Google Diversity Memo

Oldskeptic · **#141** by **Oldskeptic** » Aug 12, 2017 11:45 pm

mcgruff wrote:
tuco wrote:Unless you are being sarcastic, such adaptation to environment already happened, hence the differences we observe today. It would be naive to assume that it can happen in future but has not happened in past, right?

It was just a sort of amuse-bouche. Determined bias could, eventually, create its own proof. Strange to think that the narcissism of science denial can ultimately change objective reality.

I'm guessing that you're about the only one around here that doesn't recognize the irony of your last sentence.

proudfootz · **#142** by **proudfootz** » Aug 13, 2017 2:27 am

Oldskeptic wrote:
I really can't see why both camps get upset about a statement like: "There are slight differences between males and females but those differences are never enough to justify, ethically or scientifically or economically, discrimination in the work place."

Actually I just lied: I can see why both camps get upset. It's because the far left proponents of equality don't want to allow any crack in their wall allowing the right to sneak in their excuses for discriminating how they see fit, and the far right proponents of conservative values don't like their excuses being taken away.

I think that's about the size of it.

People whose whole identity depends on seeing slight variations among humans as an excuse to enshrine inequality into social and civil institutions seem to demand an equal and reaction that questions the premise that racial and gender differences are significant or meaningful.

Nicko · **#143** by **Nicko** » Aug 13, 2017 4:13 am

Oldskeptic wrote:I really can't see why both camps get upset about a statement like: "There are slight differences between males and females but those differences are never enough to justify, ethically or scientifically or economically, discrimination in the work place."

I would actually go a bit further than that and say that no level of gender difference can justify discrimination in principle.

The argument that someone should be prohibited from doing x because they are incapable of doing x is just flatly incoherent.

Oldskeptic wrote:Actually I just lied: I can see why both camps get upset. It's because the far left proponents of equality don't want to allow any crack in their wall allowing the right to sneak in their excuses for discriminating how they see fit, and the far right proponents of conservative values don't like their excuses being taken away.

Personally, it seems to me that at least some of those who deny that there are observed differences between men and women are just ideologically wedded to the the social constructionist notion that "everyone's the same".

Both extremes are implicitly accepting the validity of an incoherent argument: the strict social constructionists deny the truth of its premises, while the absolute biological determinists accept them; but both sides are under the erroneous impression that the argument is valid. The real difference between the two groups is that there really isn't anyone serious claiming the latter, while there are still people in academia massaging results in an attempt to demonstrate the former.

Oldskeptic · **#144** by **Oldskeptic** » Aug 13, 2017 4:32 am

proudfootz wrote:
Oldskeptic wrote:
I really can't see why both camps get upset about a statement like: "There are slight differences between males and females but those differences are never enough to justify, ethically or scientifically or economically, discrimination in the work place."

Actually I just lied: I can see why both camps get upset. It's because the far left proponents of equality don't want to allow any crack in their wall allowing the right to sneak in their excuses for discriminating how they see fit, and the far right proponents of conservative values don't like their excuses being taken away.

I think that's about the size of it.

People whose whole identity depends on seeing slight variations among humans as an excuse to enshrine inequality into social and civil institutions seem to demand an equal and reaction that questions the premise that racial and gender differences are significant or meaningful.

And the ideological/political premise that there are no variations at all, and so that every seeming inequality can be placed on the doorstep of bigotry and prejudice demands an equal reaction that questions the premise that there are no significant or meaningful differences between male and female humans.

That said, going back to the main topic, there is no reason, that I can think of, that women can't be as good of computer software designers or coders as men.

It's like a project we were given in an introductory flow charting class: Having never float charted/designed a sort, that was our task. Everyone in our small class achieved the goal all through different pathways. The point being made by the difficult, exasperating, and excellent teacher Gordon Frisbey was that there really wasn't a single way to do anything in programming or even a single best way.

Nicko · **#145** by **Nicko** » Aug 13, 2017 6:52 am

Oldskeptic wrote:That said, going back to the main topic, there is no reason, that I can think of, that women can't be as good of computer software designers or coders as men.

The "main topic" would be the memo in the OP.

Which doesn't contend that, "women can't be as good of computer software designers or coders as men" at any point. Damore in fact bends over backwards to make it explicit that none of what he is saying should be interpreted as contending that.

His point is that gendered differences mean we should not automatically expect women and men to be equally represented in tech. He certainly seems to be talking much more about what women on average prefer, rather than their capabilities per se. A particular woman might be more than able to become a top-flight coder, but if she prefers go to law school and ends up utilising her intelligence and ingenuity to find creative ways for rich people to not pay tax, she's not going to be writing code for Google.

James Damore wrote:I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.

...

These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.

...

Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women

...

Note that contrary to what a social constructionist would argue, research suggests that “greater nation-level gender equality leads to psychological dissimilarity in men’s and women’s personality traits.” Because as “society becomes more prosperous and more egalitarian, innate dispositional differences between men and women have more space to develop and the gap that exists between men and women in their personality becomes wider.” We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism.

Spinozasgalt · **#146** by **Spinozasgalt** » Aug 13, 2017 7:06 am

So, I went for a bit of a read around the forum and the internet and whereas I started out mainly just having problems with Damore's use of certain citations , I'm now iffy about the citations themselves. Wish Samsa was still around for questions, because he's engaged with the work of some of these authors and the iffy biology stuff before.

tuco · **#147** by **tuco** » Aug 13, 2017 10:29 am

Him or at least his girlfriend ;)

May I ask, why is it important to you whether or not the claims in the memo are sound? Genuine question because I am puzzled why it seems important not only to you.

EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.

Macdoc · **#148** by **Macdoc** » Aug 13, 2017 10:37 am

EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.

I swiped that for my sig

Spinozasgalt · **#149** by **Spinozasgalt** » Aug 13, 2017 12:43 pm

tuco wrote:Him or at least his girlfriend

May I ask, why is it important to you whether or not the claims in the memo are sound? Genuine question because I am puzzled why it seems important not only to you.

EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.

Well, speaking just for me, the claims of the memo aren't actually interesting. It just had the luck to point to some references that are interesting. And people who have engaged with the memo have subsequently said interesting things and provided further interesting references. The memo is pretty much beside the point.

It's just pretty much the old point around this place that science is actually interesting.

tuco · **#150** by **tuco** » Aug 13, 2017 12:45 pm

Thanks.

I wonder how many disabled work for Google or 50+ people.

mcgruff · **#151** by **mcgruff** » Aug 13, 2017 1:13 pm

Spinozasgalt wrote:I'm now iffy about the citations themselves.

With good reason. The science "showing" fundamental gender differences is a bit of a train wreck of built-in biases, unjustified assumptions and a failure to understand the pervasive impact of social conditioning. He should have read Cordelia Fine before wittering on about testosterone, for example.

Thommo · **#152** by **Thommo** » Aug 13, 2017 2:32 pm

Spinozasgalt wrote:It's just pretty much the old point around this place that science is actually interesting.

I definitely agree that the science is more interesting than the politics.

Oldskeptic · **#153** by **Oldskeptic** » Aug 13, 2017 4:45 pm

mcgruff wrote:
Spinozasgalt wrote:I'm now iffy about the citations themselves.

With good reason. The science "showing" fundamental gender differences is a bit of a train wreck of built-in biases, unjustified assumptions and a failure to understand the pervasive impact of social conditioning. He should have read Cordelia Fine before wittering on about testosterone, for example.

What wittering on? The memo mentions testostrone once:

"On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:

:They’re universal across human cultures
:They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone"

And no, reading Fine's Testosterone Rex would not have helped him because: i)The statement in the memo is is correct and ii) what Fine does is take on the most outrageous claims that testosterone is the end all and be all of gender differences and leaves any nuanced approaches alone.

mcgruff · **#154** by **mcgruff** » Aug 13, 2017 5:12 pm

Well you'd have to read it first to find out.

Oldskeptic · **#155** by **Oldskeptic** » Aug 13, 2017 5:47 pm

mcgruff wrote:Well you'd have to read it first to find out.

Find out what? I don't read entire books of half assed bullshit because some guy on the internet says it proves an argument. It is enough for me to read about the book from many sources. What I found out is that activist journalists tend to really like the book but accredited scientists in her field not so much, if at all.

If I were to debate Fine then I would read her book. If I were wanting to learn something new I'd read something else.

And no, I don't go along with just having the name of an author or book thrown at me as evidence for anything. If you think there is evidence in Fine's book then specify it and I will check out that evidence.

tuco · **#156** by **tuco** » Aug 13, 2017 7:51 pm

The biggest problem with the science, in this case, is that what can we learn about (fe/male) brains from it? We can learn that there are differences but we will not learn what such differences mean.

Spinozasgalt · **#157** by **Spinozasgalt** » Aug 14, 2017 1:50 am

mcgruff wrote:
Spinozasgalt wrote:I'm now iffy about the citations themselves.

With good reason. The science "showing" fundamental gender differences is a bit of a train wreck of built-in biases, unjustified assumptions and a failure to understand the pervasive impact of social conditioning. He should have read Cordelia Fine before wittering on about testosterone, for example.

I also found Samsa defending her work and replying to some of the charges against it, so I'll have look. :cheers:

Mike_L · **#158** by **Mike_L** » Aug 15, 2017 7:31 am

tuco · **#159** by **tuco** » Aug 15, 2017 8:12 am

Well, only the Bible and the US constitution is forever ;)

mcgruff · **#160** by **mcgruff** » Aug 15, 2017 1:42 pm

Lot of people seem to be making their careers out of spreading hate. Fox should make the tiki torch its new logo.

Google Diversity Memo

Re: Google Diversity Memo

Re: Google Diversity Memo

Re: Google Diversity Memo

Re: Google Diversity Memo

Re: Google Diversity Memo

Re: Google Diversity Memo

Re: Google Diversity Memo

Re: Google Diversity Memo

Re: Google Diversity Memo

Re: Google Diversity Memo

Re: Google Diversity Memo

Re: Google Diversity Memo

Re: Google Diversity Memo

Re: Google Diversity Memo

Re: Google Diversity Memo

Re: Google Diversity Memo

Re: Google Diversity Memo

Re: Google Diversity Memo

Re: Google Diversity Memo

Re: Google Diversity Memo

Who is online