[deleted]
The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science
331–340 of 684 posts
Re: The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science
#332The article hides a common but incorrect assumption. Look at this paragraph: > As mentioned in the memo, gendered interests are predicted by exposure to prenatal testosterone – higher levels are associated with a preference for mechanically interesting things and occupations in adulthood. Lower levels are associated with a preference for people-oriented activities and occupations. This is why STEM (science, technolog…
> So why aren't the management layers of tech companies composed of mostly women? Because why people say "men and women are just interested in different things", they really mean "women are interested in, and better at, looking after babies, and men are better at everything else".
So, according to you, there is no statistical difference in preference between men and women? Is that not at odds with the entire field of evolutionary psychology?
I'm not saying that "women should be carers", I'm saying that there are personality traits that women are statistically more likely to have due to how we evolved as primates (the evidence of which has been cited widely). Those personality traits may result in different life decisions being made, especially traits related to being stress-averse. Again, I did not say that women cannot program, I said that there are statistically significant biological biases that need to be accounted for.
In my mind, the biggest problem with the under-representation of women is that school-level education about technology is horrific. That's not a problem you can solve at the tail-end of the pipe (and it's not helpful telling the pipe that it's sexist).
Re: The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science
#333Not much new here. This article is essentially just re-affirming all the scientific statements that were already made in the original memo, backed by links to scientific studies. Only difference being that the author of this article has a PhD in sexual neuroscience (so people might have a harder time accusing her of not knowing what she's talking about) and is female (so some people might have a harder time of accusi…
The issue with the original article was two-fold: 1. It used strawman arguments. Notably that the world is looking for a 50/50 split in gender ratios. Most reasonable people believe that even in ideal equilibrium state that this is not the expected outcome (although I'm sure there exist some people that push for 50/50 or greater). But that the current ratio is not the ideal equilibrium state. The author of the paper…
> the world is looking for a 50/50 split in gender ratios. Most reasonable people..
This exact target has made it into more than just a few institutions.
> He selectively uses research
In inviting discourse, he is also inviting "the other side" of the argument to do as much the same. I think his effort was big enough without raising the bar - why not bear the burden of evaluating the evidence alone? This memo is explicitly a work in progress, the choice to cherry-pick sources that support his conclusions is purposeful, since he is trying to demonstrate the that the status-quo might be wrong.
> climate change deniers often..
There is something of an active debate on that topic, I haven't heard of any tech worker fired for discussing the issue.
> but there is a time and a place
Did he not release to the correct forum? What is the correct time and place? I'd also note: statements have implied/pragmatic meanings. A statement like "I'd have sex with [Catherine]" would be assumed to have an implicit meaning. The memo, in contrast, is pretty explicit in its stated aim.
> then he's done that too
Well, maybe. He certainly lit a match..
Re: The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science
#334If all this science were the end all be all, the low level engineers would be men, and men with their evolutionary handicap for empathy would be none of the managers, leaders, designers, product managers. That's how it is right?
Independent of the other things wrong with your argument, I find it curious that you think that designers are among those who benefit from empathy. Given knowledge of aesthetics, psychology and the general identity of the target audience, empathy should be all-but-unnecessary for a designer.
(Edited for clarity; namely, the italicized clause is new.)
Re: The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science
#335Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well said, it's a massive leap to go from biological gender differences to differences in aptitude for engineering. The gross oversimplified claims from the document that attempt to make this leap are textbook stereotypes.
> massive leap to go from biological gender differences to differences in aptitude for engineering For the n million-th time : the memo said nothing about aptitude for engineering, just preference .
I agree that the document blurs the line between preference/aptitude and is not totally clear which is one of the reasons overall it is a mess.
Nonetheless, many of the statements in "Personality differences", "Men's higher drive for status", and "Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap", especially the stuff about women being more prone to anxiety, liking part-time work, caring more about people than things, etc. speak strongly to aptitude for engineering, given the context of the document.
EDIT: Also, I reject the implication that the claim "women have less of a preference for engineering" is not in and of itself a harmful stereotype.
Re: The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science
#336As mentioned in the memo, gendered interests are predicted by exposure to prenatal testosterone – higher levels are associated with a preference for mechanically interesting things and occupations in adulthood. Lower levels are associated with a preference for people-oriented activities and occupations. This is why STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields tend to be dominated by men. And why we…
This is anecdotal. But a testament on how difficult this problem is. I have two nieces and 1 nephew, all of which I've tried to encourage into programming. I have tried to get my nieces interested in programming with great difficulty but my nephew has taken to it almost instantly and effortlessly. I suspect I am framing the activity wrong.
This is also anecdotal. I'm a female working as a technical lead. When trying to describe what I do to non-tech-worker female friends that ask, I often find that they get a look of slight confusion and state things such as "wait, that actually sounds like an interesting job!". It's as if their entire experience of computers, maths and tech is boring, so they think working with them must be as well.
I think how girls get introduced into STEM subjects has to change. I also think it would be worthwhile continuing to encourage adult females to give things like programming a go as well, even if they've tried in the past and didn't like it. Most of the barriers to interest seem to be how the subjects are talked about, as opposed to the subjects themselves.
Re: The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science
#337What I find interesting about all this is how many people take personal offense from statistics. (and conclusions drawn from statistics) The author seems to put an effort into explaining statistical distribution and what it means and what not. He's explicit that statistical observations can't be used to judge particular individuals. Draws a graph of overlapping distributions to drive the point home even more. I'm not…
Do you really find that interesting though? Isn't that incredibly obvious?
My biggest problem with all this is how the author gave absolutely no thought to how his female coworkers would be affected by this. These are REAL women who have to interact with him every day. They are not just statistics who are on average less likely to be good engineers than he is. They are supposed to be on the same team. I can't see how any of his women coworkers wouldn't think of him differently after this.
This was not a paper released on the internet with no ties to his coworkers. By sharing it at work and tying it in with google he made it personal. The women reading it have no choice but to make it about them, because it is about them! They are the ones who interacted with programs that he is against. Everything he talks about is stuff they actually experience. And throughout the entire thing he shows that he does not care at all about these women.
Re: The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science
#338Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's subtle, but yes. These 2 lines essentially state that as women are more interested in people, there are some roles they might not be able to perform. A little further down he makes a similar claim that since women look more towards work life balance, technical and leadership roles may not seek out leadership roles as much as men. This can be used again to claim women don't belong in those roles. This is also bul…
The author mentions many many times throughout his memo that these are 'average' observations and by no ways representative of the entire female population. The author did not say that all women are more interested in people, merely that there is a higher proportion in comparison to the male population. The author suggests that when these average statistics propagate into life decisions and employment preferences, yo…
The author advocates for ending programs designed to get more females into technology and leadership positions because he views them as discrimination. His basis is precisely what you mentioned, that on average women are X. In his mind, the fact that men are more status oriented than women means that men will be disproportionately in leadership roles. That's "just the way it is" and we should accept it and create "separate but equal" opportunities (part time work in this case). It's not outright discrimination, but it's ignoring several other factors that cause women not to seek leadership positions. He's trying to use some very basic differences and ignoring a much broader picture.
Re: The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science
#339Earlier quoted context omitted.
By firing him they took ownership.
Or they firmly distanced themselves from the author, just like what happened to both sides in Donglegate. Not sure if the author can sue the company though, I mean on what grounds was he fired?
He has already filed a complain with the NLRB and is intending to sue.
Re: The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science
#340> But sexism isn’t the result of knowing facts; it’s the result of what people choose to do with them. We know that men are taller than women. I can see you agreeing, but actually this statement is ambiguous, because these two are not the same thing: A man is taller than a women On average, men are taller than women Sexism is taking a random male and a random female, and claiming that despite all the facts presented…
> our four-year old son suddenly lost interest in 'Frozen'
As a counterpoint, if society was as clear that "My little pony" was also not for boys, Bronies might not exist..