541–550 of 626 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What’s the point of this thought experiment?
How can you understand fairness of pay from that information?
I still don’t understand the thought experiment. How about: Car A costs $30000, Car B costs $50000. Which is the better value? Makes as little sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When Men are being discriminated its not a contest but when women are, it is?
I'm not sure I understand if this is trying to imply I'm being sexist against men, or against women.
What is happening though is a flaw within our logical frameworks. Our cultural biases are making something evident.
If more women are underpaid than men, then that it is obviously and overtly a form of sexism... logically this implicates that If more men are underpaid than women then it is also sexism.
Instead of calling out the logical implication why do people jump to an illogical conclusion?
The question is now, do women experience sexism in terms of compensation at google or do men? Or do neither?
If the answer is neither than what does it mean when I see videos like this popping up all over my facebook feed? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pQ-fUXAeCI
High school, college, any STEM fields are all overwhelmingly biased in terms of favoring women. 57% of college graduates are women. Men are not only getting the short end of the stick but are being told by every voice that they are privileged, it’s their fault, they are bad whereas women have sooooo many extra programs and positive reinforcement to succeed. No one with a straight face can tell me women in entry level…
I thinks what I see in South Asia, many engineering disciplines have a much more women than men, like CS and Electrical Engineering. It is in disciplines like Mechanical Engineering, Industrial Engineering that there are less women than men. I think in the third world in general more women get engineering degrees than men.q
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more...
1. In countries that empower women, they are less likely to choose math and science professions: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more...
2. In the past 30 years women have made gains in traditionally male areas like law and medicine, but have gone backward in software engineering
3. Men are disproportionately on the autism spectrum
It seems to me that aiming for 50% female representation in software engineering is not necessarily something we should be aiming at
High school, college, any STEM fields are all overwhelmingly biased in terms of favoring women. 57% of college graduates are women. Men are not only getting the short end of the stick but are being told by every voice that they are privileged, it’s their fault, they are bad whereas women have sooooo many extra programs and positive reinforcement to succeed. No one with a straight face can tell me women in entry level…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are plenty of places with pay transparency and they work just fine. The information imbalance is only to the benefit of the employer.
> There are plenty of places with pay transparency and they work just fine. The information imbalance is only to the benefit of the employer. Citations?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK, let me give you an example outcome and maybe you can explain to me how the third possibility applies in a way that is meaningfully distinct from the first two. Outcome: The women working as programmers at FooSoft make on average 10% less than the men working there. Possible reasons: 1. Lack of opportunity (e.g. people in power at FooSoft have bias against them makes it harder for them to have their contributions…
Let's be specific and replace FooSoft with Google. A quick search suggests that only 20% of programmers in general are female, but 30% of Google programmers are female. I'm not certain these numbers are accurate, but if they are, female programmers are over represented at Google. That would mean Google hired a greater percentage of female programmers than male programmers. That is, if Google hired the top 0.1% of mal…
The pool of programmers "In general" is not relevant for Google. They don't hire programmers in general, but are focused on a specific subset (usually from some big universities).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you're describing here is a disparity of outcomes reflecting a disparity of opportunity, isn't it? What I'm talking about is a kind of "grassroots" disparity of opportunity. It's not necessarily the same as a "systemic" disparity of opportunity. The former can often be available to people who are literally poorer than the poor. (As has been the case for Chinese immigrants at times.) Irish Traditional music conta…
I don't think anyone here is arguing for punishment or blame, though — I certainly wasn't. All I said was that if you look at a group getting much worse outcomes and declare that their opportunities were at least as good as the group getting better outcomes, it logically follows that the members of the group are simply not capable. If you wouldn't feel confident saying that explicitly, then comments about "outcomes v…
An old schoolmate of mine who was at Google before the James Damore thing happened, was saying stuff just afterwards like, maybe it's time that males got stuff taken away from them.
All I said was that if you look at a group getting much worse outcomes and declare that their opportunities were at least as good as the group getting better outcomes, it logically follows that the members of the group are simply not capable.
Sorry, but it doesn't follow logically. I've dated two women who can code, and who can outperform students I've taught in that, but who don't like doing it at all. Their employment outcomes as programmers would be nil, because that's not what they want to do. People keep explaining this to you, and yet you keep coming out with, "it logically follows that the members of the group are simply not capable." I got a group of two who are capable, but have an outcome of zero. Proof by example, your logical assertion is wrong. (No guff about anecdotes vs. data. You're the one who said, "it logically follows," and even a group of two is enough to refute "logic.")
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Women are discriminated against in the industry as a whole I would expect in 2019, that the industry as a whole discriminates in favor of women, but I'm just a layperson when it comes to that. Do you have citations? - Google actively discriminates in favor of women It's discrimination both times. I agree.
It may be that it has changed very recently, but a few years ago there were quite a few studies that showed an anti-women bias in evaluating employees. For example, here's a quickly Googled cite that talks about a preference for resumes with male names over female: https://www.aauw.org/2015/06/11/john-or-jennifer/ This could even still be true at Google, though I don't have insight into whether or not it is. It seems…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is what happens when you aim for equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity. People throw this accusation around all the time, but it doesn't make much sense. Outcomes are the only holistic way to measure opportunity. If you're seeing one group getting lesser outcomes, there are only two possibilities: Their opportunities are being artificially limited somewhere , or one of the groups is simply bet…
Your problem is that you're measuring outcomes only in terms of money. Maybe women value time & family more than money & success?! Women do yoga. Men do martial arts. Which is "better"? Which is the "lesser outcome"? None. It's just a difference (in preferences and therefore outcome).