Is there evidence to suggest that the traits identified in the memo are specific to one race? Or sexual orientation?
She is trying to be clever because she thinks the memo is "perpetuate negative stereotypes about them based on their gender" when it's not. She either didn't read the memo, didn't understand it, or will fulling misrepresenting it. What negative stereotypes are being perpetuated? Are there biological differences between men and women? Can we measure those differences in the population? Are those differences universal across other races? Do those differences change with sexual orientation?
You are acting like the guy wrote the latest publication supporting phrenology. The claims he had are innocuous. He said they are more neurotic, more agreeable, more open toward feelings and aesthetics. Note, neurotic does not mean suffering neurosis but one of the big 5 higher order personality traits in psychology. Even on the Wikipedia article says that women, on average, score higher for neuroticism.
Do you have evidence to refute any of the claims he made? What are you disputing?
The whole point of diversity is not to establish some quota, but to allow everyone a crack at entering the competition.
Sure, but as the memo pointed out there are problems with the diversity programs and google is trying to force a 50/50 gender parity. The narrative is that because men and women are the same any statistical disparity is because of sexism and only when we reach 50% parity will we consider the issue resolved. The counter argument is that men and women are not the same and because of that forcing the 50% goal is arbitrary, unfair, and bad for business.
Gender/race/ethnic/religious historical bias is just that: a history of preventing individuals from entering the race.
And now it is illegal to prevent individuals based on those traits from entering the race.
Given time, perhaps the bias will fade into history
When is that achieved? google says it is achieved when 50/50 gender representation or else sexism. Even now the college enrollment and graduation rates are favoring women, should the women only scholarships be removed now that the historical trend reversed? Do we now implement men only scholarships to counter the sexism against males in academia because we have determined that statistical disparity is sexism to the minority?
If you have a faulty premise (men and women are the same) you have a faulty conclusion (statistical disparity is because of sexism). If you correct the premise using science (men and women are different) you can get a better representation for reality ( differences manifest as statistical disparities naturally without sexism).
he said that women are inferior engineers and dismissed the issues they face as biology.
If google said that then they are lying because he didn't say that. He never said or implied that women were inferior engineers. He said that the gender gap could be explained because of biological differences not sexism.
The rest of your comment, while true and I can agree in theory, supports another position he had that because of the political leaning in google it is difficult to discuss issues honestly and openly. Google, because of their political bias, "has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety." and "the lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology".
If he was fired for that, which amounts to discussing the work conditions of google or specifically the system used in evaluations then it most certainly is illegal.
. the whole premise of the memo is that women are less suited to have tech jobs because of inherent differences between men and women
No, the premise (there were many) was that 1) political bias makes it hard to discuss political topics and google has a left leaning political bias 2) because men and women are different that could explain why there aren't more women in tech despite the diversity programs. 3) the diversity programs are fundamentally unfair and bad for business and it is difficult to highlight those issues with the diversity programs because it is a political left idea. See 1. 4) We should treat people as individuals not as groups. 5) the disproportion of men and women in tech could be explained by the differences between the sexes rather than sexism.
If you were a woman and had to be treated as automatically less qualified because you're a woman and thought to be inherently not good at a job and saw less-qualified men
See, you are treating individual women as a group. Differences != inferior. Stop that. The only people implying that women are inferiror or less capable at technology is you and others that strawman the memo.
Just curious, If he had said "men are aggressive, stupid and icky", do you think there would be this kind of backlash?
then surely it makes sense to have more women doing coding at google instead of a stressful life and death career such as nursing
no and I am not sure what your point is.
You are taking a bizarro-world spin on something that is already bullshit
All I asked for was some evidence that what he claimed was bullshit. So far I have seen other biologists and papers supporting what he said. All the evidence and experts are that I have seen say that what he said is supported by science. I have yet to see any refutation backed up by science. Instead, all I have seen is virtue signaling, strawman arguments, and name calling.
The "biology" is just a prop for a silly "bro-victim" screed.
Let me guess, you didn't read it.
His claims are no more than a distraction and run completely counter to his argument instead of supporting it, so it really doesn't matter if they are true in this context does it? If it is true by some act of magic then it weakens his argument.
Yea, you didn't read it. Why don't you read it before you judge it?
I don't think any one disagrees that NK has the capability for making WMD but now they can put in a missile. So, now they have delivery of that WMD. I think the evidence to suggest as much is much more concrete than the 2nd Iraq war.
but what military would want to destroy a valuable export asset?
Oil was a valuable export for Iraq and many wells were set on fire during the first Iraq war. Although, it was when Iraqi forces were losing a lot of ground, so there's that. More of a big middle finger to the US than anything else.
So either he's an idiot, or he's advocating for a discriminatory hiring policy.
No, he argued that the push to have 50/50 gender parity is causing more problems than it is trying to solve because you are not hiring on merit which is unfair. He also argues that because women may not want to be in the tech field that not having 50/50 does not mean sexism. He is not advocating for discrimination in fact he described himself as pro-diversity.
Either you didn't read it or you didn't understand it.
logical conclusion is to use a discriminatory hiring policy
No, it's not. The logical conclusion is that sexism is not a good answer to why there are so few women in tech and that because of the political bias in google it is impossible to have a honest conversation about ideas too sacred to criticize such as "sexism in tech" or the efficacy of diversity programs.
You're not actually addressing the op's point instead your attacking lots of strawmen. Again, no one is saying that women can't do CS or that they are biologically inferior.
Which culture emphasizes men being caretakers, and women being the builders/makers.
This was one point Damore made in his memo; biological differences are universal. Are you going to provide a counter example, because I can think of one tribe (forgot where or name). An exception isn't a good foundation to lay a counter argument.
As far as Iran and women CS, there is an issue because of economics. It is a lucrative career and in poor states people are willing to do what they don't want to make money. But in free societies men and women can choose a career beyond "does it make a lot of money". As an example the Nordic gender equality paradox highlights that contradiction. We don't want to emulate Iran for gender equality. Men and women should be free to pick any career they want and if that creates a gender gap, so what. So long as you don't judge the individual as the group and exclude opportunity or discriminate because of sexism I don't see a problem.
where girls now slightly out-perform boys in maths at school. If it was not a social thing, if it was biological,
Again that isn't the issue or the argument. It has never been said that women can't do these things but that they have different motivations and desires which may correspond to low participation in those fields.
I agree and I will be right there with you to try and resolve that issue like helping anyone to be better negotiators. That doesn't imply that anyone that is a poor negotiator is inferior. Negotiating is a social skill and that in and of itself is a valuable asset to have to increase your worth for a company. If you are a poor negotiator then you possibly have other areas of communication that could be better which have nothing to do with the code you produce.
two equally qualified individuals work equally well and produce equal amounts of value, then it is morally wrong to pay one individual less than another, regardless of their gender.
First, I think Damore was right. We should stop moralizing every political issue because any time there is any level of disagreement it becomes a moral fight. That is why it is so divisive and why he was fired. Intent matters and you are interpreting the intent by looking at the end result. It's bad practice to formulate your conclusion from the result without additional evidence. Earth exists therefore god == Gender gap exists therefore sexism. The logic is the same and there are other factors that must be addressed and there must be evidence to support your conclusion beyond the result.
Your missing perceived value. Everyone agrees that equal qualified = equal value but the perception of value is just as important as actual value and the ability to communicate your value to the company is a skill worth something. If that is an issue that disproportionately affects women because "women are poor negotiators" that doesn't mean sexism and any solution should be blind to gender to help everyone negotiate better which will be good for business.
This is what gets me. There is nothing inherently wrong stating that there are biological differences in a sexually dimorphic species. What matters is what you do with that knowledge. I do not think women are inferior because they are different! Without their differences we wouldn't have modern humans to begin with.
It's pretty sad the number of people at google cannot fathom a world where any difference == inferior.
How are they not the same caliber of anti-science and science denial as vaccines cause autism or global warming is a myth? There is plenty of evidence of biological distinction between the sexes. We are a sexually dimorophic species ffs.
He didn't say that. He didn't imply that. His main point was to stop treating people as groups and the gender gap in tech is probably not because of sexism.
Of course, it's easy to argue a straw man you and others created.
Does biology influence behavior? There was a study yesterday I linked that talked about how the activity in the brains make women more likely to suffer depression and men more likely to be in jail.
So far, I have yet to see any research that debunks his claims but I have seen many more articles support it in some fashion.
Slashdot Mirror
Is there evidence to suggest that the traits identified in the memo are specific to one race? Or sexual orientation?
She is trying to be clever because she thinks the memo is "perpetuate negative stereotypes about them based on their gender" when it's not. She either didn't read the memo, didn't understand it, or will fulling misrepresenting it. What negative stereotypes are being perpetuated? Are there biological differences between men and women? Can we measure those differences in the population? Are those differences universal across other races? Do those differences change with sexual orientation?
You are acting like the guy wrote the latest publication supporting phrenology. The claims he had are innocuous. He said they are more neurotic, more agreeable, more open toward feelings and aesthetics. Note, neurotic does not mean suffering neurosis but one of the big 5 higher order personality traits in psychology. Even on the Wikipedia article says that women, on average, score higher for neuroticism.
Do you have evidence to refute any of the claims he made? What are you disputing?
You are why we can't have nice things. You became the monster you hate.
The whole point of diversity is not to establish some quota, but to allow everyone a crack at entering the competition.
Sure, but as the memo pointed out there are problems with the diversity programs and google is trying to force a 50/50 gender parity. The narrative is that because men and women are the same any statistical disparity is because of sexism and only when we reach 50% parity will we consider the issue resolved. The counter argument is that men and women are not the same and because of that forcing the 50% goal is arbitrary, unfair, and bad for business.
Gender/race/ethnic/religious historical bias is just that: a history of preventing individuals from entering the race.
And now it is illegal to prevent individuals based on those traits from entering the race.
Given time, perhaps the bias will fade into history
When is that achieved? google says it is achieved when 50/50 gender representation or else sexism. Even now the college enrollment and graduation rates are favoring women, should the women only scholarships be removed now that the historical trend reversed? Do we now implement men only scholarships to counter the sexism against males in academia because we have determined that statistical disparity is sexism to the minority?
If you have a faulty premise (men and women are the same) you have a faulty conclusion (statistical disparity is because of sexism). If you correct the premise using science (men and women are different) you can get a better representation for reality ( differences manifest as statistical disparities naturally without sexism).
We've seen what they want to do either by changing the search results for politically contentious issues, effective shadow bans err "limited states" on youtube without breaking community guidelines, or outright deleted services with no reason of conservative voices. All the while training their AI to do it (see blog post). That isn't even mentioning the accusations that they manipulated searches to favor Clinton during the campaign.
It seems pretty clear what google wants to do for political thought. They want to isolate, disenfranchise, and ban political thought they don't like.
vast majority of experts do not support their views
Could you supply a couple of published papers and experts that debunk his claims?
(clearly someone likes studying lesbians)
Don't we all?
he said that women are inferior engineers and dismissed the issues they face as biology.
If google said that then they are lying because he didn't say that. He never said or implied that women were inferior engineers. He said that the gender gap could be explained because of biological differences not sexism.
The rest of your comment, while true and I can agree in theory, supports another position he had that because of the political leaning in google it is difficult to discuss issues honestly and openly. Google, because of their political bias, "has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety." and "the lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology".
If he was fired for that, which amounts to discussing the work conditions of google or specifically the system used in evaluations then it most certainly is illegal.
. the whole premise of the memo is that women are less suited to have tech jobs because of inherent differences between men and women
No, the premise (there were many) was that 1) political bias makes it hard to discuss political topics and google has a left leaning political bias 2) because men and women are different that could explain why there aren't more women in tech despite the diversity programs. 3) the diversity programs are fundamentally unfair and bad for business and it is difficult to highlight those issues with the diversity programs because it is a political left idea. See 1. 4) We should treat people as individuals not as groups. 5) the disproportion of men and women in tech could be explained by the differences between the sexes rather than sexism.
If you were a woman and had to be treated as automatically less qualified because you're a woman and thought to be inherently not good at a job and saw less-qualified men
See, you are treating individual women as a group. Differences != inferior. Stop that. The only people implying that women are inferiror or less capable at technology is you and others that strawman the memo.
Just curious, If he had said "men are aggressive, stupid and icky", do you think there would be this kind of backlash?
then surely it makes sense to have more women doing coding at google instead of a stressful life and death career such as nursing
no and I am not sure what your point is.
You are taking a bizarro-world spin on something that is already bullshit
All I asked for was some evidence that what he claimed was bullshit. So far I have seen other biologists and papers supporting what he said. All the evidence and experts are that I have seen say that what he said is supported by science. I have yet to see any refutation backed up by science. Instead, all I have seen is virtue signaling, strawman arguments, and name calling.
The "biology" is just a prop for a silly "bro-victim" screed.
Let me guess, you didn't read it.
His claims are no more than a distraction and run completely counter to his argument instead of supporting it, so it really doesn't matter if they are true in this context does it? If it is true by some act of magic then it weakens his argument.
Yea, you didn't read it. Why don't you read it before you judge it?
I don't think any one disagrees that NK has the capability for making WMD but now they can put in a missile. So, now they have delivery of that WMD. I think the evidence to suggest as much is much more concrete than the 2nd Iraq war.
but what military would want to destroy a valuable export asset?
Oil was a valuable export for Iraq and many wells were set on fire during the first Iraq war. Although, it was when Iraqi forces were losing a lot of ground, so there's that. More of a big middle finger to the US than anything else.
Let me guess, you didn't read it.
So either he's an idiot, or he's advocating for a discriminatory hiring policy.
No, he argued that the push to have 50/50 gender parity is causing more problems than it is trying to solve because you are not hiring on merit which is unfair. He also argues that because women may not want to be in the tech field that not having 50/50 does not mean sexism. He is not advocating for discrimination in fact he described himself as pro-diversity.
Either you didn't read it or you didn't understand it.
logical conclusion is to use a discriminatory hiring policy
No, it's not. The logical conclusion is that sexism is not a good answer to why there are so few women in tech and that because of the political bias in google it is impossible to have a honest conversation about ideas too sacred to criticize such as "sexism in tech" or the efficacy of diversity programs.
You're not actually addressing the op's point instead your attacking lots of strawmen. Again, no one is saying that women can't do CS or that they are biologically inferior.
Which culture emphasizes men being caretakers, and women being the builders/makers.
This was one point Damore made in his memo; biological differences are universal. Are you going to provide a counter example, because I can think of one tribe (forgot where or name). An exception isn't a good foundation to lay a counter argument.
As far as Iran and women CS, there is an issue because of economics. It is a lucrative career and in poor states people are willing to do what they don't want to make money. But in free societies men and women can choose a career beyond "does it make a lot of money". As an example the Nordic gender equality paradox highlights that contradiction. We don't want to emulate Iran for gender equality. Men and women should be free to pick any career they want and if that creates a gender gap, so what. So long as you don't judge the individual as the group and exclude opportunity or discriminate because of sexism I don't see a problem.
where girls now slightly out-perform boys in maths at school. If it was not a social thing, if it was biological,
Again that isn't the issue or the argument. It has never been said that women can't do these things but that they have different motivations and desires which may correspond to low participation in those fields.
Stop burning strawmen.
How is he a sexist in your mind?
How is your logic different than that of anti-vaxxers? (substituting sexist with shill)
Could you list XYZ and ABC. So far all I have seen are things published that support his premises.
Also, " that women are inferior" was never said or implied. Why don't you quote the memo where you think it was.
https://web.archive.org/web/20...
You're welcome.
I agree and I will be right there with you to try and resolve that issue like helping anyone to be better negotiators. That doesn't imply that anyone that is a poor negotiator is inferior. Negotiating is a social skill and that in and of itself is a valuable asset to have to increase your worth for a company. If you are a poor negotiator then you possibly have other areas of communication that could be better which have nothing to do with the code you produce.
two equally qualified individuals work equally well and produce equal amounts of value, then it is morally wrong to pay one individual less than another, regardless of their gender.
First, I think Damore was right. We should stop moralizing every political issue because any time there is any level of disagreement it becomes a moral fight. That is why it is so divisive and why he was fired. Intent matters and you are interpreting the intent by looking at the end result. It's bad practice to formulate your conclusion from the result without additional evidence. Earth exists therefore god == Gender gap exists therefore sexism. The logic is the same and there are other factors that must be addressed and there must be evidence to support your conclusion beyond the result.
Your missing perceived value. Everyone agrees that equal qualified = equal value but the perception of value is just as important as actual value and the ability to communicate your value to the company is a skill worth something. If that is an issue that disproportionately affects women because "women are poor negotiators" that doesn't mean sexism and any solution should be blind to gender to help everyone negotiate better which will be good for business.
feelz before realz... amirite?
we should call this exactly what it is.
Anti-science bullshit being perpetuated in US culture because feelz before realz.
This is what gets me. There is nothing inherently wrong stating that there are biological differences in a sexually dimorphic species. What matters is what you do with that knowledge. I do not think women are inferior because they are different! Without their differences we wouldn't have modern humans to begin with.
It's pretty sad the number of people at google cannot fathom a world where any difference == inferior.
How are they not the same caliber of anti-science and science denial as vaccines cause autism or global warming is a myth? There is plenty of evidence of biological distinction between the sexes. We are a sexually dimorophic species ffs.
He didn't say that. He didn't imply that. His main point was to stop treating people as groups and the gender gap in tech is probably not because of sexism.
Of course, it's easy to argue a straw man you and others created.
The memo claims that women are more neurotic. It claims that this is biological.
Could you provide the relevant parts that support this?
The real-world result of statements like that is that people question women's behaviour through a lens of "is she just being neurotic?
Men and women are different and understand those differences allows us to work together better. Pretending we are all the same is unproductive.
Does biology influence behavior? There was a study yesterday I linked that talked about how the activity in the brains make women more likely to suffer depression and men more likely to be in jail.
So far, I have yet to see any research that debunks his claims but I have seen many more articles support it in some fashion.