The now-infamous Google diversity memo

[RoyalShock]

http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/08/read-the-google-diversity-memo-that-that-everyone-is-freaking-out-about/

I haven't read the whole thing, but it sounds like a whole lot of common sense. So naturally, fire the author.

[SB Shock]

http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/08/...ing-out-about/

I haven't read the whole thing, but it sounds like a whole lot of common sense. So naturally, fire the author.

I read the whole thing. I actually thought it brought up some good points for discussion. But as always the left doesn't want the discussion and will shut it down.

[wufan]

http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/08/...ing-out-about/

I haven't read the whole thing, but it sounds like a whole lot of common sense. So naturally, fire the author.

This is FANTASTIC! Should the author choose to push his case, this will put the first amendment right of protected free speech up against the anti-harassment legislation of the past few decades. As a society the logical wormhole will have to be addressed as to which rights are more important: the right to free ideas, or the right to be free of insults.

[jdshock]

I disagreed with just about everything in the memo. I'm also adamantly opposed to any of these "biologically men are superior at X intellectual activity" arguments.

That said, could Google have done a better job making this guy's point for him? I mean, it'd be like me calling shockernet an echo chamber for only having conservative viewpoints and then getting banned for it.

[wufan]

I disagreed with just about everything in the memo. I'm also adamantly opposed to any of these "biologically men are superior at X intellectual activity" arguments.

That said, could Google have done a better job making this guy's point for him? I mean, it'd be like me calling shockernet an echo chamber for only having conservative viewpoints and then getting banned for it.

Banned! I kid.

You disagree that an aggregate of women display different personality traits than an aggregate of men?

[ShockingButTrue]

It has the appearance of a moral crusade...

[jdshock]

Banned! I kid.

You disagree that an aggregate of women display different personality traits than an aggregate of men?

I disagree that there are biological differences that make an aggregate of women worse coders than an aggregate of men. Historically, men scored higher on IQ tests than women. Then we started allowing women to go to school, and now there's functionally no difference between women IQs and men IQs: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/201207/men-women-and-iq-setting-the-record-straight

So instead of just saying "yeah, maybe there are biases in society" or even saying "maybe there are biases in the way we socialize women" people are still trying to point out these biological differences. But the same line of argument has been disproven historically.

[ShockCrazy]

I disagree that there are biological differences that make an aggregate of women worse coders than an aggregate of men. Historically, men scored higher on IQ tests than women. Then we started allowing women to go to school, and now there's functionally no difference between women IQs and men IQs: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/201207/men-women-and-iq-setting-the-record-straight

So instead of just saying "yeah, maybe there are biases in society" or even saying "maybe there are biases in the way we socialize women" people are still trying to point out these biological differences. But the same line of argument has been disproven historically.

As a coder, I also disagree with his premise. He says that women have more interest in people and men in things, which I think is just a systemic result of how we've conditioned boys and girls to have those interests. Also I think many women don't stay in STEM fields because of how they are treated by male peers. Having been in the classes, many men are either predatory or condescending towards women in STEM classes. They aren't treated as equals, and I can definitely see how that would get old and then bail out.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

@jdshock:, do you believe that any portion of women's differences from men's (speaking of personality, abilities, emotional traits, etc.) are biological, or do you believe that is all due to the nuture (rather than nature) side of the equation?

[jdshock]

@jdshock, do you believe that any portion of women's differences from men's (speaking of personality, abilities, emotional traits, etc.) are biological, or do you believe that is all due to the nuture (rather than nature) side of the equation?

Are you also talking about physical differences? There are clearly biological differences between males and females. In regards to many of the issues like personality or emotional traits, I don't have all the answers.

To me, it's an occam's razor situation. Women and minorities have historically been discriminated against. Some on this board were alive for Jim Crow laws. I'd wager most of our parents were alive for it. To me, it's easier to believe prejudices in hiring practices and prejudices in the way we socialize boys and girls account for the majority of the differences. For example, the stats on blind orchestra auditions show that women get significantly more parts in symphonies when the auditions are blind: http://gap.hks.harvard.edu/orchestra...male-musicians

From my perspective, historical data shows women and minorities are prejudiced and when you get rid of the prejudice you see more equal hiring. Additionally, historical arguments about biological differences in intelligence have been discredited as we've seen greater education efforts. To me, that means a lot of it is probably socialized and I wouldn't be quick to hang my hat on data that tries to argue biological differences. I don't know, though. I think there are a variety of reasons to support diversity efforts, so I guess I probably just don't think about it that much.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I find it truly fascinating that liberals will argue about sexual orientation saying "I was born this way" with no basis other than experiential claims, yet will deny that gender differences, which literally manifest different physical and chemical traits, could possibly also lead toward differences in personality, interests, etc.

[shockmonster]

Science doesn't agree with the question of nature (how much are women/men hard wired differently) vs. nurture (society makes them different). There is no doubt that every person is different and to put them in boxes is not a positive step to a fair outcome. But I do think that talking in generalities here, testosterone vs. estrogen leads to a different outcome continuum. I was listening to a leading expert and researcher in the area of transgenderism. They were talking about transgender persons being allowed to participate in athletic events as a member of the opposite gender. He said that just because you are injecting estrogen into a male for him to be female, you still end up with a effeminate male (not a female). All of the tissues in the body, and other factors in the body that originally are there don't allow that person to become a female. The body has too many factors and is too complex to totally change a person, and therefore if he/she is a biker, he/she would have an advantage over other females entered into the race. You just can't change the biology enough. He also said that kids that were asked to make decisions at the age of 4-10 to decide which gender they are, aren't able to make that decision.

Whatever our beliefs, the human body and also the brain imo are too complex for us to know everything and every person is different. But if you are only talking in generalities, it's difficult to not see the differences.

[ShockCrazy]

Science doesn't agree with the question of nature (how much are women/men hard wired differently) vs. nurture (society makes them different). There is no doubt that every person is different and to put them in boxes is not a positive step to a fair outcome. But I do think that talking in generalities here, testosterone vs. estrogen leads to a different outcome continuum. I was listening to a leading expert and researcher in the area of transgenderism. They were talking about transgender persons being allowed to participate in athletic events as a member of the opposite gender. He said that just because you are injecting estrogen into a male for him to be female, you still end up with a effeminate male (not a female). All of the tissues in the body, and other factors in the body that originally are there don't allow that person to become a female. The body has too many factors and is too complex to totally change a person, and therefore if he/she is a biker, he/she would have an advantage over other females entered into the race. You just can't change the biology enough. He also said that kids that were asked to make decisions at the age of 4-10 to decide which gender they are, aren't able to make that decision.

Whatever our beliefs, the human body and also the brain imo are too complex for us to know everything and every person is different. But if you are only talking in generalities, it's difficult to not see the differences.

People always look at transgender females, but also forget about transgender males: http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/27/us/tex...old/index.html He wants to compete against boys, but rules state birth certificate is how it is determined. So he won, the girls championship. So if that's acceptable where do we draw the line in women's sports for testosterone doping?

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

People always look at transgender females, but also forget about transgender males: http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/27/us/tex...old/index.html He wants to compete against boys, but rules state birth certificate is how it is determined. So he won, the girls championship. So if that's acceptable where do we draw the line in women's sports for testosterone doping?

Simple. You aren't allowed to take performance enhancing drugs. If you do, you don't compete. Any other option results in silly results where "traditional" girls are at a huge disadvantage effectively competing with boys.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Science doesn't agree with the question of nature (how much are women/men hard wired differently) vs. nurture (society makes them different). There is no doubt that every person is different and to put them in boxes is not a positive step to a fair outcome. But I do think that talking in generalities here, testosterone vs. estrogen leads to a different outcome continuum. I was listening to a leading expert and researcher in the area of transgenderism. They were talking about transgender persons being allowed to participate in athletic events as a member of the opposite gender. He said that just because you are injecting estrogen into a male for him to be female, you still end up with a effeminate male (not a female). All of the tissues in the body, and other factors in the body that originally are there don't allow that person to become a female. The body has too many factors and is too complex to totally change a person, and therefore if he/she is a biker, he/she would have an advantage over other females entered into the race. You just can't change the biology enough. He also said that kids that were asked to make decisions at the age of 4-10 to decide which gender they are, aren't able to make that decision.

Whatever our beliefs, the human body and also the brain imo are too complex for us to know everything and every person is different. But if you are only talking in generalities, it's difficult to not see the differences.

I agree with a lot of that.

The Google guy was really pretty straightforward and I just don't think it should be that controversial. Men and women, on average, are different. We should not expect 50/50 representation in all jobs. We don't even need to agree on all the details here, or be able to calculate exactly what those differences are and how strongly the lean male or female, just that there are differences, to some extent, for some reason, on average.

So, what does he say to do? Treat people as individuals. Don't set quotas. Hire the most qualified and the best fit. Let the demographics sort out however they do.