> Microaggression training wat? They now train people in microaggressions at work? Is the "training" mandatory?
It's not mandatory.
[deleted]
The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google
51–60 of 660 posts
Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google
#52I agree that giving someone an unfair advantage because of their gender or race is a form of discrimination. Gender and race are just two of many factors that individuals might struggle with when it comes to their career and life.
If you're an introvert, short, fat, nerdy-looking or you have a weak posture; there's no support group to offset your shortcomings and all the insidious ways in which they will sabotage your career! It's no coincidence that CEOs look like and talk like CEOs - We live in a superficial world and we are animals; there is no need to moralise things; it might just come across as hypocrisy.
Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google
#53[deleted]
Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google
#54The intellectual contortion required to get from the premise to the conclusion is actually quite impressive. > On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because: > They’re universal across human cultures Except the gender ratio in science/engineering is anything but universal across cultures. 70% of science/engineering students in Iran are women: ht…
> Except the gender ratio in science/engineering is anything but universal across cultures. 70% of science/engineering students in Iran are women: https://www.forbes.com/sites/amyguttman/2015/12/09/set-to-ta.... Indeed, in many parts of the world that are not known for being "liberal" with regard to gender equality, women make up a significantly higher percentage of the scientific workforce than in the U.S.: http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-science-technology-e.... (44% in Latin America, 40% in Eastern Europe, 37% in the Arab states).
Later in the document he goes on to point out that gender disparities are greater in more liberal countries (e.g. great disparity in US than Iran, greater disparity in Finland than in the US). Interpreting this as our culture being somehow more oppressive (and then Finland's even more so) requires an "impressive level of intellectual contortion" - if anything it seems to be evidence that there are differences in preferences, and therefore greater freedom -> greater divergence.
Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google
#55It is one thing to debated the veracity of a view, it is another to declare that that view should not be debated. For every point there is a counterpoint; every argument a counterargument. Arguing that the reasoning is flawed is not sufficient to ban it from discussion.
If there's one thing decades of arguing on the Internet has taught me, it's that debate is highly overrated. And if there's anything decades old social science research has taught me, it's the Overton Window: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
I believe that most arguing over the internet doesnt qualify as debate, and consider it somewhat of a lost skill. Critical thinking/analysis is not undertaken by most people, particularly on the internet.
Debate is a cornerstone of democracy - to take the climate change example, anyone should be able to question it, and the evidence for it should be what persuades the majority of people, leading to a decision. In these cases, debate is a very effective mechanism. Unfortunately, people don't tend to engage and debate properly.
A good, reasonably relevant read (5 min) is Isaac Asimov's A Cult Of Ignorance, which I think goes some way to explaining the lack of engagement with debating.
Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google
#56It is one thing to debated the veracity of a view, it is another to declare that that view should not be debated. For every point there is a counterpoint; every argument a counterargument. Arguing that the reasoning is flawed is not sufficient to ban it from discussion.
If there's one thing decades of arguing on the Internet has taught me, it's that debate is highly overrated. And if there's anything decades old social science research has taught me, it's the Overton Window: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
[deleted]
Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google
#57I don't really understand why this is getting so much attention. It's just some guy's opinion.
It's a toxic set of opinions that's unfortunately very representative of large numbers of white male tech employees. It's getting attention because it's useful to see laid out so clearly the biases, blatantly wrong assertions, and invalid logic such folks use to perpetuate the idea that "everything's fine in tech hiring".
Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is bad with the good. The suggestion that men and women ARE different is taboo. The premise that the differences between them are social as opposed to literal is a much easier way to force the same point (and IMO more correct but I respect I lack the science to be certain). This person lacks tact and the way they view the entire political sphere as just left/right is ultimately of concern. Way too simplistic ou…
It's perfectly all right to say that there are statistical differences between the average biological man and the average biological woman. The problem is to then assume a gigantic pile of facts not in evidence (that the differences observed are 100% biological with no cultural influence whatsoever, that they conclusively explain gender disparities in many fields, etc. etc.) and accuse anyone who disagrees with you o…
Except he didn't say that the differences we observe are 100% due to biology. I'm actually pretty shocked at how much of this thread seems to deliberately mischaracterize what he wrote.
Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is bad with the good. The suggestion that men and women ARE different is taboo. The premise that the differences between them are social as opposed to literal is a much easier way to force the same point (and IMO more correct but I respect I lack the science to be certain). This person lacks tact and the way they view the entire political sphere as just left/right is ultimately of concern. Way too simplistic ou…
Yeah. I was willing to give him a fair hearing until he listed a handful of differences between men and women that he ascribes to biology without any factual support. And therein lies the unconscious bias against which he is railing. To him, there is no question that men and women, on average, are fundamentally different in ways that affects their ability to and interest in work in tech. I agree with him that folks s…
Having personally experience the effects of different levels of testosterone I find it hard to believe any claim of the differences between men and woman at the population level not at least in part being biological.
Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you know about women in CS in Iran? How many of them end up working in CS? I wouldn't jump to conclusions just because you find such outliers. Some weird mechanisms might be driving such numbers (like people not being given a choice what to study, people being forced to study something useful because they can't afford to study literature or gender studies for fun, women studying just to meet men to marry, men…
> I wouldn't jump to conclusions just because you find such outliers. Some weird mechanisms might be driving such numbers
[deleted]