Makes me actually respect Google! Would have not expected them having such an open culture that lets controversial viewpoints survive.
Do you think the person who wrote this will survive (not being fired)?
10 page anti-diversity screed circulating internally at Google
11–20 of 158 posts
Re: 10 page anti-diversity screed circulating internally at Google
#12> I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.…
How can they not? It's an optimization problem, of sorts, from an evolutionary psychology prospective.
Re: 10 page anti-diversity screed circulating internally at Google
#13Anyone who says that this guy's opinion shouldn't matter should consider that he likely interviews female candidates, sits on hiring committees that evaluate female candidates, decides whether or not female engineers get promoted, etc.
This guy is saying he would hire the best candidate regardless of gender or other byas. He wont promote women over men just because they are women, he will look at the individual skills and select the fittest for the position.
Note: He is also saying that leadership and tech skills are more frequent in men than in women and that the biology could be the reason.
I once heard a scientist (female) in this area that it is stupid to think that the brains of males and females are the same when clearly the evolution make males and females so biological differents that the brain cannot be the only exception when it is the more complex organ in our bodies.
Re: 10 page anti-diversity screed circulating internally at Google
#14Deleted
Can you please expand on the moving to Singapore part?
Re: 10 page anti-diversity screed circulating internally at Google
#15>Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with violence and isn’t backed by evidence.
This is something that's part of "training" at Google?
Re: 10 page anti-diversity screed circulating internally at Google
#16Diversity always seems like a silly objective.
Of all things, why focus on race and gender? How about hairstyle? Why not height? Maybe I feel like my weight is not represented fairly!
I'm just poking fun. Those aren't real questions.
The author promotes the only diversity that matters: diversity of thought.
Anything else should at worst a proxy to get some.
Re: 10 page anti-diversity screed circulating internally at Google
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
He covers that right at the beginning: > you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions. His screed is instead concerned with distribution across populations (such as Google's).
Somehow I don’t see a guy who says that women “in general” aren’t as technically capable giving similar weighting’s to a woman who went to a women’s college to a man who went elsewhere.
I think it is clear that he complains the company promote women over men to increase the diversity and that the company should look to the individual skills. That the reason of the difference in the diversity could be biological and not gender bias and that the company should study this as a possibility too. Not ignore it and try to equally the number of females and males in the company
Re: 10 page anti-diversity screed circulating internally at Google
#18Simple response to his thesis: there used to be more women in programming... back when it was harder.
Re: 10 page anti-diversity screed circulating internally at Google
#19Diversity always seems like a silly objective. Of all things, why focus on race and gender? How about hairstyle? Why not height? Maybe I feel like my weight is not represented fairly! I'm just poking fun. Those aren't real questions. The author promotes the only diversity that matters: diversity of thought. Anything else should at worst a proxy to get some.
I think we split based on gender and race because those are clear discriminators. Height or hairstyle are more fuzzy, and probably biologically less relevants to adapt to the environment.
Probably height is more relevant for leadership than gender: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1368430212437211
Re: 10 page anti-diversity screed circulating internally at Google
#20Simple response to his thesis: there used to be more women in programming... back when it was harder.
was it harder before? Are you sure? I think your response doesn't change his argument, before tech was less relevant for the economy, so it was less stressful and had less status. That is why it wasn't interesting for men to get into it and preferred other jobs with more status and stress (and bigger salaries). But now the top companies are tech companies.