Cognitive differences observed in GENERAL != bad engineers for ALL. The memo was a rambling incoherent mess.
> bad engineers for ALL
He didn't say that all (or even most) women were bad engineers.
The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science
91–100 of 684 posts
Re: The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science
#92Why is it that nobody wants to fix the gender gap in nursing?
Re: The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science
#93As 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 see fields like law being dominated by women, right?
EDIT: I, and I suspect most other scientists wouldn't disagree that there are [edit - had this as aren't previously, woops!] physiological differences between men and women, but as I read the memo, that was not what was being argued. What was being argued was that those differences were the reason for the gender imbalance in tech (i.e. women are predisposition to be less interested/capable in STEM fields), in other words, the effect size associated with biological sex is larger (and indeed must be significantly larger) than any/all combined societal/'nurture' effects.
Re: The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science
#94I fail to understand how a memo calling for MORE diversity can get headlined as "anti-diversity memo" on all big media outlets. Do journalists even do independent research anymore or are they just regurgitating whatever reuters send their way without scrutiny? Debate me instead of downvoting please. Downvoting is like forfeiting a discussion and shows that you question your own narrative.
As far as I could tell from the coverage (I couldn't get past the first few paragraphs of the memo), it asks for more diversity in terms of right-wing/conservative thinking, and for Google to stop encouraging women to apply. On the surface – that's asking for both more and less diversity, however Google rejects the idea that conservative views (that are compatible with Google's HR policies) are discouraged, which wou…
The coverage has been near-uniformly garbage. Read the memo and make up your own mind.
Re: The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science
#95I am always surprised that well educated people who are definitely not "creationists" but consider evolution as a way human kind developed are ready to ignore evolution when it comes to gender. Clearly man and woman are different physically and mentally as for millenias they played different roles. Why "gender people" keep ignoring that and are claiming that sex is not something inborn and is a "cultural" phenomena i…
Was literally reading about this last night in "The Gene, An Intimate History": https://www.amazon.com/Gene-Intimate-History-Siddhartha-Mukh...
Couldn't help but think of this troubling incident while reading about it.
Re: The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science
#96Not 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…
> backed by links > PhD in sexual neuroscience > female There's a LOT that's new here, relative to Damore's memo.
the first was cited as well, though news sources removed the citations.
Re: The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science
#97Flagged. This is just a shitstorm in a teacup. EDIT: 2 minutes in and I'm already being downvoted. Stop being sexists, stop oppressing me
> I disagree, so I'd better flag this submission to keep people from reading it and discussing it
Re: The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
> backed by links > PhD in sexual neuroscience > female There's a LOT that's new here, relative to Damore's memo.
the first was cited as well, though news sources removed the citations.
That's really interesting. Do you have a link to the un-molested version?
Re: The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science
#99Cognitive differences observed in GENERAL != bad engineers for ALL. The memo was a rambling incoherent mess.
My company has an anonymous internal forum and I don't even like asking simple HR questions on there! I once complained about my disuse of my dependent care FSA going unnoticed. That's as far as I'm willing to go. A touchy subject like this from someone with a technical background to a large group of people... I guess Google has a lot of employees and it was bound to happen eventually but seriously, how do you hit se…
AFAIU, but I cannot reference, this was sent to a limited group of people, got forwarded and then became viral.
Re: The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science
#100Not 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…
I personally never called it out for sexism. I called it out for regressive-thinking as a solution based on plain fact. I can only be brief right now, but it's starting to get to me how so many people in an innovative sphere seem to have such a hard time with this. To me, it seems like it shouldn't be a second thought. If the main argument is that women do not [by nature of our scientific understanding] have minds tu…
>If the main argument is that women do not [by nature of our scientific understanding] have minds tuned to engineering prowess to the extent that men do for whatever cause, then just how does that itself prescribe that we should stop pushing for an expansion there?
That's not the main argument and I think you should re-read the "manifesto" if that's what you walked away with.