Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge • Hacker News Board

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#631

Post by reader5000 » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 7:01 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #616

reader5000 wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are more male programmers than female. Please explain how invoking genetic differences explanations is pseudo scientific, whereas invoking systematic discrimination explanations is not pseudo-scientific. Consider: There are more male rapists than female rapists. Is this because female rapists are systematically discriminated against? Does our society shamefully teach children that raping is only for boys? Or ar…

The difference is that we have a theory of causation and evidence that the causal factors exist. We can point to studies showing that identical resumes with female names are half as likely to get called back, and we have a workable theory of how things like that affect gender ratio. These theories are backed by a real-world social experiment: when we eliminated many explicit forms of discrimination that existed in pa…

Yes, when affirmative action becomes status quo, you get a stable population of whoever you are affirming into the profession. However, that is not removing an explicit form of discrimination but rather introducing one.

Certainly, it is quite difficult to predict what psychological profile will succeed in a particular profession. But observing that males tend to succeed in programming is not begging the question whether males have relative genetic predisposition to programming (especially at the top 0.1% google level) but rather serves as evidence for the proposition.

When we observe for instance that Asians are overrepresented as programmers, we don't use that to infer that non-Asians are discriminated against, but rather that for whatever reason Asians seem to possess some trait profile, possibly genetic, possibly not, advantageous for programming work.

I'm not claiming that women were never discriminated against, just that it does not appear to be the best explanation for the observed large trends in gender ratios. For instance it doesn't explain male/female behavior differences in other arenas like criminality while genetic differences does.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#632

Post by gaius » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 7:06 AM UTC

imron wrote: post #613

waterhouse wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For context, one should note that the word "neuroticism" is not used as a regular English word, but is one of the "Big Five" traits in psychology, which comes from factor analysis of personality surveys. Its "definition" would be something like "An underlying quality that correlates with answering 'Agree/Strongly Agree' on these questions and 'Disagree/Strongly Disagree' on those questions". Damore did not note this…

> Damore did not note this in his memo, He kind of did - in fact when he used the word 'Neuroticism' he linked to the exact article you linked to above (the main article, not the sub section on age sex and geographic differences). Unfortunately Buzzfeed (edit: got this wrong, it was actually Gizmodo) decided to strip all the links (and a few charts) out of the version of the document they published, and so many peopl…

To be fair to Buzzfeed (can’t believe I just wrote that) we don’t know if they did, or if the mystery person who leaked it did.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#633

Post by pjscott » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 7:07 AM UTC

sangnoir wrote: post #606

psyc wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the context of the memo, he followed the neuroticism claim with a suggestion to "make tech and leadership less stressful", in order to help make the workplace more inclusive to women. You appear to assume that the whole thrust of the memo was to argue that women aren't suitable. The stated aim of the memo was to explore ways of reducing the gender gap, other than quotas. People are mad because about 4 statements o…

> In the context of the memo, he followed the neuroticism claim with a suggestion to "make tech and leadership less stressful", in order to help make the workplace more inclusive to women While appearing to be very scientific, the memo offers no science to backup the underlying assumption with that line of thought("The reason there is a gender gap is because women can't deal with the high-stress environments of tech/…

That's a leap that he explicitly encourages people not to make: populations have a lot of variation, and to look at a difference in means as a categorical difference, to convert "women have a higher population mean for trait X" into "women are more X", is wrong both mathematically and ethically.

(... And, yeah, I feel kind of pedantic here, but on this particular topic the people who don't think about it in terms of probability distributions are doomed to talk nonsense, and getting this right actually matters. So.)

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#634

Post by throwaway324823 » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 7:07 AM UTC

dbnoch wrote: post #621

reader5000 wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are more male programmers than female. Please explain how invoking genetic differences explanations is pseudo scientific, whereas invoking systematic discrimination explanations is not pseudo-scientific. Consider: There are more male rapists than female rapists. Is this because female rapists are systematically discriminated against? Does our society shamefully teach children that raping is only for boys? Or ar…

I wont answer the Consider* part of what you said because it's a straw man argument and should be treated as such. There are more male programmers than female NOW* but that wasn't the case 50 years ago. Systematic discrimination has been proven as fact, with palpable examples (I shouldnt have to google this for you). The 'genetic differences' that this memo quoted have been proven wrong by science... making it psuedo…

Where are those genetic differences proven wrong, exactly? Because from what I've read, many scientists ranging from evolutionary to behavioral psychologists don't agree with your stance. For example: http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-...

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#635

Post by DoreenMichele » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 7:10 AM UTC

reader5000 wrote: post #604

rayiner wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just the history of computer science. Damore's essay was based on time-tested pseudo-scientific reasoning, the sort that has been invoked to exclude women in many different fields. When law firms offered Sandra Day O'Connor a secretarial job after she graduated third in her class at Stanford, do you think they said "we just don't like women?" Of course not. They couched their bias in appeals to the differenc…

There are more male programmers than female. Please explain how invoking genetic differences explanations is pseudo scientific, whereas invoking systematic discrimination explanations is not pseudo-scientific. Consider: There are more male rapists than female rapists. Is this because female rapists are systematically discriminated against? Does our society shamefully teach children that raping is only for boys? Or ar…

Many jurisdictions define rape in a manner that requires that the person assaulted be penetrated. Under this definition, it is literally impossible for a woman to rape a man, except in cases where that definition would include anal penetration with an object other than a penis. In most jurisdictions, this would be defined as sodomy, not rape.

I don't have stats on sexual assault handy. But I can tell you that, yes, our society does, in fact, teach children (and adults) that rape is something only boys do. This is a fact.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#636

Post by kingofhdds » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 7:16 AM UTC

fjsolwmv wrote: post #607

cma wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He says: >that these differences may [emphasis added] explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership And he says one of the differences is a higher drive for status. That is one way it could change without the 80's thing being counter-evidence, if the status of practitioners and/or leadership in the field changed for some reason (maybe Bill Gates becoming the richest man in the world).…

This is well researched in the feminist sociology literature. When a "women's job" (like teaching or nursing) becomes more respected, pay goes up, and... The industry gets an influx of men working in it.

I'm not sure it's supported by a really wide research. Scandinavian countries boast high equality ratings, and feminism being a part of political mainstream, AND social/tax system, which significantly reduces gap between high-, and low-salaried positions as well as competition between employees. And still tech is essentially a male field, and nursing - female-dominated.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#637

Post by techservative » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 7:16 AM UTC

fzeroracer wrote: post #468

The problem with Damore's theory he posited (that the difference in traits and abilities between men and women is why you see a certain imbalance in tech) ignores the history of computer science, where in the early days of CS you had a large amount of women entering into software followed by a sharp dropoff in the 80s [1]. The 'biological differences' argument falls flat because it implies that somehow women changed…

This explanation in the NPR piece is so thin, so poorly researched and so speculative I simply am not able to accept it.

The entire narrative stinks, we need a better one backed by actual data.

Look at the graph, women in STEM falls closer to 1986, when Reagan passed the immigration reform act.

Doesn’t it seem suspicious that Reagan immigration reform landed right on top of this decline?

I do agree that the standard explanation of “men are mean and took women’s jobs” is correct, but I don’t think people are willing to take it one step further and say: “Why did men suddenly become mean when they were egalitarian before?”

With Reagan immigration reform: Chinese, South American and Indian immigrants, especially eldest sons who are expected to support their entire extended families back home, were more free to enter the county and picked high paying engineering fields and pushed out competition (Americans) not willing to spend 18 hours per day studying math and science. This remains true to this day where 80% of masters degrees go to immigrants.

These immigrants would mostly be men because these cultures are male dominated, at least at the time.

The explanation that men suddenly became “mean” in the 1980s and drove women out fails for the same reason that your argument about women’s biology couldn’t have changed either. An influx of meaner men would explain what happened perfectly.

If you open the flood gates to people with different cultural values (especially male dominance), women are going to get pushed out.

My frustration is Liberals in general will refuse to see this part of the argument and instead go with: “white men became mean in the 80’s.”

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#638

Post by pokemongoaway » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 7:17 AM UTC

fzeroracer wrote: post #468

The problem with Damore's theory he posited (that the difference in traits and abilities between men and women is why you see a certain imbalance in tech) ignores the history of computer science, where in the early days of CS you had a large amount of women entering into software followed by a sharp dropoff in the 80s [1]. The 'biological differences' argument falls flat because it implies that somehow women changed…

You're on the wrong side of this thing - it is insanely silly to imply someone should be fired from a tech company for a "theory he posited" (your words).

How about some references for your second paragraph. I've seen statistics floating around proving you wrong...

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#639

Post by burfog » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 7:18 AM UTC

fjsolwmv wrote: post #607

cma wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He says: >that these differences may [emphasis added] explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership And he says one of the differences is a higher drive for status. That is one way it could change without the 80's thing being counter-evidence, if the status of practitioners and/or leadership in the field changed for some reason (maybe Bill Gates becoming the richest man in the world).…

This is well researched in the feminist sociology literature. When a "women's job" (like teaching or nursing) becomes more respected, pay goes up, and... The industry gets an influx of men working in it.

Cause: at the original wage, supply is low and demand is high

Effect: wages rise

Effects of that effect: men choose the job, and respect increases

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#640

Post by imron » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 7:21 AM UTC

gaius wrote: post #632

imron wrote: post #613

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Damore did not note this in his memo, He kind of did - in fact when he used the word 'Neuroticism' he linked to the exact article you linked to above (the main article, not the sub section on age sex and geographic differences). Unfortunately Buzzfeed (edit: got this wrong, it was actually Gizmodo) decided to strip all the links (and a few charts) out of the version of the document they published, and so many peopl…

To be fair to Buzzfeed (can’t believe I just wrote that) we don’t know if they did, or if the mystery person who leaked it did.

To be fair to Buzzfeed it turns out I remembered it wrong and it was Gizmodo who originally published the memo, I've corrected that in my comment, but we do know that they stripped it on purpose, stating in the article: "The text of the post is reproduced in full below, with some minor formatting modifications. Two charts and several hyperlinks are also omitted."