4 ms·

This time around there were more white men, I think - in part because of some specials like Tensor Flow, or a picture from an actual office. It is still biased

This time around there were more white men, I think - in part because of some specials like Tensor Flow, or a picture from an actual office. It is still biased against white men (if it is supposed to reflect the actual distribution of Google employees), but not as extreme as last time. I really would like to find the date of my last comment about it. Also perhaps simply more data is needed - a single picture with several people could shift the results here, because I checked only pics from 2.5 months. Also better methodology needed, this was just a quick shot looking into one simple metric.

tomlock 10y ago
You're again, falling victim to confirmation bias by rejecting the best quantification you've provided yet. Lets examine the data you've provided - 29% white women, 19% women of color, 21% men of color, 30% white men. This data is entirely in line with the demographics of the US. About 50/50 on gender and 60% white. In fact, given google's global hiring reach, these figures are actually biased towards white people - while about spot on for gender. This entirely contradicts the point you were originally pointing to this twitter feed as confirmation of.
- jaduncan 10y ago
  If anything, this thread has just made me newly impressed with Google's approach to inclusion. It's also really, really obvious that the person you are responding to isn't able to reconcile seeing PoC and women with their own world view.
  - facepalm 10y ago
    Huh wtf - what does seeing women and PoCs have to do with a "world view"? You think I am not aware that women and PoCs exist?
    - tomlock 10y ago
      Based on your quantification, there's now more evidence for the claim that you perceive an unbiased sample of people to be biased towards minorities and women, than there is evidence against that claim. It seems like you're struggling to reconcile this bias with the quantification of it.

tomlock 10y ago

You're again, falling victim to confirmation bias by rejecting the best quantification you've provided yet. Lets examine the data you've provided - 29% white women, 19% women of color, 21% men of color, 30% white men. This data is entirely in line with the demographics of the US. About 50/50 on gender and 60% white. In fact, given google's global hiring reach, these figures are actually biased towards white people - while about spot on for gender. This entirely contradicts the point you were originally pointing to this twitter feed as confirmation of.

jaduncan 10y ago
If anything, this thread has just made me newly impressed with Google's approach to inclusion. It's also really, really obvious that the person you are responding to isn't able to reconcile seeing PoC and women with their own world view.
- facepalm 10y ago
  Huh wtf - what does seeing women and PoCs have to do with a "world view"? You think I am not aware that women and PoCs exist?
  - tomlock 10y ago
    Based on your quantification, there's now more evidence for the claim that you perceive an unbiased sample of people to be biased towards minorities and women, than there is evidence against that claim. It seems like you're struggling to reconcile this bias with the quantification of it.