Google Diversity Memo

Nicko · **#181** by **Nicko** » Aug 16, 2017 1:25 pm

GrahamH wrote:
Nicko wrote:
From the point of view of Google and Damore's memo though, I don't think the "nature vs nurture" argument is really relevant. By the time someone decides whether or not a job coding for Google sounds like something that tickles their fancy, they're well and truly nurtured.

So Google have to choose either to make their jobs appealing to everyone capable of doing them, or not. If most women don't like Google jobs Google can change working practices to enable them to tap into a substantial resource (ditto in education sector)or settle for the status quo.

As Alexander pointed out, if one could make coding about "people rather than things" this would probably make the job more appealing to women in general. I'm buggered thinking of a way to do this though. More focus on team dynamics? It may well be that the various kinds of engineering (of which coding is a subset) will continue to tend to be more attractive to men. Engineering certainly seems far more resistant to change than fields like medicine or law.

That's not the case with "Google jobs" more generally of course. There are plenty of jobs within the company that either already should be attractive to women or could be made more attractive. It's not like coding is all the company does.

One thing Google does when looking for coders is have online tests for suitability, designed to attract people who don't have a specific background in CS but who might well be able to code like fuck into applying for a job (it's how Demore was recruited). I don't know if this could be adapted to other areas or if it already has.

:dunno:

Sendraks · **#182** by **Sendraks** » Aug 16, 2017 1:32 pm

Nicko wrote:
You haven't paid much attention to the last few posts, have you?

I have. That you've decided that there are firm conclusions to be drawn from research, which the researchers themselves admit is all very early and tentative stuff, is all very well for you.

That I won't leap to the same conclusions as you, seems to be very much a YOU problem.

GrahamH · **#183** by **GrahamH** » Aug 16, 2017 1:43 pm

Nicko wrote:
As Alexander pointed out, if one could make coding about "people rather than things" this would probably make the job more appealing to women in general. I'm buggered thinking of a way to do this though. More focus on team dynamics? It may well be that the various kinds of engineering (of which coding is a subset) will continue to tend to be more attractive to men. Engineering certainly seems far more resistant to change than fields like medicine or law.

I don't know either, but all that highlights is that we don't have answers.

Google products are very much about people. Conversatoinal search, self-driving cars that have to relate to people, AI that has to interact with people. Most CS jobs potentially involve people at the user interface. That's a big part of why we have computers pervading everyday life. They aren't there for abstract tasks. They are there to work with humans. There might be lots of people-friendly jobs to be done.
The issue of working conditions was mentioned earlier with reference to 60 hour weeks, poor work-life balance and poor interaction. All of that could certainly be addressed.

zulumoose · **#184** by **zulumoose** » Aug 16, 2017 1:49 pm

Sendraks wrote:
Nicko wrote:
You haven't paid much attention to the last few posts, have you?

I have. That you've decided that there are firm conclusions to be drawn from research, which the researchers themselves admit is all very early and tentative stuff, is all very well for you.

That I won't leap to the same conclusions as you, seems to be very much a YOU problem.

In what way is "Preferences which are created by relentless social conditioning" not leaping to a conclusion, when lots of references have been given throughout the thread showing clearly that there is good reason to suspect nature has a big hand in this.

Nicko · **#185** by **Nicko** » Aug 16, 2017 1:54 pm

Sendraks wrote:
Nicko wrote:
You haven't paid much attention to the last few posts, have you?

I have. That you've decided that there are firm conclusions to be drawn from research, which the researchers themselves admit is all very early and tentative stuff, is all very well for you.

That I won't leap to the same conclusions as you, seems to be very much a YOU problem.

I seem to recall writing quite a few "mights", "coulds", "seems" and the like in the midst of my screeds.

Unlike McGruff - you know, the person the above quote was directed at - who categorically stated without any qualification that the preferences we're talking about are created by "relentless social pressure".

No one in this thread - certainly not me - has advanced the idea that personality traits and personal preferences are wholly the result of biological factors. There are, however, people advancing the idea that personality traits and personal preferences are wholly the result of environmental factors.

I really don't think the people saying, "Hey, there seems to be persistent personality differences between men and women that we have good reason to think are not environmental in origin." are the ones who need to check the level of certainty with which they state their position.

Sendraks · **#186** by **Sendraks** » Aug 16, 2017 2:04 pm

Nicko wrote:

Unlike macdoc - you know, the person the above quote was directed at - who categorically stated without any qualification that the preferences we're talking about are created by "relentless social pressure".

Macdoc? You mean McGruff?
Apologies, I thought the comment was directed at me. It might as well have been given I agree with the point McGruff made and thought I'd made a post pointing out that the relentless social conditioning was a cross cultural problem.

Nicko wrote:I really don't think the people saying, "Hey, there seems to be persistent personality differences between men and women that we have good reason to think are not environmental in origin." are the ones who need to check the level of certainty with which they state their position.

And as I've already set out, there simply isn't enough information on whether the differences are environmental or not to be leaping forwards with proposals as set out in the Diversity memo.

Nicko · **#187** by **Nicko** » Aug 16, 2017 2:11 pm

GrahamH wrote:Google products are very much about people. Conversatoinal search, self-driving cars that have to relate to people, AI that has to interact with people. Most CS jobs potentially involve people at the user interface. That's a big part of why we have computers pervading everyday life. They aren't there for abstract tasks. They are there to work with humans. There might be lots of people-friendly jobs to be done.

Yup.

GrahamH wrote:The issue of working conditions was mentioned earlier with reference to 60 hour weeks, poor work-life balance and poor interaction. All of that could certainly be addressed.

Any organisation that seriously wants to address gender inequality has to look at these things.

None of what I have said should be interpreted as saying that companies should not try to make themselves attractive places for women to work at. That, however, requires one recognise that women frequently prioritise different things when deciding what constitutes an attractive job than men do.

Nicko · **#188** by **Nicko** » Aug 16, 2017 2:12 pm

Deleted.

Sendraks · **#189** by **Sendraks** » Aug 16, 2017 2:17 pm

Sendraks wrote:
Nicko wrote:

Unlike macdoc - you know, the person the above quote was directed at - who categorically stated without any qualification that the preferences we're talking about are created by "relentless social pressure".

Macdoc? You mean McGruff?
Apologies, I thought the comment was directed at me. It might as well have been given I agree with the point McGruff made and thought I'd made a post pointing out that the relentless social conditioning was a cross cultural problem.

Nicko wrote:I really don't think the people saying, "Hey, there seems to be persistent personality differences between men and women that we have good reason to think are not environmental in origin." are the ones who need to check the level of certainty with which they state their position.

And as I've already set out, there simply isn't enough information on whether the differences are environmental or not to be leaping forwards with proposals as set out in the Diversity memo.

Nicko · **#190** by **Nicko** » Aug 16, 2017 2:31 pm

Sendraks wrote:
Nicko wrote:

Unlike macdoc - you know, the person the above quote was directed at - who categorically stated without any qualification that the preferences we're talking about are created by "relentless social pressure".

Macdoc? You mean McGruff?

Fixed.

Sendraks wrote:Apologies, I thought the comment was directed at me. It might as well have been given I agree with the point McGruff made and thought I'd made a post pointing out that the relentless social conditioning was a cross cultural problem.
Nicko wrote:I really don't think the people saying, "Hey, there seems to be persistent personality differences between men and women that we have good reason to think are not environmental in origin." are the ones who need to check the level of certainty with which they state their position.

And as I've already set out, there simply isn't enough information on whether the differences are environmental or not to be leaping forwards with proposals as set out in the Diversity memo.

People don't seem to have had this level of circumspection when leaping forward with "solutions" based upon the assumption that the lack of representation of women in certain fields must be the result of sexism. As I've said though, whether the differences are biological or environmental in cause (my vote: both) is irrelevant from Google's perspective as an employer.

It doesn't matter whether the differences are the result of "nature or nurture", we can argue that until the cows come home.
Even if these differences were wholly the result of environmental factors (which, as I've said, seems vanishingly improbable to me) it's incontrovertible that the differences do exist in the pool of people Google is trying to recruit coders from.

As Alexander pointed out, there are a shitload of highly competent female mathematics majors studying all over the US. It just seems that most of them to want to be maths teachers, not coders for Google.

Hence my - admittedly somewhat cheeky - observation about telling women that they don't really want what they think they want.

GrahamH · **#191** by **GrahamH** » Aug 16, 2017 3:03 pm

Nicko wrote:
People don't seem to have had this level of circumspection when leaping forward with "solutions" based upon the assumption that the lack of representation of women in certain fields must be the result of sexism.

Who leapt to that conclusion?
My impression is that there is a general recognition that employing more women would be a good thing and a concern that those criticising measures to do that might be sexist.
I think you are suggesting that Google have implemented measures expressly to correct for assumed sexist bias (rather than any other sorts of bias). Is that what you mean?

Spinozasgalt · **#192** by **Spinozasgalt** » Aug 17, 2017 1:10 am

The change in the percentage of women during the 80s is interesting.

Nicko · **#193** by **Nicko** » Aug 17, 2017 5:30 am

Spinozasgalt wrote:The change in the percentage of women during the 80s is interesting.

Yeah, I found it so. Hadn't thought of it that way before.

Nicko · **#194** by **Nicko** » Aug 17, 2017 7:15 am

GrahamH wrote:
Nicko wrote:
People don't seem to have had this level of circumspection when leaping forward with "solutions" based upon the assumption that the lack of representation of women in certain fields must be the result of sexism.

Who leapt to that conclusion?
My impression is that there is a general recognition that employing more women would be a good thing and a concern that those criticising measures to do that might be sexist.
I think you are suggesting that Google have implemented measures expressly to correct for assumed sexist bias (rather than any other sorts of bias). Is that what you mean?

What's this "Google" you speak of?

mingthething · **#195** by **mingthething** » Aug 17, 2017 8:56 am

https://www.economist.com/news/internat ... g-rebuttal

Browse in incognito . This is a good read.

LucidFlight · **#196** by **LucidFlight** » Aug 17, 2017 9:12 am

mingthething wrote:https://www.economist.com/news/international/21726276-last-week-paper-said-alphabets-boss-should-write-detailed-ringing-rebuttal

Browse in incognito . This is a good read.

Hah! So, he admits there are differences. Checkmate, Google!

:teef:

GrahamH · **#197** by **GrahamH** » Aug 17, 2017 12:20 pm

Nicko wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
Nicko wrote:
People don't seem to have had this level of circumspection when leaping forward with "solutions" based upon the assumption that the lack of representation of women in certain fields must be the result of sexism.

Who leapt to that conclusion?
My impression is that there is a general recognition that employing more women would be a good thing and a concern that those criticising measures to do that might be sexist.
I think you are suggesting that Google have implemented measures expressly to correct for assumed sexist bias (rather than any other sorts of bias). Is that what you mean?

What's this "Google" you speak of?

It's full of references to the memo being sexist. Google's own pages on diversity make no mention of sexism.

I did find one:

YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki has responded to the Google anti-diversity memo, writing in a column for Fortune that the questioning of women’s abilities is “pervasive” in tech and that the memo is “yet another discouraging signal to young women who aspire to study computer science.”
https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/9/16118 ... n-wojcicki

But I was asking you about your statement and who participating in this forum had leapt to that conclusion/

tuco · **#198** by **tuco** » Aug 17, 2017 1:36 pm

mingthething wrote:https://www.economist.com/news/international/21726276-last-week-paper-said-alphabets-boss-should-write-detailed-ringing-rebuttal

Browse in incognito . This is a good read.

I got to:

Have you ever noticed that no one takes sentences that start “I’m not a racist, but…” at face value? Here’s why, in the words of Jon Snow in “Game of Thrones” (season 7, episode 1). When Sansa Stark tells him: “They respect you, they really do, but…,” Snow laughs and comes back with: “What did father used to say? Everything before the word ‘but’ is horseshit.”

fuck off please.

---

So why exactly Google fired Damore?

Nicko · **#199** by **Nicko** » Aug 17, 2017 1:42 pm

GrahamH wrote:
Nicko wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
Nicko wrote:
People don't seem to have had this level of circumspection when leaping forward with "solutions" based upon the assumption that the lack of representation of women in certain fields must be the result of sexism.

Who leapt to that conclusion?
My impression is that there is a general recognition that employing more women would be a good thing and a concern that those criticising measures to do that might be sexist.
I think you are suggesting that Google have implemented measures expressly to correct for assumed sexist bias (rather than any other sorts of bias). Is that what you mean?

What's this "Google" you speak of?

It's full of references to the memo being sexist. Google's own pages on diversity make no mention of sexism.

I did find one:

YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki has responded to the Google anti-diversity memo, writing in a column for Fortune that the questioning of women’s abilities is “pervasive” in tech and that the memo is “yet another discouraging signal to young women who aspire to study computer science.”
https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/9/16118 ... n-wojcicki

But I was asking you about your statement and who participating in this forum had leapt to that conclusion/

Sexism?

Nicko · **#200** by **Nicko** » Aug 17, 2017 1:58 pm

mingthething wrote:https://www.economist.com/news/international/21726276-last-week-paper-said-alphabets-boss-should-write-detailed-ringing-rebuttal

Browse in incognito . This is a good read.

Yet another person who bravely refutes the assertion that women are less able to work in tech than men, oblivious to the fact that Damore's argument was that women prefer tech less than men.

For what seems like the millionth time: it's got nothing to do with ability. There are probably a fuckton of women currently employed as math teachers in the US who would have made awesome coders.

They just didn't want to do that.

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