian, as the questions can make him/her feel like perpetual foreigner. Why can't you take "Canadian" as an answer when those people have lived there for all their lives and might have never even visited their grandparents' country of origin?

As you've said you're an immigrant, your ethnicity and the fact that you're a first generation immigrant might be a big part of who you are (if you do treat them importantly, that is). For second generation Canadians and on, that might be not so true. It's not that they are embarrassed by their respective ethnicity, but it just doesn't play a big part in their lives in their thoughts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> They party a bit, then go back to being normal average everyday people -- except some slightly higher percentage lands slightly higher paying jobs at the start with a decreasing pay differential over time with their peers.

</comment><comment><USER47> I have a feeling that this article resonates with the majority of Americans who, for whatever reason, feel themselves among the minority

</comment><comment><USER48> This is why Asians are underrepresented in tech startups --- wrong set of cultural values and inclinations. (I am Asian)

<comment><USER49> Though I don't have data to back up my point, my impression is that there are actually a lot of Asian tech founders. (a well known example is Yahoo Co- founder). If you consider the population ratio to tech founder ratio, asians are probably doing a better job than some other non-white groups. Of course, if you compare the over-presentation of asians in elite universities with their presentation in startups,there could be a lot more asian tech founders. (i'm asian too)

<comment><USER50> A preponderance of the founders and/or principle engineering teams in the most popular and promising web properties are Asian. Naveen Salvaduri at Foursquare, Steve Chen at Youtube, all three main engineers at Quora, Bill Nguyen at Color, even Euwyn Poon at YC S10 Opzi.

<comment><USER51> "All three main engineers at Quora" is an extremely inaccurate statement.

<comment><USER50> <http://www.quora.com/about/team>

Kevin Der, Tracy Chou, Albert Sheu, and Shreyes Seshasai are all listed directly below the Co-founders on the aforementioned page. How is that an inaccurate statement? Because I said three instead of four?

<comment><USER52> There's no indication that that list is in direct order of importance at Quora. To assume so is a little rude, at best.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> So make social and leadership skills part of the entrance exam to elite high schools/colleges and watch every one of these cram schools add soft skills to their lesson plans.

I'd also suggest adding ethics, but that's another conversation...

<comment><USER10> > _"and watch every one of these cram schools add soft skills to their lesson > plans"_

I'd be interested in knowing how. You can't learn soft skills out of a book.

<comment><USER53> Tell that to the authors of the thousands of self-help books that line your local bookstore, many of which are dedicated to soft skills.

And you wouldn't necessarily have to learn it out of a book. The posted article cited several examples of programs to teach people soft skills.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> There is a previous post on HN, which talked about how rich kids have already won the career game. There are quite a few similar points raised in that article, and even a few answers to questions raised in this article. Reading both will definitely add to the perspective.

"How Rich Kids Have Already Won The Career Game" <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2296550>

</comment><comment><USER55> "Even if you land that good high-paying gig, the white guy with the pedigree from a mediocre state university will somehow move ahead of you in the ranks simply because he's white."

Going to Harvard doesn't and shouldn't guarantee that you'll be a CEO at 55. Proving yourself in the real world is what matters and that skill set is different than the one needed for a high GPA.

</comment><comment><USER56> The last 45 minutes of 'Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle'?

</comment><comment><USER57> what happened to all those racist underachievers?

<comment><USER58> They went into politics.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> Probably they get hired at Google, and overachieve there.

</comment><comment><USER60> This is what I never understood about Asian over-achieving kids. My high school in Minnesota was full of them. They were trying so hard to be perfect, forced by their parents to take violin and piano lessons, score perfect SAT scores, get into Harvard and MIT. But what happened to them? I've been to my high school reunions, and the truth is, none of them turned out to be anything remarkable. None of them are particularly wealthy or famous. They all got regular jobs and are slaving away in corporate America. Not that that's a bad thing. It's just not that different from anyone else.

<comment><USER50> "I've been to my high school reunions, and the truth is, none of them turned out to be anything remarkable."

80% of Asian kids in America go on to higher (+12) education. 53% degree attainment (other races are less than 30%). Comprising less than 10% of the population, Asian populations at the Ivy League are ~25%+ (nearly or more than 30% at Stanford and MIT). Asians in America make more on average than all other races.

Asians seem to be attaining alot in a country where they are less than 10% of the population and objective metrics of achievement are even possible. There could be something about the "bamboo ceiling", but Asians are doing objectively better, on average, than the average white, black, or hispanic person.

<comment><USER38> Yea, if you measure success in terms of going to Ivy League schools. Hate to break it to you though, attending an Ivy League does not equate to success in _life_ , nor does it always result in success. The whole point of the article is, what happens AFTER they get that degree?

<comment><USER10> Pretty simple really. Most start off more highly paid than most - but the pay difference drops off over time. Most lead unassuming, mundane existences.

A large portion live with the nagging dissatisfaction that they struggled so much harder than everyone else, sacrificed so much more, and yet somehow the payoff doesn't seem commensurate. They were at the top end of the distribution all their life, but now practically define normality.

Most will look around them and realize it could be much worse - they could be running a laundromat. They will then quietly accept their mundane, normal, and honestly, somewhat boring existence in good grace.

Some cannot get over the fact that they threw their childhood, adolescence, and prime years away for a shot at mediocrity. Some have become miserable in this process - this goes double for those who had a real passion for something _off_ the beaten Asian track (art, literature, music, etc). Some of these people will eventually crack and throw it all away to pursue what they _actually_ wanted to do.

If they fail, they will be used as examples on why straying from The Path(tm) is unwise.

If they succeed, they will be praised and looked upon in admiration as a triumphant success of the immigrant community. They will, ironically, be used as examples of how It Works(tm) whenever this exact issue comes up in conversation.

<comment><USER50> "They will then quietly accept their mundane, normal, and honestly, somewhat boring existence in good grace."

Wow, that is some kind of assumption. Wishful thinking, or perhaps projecting?

"Some have become miserable in this process - this goes double for those who had a real passion for something off the beaten Asian track (art, literature, music, etc). Some of these people will eventually crack and throw it all away to pursue what they actually wanted to do."

Just as a data point apropos of nothing, every single winning team in the television show "America's best dance crew" has either been exclusively or overwhelmingly Asian. That's after 5 seasons.

So, I think you might be conflating the "typical chinese tiger child" with all Asian/East Asian parents. You may need to head to the West Coast to see how much culturally different the kids (and their parents) are there.

<comment><USER10> Surprise, I grew up on the West Coast. Tiger kids are tiger kids - there isn't a huge gradient from coast to coast.

> _"Wishful thinking, or perhaps projecting?"_

On the contrary, I'd be delighted if more Asians broke the mold and had the resolve and determination to buck expectations. It is difficult, and most will never go through with it, but I suspect most will think about it, a lot.

> _"every single winning team in the television show "America's best dance > crew" has either been exclusively or overwhelmingly Asian. That's after 5 > seasons."_

That fact alone is pointless without knowing how many Asian dance crews have _entered_. Like I said, most will never buck the trend and go against the grain - especially in such a dramatic way as pursuing dance and popular music. Maybe Asians would win more if more of them pursued this - or maybe they won't. It's all supposition.

<comment><USER50> "That fact alone is pointless without knowing how many Asian dance crews have entered. Like I said, most will never buck the trend and go against the grain - especially in such a dramatic way as pursuing dance and popular music."

That's specious reasoning, simply because if you're going to accept _foremost_ the idea that _all_ Asian kids are going to MIT and/or studying CS and pre-Med and doing almost _nothing else_ , then it only stands to reason that a preponderance of them are not going to be pursuing dance and pop music in any significant number. Or, at least, that's what _you_ claim.

Speaking of Pop music, in 2010, the Far East Movement had the #1 pop song in the country for a month. Bruno Mars is Filipino, and has had 3 of his songs in the top 10 songs.

So, either alot of them _are_ pursuing dance and pop music in significant numbers, or Asians are so talented in either that they simply _will_ themselves to greatness even though there are so few in pursuit of it. They simply excel in spite of themselves and in their cultural vacuum of tigers and testing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> I think the author has the "grass is greener on the other side" mentality. Guess what? Those white kids who slacked off at high school, and didn't care about getting the A+? Those kids also have issues in life - instead of wondering why they overachieved, they're wondering what the heck to do with their life, and why they didn't focus on their future in school.</comment>


People would rather be electrically shocked than left alone with their thoughts - <AUTHOR> http://news.sciencemag.org/brain-behavior/2014/07/people-would-rather-be-electrically-shocked-left-alone-their-thoughts <comment><USER2> I must not be people.</comment>


How to Increase Your Capacity for Change - <AUTHOR> http://blog.canworksmart.com/2011/05/how-to-increase-your-capacity-for-change/

<comment><USER2> Drink water</comment>


What the new Microsoft needs to do to become relevant again - <AUTHOR> http://paul.oremland.net/2015/06/what-new-microsoft-needs-to-do-to.html

<comment><USER2> Nice to read some specific recommendation instead of general complaints. That said I'm not sure all these point would work if MS followed them.

Saying that MS should fix a lot of open source projects is strange (even if they already do this for some projects like Node). I think a lot of open source developers should learn more about Windows and make sure their code works on Windows. Or others could create a new fork/project with the same functionality and possibly same api but with Windows code. It is very strange to hear open source advocates say that MS should fix everything. I thought one of the meanings of open source was that when anyone that wants something can help we will end up with almost all important projects/ideas implemented, possibly in multiple ways.

Regarding cloud it would be very nice if Windows worked even better in different clouds than Azure but I'm still not sure this is only MS fault. Amazon could have started earlier to offer more help and tools around this. An easier scripting language than Powershell would be nice though. Regarding running Windows without a monitor I think that has worked since Server 2008.

It is also a bit hard to see what MS should make money off if everything should be free. If Windows, Office, Windows Phone and developer tools should all be free it is almost only cloud and support left to charge for and I don't think they could ever make much money on support. For cloud they will have to compete with Amazon and Google on pricing but they are probably already making money and could make a lot more here.</comment>


This year we can end the death penalty in California - <AUTHOR> http://paulgraham.com/prop62.html <comment><USER2> The single best reason why the death penalty should be abolished is because it does not have an 'undo' button. It's bad enough if people get jailed for a long time when they are innocent, it is _much_ worse when they're murdered by the state for crimes they did not commit.

Other important work done:

[http://www.innocenceproject.org/](http://www.innocenceproject.org/)

edit: sad to see this thread flagged off the homepage.

<comment><USER3> The lack of an "undo" button is not exclusive to the death penalty, many serious forms of punishment are irreversible.

Why, in your view, is it much worse for the state to jail an innocent person for a long time (say, their entire adult life) instead of killing them?

<comment><USER4> That is bad, but you can compensate an wrongfully jailed person afterwards. But I think it is a fair point, which is why I am also against harsh prison conditions. I think prison should mainly be about rehabilitation and shielding society from the danger of the person. If prison mainly means losing freedom, you aren't necessarily ruined mentally when you get out.

<comment><USER5> > _That is bad, but you can compensate an wrongfully jailed person > afterwards._

How do you compensate someone for being imprisoned (and likely raped) from the age of 28 to 45?

In many cases, the death penalty is more humane.

<comment><USER2> Failure of the prison system to protect its inmates should not become a factor in deciding whether or not it is more 'humane' to kill them outright.

The you might as well kill all prisoners because it is more humane, after all where would you draw the line, 5 years, 10 years, 15 or 20, it's all time that has passed.

Compensation should be of such a magnitude that it incentivizes society to make sure it happens as little as possible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Back in the day, there was a serial killer named Ted Bundy. He killed a number of women, was imprisoned, escaped (twice) and killed at least three more people.

That kind of incident makes the problem much more complicated. The typical argument against the death penalty is that sometimes innocent people are executed. And it's true, and it's horrible. But if you don't execute them, then the alternative is that they should be in prison for the rest of their life. If they're innocent, that's still pretty horrible. The _real_ objective is to keep innocent people from being convicted in the first place.

But like many other situations, the false positive rate and the false negative rate are inversely correlated. How many guilty people should we free to avoid sending one innocent person to prison? The obvious answer is "as many as we have to" \- it's not acceptable to have innocent people in prison. But if we're talking about serial killers, that question becomes "How many innocent people do we want to see dead on the streets to avoid sending one innocent person to prison?"

Back to the death penalty. Sometimes guilty people escape, too, and sometimes they kill people after they escape. Executed people don't kill anyone ever again. So, how many innocent people are you willing to execute in order to prevent innocent people dying on the streets?

This stuff is very difficult. But given less-than-perfect prisons, I can see a case for keeping the death penalty for serial killers.

<comment><USER4> If we cared about this, then why is revenge the core focus on American justice system and not rehabilitation?

When people exit the prison system un-rehabilitated they will hurt more people.

I think this is a more important question. Why is revenge given priority over avoiding new victims?

Also if one actually cares about life, why are prisons such overcrowded hell holes that prisoners get shanked and killed on a regular basis?

This is my issue with this sort of reasoning as it easily becomes cherry picking of issues to support harsher justice system while ignoring all the related issues which speaks for a milder system.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I find interesting that you in the US are thinking in banning the death penalty.

Here in Colombia death penalty was banned about a century ago, unfortunately, it has done more harm than good, because criminals (even very bad ones, the kid rapists and stuff) are not scared of prison, prisons are so crowded that sentences are short ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Garavito](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Garavito) is a good example, I don't think a lifetime of prison would forgive all he did, he should be condemned for 1800 years) and this has led to crime rise.

There is a common belief that politicians banned death penalty long ago to be able to be corrupt without any risk, in the long run if they're not dying, they could steal a lot of money and then use half of it to get out of prison early.

I know US corruption is not as bad as Colombian corruption. Unfortunately we have to deal with our system, and the ban of death penalty has kept terrible people in our country for a long time. It may be unethical to kill someone, but in the end is the lesser evil, because it will never compare to the harm that this person does to the society. As a Colombian I feel that corruption and crime is going down now, and we are proud for it, but I also feel that if we took the 'evil' decision earlier, we would be much better now.

<comment><USER8> There's two parts that I'm still not sure about here - a question of moral weight W: 1 * innocent prisoner executed == W * innocent victim of crime

and two epistemic questions, how many innocents X are executed per guilty person, and how many victims Y are saved on average by the disincentive caused by executing one guilty prisoner?

Per guilty person executed, we save Y lives and we are penalized W * X. Is Y > W * X? If so it seems reasonable to keep the death penalty, all things being equal (ignoring the cost of litigation vs. prison time, etc)

Does anyone have sources for what the values of any of these numbers should be?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Don't forget to explicitly vote no on 66 if you are voting yes on 62. If both of them pass, the one with more 'yes' votes will supersede the other.

<comment><USER10> States should not allow two propositions that contradict each other to be put up for vote simultaneously. They are generally confusing and almost always favor the status quo at the expense of most citizens who don't have time to understand the nuances of each prop/issue/initiative/ammendment.

<comment><USER11> You should try and get that as a proposition on the next ballot.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Important note on Prop 66, which PG unfortunately glossed over: it will override 62 if it passes with more yes votes than the other measure.

Therefore, if you're opposed to the death penalty and intend to vote yes on both measures--reasoning, for instance, that the reforms on 66 such as expedited appeals for death row inmates are an improvement regardless of whether 62 passes--you're undermining your own vote.

<comment><USER13> > a yes vote on 66 overrides a yes vote on 62

That's not entirely true. In the event that both propositions pass, whichever proposition received more yes votes will supersede the other [https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_66,_Death_Pen...](https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_66,_Death_Penalty_Procedures_\(2016\))

<comment><USER12> Good point, I should've been more precise. Edited the comment accordingly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> pg has put his "money where [his] month is" on this proposition: [http://votersedge.org/en/ca/ballot/election/area/42/measures...](http://votersedge.org/en/ca/ballot/election/area/42/measures/measure/2025?id=statewide-42-ca#organizations- Yes)

<comment><USER15> $500K! Thanks, pg! I wish I could donate that much.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> The death penalty never made sense to me. We teach our kids its wrong to kill by killing? I'd rather the person spend their life in jail to think about what they have done.

<comment><USER17> I'm against the death penalty, but I don't think that argument holds up very well. We say it's wrong to kidnap people and hold them against their will, but we put people in prison as punishment. We say it's wrong to steal, but we use fines as punishment. Pretty much by definition, any effective punishment has to be something that's wrong to do to people in general.

<comment><USER18> > We say it's wrong to kidnap people and hold them against their will, but we > put people in prison as punishment.

This is rather an arguments against prisons to me.

> We say it's wrong to steal, but we use fines as punishment.

Objectivists would indeed argue this is an argument against taxes.

<comment><USER17> Saying all of these things are wrong is indeed consistent, but I don't think many people would agree that it's a good idea to have no way to enforce laws.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Note that this would only end it for crimes that fall under the state's jurisdiction. For things like transporting people across state lines to kill them or using a weapon of mass destruction in a manner detrimental to interstate commerce, the death penalty could still apply on a federal level.

<comment><USER20> So if somebody sets off a nuclear bomb, the feds are fine with it as long as it does not hurt interstate commerce?

I know, constitution and all. But still, that sounds a bit mercantile.

<comment><USER21> Conventional explosives count as "weapons of mass destruction" as well: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction#Cri...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction#Criminal_.28civilian.29) . And I guess the "interstate commerce" example comes from criminal code about terrorism: [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332a](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332a)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> There is one good reason to keep the status quo (death penalty without any actual deaths) which is that anyone given a death sentence gets their case extensively reviewed and appealed by excellent lawyers working pro bono. The people who get life get no help at all.

I have read of prisioners being upset when given a life sentence as they know that no one will help them appeal their conviction. If you are innocent you want to be given a death sentence since you will have so many more people helping you get your conviction overturned.

<comment><USER23> What's to say banning He death penalty entirely won't move that pro bono work to life sentences, even if only partially..?

<comment><USER22> Well it might, but given it doesn't now in states without the death penalty there is no reason to think it will in the future.

I know if I was innocent and poor and had been convicted of a crime that was either life in prison or death that I would want a death sentence.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> > In the real world, about 4% of people sentenced to death are innocent. So > this is not about whether it's ok to kill killers. This is about whether > it's ok to kill innocent people.

>A child could answer that one for you.

[http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/guilty.htm](http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/guilty.htm)

N>25 [0]

[0] Graham, 2016

<comment><USER25> Cute, but fallacious. To unpack, you seem to be arguing that since 4% of people sentenced to death are innocent, then about 1 in 25 people are wrongly convicted, and PG is saying that ratio is unacceptable.

I think your probabilistic reasoning is a bit off (by confusing P(I|DS) with P(DS|I)).

But the actual issue is about the punishment, not the guilty/innocent determination. So in other words, PG doesn't seem to be making any claim about the size of the group of "n guilty men" \-- but rather about the way they can be punished.

<comment><USER24> Saying we shouldn't punish anyone with the death penalty, because 1 in 25 of them will be innocent, is making a claim about n guilty men. From my link:

>Commandments for man can be found in the book of Exodus, by the same Author(s), where God rejects the tradeoff between convicting the guilty and convicting the innocent, and simply commands, "the innocent and righteous slay thou not." 32 One can take this to imply an infinite value of n, at least in capital cases. The twelfth-century Judeo-Spanish legal theorist Moses Maimonides, however, interpreted the commandment of Exodus as implying a value of n = 1000 for execution. 33 He refers to it as the "290th Negative Commandment" and argues that executing an accused criminal on anything less than absolute certainty would lead to a slippery slope of decreasing burdens of proof, until we would be convicting merely "according to the judge's caprice. Hence the Exalted One has shut this door" 34 against the use of presumptive evidence, for "it is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent man to death once in a way." 35

There may be multiple ns required, one for conviction and one for punishment, but the underlying structure is the same.

>To unpack, you seem to be arguing that since 4% of people sentenced to death are innocent, then about 1 in 25 people are wrongly convicted, and PG is saying that ratio is unacceptable. I think your probabilistic reasoning is a bit off (by confusing P(I|DS) with P(DS|I)).

I'm not sure what you mean. If 25 people are sentenced to death, and one of them is innocent, then PG is arguing we should let 24 guilty men escape death rather than allowing 1 innocent man to be killed. I guess maybe I should have said n>24, then, but the overall point remains.

<comment><USER2> No, it doesn't. They won't escape death, they'll be dead sooner or later anyway. It is just that society will not have lowered itself to their level in response _and_ will have an opportunity to figure out which of those people was in fact innocent.

It's all fun and games until _you_ are that innocent person.

<comment><USER24> Don't be pedantic, you know I meant "escape the death penalty".

Are you arguing for n=infinity?

<comment><USER2> Well, it all depends on how many people you intend to kill, it's all about the ratio npeopleinnocent/npeopleguilty after all.

The problem is that no matter how small the ratio gets in absolute terms there is only the possibility of killing an innocent person or not killing an innocent person. Even if you assume that _everybody_ is guilty I'd still make the argument that people can genuinely change and that no matter what you do you will not be bringing anybody back that's already dead.

Think of still having the death penalty as a black mark on a civilization. As a nice example have a look at the Philippines and try to work out for yourself if you feel that even if society will be better afterwards it is worth it to kill this many people, many of them in serious trouble already.

The extreme example of that is a society that simply kills everybody that is convicted of a crime, after all, why not, it makes society better, right? Or does it?

<comment><USER24> >Even if you assume that everybody is guilty I'd still make the argument that people can genuinely change and that no matter what you do you will not be bringing anybody back that's already dead.

That may be (and I agree with it), but I'm critiquing PG's argument (in particular his assertion that it's obvious), not his conclusion.

>The extreme example of that is a society that simply kills everybody that is convicted of a crime, after all, why not, it makes society better, right? Or does it?

You need different punishments for different crimes, or someone who commits a small crime has no more deterrence against big crimes. I'm not sure what point you're making with this.

<comment><USER2> The justice system is - in principle - not about revenge but about balance, a balance between running a safe society and one where people that misbehave are placed in a spot where they can be re-habilitated and then can re-enter society. That path is closed in an extreme way by killing someone, there is no rehabilitation from that no matter what.

Deterrence and punishment have very little to do with each other (but deterrence and the chance of being caught _do_ have a lot to do with each other).

So fundamentally the justice system is not about punishment at all, though from the victims perspective that might seem to be the case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> California already removed the death penalty in 1972 then later reinstated it. This resulted in killers like Charles Mason being relieved from execution and denying many victim's family member from obtaining a measure of justice they wanted.

Since being reinstated only 13 people have been executed. And none in the past 10 years.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Californ...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_California#Executions_after_1976)

<comment><USER4> Why can't people speak in honest terms? What you mean isn't justice, but revenge. Killing a killer will not undo the damage they have done. It will not bring a life back.

If people require revenge for emotionally healing then that is because society has promoted this as justice.

I've never heard of victims desiring death for killers in my home country, but we are not so big on revenge and don't.

The American justice system frequently paints a trial as some sort of game, where the victims family score more points in the competition for every year extra the perpetrator gets in prison.

What about helping victims in meaningful ways instead? They might need mental health care, time of from work, economic support etc. America tend to do little in this regard.

It reminds me of the conservative desire to ban abortion, but unwillingness to actually help a family in a difficult situation giving birth to a child. Instead of making it easier to have a child so people themselves will chose to keep it, instead they want to intimidate parents to keep it threatening with prison and fines.

It is a fundamentally negative and cynical perspective on humanity. I guess that is what you get when people follow a faith which teaches that people are only good because the fear eternal punishment in hell.

<comment><USER27> Imprisoning a killer will not undo the damage they have done, but that doesn't make imprisonment revenge.

<comment><USER28> Indeed, the concept of justice is strikingly lacking from these discussions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I agree, and smart of pg to stick to the most defensible reason not to have the death penalty. Even in a world where we know the killer is a killer though, it's unethical to do it.

</comment><comment><USER30> Relevant article from The Marshall Project (in my opinion a very respectable source), "Three States to Watch if You Care About the Death Penalty" referring to Nebraska, Oklahoma and California ballot measures:

[https://www.themarshallproject.org/2016/10/19/three- states-t...](https://www.themarshallproject.org/2016/10/19/three-states-to- watch-if-you-care-about-the-death-penalty)

</comment><comment><USER31> " This is about whether it's ok to kill innocent people."

So why is the discussion to eliminate the death penalty instead of ensuring more oversight or limitations?

Something like:

\- Not applicable when only one murder committed

\- Bigger burden of proof for the DP to be applicable (not only relying on witnesses, for example)

<comment><USER32> > So why is the discussion to eliminate the death penalty instead of ensuring > more oversight or limitations?

The Supreme Court has gradually been mandating more and more oversight and limitations on death penalty cases since 1976. It doesn't seem to have made a major dent in the false conviction rate or the arbitrariness of when capital punishment is used, especially with regards to race. And while I don't think cost should even be relevant to the discussion, it's worth noting that these limitations and oversight requirements- which still aren't good enough- are the main reason why it costs 10 times more to execute someone than to put them in prison for life. Combined with the death penalty's demonstrated lack of deterrent effect - simpler and better to just get rid of it.

<comment><USER31> Yes, I agree. Maybe it's not more oversight, but better oversight

And of course, prosecutors that push dubious cases should be punished as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> This kind of post isn't going to change anybody's mind, and isn't intended to (Paul Graham is a fine persuasive writer, and good persuasive writing tends not to include appeals like "a child could answer that one for you").

No, this is just an update, for Graham's California readers, most of whom can safely be assumed to agree with him, that they should take special care to vote this year.

I'm glad California has a chance to end the death penalty this year. You'll catch up to Illinois soon enough, Silicon Valley!

But this isn't the kind of post that finds a good home here on HN. This is the kind thing you want to post (repeatedly) to Twitter. Here, it's just more flame war stimulus.

I flagged this post --- and, because it's a PG post, did so vocally this time. You should too!

<comment><USER4> So how do people ever change their mind on anything? I'd say that within any group with a certain conviction there will always be people at the fringes which are less convinced and who are willing to explore alternatives.

I once believed in the death penalty. I once believe in God. I was once a libertarian. Of course a single person didn't change my mind on these points, but being exposed to alternatives by many people over time changed my perspective. Although I guess often simply seeking information is what eventually does most to change opinions.

<comment><USER33> I'm not arguing against persuasive essays. Persuasive essays are great. I'm saying that this isn't a persuasive essay. It's a political bulletin. I agree with its politics, but not with its place on the HN front page.

<comment><USER2> Even if the essay isn't persuasive the discussion could be.

I also think that your flag-marshalling is in pretty poor taste, flagging it yourself for whatever reasons you have is fine but to call on others to do so as well is really not good.

<comment><USER34> Isn't that exactly what the article is doing, calling on others to vote the same way?

<comment><USER2> No, it isn't. Flags are counted asymmetrically compared to votes. But if you want to be clever about it go ahead, personally I think it is against what HN is about, if we're going to have flag brigading we might as well have vote brigading. See also: digg.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> What is the acceptable rate of mistakes for the judiciary system? Death is an irreversible punishment, so I can understand that it seems incompatible with a wrong judge decision, but the alternative, that is for instance perpetual incarceration, is only reversible on a very theoretical basis (if an innocent is in prison, his case will be reviewed only if he's very lucky).

So arguably, any sentencing is unfair when it's wrong. Death only makes it more obvious. Then, what's the acceptable error rate in a judiciary system? The author mentions 4% being unacceptable. What about 0.1%? 0.0001%?

Crime can not be left unpunished, can it? And yet I doubt it is possible to always be _absolutely_ sure of either guilt or innocence.

After all, doesn't the Law talk about "reasonable doubt"? Doesn't that also mean by contraposition that below a certain threshold, it becomes unreasonable to consider unlikely circumstances or extraordinary events that would prove a defendant non-guilty?

</comment><comment> rm_-rf_slash Execution is cathartic but hardly effective. Clearly it does not deter murderers as they believe they will either get away with it or they simply don't care as long as they satisfy their need to kill.

The wrong people can be executed and unlike a prison sentence, there's no going back.

Appeals can last for decades and waste enormous amounts of time and money.

End the death penalty. It's just not worth it.

<comment><USER4> I think research shows, that what people care about is the likeliness of getting caught. The length of the sentence doesn't really have that deterring effect. If it did then the US with each extremely long sentences should not be having magnitudes higher homocide rate than European countries with rather mild sentences.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I always think of Star Trek and how some advanced civilization or a future version of ourselves will perceive the barbarism of our current society. I would not be surprised if the earth gets paved over for an intergalactic superhighway because frankly, we are not worth saving. Humans, have very little humanity. We have a LONG way to go. This is a small start.

</comment><comment><USER4> The death penalty makes no logical sense. It only appeals to primitive emotions.

Why have a penalty which 1) Can never be reversed if you kill an innocent 2) Cost a lot more than life in prison.

Now why it might be argued that a killer has no right to life, what about those close to the killer? Killers might have a wife, husband, brother, sister, friends, mother and a a father. By killing the killer you inflict hardship on these people. To what purpose? In prison this person can't hurt anybody else, so why unnecessarily reduce the life quality of somebody else.

I see it being argued that the victims families deserve this, but I think that has been learnt and conditioned in society. E.g. in my own country Norway, I hardly ever read about victims and relatives who desire a death penalty or any particularly harsh or painful punishment. I think the desire for revenge is something which is simply promoted by conservative christian groups.

<comment><USER37> The death penalty costs more than life in prison? Source?

<comment><USER32> It's a pretty well-known fact that execution typically costs around 10 times more than life imprisonment. Here's a page with links to multiple peer- reviewed sources, covering multiple states: [http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death- penalty](http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty).

The issue is that the appeals process is extremely expensive and time- consuming. You could conceivably simplify and streamline it (to the extent permitted by the Supreme Court, which has been mandating ever-stricter requirements for capital punishment cases), but that would make it even more unacceptably error-prone than it already is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Why can't we just get that 4% bad convictions down to 0% for the death penalty? There are many cases where no one disputes the guilt of the perpetrator, like mass shooters or murderers that film themselves in the act. Death penalties could have an even higher standard.

I've noticed a strange pattern where wealthy elites like Paul Graham are obviously very disturbed by things like the death penalty, animal rights, and tragedies they see overseas but can hardly be bothered to care about the great suffering poor people face generally.

The only issues that they care about are ones that directly affect their own conscience and mental well-being.

"The death penalty is bad because it makes me feel bad"

Whereas people who don't live such privileged lives can see so many worse problems in everyday life, like being hungry, suffering from bad/no medical care, to being victimized by street crime.

<comment><USER39> _The only issues that they care about are ones that directly affect their own conscience_

Is it not a prerequisite that a wrong begin to effect your conscience before you want to do something about it?

<comment><USER38> Yes but if you live in an elite life bubble you'll only care about things that make it through that bubble.

Why are so many rich celebrities obsessed with animal rights, the death penalty, and climate change?

Because those issues affect them personally in some way. They gnaw at their conscience in a way that the extreme suffering of hundreds of millions of their fellow citizens does not.

<comment><USER40> I don't think this is right. Climate change is not known for personally affecting anybody. It's more of an ineffable millenarian idea.

Rather, I would say rich celebrities are obsessed with animal rights, the death penalty, and climate change because those ideas are fashionable among rich celebrities, not because they're relevant to rich celebrities for any fundamental (i.e. would still apply if no one knew what the celebrity believed) reason.

<comment><USER38> Plenty of educated elites are well aware the problems climate change could cause for them personally. Civil unrest, rising sea levels, and pollution. Things personal wealth only partially mitigates.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Is it better to kill an innocent or let them spend their life in jail? Given the states of our jails, I'm not sure but I think I'd prefer death.

<comment><USER42> Well, okay, when _you_ are wrongly convicted and sentenced to life in prison _you_ can request execution. For _every other innocent person_ that's wrongly convicted let's _not murder them_ against their will, eh?

(Also, let's _fix the jails and prisons_!)

<comment><USER43> Its hard to fix the jails and prisons when widespread poverty still exists in society, for the simple reason that if the prisons offer a better lifestyle than living in the society, more people would choose to go to prison.

<comment><USER44> There are many changes that could be made to prison without making it a better option than living free but below the poverty line.

<comment><USER42> Inverting the logic: We must let or make the conditions in our prisons be harsh, harsh enough so that poor people don't commit crimes just to get "three hots and a cot" on the taxpayers' dime.

Doesn't that sound insane?

Let's fix the prisons, _and_ let's have something like a basic standard of living, below which we only let people live if they want to. I.e. so-called Universal Basic Income, or something. I think we should literally give people housing, food, water, and health care, just because.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation)

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer",

<comment><USER38> At 4% it would be "It is better that twenty five guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer."

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> IMO I cannot fathom being sure enough of anything to without doub deem someone unredeemable. To the extent that people are unredeemable is to the extent I think our rehabilitation system is failing.

</comment><comment><USER47> I like his message mainly because I agree with the death penalty in principle. If you want to be a shitty human being, with 7B people on the planet we don't really need you.

But, in practice, we will never get it 100% right. Probability of killing an innocent person will always be >0.

For that reason alone, we should get rid of it.

<comment><USER48> Nothing is 100% certain. If you perform a heart operation, there's a chance you'll kill the patient. Does that mean we should get rid of heart operations?

If you put a serial killer to death, you can be 100% sure they won't kill any more people. If you put him in prison, you can't. He may escape, or he may get released early and kill again. Or as often happens, he'll kill other prisoners whilst in prison.

It's a question of whether you value potential victims, or potential falsely convicted innocent people. IMHO the former is a far bigger problem.

<comment><USER47> This is a bit of a red herring as I am making no assertions regarding what else may or may be assured 100%.

We have different tolerance for accuracy depending on the context, and my assertion was that in this case 100% would be necessary for, at least me, to feel comfortable carrying out the punishment.

<comment><USER48> But my point is that are you just "ignoring" the other side of the argument - if you don't put a serial killer to death, there's a chance others will be killed.

If you don't put them to death, can you be 100% sure saving that life isn't going to cause more people to die?

It's not simply a case of "punishment". It's preventing further crime and deaths.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Huh, surprised to learn CA has death penalty. In "good" company with thirty other states.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_Unit...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States)

</comment><comment><USER50> I, like pg, am against the death penalty but I don't agree with the reasoning in this essay.

Of course there are error rates in our judicial system. It would be impossible to not have them. But these errors are not confined to death penalty cases. We surely wrongfully imprison some people, and wrongly fine others. That does not mean that we shouldn't have fines or prisons.

I don't see a good justification to apply this reasoning to the death penalty but not other forms of punishment.

<comment> J-dawg You can release a wrongly imprisoned person or refund a wrongly imposed fine.

<comment><USER51> You can't undo 10 years of imprisonment. You can't give back time or take away what the person had to live through.

<comment><USER52> And arguably, considering suicidal ideation of inmates and ex-inmates, may itself create death. I'd be curious to know how the rates compare with wrongful death penalty judgments.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Does a death sentence make us a better society for justice? I don't have an answer to that question. However, it is a question I prefer to not have experimented on in our justice system.

I recently watched the documentary 13th from Netflix. It really puts into perspective our pro-incarnation justice system. While capital punishment and death row is a section of our justice system, it has the highest stakes in outlining where our ethical limits reside as a society.

</comment><comment><USER54> > about 4% of people sentenced to death are innocent.

Be careful how you read this number.

This is NOT the proportion of convicts wrongfully killed. This is the number that have wrongfully received a death sentence.

A death sentence is nearly always appealed, and usually multiple times.

The number of convicts sentenced to be executed that subsequently fail every single appeal is likely far, far smaller than that statistic.

</comment><comment><USER55> When I was young, I was certain the death penalty is obviously, trivially an incorrect thing to do. Regardless of what was done, there was no cause for society to choose to take someone's life.

Now that I'm older, I worry about the possibility that banning the death penalty is an implicit acceptance of the policy of locking people away for life. According to the article 4% of people who are sentenced to the death penalty on death row are innocent. He doesn't offer statistics for the number who actually receive the punishment however given that not all people on death row are executed, and the significant resources devoted to the appeal process, the percentage of innocents who are executed must be lower than the 4% who are sentenced.

I must ask how many innocent people are sentenced to life in prison. I can't imagine anything worse than an innocent person sentenced to life in prison -- and eventually dying in prison.

If we are to make decisions about punishment taking into account the possibility of an incorrect sentence, I believe we need to be more realistic with regard to the hierarchy of punishments that we are inflicting. A sentence of Life in Prison carried to term is a worse punishment than Execution.

<comment> J-dawg The US practice of locking people up for life is pretty shocking to many people in Europe. In the UK, the number of people who will never be released is somewhere around 50, in the USA it's something like 50,000.

Maybe I'm a limp wristed liberal, but 'Three strikes' has always seemed utterly barbaric to me. Even its name being based on a sports metaphor seems totally inappropriate for something so serious.

<comment><USER55> Wow -- US population is roughly 5x the UK population, yet we have 1000x people serving life sentences ... I can't help but think of that quote that we should judge the state of a society by the state of their prisons ...

I really wish we could do something to dramatically change the prison system in the US -- its insane how much horrible inertia guides its current trajectory ... Given how much more we know about humans than we did 200 years ago, why aren't there better ideas on the role of prison and the justice system disciplining their mutual evolution than were available in the past?

<comment><USER56> I don't think the problem is a lack of ideas for a better prison system, it's that people don't care. Most people assume that they'll never be in prison and that the people who are deserve what they get—and that's if they think about it at all.

If a politician does come along and try to change the system, he's got to convince a lot of his colleagues that don't have a lot of reason to do anything, and he's got to worry someone else will come along and tell voters he's worried about making life good for criminals instead of better for good people.

There's just no incentive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Thank you, pg, for this essay, and for putting money towards Prop 62. This is such an important issue.

</comment><comment><USER28> If the motivation for ending the death penalty is to avoid taking innocent lives, what about how abortion takes innocent lives?

Regardless of where you stand on either issue, supporting one but not the other seems like hypocrisy.

</comment><comment><USER57> I suppose the best hting we can do is share this post and go vote.

</comment><comment><USER58> .

<comment><USER2> Except that historically it wasn't exactly a perfect record and faking evidence is still quite possible.

Killing someone as punishment is simply not fault-proof and the whole idea behind a justice system worthy of the name is that it tries very hard to protect the innocent _even if that means some of the guilty will go free or will escape punishment_. 'Perfect' evidence rarely is, and even confessions are not always true.

<comment><USER58> .

<comment><USER2> You actually believe that present cases have 'perfect evidence'?

Preventable deaths are a step or two removed from state inflicted and sanctioned murder.

<comment><USER58> .

<comment><USER2> > We shouldn't be coddling those who commit violent acts against others.

How is spending a lifetime in prison coddling?

> The derrent of death alone would save far many more people.

That isn't true, criminals as a rule have a hard time tying consequences to their actions, have a high incidence of mental issues. If deterrence would work at all it would be nice but it rarely does.

[http://nij.gov/five-things/pages/deterrence.aspx](http://nij.gov/five- things/pages/deterrence.aspx)

<comment><USER58> .

<comment><USER2> You are tying all kinds of societal failures to the death penalty, killing people will not solve any of that, it will in fact only make it worse.

But you're welcome to your own opinion, but 'you reap what you sow' applies to societies just as it does to farmers.

Violence projected and practiced by the state will not help in moving society to a more peaceful quadrant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> I don't find the fact that some people are found innocent to be a convincing reason to be against the death penalty. The replacement, which is life in prison, strikes me as even less appealing. How is sending someone to jail and leaving them there for 20 years only to figure out that people fucked up and the guy wasn't actually guilty - "Sorry chap, but it's only a third of your life we've ripped away from you, you've still got one third left!" \- any better? I'd rather be dead.

<comment><USER60> What if it was you? What if you were framed for a crime? Would you prefer the death penalty then or only if it's someone else's head on the line?

State murder is an ugly business that has no part in any modern society.

<comment><USER59> "What if it was me?" is exactly what I'm considering. Life doesn't have infinite value in and of itself. Consider - if you were in a coma or vegetative state, is that a life worth living, even if we have the technology to keep that person alive? If you had Alzheimer's and were gradually losing all mental faculties, would there be a point where you'd rather be dead?

I'd consider being in long-term or life prison to be the next closest thing to those examples; a life without freedom, friends, family, with the potential for a wide variety of suffering beyond that - poor medical, poor food, guard abuse, fights, solitary, rape - what in this is worth living for? Prison is specifically meant to be a punishment, not a rehabilitation. And then maybe you get out a couple decades later, everything has changed, no one will hire you, everyone has moved on...</comment></comment></comment>