> Asian American culture leads to personalities which are not considered leadership-worthy in WASP culture.
On the face of it, there is no way to tell if this is the actual cause of a phenomenon or merely a rationalization for an irrational bias.
One might invoke Occam's razor at this point, and say that the simplest explanation - that it is the actual cause, not a rationalization for something else - is the most probable one, but:
"The same is true for people from most cultures -- African immigrants, Eastern European immigrants, and most other types of immigrants behave in ways which are too foreign."
- the more one advances this point, the more clearly it becomes obvious that foreign-ness is the one common factor in all the cases.
Based on your last paragraph, I think we are both making essentially the same point.
There are differences between cultural and racial bias. Namely, you can fake cultural fit.
It’s common for people to adopt a persona for climbing the corporate ladder, because it works. Looking at people from any racial or ethnic background who succeed and you find they fit the organization they climbed. Not all US companies fit the corporate MBA mold, but it’s extremely common and tends to take over most companies as they age or grow.
I am not saying that’s a good thing, but learning the rules of the game are a basic prerequisite for winning.
I suspect that the issue here is that learning the rules, or otherwise playing according to the rules, is not necessarily enough in the face of deep-seated stereotypes.
Deep seated stereotypes play a role, but there are many forces at work. Most people are going to fail either way. That’s simply an outgrowth of a pyramid with fewer openings at the top.
If 10x more people of type X than type Y play the game and people of type X make it to he top 10x more frequently then that’s in line with this model. Currently there are for example 4 black CEO’s of Fortune 500 companies, which is really low.
But, if the proxy is say MBA graduates in 1990, that’s also low. Family connections further muddle the water etc. It’s clearly not a level playing field by any means.
Except that this pattern doesn't hold for Indian immigrants. (The research is out there, I invite you to go find it.) So it's not fundamentally about foreignness, but rather about the uneven distribution of certain qualities amongst different population groups.
One could argue that the problem is at root with the American? Western? structural bias in favor of extroversion and assertiveness, but you need de-mystify the dynamics involved in the first place to make that case clearly.
> Except that this pattern doesn't hold for Indian immigrants.
Except that the post I am replying to is not just about Indian inmmigrants, and, as I specifically make a point of, says the same about quite a wide range of origins.
> I invite you to go find it.
If you can't be bothered to support your case, I can't be bothered to do so for you - especially as I suspect that it is beside the point.
On the face of it, there is no way to tell if this is the actual cause of a phenomenon or merely a rationalization for an irrational bias.
One might invoke Occam's razor at this point, and say that the simplest explanation - that it is the actual cause, not a rationalization for something else - is the most probable one, but:
"The same is true for people from most cultures -- African immigrants, Eastern European immigrants, and most other types of immigrants behave in ways which are too foreign."
- the more one advances this point, the more clearly it becomes obvious that foreign-ness is the one common factor in all the cases.
Based on your last paragraph, I think we are both making essentially the same point.