CSTA: Google Surveying Educators On Unconscious Biases of Students, Parents

theodp writes: According to a Computer Science Teachers Association tweet, Google is reportedly asking educators to assess the unconscious bias of students and their parents for the search giant. "We are in the early stages of learning how unconscious bias plays out in schools, and who would benefit most from bias busting materials," begins the linked-to 5-page Google Form, which sports a ub-edu@google.com email address, but lists no contact name. "This survey should take 15 minutes to complete, and your responses are confidential, meaning that your feedback will not be attributed to you and the data will only be used in aggregate form." The form asks educators to "list the names of organizations, tools, and resources that you have used to combat unconscious bias," which is defined as "the attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious manner." A sample question: "Who do you think would benefit most from unconscious bias training at your school (or program)? Rank the following people in order (1=would most benefit to 5=would benefit least) training: Student, Parent (or guardian), Teacher (or educator), Guidance counselor, Principal." Google deflected criticism for its lack of women techies in the past by blaming parents' unconscious biases for not steering their girls to study computer science, suggesting an intervention was needed. "Outreach programs," advised Google, "should include a parent education component, so that parents learn how to actively encourage their daughters."

Comments

Please Stop. Enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nothing in western society stopping women from pursuing technical careers except women themselves. They are given every possible advantage.

Yeah, blame the parents

[MikeRT]

Of course the reason they didn't steer their daughter into computer science is "bias" and not "we are the two people who know our daughter the most for the last 18 years of her life and most likely can steer her toward what would make her happy." Because the happiness of diversity coordinators matters more the happiness of the actual women being fought over here.

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[Anonymous Coward]

This right here.
Rather than concluding that the parents are screwing up, we should conclude that girls and boys are different and there is nothing wrong with an unequal number of men and women in particular jobs.

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[AmiMoJo]

Do you understand what "unconscious bias" actually is? It's not actively steering the child at all, it's making assumptions and reacting certain ways that pushes them away from STEM. It happens right from birth, let alone after 18 years. You could at least try to understand the basics before throwing in your opinion.

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[Sique]

As I have a daughter, I know better. Of course bias is a big part of it, expressed verbally and non-verbally. Parents and grand-parents who give their daughters princess dresses for christmas and act gleefully if the daughter wear it, express a bias. Parents who at the same christmas complain if the daughter plays to much on the new computer express a bias. Television programming where the only computer affiliate is a dorky guy who might be brilliant at computers but is awkward at anything else expresses a bias.

Yes, you can actually spark interest in computer science. Yes, you can actually kindle the awakening interest and encourage it. Yes, you can actually make a point in not mentioning that interest in computer science is not a typically girlish thing.

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[Sique]

Rather than concluding that the current situation is somehow normal and will never change, we should look in the past and in other regions of the world, where the biases were and are different and thus the numbers of men and women in particular jobs differ from what we see here. And then we wouldn't blame it on "girls and boys are different", because then we would know that it has not so much to do with the differences between girls and boys but more with the choices we as parents, as relatives, as teachers, as classmates and as a society make conciously or inconciously for our children.

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[smittyoneeach]

Well, it's "blatantly obvious to even the most casual observer" that if your daughter's choices don't fit The Narrative, it's because you're a H8er, or something.

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[nospam007]

"As I have a daughter, I know better. Of course bias is a big part of it, expressed verbally and non-verbally. Parents and grand-parents who give their daughters princess dresses for christmas and act gleefully if the daughter wear it, express a bias."

Not only that. In Germany, they found out that teachers are unconscious biased against lower class pupils on the sole first-name the kids have. Because lower class parents often name their kids like celebrities or characters in TV-shows, while the more educated classes name their kids more traditionally.

If the kids are called Kevin, Bejoncé, Kanye or Ronny for example, they get lower grades for the same content.

The bias has even a name, it's called 'Kevinism'.

https://namecurator.wordpress....

http://www.ctvnews.ca/kevin-ch...

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[Rob Lister]

Regarding Kevinism, did they confirm the bias was unjustified? Did they take a subset of all papers with the names redacted and have them regraded in a blinded manner? Neither article you linked to goes to that depth.

Perhaps those children really are a bit more dim-witted. Causation: genetics. :)

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[Runaway1956]

What is obvious to a discerning person, is that Google is engaged in a social engineering campaign, not terribly dissimilar to the campaign waged by Kellogs in the late 1800's and early 1900's. http://mentalfloss.com/article...

You say, ". . . assumption that their differences are significant to influence . . ." And, I say that you are being judgemental and subjective. When 80% of a group of people tell you that they are not interested in something, THAT IS SIGNIFICANT! It's alright for you, and Google, to try to understand WHY that group of people are uninterested in $activity. It is NOT acceptable for you and Google (or Kelogg's) to try to force changes in those people.

Unproven assumption? How about empirical data?

Historically, males have been the risk takers, and females have by choice taken fewer risks. Guys do outrageous shit, and girls seldom do anything terribly outrageous. That's the way it is.

I say, "Fuck off, Google!"

All of that said - if there are any of you who overtly or covertly DISCOURAGE girls/women from working in STEM careers, you can fuck off right along with Google and company. Freedom. Freedom is all about doing whatever the hell you WANT TO DO!

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead, I have concluded that the only reason this is a problem for people is because it's a desk job with more men than women.
No one is researching the bias leading to medical schools with 90% women.
No one is researching the bias leading to 99% male construction workers, or garbage men.
That's the reason for my disdain for these people.
They don't care about equality. They care about being seen to care about equality.

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[MikeRT]

Parents and grand-parents who give their daughters princess dresses for christmas and act gleefully if the daughter wear it, express a bias.

Shocking that parents are happy when their daughters like feminine things. It's almost like they don't think they're defective males and their views on clothing is orthogonal to computer issues.

Parents who at the same christmas complain if the daughter plays to much on the new computer express a bias.

There's nothing biased about that unless it's clearly hostility to the idea of women spending a lot of time on it. Unless she's doing "something geeky" with it like learning how to write code, doing semi-advanced artistic work, etc. then they probably have a point. I knew plenty of parents of boys who told their kids to GTF off their computer and go outside because all they were doing is surfing the web and playing games. Nothing biased about that either.

Television programming where the only computer affiliate is a dorky guy who might be brilliant at computers but is awkward at anything else expresses a bias.

And in real life, geek =~ dork to a lot of people, particularly women and particularly with younger geek males. A number of us grow to the point of being able to match the charisma and confidence of "normal men," but many of don't get there. We have not, and likely never will, reach a point where this stuff is considered cool on par with sports and stuff like that.

Most of the reasons why geek culture is considered more palatable is because the STEM industry booms combined with the decline in many fields has reduced our economic competition for social status. If you haven't been paying attention, the legal profession has been hit very hard by a glut of graduates and a dearth of positions that pay a wage better than a VB6 legacy app maintenance position.

Yes, you can actually spark interest in computer science. Yes, you can actually kindle the awakening interest and encourage it.

Yes you can do it. Statistically, you won't and for the same reason that you will never kindle an interest in "nurturing jobs" in a majority of males no matter how aggressive you are.

I know a very religious family that has a very good track record of getting their daughters into STEM fields. The older daughter was naturally interested, so they just put the opportunities there in front of her. You know how they got their younger daughter involved? They told her that if she couldn't prove how she was going to support herself on the degree, they wouldn't pay for it. Didn't matter to them what she chose, just couldn't be something stupid like a BA in Psychology or Political Science. Worked like a charm at motivating her to be practical. Turns out that rather than focusing on bias, forcing women to choose a productive major or simply not go to college on their parents' dime works pretty well.

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[One With Whisp]

If the kids are called Kevin, Bejoncé, Kanye or Ronny for example, they get lower grades for the same content.

What, so the grading is performed arbitrarily? This is unacceptable. Who cares about the "kevinism" part, this reveals a far more serious issue. If there is no objective basis by which to grade the object, be it a test or paper, then it simply cannot be graded period.

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[Sique]

Of course people are also researching the bias leading to medical schools with 90% women. You just don't hear too often about them, because you are not working in the field. Your disdain is mainly fed by your confirmation bias. One of my main customers is a large health care provider with about 15,000 employees, and if I am on site, I see the information announcing research papers about exactly that topic: Where does the gender disparity in the health care professions come from?

And thus I conclude, that there is similar research in the field of construction workers or garbage men, you just don't know about it, because you are neither a construction worker nor a garbage man.

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[LaurenCates]

Maybe they're not interested in the current workforce dominated by males with sexist attitudes and L337 approaches?

Citation needed that the world is actually like this, please. I see this assertion everywhere with no evidence whatsoever to back it up.

When engineering projects are made that catter to the specific differences and interests of females (such as toy construction sets that are less centered on their pure mechanical structure and more on their usage and applications, [kickstarter.com]) the approval rate of girls towards is shown to increase. (The pink color seems to help in this case, BTW). This may very well a chicken-and-egg problem: women are not interested in science and tech because nowadays there's nothing interesting in it for them.

Nowadays?

People are interested in what they are interested in. They'll gravitate towards the things they fancy. If they don't want Legos, pink or otherwise, they'll find something else to do. That's the way it's always been.

I admit I don't know the full effect of a thing being pink has on girls in general, but on girls who are actually interested in building things, the color hardly matters because the desire to build is greater than having a pink thing. I daresay that the girls who treated the Legos with colorblindness are the ones that will eventually turn out to be the engineers that we so very much want girls to be in the first place, and the ones who chose the pink ones just wanted pink things because they were pink.

If your "empirical evidence" is mindless repeating of gender stereotypes, you lose an internet. Where's the connection that STEM people must be "risk-takers" (or that women don't do outrageous things, for that matter)?

Well, see your first statement. You lose one, too.

STEM is seen as "high-risk" because it's regarded as a harder field to succeed in. "Harder" is generally associated with "higher risk". How hard is that to understand?

No one is saying women don't do outrageous things. It's that they do them in far lesser numbers than men do. I can't tell you why, to be honest. But find me an arena where women are more dominant in doing outrageous things than men. The only one I can think of is Roller Derby, which coincidentally, doesn't really have a "male" component, does it?

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[Runaway1956]

You point to some pink toys, as evidence that boys and girls are being treated differently. Now, look at those pink toys, and tell me more about them. WHY do pink toys increase a girl's interest? Come on, dig deep.

Mindless repeating of stereotypes. You are obviously superior, in that you mindlessly repeat liberal talking points.

I say again, if the girls WANT to work in STEM, get the hell out of their way. If they DO NOT WANT to work in STEM, STFU and let them do what they want to do.

Stop PUSHING the girls into occupations that they may or may not want. Just STFU and sit down, and let the girls be whatever they want to be.

The arrogant cocksucker who occupies the White House told women that he doesn't WANT them to be housewives. WTF does anyone care what he WANTS? Rhetorical question - I know exactly who wants the wives out of the homes, and I know why. Dragging Mommy out of the house opens the door for baby sitters, social workers, school administrators, and more to get involved in the child's life. So, Mommy is down the road, slaving away to earn some money (part of which the government takes away from her) to PAY for all of the baby sitting, etc ad nauseum.

Did I mention social engineering in my post above? Yes, I did. Social Justice warriors don't like the nuclear family, they don't even like an extended family. So, they are working to destroy the family. Social engineering. Look around you. It's blatantly obvious.

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[GrumpySteen]

Historically, males have been the risk takers, and females have by choice taken fewer risks. Guys do outrageous shit, and girls seldom do anything terribly outrageous.

Pursuing a career in a field that has high demand and better than average pay is neither risky nor outrageous.

When your 'facts'* have nothing to do with what you're arguing for, you should probably step back and reconsider whether your position makes any sense or not.

*scare quotes because the so-called facts presented are gender stereotypes enforced by society which are being held up as evidence that those stereotypes must be natural.

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[Sique]

Parents and grand-parents who give their daughters princess dresses for christmas and act gleefully if the daughter wear it, express a bias.

Shocking that parents are happy when their daughters like feminine things. It's almost like they don't think they're defective males and their views on clothing is orthogonal to computer issues.

You got it reversely. At first, it's the parents and the grand parents and other relatives who gives princess clothes as presents and then act gleefully. Only after that positive reaction, girls show interest in being a princess, and then parents and grand parents give new girlish presents and again show happiness if the girl smiles. Don't underestimate the amount of impression you make on a child until it conciously expresses interest in some thing and disdain for others! Each toy shop with "girl aisles" and "boy aisles" enforces the gender disparities. Each clothing shop with pink clothing for girls and blue clothing for boys enforces the disparities again. You radiate a message to the child with your bias, which behaviour you consider normal and acceptable and which one you would rather classify as non-typical.

I've seen it unravelling with my daughter. At first she showed interest in the stuff her older brother played with, and in the neighborhood, there were (just by chance) mainly boys. Then a new family moved in with two daughters, and suddenly princesses and horses were all the rage. But when the family left again, the interest in both diminished, princesses were forgotten very soon, horses were of interest until age 9, and now she's mainly interested in computer games, watches countless "lets play" videos, bought a Wii U and a PS4 from the money she begged from the relatives instead of birthday and christmas presents, refuses to wear dresses at all, and in junior high, she took Robotics as optional topic. She likes dystopial novels and movies. And no, she doesn't want to go into STEM, she wants to become a writer for a living (I don't know how this will work out in the end).

People who discount the enormous environmental influences on the choices of young people and who believe in a "natural" interest of boys into STEM and of girls into everything non-STEM seem to be oblivious of the actual situation.

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[Runaway1956]

"Pursuing a career in a field that has high demand and better than average pay is neither risky nor outrageous."

Oh, yeah. Now - where is this demand that you speak of? How do you spell "H1B" and "illegal alien"? The education department is busy dumbing down the population, and here you are proposing that STEM workers are in high demand.

And, all the while, I'm still bitching that all the SJW's are busy with their social engineering agenda. One more time, JUST LET THE GIRLS DO WHATEVER THE HELL THEY WANT TO DO!

It takes an arrogant son of a bitch to tell a girl that she CANNOT go into engineering. It takes an equally arrogant son of a bitch to tell her that she MUST go into engineering. Why can't she decide for herself?

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[Curunir_wolf]

Maybe they're not interested in the current workforce dominated by males with sexist attitudes and L337 approaches?

More likely, they don't give a crap about that, they just want to pay as little money as possible, that's their only goal.

This latest effort is just an attempt to deflect criticism of the gender mix in their own workforce, by blaming the "unconscious bias" in educators and parents for their inability to find qualified females for their workforce. It's closer to the truth to say that the cheap Indian and Chinese labor they want is mostly made up of men, very much more so than the field of US candidates.

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[AmiMoJo]

No one is researching the bias leading to medical schools with 90% women.

Actually there are people researching that. Lack of male nurses is a problem. The American Assembly for Men in Nursing offers support and scholarships in the US, for example.

No one is researching the bias leading to 99% male construction workers, or garbage men.

I spent five seconds searching for this on Google and it turns out that actually there is plenty of research and academic discourse on this subject, as well as newspaper articles and the like:

http://www.arcom.ac.uk/-docs/p...
http://www.academia.edu/634834...
http://www.equalityhumanrights...
http://www.theguardian.com/sus...
http://www.theguardian.com/sus...

People do care, you are just too lazy to even type a few words into Google.

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[CrimsonAvenger]

As I have a daughter, I know better.

I have a daughter as well.

And, oddly enough, a wife. The wife is also a programmer.

Oddly enough, with both parents programmers, my daughter expressed absolutely no interest in programming. No, I don't believe her teachers had more influence than her parents....

Though she's starting to express an interest in doing Minecraft mods, just because the mods she likes haven't been updated as promptly as she wishes they were....

Re: Yeah, blame the parents

[Anonymous Coward]

Women don't technically need to do outrageous things because of intrinsic gendered value. Men don't have intrinsic value, they can't spontaneously reproduce and they need to achieve something to be deemed "worthy". See Male Disposability.

Women don't need to prove anything, they're the judge, jury and executioner of genetic continuity. Nearly 100% of women will enjoy reproductive success, some lesser (and declining) number of men will.

To understand a lot of behaviors it's easiest to talk about sex and children. I know it's become unfashionable and not politically correct but the base human condition and biology haven't changed. Men will alway rattle antlers and try to gore each other. Women will always roll their eyes while we do that, but they're still placing bets on who wins (and trying to get his phone number). We're seeing the collective eye-roll now and social reconditioning of men. We're doing this for the good of men, so they can be fulfilled and happy and whatever hippy garbage you want to insert there. Just know that a man that follows the rules is a zeta male and defacto sexually undesirable (see "bad boys", "rebel without a cause"). So we're really training men under force of corporatism to render themselves extinct. We're committing gendered genocide in the name of political correctness, but that's okay. It's fashionable right now. Men don't have problems (TM). Patriarchy. Etc.

*eye-roll*

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[ranton]

How many people here were not constantly "expressed bias to" by their parents and peers telling us to get off the computer and go outside? Men and women that want to have careers in technology do so in spite of those complaints.

Some people need different levels of encouragement than others. And I wouldn't be surprised if one truly physical difference between men and women is women being more social than men, and therefore requiring more social validation on average.

My brother and I are a good example of different people needing different levels of encouragement. I was pretty self-motivated, but my brother needed more involvement from my parents. The end result was both of us becoming very educated (my brother with a doctorate and me with a masters). But knowing how my brother was in grade school and high school, I doubt he would have succeeded like he has without the extra effort of my parents. Neither would I for that matter, but to a lesser degree.

Just because women on average might need more social validation to explore STEM fields does not mean they have an innate dislike of these career paths. It simply means our society may have to treat different genders differently to obtain the same end result. And this same result is not a 50/50 split in all careers, but a society where everyone can find their passion equally even if it does not take equal effort to find their passion.

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[AmiMoJo]

I say again, if the girls WANT to work in STEM, get the hell out of their way. If they DO NOT WANT to work in STEM, STFU and let them do what they want to do.

Agreed. That's what this is all about, what Google is trying to get. "Get the hell out of their way", as you put it. Get rid of the unconscious steering away from STEM that parents and teachers are doing. Presumably you welcome their efforts.

Social Justice warriors don't like the nuclear family

I'm having real trouble nailing down what an SJW is. I'm occasionally accused of being one, but I like nuclear families. At best the term seems to be very ill defined and simply mean "someone I disagree with on social issues".

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[ranton]

Oddly enough, with both parents programmers, my daughter expressed absolutely no interest in programming. No, I don't believe her teachers had more influence than her parents....

But do you think that in a world where there were no parental biases, 100% of children would pick the same career as one or both of their parents? Because that is what you are implying with your post. Perhaps if you said your daughter has no interest in math, science, or computers your argument would be a little more on point.

Though she's starting to express an interest in doing Minecraft mods, just because the mods she likes haven't been updated as promptly as she wishes they were....

Sounds like you are just not waiting long enough for her to find her lifelong interests. Not everyone has to start programming at the age of 10. Expressing this type of interest, even if there isn't follow through yet, is often where a career in STEM starts.

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[GrumpySteen]

Why can't she decide for herself?

Let's look at a recent survey:

* More than half of girls (53 percent) ages 16 to 24 feel they lacked the confidence to do whatever they wanted to do after puberty.
* Almost all girls (89 percent) feel there is pressure to conform to the way they're supposed to feel and act.
* Sixty percent of girls believe that society's expectations have a negative impact on their life.
* Girls are almost twice as likely as boys to say they did not feel comfortable doing an activity in school because of their gender.

Why can't she decide for herself? Because society is filled with arrogant assholes who insist that women must conform to the traditional roles that women have always been confined to. Any woman who dares to stand up and make a different choice is harassed, abused, derided and shoved back down.

This is about trying to remove the social pressures that force women to conform to traditional roles, not forcing them to become engineers. You don't like that idea, so you're trying very hard to make a straw man work, but it's just making you sound like an arrogant asshole who wants to keep the status quo in place.

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[Runaway1956]

"It takes a village to raise an idiot" If you've frequently heard comments to that effect, then you've been in the presence of an SJW. They tend to view children as the responsibility and/or the property of the state. Child services around the nation seem to attract these kind of people. Whether a child services case worker happens to be a SJW or not, you seldom notice them - but when a SJW disagrees with a responsible parent or guardian, they have no qualms shouldering that responsible parent aside.

This bitch, for instance, who knew better than Mother OR her three children - http://jezebel.com/judge-who-j...

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[Curunir_wolf]

Wish I had mod points. You nailed it.

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[Runaway1956]

One thing about the status quo - it doesn't stay quo for long. Do you have ANY idea how much society has changed in the past few decades? Even in the past fifteen years, with our current "war on terra"?

Supposing that I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and agreed that women are held down against their will - WTF gives a corporation the right to start a social engineering campaign like this? Social change should be a grass roots thing, not something imposed by a corporation. If social change isn't grass roots, then it should at least be led by members of the oppressed population.

Ask yourself - "What does Google stand to gain from pushing women into STEM?"

I've got an answer for you. More women in a field means lower wages for EVERYONE! You just watch - if Google gets it's way, you won't see women promoted to six digit salary positions. Instead, you'll see wages cut!

Before you argue with that, why don't you look at some of Washington's best known women's advocates. What are THOSE bastards paying their staff members? They uniformly pay their female staff less than their male staff.

Bottom line - the women are just being USED BY Google to achieve the shared goal* of reducing wages in this country.

Shared by most of corporate America, as evidenced by requests for increased H1B quotas, the refusal to stop or reverse the illegal alien invasion, the exporting of jobs, and more.

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[Runaway1956]

Yes, I did address that issue in a sideways manned in one of the side discussions here. "What does Google have to gain . . ." regarding more women in the work force.

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[ranton]

So do you want women treated equally or not?

I want everyone to be given the same opportunity. The manner in which this opportunity is provided will likely be different for various subgroups of our population.

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[GrumpySteen]

Translation: The status quo doesn't stay the status quo for long, but here's all the reasons why I think it should!

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[Anonymous Coward]

Then the answer is no, and you are sexist (or insert name for other term regarding discrimination based on your "subgroups"). Further, you can not give everyone the same opportunity period. It's impossible without extreme social and biological engineering, on the level of totalitarian control of a population. One example, a child born to parents who are computer programmers has a great opportunity to become a computer programmer than a child born to parents who both aren't. The only way to fix this is to remove children from their parents and raise them by the state.

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[ranton]

Then the answer is no, and you are sexist (or insert name for other term regarding discrimination based on your "subgroups").

Acknowledging differences between genders is not all it takes to be considered sexist. A belief that one gender is superior is also required. I have displayed no such belief; the exact opposite in fact.

Further, you can not give everyone the same opportunity period. It's impossible without extreme social and biological engineering, on the level of totalitarian control of a population.

Never let perfect be the enemy of good. And sliding scale arguments are almost always silly. We can certainly improve things even if it is impossible for everyone to have perfectly equal opportunity.

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[Runaway1956]

Uhhh, no, that's your biased translation.

Let me state this as bluntly as possible. I support women, not Google. Google has no business interfering in social issues, whether those issues are the legalization of pot, gay rights, or women's issues. Liberal minded Google has no more right to do so, than any of the more conservative minded oil companies. It pisses me off that rich people can throw a few millions around, and thereby change the way all of us common folk have to live, and do business.

Google's rights to support women, or any other group, ends at their employment and human resource desks.

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[AmiMoJo]

Again, people call me an SJW but I don't seem to fit this description. I keep getting different definitions from different people. I think it's a meaningless term, applied seemingly at random.

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[Oligonicella]

Get rid of the unconscious steering away...

Note to you - you're not a mind reader.

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[Oligonicella]

"And thus I conclude..." Incorrectly, I might add, as pointed out by you own logic immediately following that phrase. .

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[Oligonicella]

No, "unconscious bias" is a false claim leveled because it's not possible to disprove - or prove. It's an phrase used in argumentation, no more.

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[Oligonicella]

Parents who at the same christmas complain if the daughter plays to much on the new computer express a bias.

Anecdote pulled out of posterior invagination.

Television programming where the only computer affiliate is a dorky guy who might be brilliant at computers but is awkward at anything else expresses a bias.

As opposed to the shows that have computer geeks being a woman (47 listed, not including Arrow, Flash or Supernatural)?

Yes, you can argue by purposely not including information showing the opposite.

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[Oligonicella]

As *I* have a daughter who currently teaches robotics in middle school, I can safely say you're biasing you own post. You're arguing from an assumed authority, so I can as well.

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[ranton]

Just because women on average might need more social validation...

This expresses that men are superior. Men do not need as much social validation to make choices for themselves. You can derive that down to, men are more independent (a generally considered superior quality). No matter how noble the point that you expressed after that quote. To treat a specific group (like women) as innately lesser and in need of more help is sexist.

When not taken out of context, my statement was part of a larger context of women being more social on average than men (my opinion, not something I have researched extensively). This comes with pros and cons. Gaining validation internally or externally is not inherently better or worse.

My statement saying women need more social validation is not expressing men are superior. Men simply get the validation elsewhere. Again these statements are my opinion and only speak to gender averages.

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[tlhIngan]

No one is researching the bias leading to 99% male construction workers, or garbage men.

Apparently a woman thinks you're wrong. So wrong she started a company creating a working clothes line for women. Specifically, she worked in the mining industry and was forced to put on the standard safety equipment. Which works great for men, but not so much for women (notably, using the facilities requires taking it all off).

So the fact she's able to create a clothing line for working women and build a company out of it (she expanded to better work wear for men, too) shows there's actually demand and the numbers are there.

And why it there are so many women in tech in the past, famous ones at that?

I think the real truth is that IT is the new "construction worker". And despite IT workers supposedly being "more intelligent" or "skilled" or even "meritocracy", they just have poor social skills and in general are just boors. Talking to the computer, the computer doesn't care about etiquette, manners, or other things, so you can grunt and make racist and sexist and other jokes with impunity. That's probably the real truth, and we don't want to admit it because we LIKE it that way. Sort of a "no girls allowed" clubhouse.

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[serviscope_minor]

JUST LET THE GIRLS DO WHATEVER THE HELL THEY WANT TO DO!

So I take it you are in favour of this article then? That after all is what it's about. Letting them dowhat they want and not be pressured in all sorts of ways by various biases in society etc.

Or by your shouty catchpharase do you actually mean we should let them do what they're pushed in to?

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[serviscope_minor]

Just in case you're still confused about what SJWs are, they're also resonsible for dystopia in SciFi:

http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

That's an insightful view apparetly, too. I hope that clears it up for you.

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[serviscope_minor]

Ah I see so all the studies about unconscious bias where people have figured out how to actually test for it and etc are wrong because some random slashdotter declares it to be so without a shred of evidence.

Okey dokey then.

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[Runaway1956]

In favor of this article? No, I'm not. How do I make it clear to you that Google is engaged in unethical social engineering?

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[david_thornley]

Neither are you. From TFS, it would appear that Google is trying to learn how much unconscious steering away there is. This is definitely a more productive course than to just assume it doesn't exist.

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[david_thornley]

This appears to be Google trying to gather data on a plausible hypothesis. Why don't they have a right to do this? If they don't find unconscious bias, then nothing needs to be changed. If they do, then people have an opportunity to improve things. I don't see how Google is changing things in ways you don't like.

Besides, Google already changed how I live and do business, by offering various services, primarily excellent Internet search.

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[Dog-Cow]

I don't think your anecdote demonstrates what you think it does. Of course peers have an influence on you. That's how fads work, after all. But at the same time, your daughter demonstrates that at the end of the day, she has her own interests and will pursue them.

I have a simple question: has anyone asked all these girly girls if they are unhappy? Do any of them feel brainwashed and resentful because they liked princess stuff and prefer the color pink?

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[theArtificial]

Alain Soral has some excellent points that touch on several things you've brought up. If you have a few moments this might be worth your time.

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[serviscope_minor]

The bit where you said "let them do whatever they want". That was the unclear bit.

These initiatives are precisely for that. It's so they can in fact do whatever they want. So you are actively against google helping to in fact do whatever they want?

You also haven't made it clear why what google is doing is unethical.

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[Runaway1956]

I think you've failed to understand the whole social engineering thing. Google, among other corporations, are bending over backward to attract women into their workforce. They are going so far as to go into the schools, trying to influence girl's choices. They are trying to change the world. That IS NOT "let them do whatever they want to do" at all. That is in effect, an attempt to replace parental and other inputs, to change the results to something closer to what Google wants.

Google wants women - but women don't necessarily want Google. (How many of us males could say the same thing?) So, Google has decided to approach the women before they are women. Get them at an impressionable young age, and start grooming them to reject what society is teaching them.

I'll support any young woman, 100% and more, who decides that she wants to join the military, go into politics, learn engineering, learn to fly - WHATEVER she wants to do. My sister is a retired state cop. Do you suppose that I ever once tried to discourage her? Hell no!

Girls should be permitted - no, wrong word - ENCOURAGED to do any damned thing they want to do. But - WHAT THEY WANT, not what a bunch of Bozo's in a board room want them to do.

Those girls, and women, who WANT to have a house full of children, and to stay at home to raise those children, should be ENCOURAGED to do so - no less than the girl who wants to fly to the moon.

Girls. Why are we even talking about girls? This should be the case for ALL CHILDREN! Every single one. (Groucho Marx: How many kids do you have? Three, one of each.) Boys, girls, or whatever - if they have a dream, help them to achieve it.

Don't TELL THEM what their fucking dreams should be!

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[Runaway1956]

It was definitely worth my time. Thanks for the link!

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[serviscope_minor]

Google wants women - but women don't necessarily want Google. (How many of us males could say the same thing?)

Not a problem I seem to suffer from.

them to reject what society is teaching them.

And therein lies the problem. You are presenting what society is doing as the neutral choice. That is far from the case. In fact you've highlighted the point. Society IS teaching them. That means that they're not necessarily doing what they want, they're doing what they're guided into by society.

Don't TELL THEM what their fucking dreams should be!

Exactly!

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[LaurenCates]

I admit, I'm largely turned off by the "designed for girls" tag. Desensitized, really, since I'm over the age of 30 and have been inundated by this sort of thing for a quarter of a century.

(I know you're an AC and won't respond, but for the benefit of those who have continued reading, I've met with more than one coach who's tried to woo me into joining his gym with "women's classes", so, yes, this sort of thing happens to adults as well.)

I also remember not having pink Legos while growing up, because my plastic Lego tote didn't come with any. I wasn't terribly troubled by this, of course. Because I didn't have to be told that something was for girls. Without labeling, I was fine to establish whether or not it was for me.

Again, this was 25 years ago. I doubt children have changed that much in that amount of time.

Re: Yeah, blame the parents

[LaurenCates]

Yes, I wasn't about to get into evolutionary psych, which is why I kind of brushed it off.

Talking in evo psych is a double-edged sword. On one hand, you have a narrative that fits the facts and sets a biological basis for the differences between men and women, and if you can scientifically prove it's sound, then okay.

However, if you can't (or are debating with someone who refuses to listen, or is going the "special snowflake" route with the argument), then what you end up with is more of a self-perpetuating argument for feminism ("I need feminism because social engineering in this direction will counteract the social engineering put in place by The Patriarchy"). Never minding the women (and men) who have made choices throughout history that counteract all the social engineering they've had to endure even to the death because...personal proclivities? Biology? Trauma? Something else that causes wide divergence in "accepted" gender roles?

What explains those people? Beats me, but it seems to me they didn't need any positive -ism when there wasn't any kind of -ism to prop it up or any overwhelming negative -ism to beat it back.

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[endercase]

Thank you. GG WP BTW I know quite a few women in engineering; look up SWE.

I think rather than guiding

[Chrisq]

I think rather than guiding encouragement in areas where kids show ability and interest are better. Would you really be doing anyone a favour if you guided someone into a career that looks as though it will be increasingly outsourced, not be well compensated except at higher levels, and require long hours if they didn't have a keen interest and enjoyment in the area?

Parents' superpower

[Jesrad]

Google deflected criticism for its lack of women techies in the past by blaming parents' unconscious biases for not steering their girls to study computer science, suggesting an intervention was needed. "Outreach programs," advised Google, "should include a parent education component, so that parents learn how to actively encourage their daughters."

Ah, parents. The supposedly superpowerful entities that can somehow control their children's career path over decades without even trying, yet keep failing to stop them from having underage sex or trying drugs no matter how hard they actively attempt to.

Re:Parents' superpower

[AmiMoJo]

Your gross oversimplification is indeed ridiculous, but since that's not what Google is claiming it only speaks to your own (miss)understanding of the issue.

From an early age there is subconscious bias, not just from parents but from teachers as well. Since children tend not to be very interested in sex for the first 10+ years of their lives, and when they do become interested it's usually the unwillingness to educate and influence that is the problem, it's not really the same thing at all.

There has been a lot of study in this area. I know, it's sociology and psychology, both "bunk" sciences where the inability to provide control subjects who are isolated from birth is a severe handicap, but some people are trying to use it to improve things. And, well, it does seem to work, e.g. for the treatment of PTSD. So I'd say we should at least give it a try.

Anyway, we know that social factors and parental bias have a strong influence. The classic example is pink being a girl's colour. Most girls come to associate pink with their gender at an early age, yet 100 years it was considered a masculine colour and soft, pale blue was feminine. So if we can inadvertently flip that around, perhaps there are other changes we can make deliberately that will actually improve things.

Re:Parents' superpower

[alphatel]

"Let's find out what makes women dislike tech so we can fix it, then hire them for 25% less than we pay those white males."

Re:Parents' superpower

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh MaiMoJo. As predicable as radioactive decay. Blame, deflect, and attack social status, throwing some ad hominem whenever possible and only show up for debates that provide opportunity to women or remove accountability for their own decisions.

Never respond to any criticism or logical retort and don't forget to use sweeping statements, prejudice, and open ended responses with hardly an explanation behind them. But hey, at least you only get modded up for the first few hours, then back down it goes.

Re:Parents' superpower

[Anonymous Coward]

I find the entire concept of someone being able to flip gender color orientation both Totalitarian and Orwellian. The entire concept of social science experimentation without explicit consent from the individuals involved is, as we are now seeing with the sexodus, absolutely disastrous for the continuity and functionality of society.

Well over half of kids right now do not have a father in the home, and as a direct result of this, about a third of young men between the ages of 18 and 25 are slated never to get married or have children out of pure rational choice. They do not see families as good investments of their lives because the State has determined it won't be. The point of a marriage and making polygamy illegal is it reduces the potential for conflict; go read the bible and all the child-killing of the old testament, almost all of which is backed up by the last 4000 years of empirically backed history.

The last time we had this kind of a precedent was the dark ages, and there was a lot of War during then. What are you going to suggest now? That war is good and tote the party line?

Re:Parents' superpower

[Mashiki]

That comment is so good, it's almost like the BS that was spewed out the other day on sites like The Guardian, Time, and other outlets about how "teenage boys don't like big breasted women." Of course, when you look at what little data there is you find out that: There was no confirmation data, it used a online poll, it was heavily circulated on feminist sites, especially those espousing an anti-male point of view. Well, I mean the data is out there...you know the data that says said paygap is by choice.

Unless of course you're supporting the idea that women should be paid more, for less work. But that seems rather sexist to me.

Re:Parents' superpower

[Jesrad]

Did you pause and wonder what causes the very existence of "girl colours" and "boy colours" in the first place, while you were thinking about this pink&blue flip-over as an example that somehow could undermine the subtext of my (tongue-in-cheek) comment ?

Yeah, I guessed not :D

Re:Parents' superpower

[misexistentialist]

Most girls come to associate pink with their gender at an early age, yet 100 years it was considered a masculine colour and soft, pale blue was feminine. So if we can inadvertently flip that around, perhaps there are other changes we can make deliberately that will actually improve things.

What's the point of such a swap, putting higher IQ women who would work part-time as veterinarians or sit on their asses in government offices in the programming salt mines, and letting the men take a load off in the pink jobs that are slightly lower paid? Guess there is some half-baked notion that girls can have pink and blue, and the boys will have no color; and maybe as jobs become scarce it is possible for women to get every white-collar job, but the joke is on them since they will have to pay all the childcare and taxes.

Re:Parents' superpower

[Oligonicella]

No you don't, you just believe you do. No one actually does. You spend a lot of posts assuming authority.

Re:Parents' superpower

[GoonDuIO]

>teenage boys don't like big breasted women.

What sorcery is this? Back in times, big breasted women are living goddesses. That's breast shaming, I'm telling ya'!

Re:Please Stop. Enough.

[smittyoneeach]

Apparently you're oblivious to the political power that can be generated via a simple accusation.

Cultural Marxists gonna cultural Marxist

[Anonymous Coward]

Boys are falling behind in education but there are still a few male bastions that have not been conquered yet. Keep fighting the good fight progressives!

Curious... can I...

[tlambert]

Curious... can I... list the names of organizations, tools, and resources that I've unconsciously gravitated to via unconscious bias to combat unconscious bias?

Re:Curious... can I...

[gsslay]

It's an interesting idea. Perhaps an unconscious bias for a particular search engine, brought about by its name being synonymous for a verb?

Too many assumptions in the questions

[mccalli]

A sample question: "Who do you think would benefit most from unconscious bias training at your school (or program)? ..."

There is an assumption there, which is as yet untested, that the respondant believes anyone would benefit from unconcious bias training at all.

Re:Too many assumptions in the questions

[serviscope_minor]

There is an assumption there, which is as yet untested, that the respondant believes anyone would benefit from unconcious bias training at all.

Are you claiming that unconscious bias doesn't exist?

If so:where can I find these rational humans?

Why does this sound like Orwell or CP reeducation?

[swb]

Citizen, we are here to free you from your unconscious biases so that you may more thoroughly accept the wisdom of the party and refine your thoughts and actions for the glory of the party and the state.

Stop. Posting. This. Shit.

[Karmashock]

Everyone is clearly sick to fucking death of his SJW vomit. Where ever you're getting this shit... go somewhere else. Maybe you'll find something less idiotic to post on the board.

Re:Stop. Posting. This. Shit.

[buddyglass]

Everyone is clearly sick to fucking death of his SJW vomit.

Not, apparently, the folks at Google.

Re:Stop. Posting. This. Shit.

[Karmashock]

A madness going through San Franciscan progressives is not applicable to anyone but themselves.

There are other "good" reasons.

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, the "fact" that the computer industry is infested with pervs and misogynists, therefore women shouldn't go there because they'll just be hit on by perverted geeks without any social graces or fellow feeling.

Whether it is the truth or not doesn't really matter: people will be driven away MERELY BY THE ACCUSATION.

How about bias of the teachers?

[JeffOwl]

How do you expect to get any useful information out of a subjective survey given to one of the most biased groups of people I've ever seen?

Re:How about bias of the teachers?

[Hasaf]

I took the survey and there were several questions regarding the biases of teachers.

Females wants alpha males

[TheDarkMaster]

What females wants is alpha males, both they and their parents are trained for this. Parents early insist they seek careers where they can find men with more power (political, law), and by repeat the females end up believing it too. And it's pretty hard to find alpha males in computer science courses (we care about more important things than animal instincts of domination and territory), so consequently you will see fewer females in such courses.

Re:Females wants alpha males

[TheDarkMaster]

Whoa whoa, read carefully before shooting out in all directions. I made it clear that it is usually an imposition of the female relatives, and considering you did not catch the the rest then I must complement that society also tends to do so. However, having said that it is also true that many women want a position of power through marriage to a man of power, and not necessarily to have children I must say, but to have power. And they will hardly find it on a course of CS, so ... Just join the dots.

Re:Females wants alpha males

[AmiMoJo]

Maybe in the US... In Japan nerds are seen as attractive partners. Intelligent, often sensitive and less reserved, able to earn good wages and reliable.

Re:Females wants alpha males

[TheDarkMaster]

Well, the definition of what is an alpha male of course depends on your local society. Here is usually those who have more money and are more violent and arrogant.

Re:Females wants alpha males

[TheDarkMaster]

Hi clueless guy how are you? :-)

Re:Please Stop. Enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

Say it LOUD !
Men and women are different and like doing different things, and the feminazi thought police cannot change that.

Haven't you guys see the *TRUE* picture yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Folks, it is time you guys see beyond what is shown on the screen

This "female have been discouraged from STEM" thing is just a decoy

The power that be is using it to push for something MUCH MORE HEINOUS - total mind control

First of all I need to stress that I am not good in explaining thing, but please do allow me to try ...
 
The 'unconscious bias' thing is something very worrisome --- it is a tool for TPTB to average out all the thought pattern of the masses

You see, first they came up with 'hate speech', then 'hate thoughts' accusing people of 'hate' --- that was their first attempt to make people feel 'guilty' of the way they think

Then they came up with this 'unconscious bias' thing --- and may I ask all of you, do you know what exactly is meant by 'unconscious bias'??

Now they want to control not only what we think, but also, what we may unconsciously think !!

What TPTB is doing is much more heinous than that dreadful world as depicted by '1984' --- at least in that book the Big Brother had no control over the sub-conscious of the masses --- TPTB in the real world of 2015, at least in the West, has gone way beyond what the Big Brother of '1984' could ever dream of

We must stop looking at what is shown on the screen - we must dig deeper and understand what TPTB is trying to do

If we fail, the consequence is gonna be very terrible - all future generations will not only act, but THINK alike, even within their sub-conscious level!

Re:Haven't you guys see the *TRUE* picture yet?

[Curunir_wolf]

I think you could benefit from some re-education training...

Re:Haven't you guys see the *TRUE* picture yet?

[pr0fessor]

My first tech job was as a support tech for DSL, when I applied there were fewer candidates than positions and the interviewers were asking me if I knew anyone else that went to my school looking for a job. The vo-tech and state university here have been pumping out computer related degrees like an assembly line since I went to school and now when I see people interviewing for new positions there are hundreds of associated degrees and dozens of bachelors lining up.

If you told me their goal was to flood the workforce with far more qualified workers than they could possibly employ to bring down wages I would say you are correct.

Re:Haven't you guys see the *TRUE* picture yet?

[bickerdyke]

So your solution is NOT to "learn to code" and start with the burger flipping job right away? Any other idea where to get a "sweet 32k/year gig" without college?

Doesn't change anything about you being spot-on right.

But I wish I could give my kids some more reliable career advice than "Drop out of school and become the next Mark Zuckerberg". Well, I know the American Dream where anyone can make it from rags to riches with hard work, but so could anyone get struck by lightning or anyone could win the lottery.

Re:Haven't you guys see the *TRUE* picture yet?

[meta-monkey]

I don't recall offering a solution.

But I would say just going straight programmer is a bad choice. Specialize in something else, but also learn to code.

Of course we trust Google

[Laxator2]

"your responses are confidential, meaning that your feedback will not be attributed to you and the data will only be used in aggregate form."

Translation:

"We already have enough information to identify you personally, so there is no need for you to provide us with your name."

so...

[buddyglass]

...shouldn't it be subconscious biases and not unconscious?

Re:so...

[micahraleigh]

Wish I had a mod point !

Re:Please Stop. Enough.

[AmiMoJo]

Do you simply not believe women when they talk about gender related harassment or discrimination?

Re:Why does this sound like Orwell or CP reeducati

[Mashiki]

That's because it is. Go hang around some feminist sites these days like feministing or the mary sue, and you'll find out that using bullshit to make up your point is pretty much accepted. And of course if you point out the flaw, you're automatically a persona non grata to be purged from the ranks.

I don't see a shortage of women doctors

[cyber-vandal]

And yet the pioneers must have suffered from appalling discrimination. How did they manage to beat the patriarchy?

the other half of the equation

[swell]

When we talk about what people want, we are talking about what they are programmed to want. This discussion has already pointed out environmental programming that goes into each of us: the roles we are expected to play; the attitudes we should have; etc ... but this discussion has entirely missed a far more essential programming that influences us all.

We, many of us programmers, tend to forget that we are exquisitely programmed ourselves by our DNA. We do its bidding without question. Do you think that the enjoyment of sex is a rational choice that you consciously made? Do you think that it is rational to judge a person by their appearance? Our attitudes and behavior and life choices are powerfully influenced by forces we can not control and do not understand. Forces that have evolved over a billion years.

We live to serve our DNA, Our individual lives are irrelevant. We are simply a step in an evolutionary process that works toward the perfection that we haven't reached.

Re:Please Stop. Enough.

[Puls4r]

Sex sells. The majority of people who buy gadgets (especially 'tech' ones) are guys. So they get marketed to.

Go to a cooking expo. Guess what you're going to see?

You're a prime example of political correctness gone to far. I like sexy woman. I find them attractive. By the very definition I'm sure that I'm sexist.

Recently, a cosmetics company stepped in as a big sponsor for a worldwide robotics competition. Some of the competitors complained because "makeup objectifies women - the very thing we're trying to avoid in this program". Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Re:Please Stop. Enough.

[Oligonicella]

You mean like wearing the wrong shirt or telling the wrong joke?

Re:Please Stop. Enough.

[serviscope_minor]

I love slashdot sometimes:

Article: link to a reasonably detailed study on a nuanced topic.

AC: you're wrong!!! +5 insightful

Re:Please Stop. Enough.

[eric_harris_76]

Something I'll be thinking about the next time some blowhard politician or pundit or academic says something like "It is time to have a national dialog on race".

Yeah. And I'll join that when I've saved up enough that I can retire right now, even after forking a lot of loot after losing a lawsuit.

Sorry, I'm just especially irritable right now, for some cake-related reason.