5 ms·

>To use single differences to claim men are better at software like the Google guy did is just stupid No. The google author never claims anything of this sort.

by Pilfer 9y ago

>To use single differences to claim men are better at software like the Google guy did is just stupid No. The google author never claims anything of this sort. In one of his minor points, he argues that why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech may be explained through biological causes, backed by statistical studies. He never claims men are better at software, that's something you made up. His core point, is actually he wants to promote diversity, as in the author believes certain viewpoints (specifically conservative ones) are suppressed at google which prevents honest discussion. He argues this suppression is causing an ideological echo chamber. To me it seems like you responding to what you think his point is, not his actual point. The original document has now been leaked, the author's views are clearly explained in the tl;dr section http://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320 http://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-div...

mempko 9y ago
And I quote. > For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. He clearly believes men are better at the kind of programming google is promoting and believes google shouldn't change because it's bad for business. He thinks women should be casually in the game like doing part time work in programming. Read it again
- Pilfer 9y ago
  Oh golly, a quote taken without context. Now read it with context: >Philosophically, I don’t think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principles reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google—with Google’s diversity being a component of that. For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google’s funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged. That quote does not, in any way, show he "clearly believes men are better at the kind of programming". That section is about the belief that those who work hard should be rewarded, and he does not want Google's culture to change that. >He thinks women should be casually in the game like doing part time work This is just plain false. In the actual quote, he says he wants to make Google's culture more inclusive by "endorsing part time work [because it] can keep more women in tech". This does not mean he believes "women should be casually in the game". He is suggesting changes to Google's culture that could support woman's needs (for example, part time would support mothers who want to devote time caring for their children). Why do you see the need to defend your position with obviously false interpretations? It only takes a casual glance to dispel them. You are reinforcing my point that you are arguing against a phantom of your own invention, not the Google's authors arguments.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - mempko 9y ago
    He claims men handle stress better. Working long hours is stressful. Working long hours is hard work. Therefore he believes women can't work as hard. Question to you is how do you interpret what he said?
    - Pilfer 9y ago
      > Therefore he believes women can't work as hard. But that's not the author's conclusion, that's your conclusion. You are imagining what the author's thought process is and claiming your resulting conclusion is his resulting conclusion. How do you know how that's actually how he thinks? You don't have the ability to say that. What the author does say, is that statistical evidence shows men and women have differing goals and life outcomes. Researchers have found that Men have a higher drive for status, which in the author's words "leads men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership". The author argues this could explain why we don’t see women in top leadership positions. Nowhere does the author believe "women can't work as hard." He suggests that men are more willing than women to take stressful positions, which may explain sex differences in top leadership positions. > how do you interpret what he said? Honestly, I feel like you are focusing on minor nitpicks and ignoring the core points of the treatise. I view core goal of the treatise is to improve diversity of opinions at google. It's covered in the tl;dr section, which I did copy below. * Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety. * This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed. * The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology. * Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression * Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression * Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business. I do think it is easier for a critic to nitpick rather than address the author's core argument.

by Pilfer 9y ago

mempko 9y ago

And I quote. > For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. He clearly believes men are better at the kind of programming google is promoting and believes google shouldn't change because it's bad for business. He thinks women should be casually in the game like doing part time work in programming. Read it again

Pilfer 9y ago
Oh golly, a quote taken without context. Now read it with context: >Philosophically, I don’t think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principles reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google—with Google’s diversity being a component of that. For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google’s funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged. That quote does not, in any way, show he "clearly believes men are better at the kind of programming". That section is about the belief that those who work hard should be rewarded, and he does not want Google's culture to change that. >He thinks women should be casually in the game like doing part time work This is just plain false. In the actual quote, he says he wants to make Google's culture more inclusive by "endorsing part time work [because it] can keep more women in tech". This does not mean he believes "women should be casually in the game". He is suggesting changes to Google's culture that could support woman's needs (for example, part time would support mothers who want to devote time caring for their children). Why do you see the need to defend your position with obviously false interpretations? It only takes a casual glance to dispel them. You are reinforcing my point that you are arguing against a phantom of your own invention, not the Google's authors arguments.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- mempko 9y ago
  He claims men handle stress better. Working long hours is stressful. Working long hours is hard work. Therefore he believes women can't work as hard. Question to you is how do you interpret what he said?
  - Pilfer 9y ago
    > Therefore he believes women can't work as hard. But that's not the author's conclusion, that's your conclusion. You are imagining what the author's thought process is and claiming your resulting conclusion is his resulting conclusion. How do you know how that's actually how he thinks? You don't have the ability to say that. What the author does say, is that statistical evidence shows men and women have differing goals and life outcomes. Researchers have found that Men have a higher drive for status, which in the author's words "leads men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership". The author argues this could explain why we don’t see women in top leadership positions. Nowhere does the author believe "women can't work as hard." He suggests that men are more willing than women to take stressful positions, which may explain sex differences in top leadership positions. > how do you interpret what he said? Honestly, I feel like you are focusing on minor nitpicks and ignoring the core points of the treatise. I view core goal of the treatise is to improve diversity of opinions at google. It's covered in the tl;dr section, which I did copy below. * Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety. * This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed. * The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology. * Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression * Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression * Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business. I do think it is easier for a critic to nitpick rather than address the author's core argument.