The now-infamous Google diversity memo

[jdshock]

Follow up question...if there are no differences between men and women, then why is diversity valued? Won't they all have the same opinions as men?

I never said they're identical.

Even if they were biologically identical, diversity of experiences can help in decision making and creative thinking. If I had an identical twin separated at birth and he were raised in a poor neighborhood in NYC and he's gay and he is disabled or any number of other traits that differ from my experience, he would still provide a different viewpoint in terms of his collection of experiences despite being biologically identical.

[ShockCrazy]

While being in the profession may lead you to some conclusions about the state of the occupation, it does not qualify you to determine biological predispositions, as an aggregate. Evolutionary psychology very clearly, and without controversy demonstrates that babies, less than six months old, have a neurological response to different things across the sexes. As an aggregate, baby boys respond to things and baby girls respond to people. This is also true of baby chimpanzees, and all other ape/monkey species.

Additionally, personality traits are different, as an aggregate, across adult men and women. These differences correlate to the biological predispositions as infants. I think before we say that it is societal, that we must consider these items either as truth, with an explanation, or that we must dispel them entirely. If you can link these items, I would appreciate it.

I am not arguing there are no predispositions. I am saying predispositions don't account for the difference. Just look at other science fields, there is much more balance in representation, but engineering and computer technology lag waaaaay behind. https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm I whole hardheartedly believe the majority of the difference is a societal issue. I've seen it soooo often. The biases exist: http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474. Also I am likely done citing, I and jdshock are the only ones who consistently cite sources for information. Many people who are on the majority opinion on this board gets away with saying verifiable false things(see political preferences of the leadership in technology based companies), but the second someone dissents, everyone expects a cite, it's exhausting. And I like citing but I'm not going to do the work if no one else is. Also example here you mention the male and female baby response, which does seem to be true, but again no cite.

[shockmonster]

These kinds of videos drive me crazy because they're this "gotcha" style argument that really only persuades people who are already in his side.

1. The diversity committee almost certainly doesn't make every hiring decision for Google. Google could have discriminatory hiring practices coming from certain managers and the diversity committee would be put in place to combat that.
2. It just totally ignores that it could be that fewer women choose tech because of sexist reasons. Maybe we're socializing young girls improperly. Maybe women see tech as a sexist industry and don't choose to go that route. In order to combat those things, a company could choose to hire a disproportionate amount of women (i.e., 80% of coders are men and google hires 30% women coders).
3. It's not even a proper "gotcha." Like, yeah, maybe Google loses its lawsuit and is found to discriminate against women but as a liberal I still support a company embracing more diversity efforts. There's not some innate contradiction here.

For this video to "drive you crazy" illustrates your unwillingness to look at both sides. This video was not extreme at all and stated a logical point of view that is shared by many as well as Scientific studies, who probably have mothers and daughters who they love and who they wish to have fullfilling lives and careers. For you to discount the Science that backs up their views and then go to the extreme and support Google for firing them because they are "sexist" shows your unwillingness to discuss these differences.

[jdshock]

For this video to "drive you crazy" illustrates your unwillingness to look at both sides. This video was not extreme at all and stated a logical point of view that is shared by many as well as Scientific studies, who probably have mothers and daughters who they love and who they wish to have fullfilling lives and careers. For you to discount the Science that backs up their views and then go to the extreme and support Google for firing them because they are "sexist" shows your unwillingness to discuss these differences.

It feels like this kind of came out of left field. I watched the video. 99% of people getting in arguments online don't watch/read/listen to the support offered by the opponent. You seriously believe I'm an example of someone with an extreme belief on the subject? Read my first post on the subject. And literally the only other opinion I've provided on the subject of the firing is that people are typically going to get fired when they bring negative national attention to their employer.

Now, re-read my post. A defense of the engineer's opinion is not what drives me crazy. @wufan: doesn't drive me crazy. Videos that purport to put forth an impenetrable logical defense of an argument without a clear answer tend to drive me crazy. And, honestly, I'm probably guilty of the same, and I'd like to work on it. But I presented three reasons his logic failed. I did not provide three defenses of Google.

[shockmonster]

It feels like this kind of came out of left field. I watched the video. 99% of people getting in arguments online don't watch/read/listen to the support offered by the opponent. You seriously believe I'm an example of someone with an extreme belief on the subject? Read my first post on the subject. And literally the only other opinion I've provided on the subject of the firing is that people are typically going to get fired when they bring negative national attention to their employer.

Now, re-read my post. A defense of the engineer's opinion is not what drives me crazy. @wufan: doesn't drive me crazy. Videos that purport to put forth an impenetrable logical defense of an argument without a clear answer tend to drive me crazy. And, honestly, I'm probably guilty of the same, and I'd like to work on it. But I presented three reasons his logic failed. I did not provide three defenses of Google.

I think that he did give a clear answer but you didn't like his answer. I may have taken your "driving me crazy" and "gotcha" comments outside of the context you intended for them. It sounded to me like you didn't accept his opinion as differing from yours, but still a reasonable view to be taken that isn't "intentional sexism" (I don't share that it was sexism but accept your opinion that it was). But whatever, your opinion, I still don't see why you or anyone else who supports diversity of opinion would support Google for firing this employee.

The proper response of anyone who wants to have opinions expressed (even opinions of which they disagree), would be that Google had the legal right to fire this employee because they are a private company. However, they shouldn't have fired him because they support reasonable differences of opinion.

[wufan]

I am not arguing there are no predispositions. I am saying predispositions don't account for the difference. Just look at other science fields, there is much more balance in representation, but engineering and computer technology lag waaaaay behind. https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm I whole hardheartedly believe the majority of the difference is a societal issue. I've seen it soooo often. The biases exist: http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474. Also I am likely done citing, I and jdshock are the only ones who consistently cite sources for information. Many people who are on the majority opinion on this board gets away with saying verifiable false things(see political preferences of the leadership in technology based companies), but the second someone dissents, everyone expects a cite, it's exhausting. And I like citing but I'm not going to do the work if no one else is. Also example here you mention the male and female baby response, which does seem to be true, but again no cite.

I totally understand you not wanting to cite references if I haven't done so. I actually tried to find references that contraindicated my view and couldn't, thus I was looking to see if I had missed something. My apologies for the authoritarian tone of my post (which is apparent on rereading it).

So back to the discussion: There are biological/genetic predispositions for the sexes. If there are biologic predispositions, then is it right to nurture them out? To what ends and for what gain? If it is societal, then why do these dispositions proceed forth into adulthood across all all societies/cultures (I.e. Free western countries)? If you'd like citations, I can pull them up this weekend.

[wufan]

These kinds of videos drive me crazy because they're this "gotcha" style argument that really only persuades people who are already in his side.

1. The diversity committee almost certainly doesn't make every hiring decision for Google. Google could have discriminatory hiring practices coming from certain managers and the diversity committee would be put in place to combat that.
2. It just totally ignores that it could be that fewer women choose tech because of sexist reasons. Maybe we're socializing young girls improperly. Maybe women see tech as a sexist industry and don't choose to go that route. In order to combat those things, a company could choose to hire a disproportionate amount of women (i.e., 80% of coders are men and google hires 30% women coders).
3. It's not even a proper "gotcha." Like, yeah, maybe Google loses its lawsuit and is found to discriminate against women but as a liberal I still support a company embracing more diversity efforts. There's not some innate contradiction here.

The really good arguments are 45-90 minutes long. This was a sum up.

[wufan]

The premise was not that biological traits make women bad coders. The premise was that biological traits, as an aggregate, make females less likely to choose coding than males, and that rather than forcing women to choose against an aggregate predisposition, that women and men should be judged individually based on merit. Second, the author suggested a few things that are more likely to lead to women choosing coding as a profession. If he stated that women were not as good at coding, please point that out.

@jdshock:, was this an inaccurate representation of the google manifesto, or did the author say that women are on average worse coders than men?

[MoValley John]

These kinds of videos drive me crazy because they're this "gotcha" style argument that really only persuades people who are already in his side.

1. The diversity committee almost certainly doesn't make every hiring decision for Google. Google could have discriminatory hiring practices coming from certain managers and the diversity committee would be put in place to combat that.
2. It just totally ignores that it could be that fewer women choose tech because of sexist reasons. Maybe we're socializing young girls improperly. Maybe women see tech as a sexist industry and don't choose to go that route. In order to combat those things, a company could choose to hire a disproportionate amount of women (i.e., 80% of coders are men and google hires 30% women coders).
3. It's not even a proper "gotcha." Like, yeah, maybe Google loses its lawsuit and is found to discriminate against women but as a liberal I still support a company embracing more diversity efforts. There's not some innate contradiction here.

Maybe tech just doesn't interest many women. Maybe most women just don't want to work in the industry, therefore, we might be making something out of nothing.

[ShockCrazy]

I totally understand you not wanting to cite references if I haven't done so. I actually tried to find references that contraindicated my view and couldn't, thus I was looking to see if I had missed something. My apologies for the authoritarian tone of my post (which is apparent on rereading it).

So back to the discussion: There are biological/genetic predispositions for the sexes. If there are biologic predispositions, then is it right to nurture them out? To what ends and for what gain? If it is societal, then why do these dispositions proceed forth into adulthood across all all societies/cultures (I.e. Free western countries)? If you'd like citations, I can pull them up this weekend.

My argument isn't that there isn't predisposition, nor that there aren't conscious decisions responsible for some of the employment difference(it's absolutely not all), my point is that he has been quite reductionist, and pointlessly simplified the issue in his view that we should just treat people like people. While that is true, it ignores that there is bias in tech, and the culture is driving women away(the rate of women seeking employment in the tech industry has actually decreased in the past 15 years, which is not the case in other STEM fields), until these things are removed from the culture through the types of programs that Google has instituted, we can't just treat people like people, because those that make decisions don't actually just treat people like people. So while what he said wasn't inherently wrong, it also completely ignores the entire purpose of the programs, why they exist, and why they remain necessary.

Also I read most of the studies on predisposition I could find, most indicate while predisposition does it exist, it does not account for the large disparity we see in these industries.

[MoValley John]

My argument isn't that there isn't predisposition, nor that there aren't conscious decisions responsible for some of the employment difference(it's absolutely not all), my point is that he has been quite reductionist, and pointlessly simplified the issue in his view that we should just treat people like people. While that is true, it ignores that there is bias in tech, and the culture is driving women away(the rate of women seeking employment in the tech industry has actually decreased in the past 15 years, which is not the case in other STEM fields), until these things are removed from the culture through the types of programs that Google has instituted, we can't just treat people like people, because those that make decisions don't actually just treat people like people. So while what he said wasn't inherently wrong, it also completely ignores the entire purpose of the programs, why they exist, and why they remain necessary.

Also I read most of the studies on predisposition I could find, most indicate while predisposition does it exist, it does not account for the large disparity we see in these industries.

Maybe, just maybe, women don't want to work with geeky men. Maybe, just maybe, women are as good coders as men, maybe better, but they'd rather do something else. With that, maybe geeky men coders, who can't get dates anyway, are equally intimidated by these few women that work alongside, and therefore, have now idea how to behave.

[MoValley John]

Have we ever surveyed women, those in other STEM fields, to see if coding even interests them?

[MoValley John]

Why aren't there more female morticians? Do we need to fix that?

[jdshock]

I totally understand you not wanting to cite references if I haven't done so. I actually tried to find references that contraindicated my view and couldn't, thus I was looking to see if I had missed something. My apologies for the authoritarian tone of my post (which is apparent on rereading it).

So back to the discussion: There are biological/genetic predispositions for the sexes. If there are biologic predispositions, then is it right to nurture them out? To what ends and for what gain? If it is societal, then why do these dispositions proceed forth into adulthood across all all societies/cultures (I.e. Free western countries)? If you'd like citations, I can pull them up this weekend.

Off the top of my head, I remember he specifically states that women, in the aggregate, or more prone to higher levels of stress and anxiety, they have a harder time leading, and they have a higher value for work life balance. All of those things would make you a "worse" coder to the extent such a job requires those traits.

Which, he believes those jobs do require those traits, since he is saying women avoid these jobs because of the traits. At least in regards to these traits, he is saying women self-select out of a profession that they, in the aggregate, would be worse at than men.

[jdshock]

The really good arguments are 45-90 minutes long. This was a sum up.

Maybe tech just doesn't interest many women. Maybe most women just don't want to work in the industry, therefore, we might be making something out of nothing.

I think people misunderstood this post. The author of that youtube video believed he had come up with a logical proof suggesting Google supporters were contradicting themselves. I provided 3 reasons that his logic failed.