5 ms·

It's great that the person stated his opinion. I regard him much higher than hypocrites who think and act the same, but pretend to be 1000% pc. It's not necess

It's great that the person stated his opinion. I regard him much higher than hypocrites who think and act the same, but pretend to be 1000% pc. It's not necessary to tediously counter-argue every single argument the author made. I'm sure you don't expect people to counter-argue overly long badly written texts by various political ideologists from today or the past. I'm convinced it suffices to just argue why summary is wrong or rather the opposite is true. As a matter of fact, other people have done this work for us, so instead of arguing it suffices to do a literature research. (I'm sure you know how to google feminism and that you might have an hour or two time to watch Youtube) But I'm happy to bring my own crude arguments: - people, both male and female, oftentimes don't do things because they think they are not able to do them - teachers have a bias towards encouraging certain stereotypes - the whole environment pushes certain behaviours and interests on people Speaking for myself (being male) my Physics teacher said nothing when I told him in class that I'm going to study Physics. He was encouraging the other people who planned to study that or an Engineering subject, not me. Even my father discouraged me from studying it because he thought my grades where not good enough and that I wouldn't be that kind of person. Still I managed to study very quickly and successfully. During my studies I also learned, that my thinking is different than other peoples'. I think more in pictures, whereas my peers in Theoretical Particle Physics rather thought in texts. At work I often get overtalked and still deliver over-average results because I emphasise being polite, use proper argument and I look 10 years younger than I am. This really sucks and this proves to me that if you are female, you are basically screwed if you want to do something engineering like because even Engineers don't act analytically but emotionally based on prejudices.

blusterXY 9y ago
> tediously counter-argue every single argument I haven't seen a single criticism of the paper that even recognizes the author is referencing large-scale incontrovertible research involving the Big-5 personality model (the giveaway is the use of terms "agreeability", "conscienciousness", "neuroticism"). Instead we get what you offer: off-hand casual assertions that there must exist research which runs against large-n and replicable science-driven studies using the only mainstream and empirically-supported model of personality that seems to work. Basically, this makes criticisms like yours on-par with climate change denial in the sense that they either fail to grasp the point being made or offer personal observations on irrelevant points as rebuttal. It is bad news for Google either way, since the author is correct to point out among many other things that high levels of "agreeability" are demonstrably bad for anyone to have in corporate environments, and if this affects men in the same way it affects women then why are the solutions gender-excluding? Anyway, perhaps you should research the Big-5 model if you aren't familiar with it: very interesting new research coming out on it continually.
- dieterrams 9y ago
  > I haven't seen a single criticism of the paper that even recognizes the author is referencing large-scale incontrovertible research involving the Big-5 personality model (the giveaway is the use of terms "agreeability", "conscienciousness", "neuroticism"). I've seen that research. What conclusions do you think you can draw from it?
  - blusterXY 9y ago
    The author of the paper is well-read, and the people criticizing his science understand neither the underlying science, nor what it implies for the problems they profess to care about.
    - sigmar 9y ago
      He doesn't cite any science so it is hard to appreciate that any of it is based on quality research. Seems like a lot of stereotypes mixed in with hedging. For example: suggesting that women are too emotional to "reason about the facts" as well as men do.
      - roenxi 9y ago
        He didn't say that - he said "Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts". That might be wrong. I think using emotions as a guide reason can work, sometimes very well. It doesn't link anything to women - women can be disengaged and men can be emotional in the ordinary course of their day.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - slavak 9y ago
        He cites plenty of science, it's just that Gizmodo conveniently edited out all of his references when they posted the text. Here's the full memo in its entirety: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...
rhapsodic 9y ago
>This really sucks and this proves to me that if you are female, you are basically screwed if you want to do something engineering like because even Engineers don't act analytically but emotionally based on prejudices. I think you should brush up on the meaning of the word "proves".
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
smsm42 9y ago
> At work I often get overtalked and still deliver over-average results because I emphasise being polite, use proper argument and I look 10 years younger than I am. That surely sucks and should not happen to you, or anybody. However, it happens - and it happens to many people that tend to be introverted, shy or just tend to be conflict-avoidant. You'd be surprised how many such people are among males. Not every male is a stereotypical hyper-aggressive alpha. > if you are female, you are basically screwed if you want to do something engineering like because even Engineers don't act analytically but emotionally based on prejudices. I find it somewhat disappointing that you just made judgement about millions of people working in certain area because you've had some bad experiences in one place with a handful of people - most of which probably didn't even realize their behavior is counter-productive and would be ready to accommodate given proper tools - such as meeting setup with explicit way of ensuring everybody has an opportunity to participate and somebody who is more extroverted and verbal does not hog the scene. There are many known methods to do this and many people who are trained in doing it, one only needs to be willing to look it up and use it. I would think it's much more productive approach then rendering a wholesale judgement on the whole field and declaring it hopeless. I would say approach of "if you're female and want to Engineering, you should be ready to overcome some challenges, and here are the tools for doing so and for those wanting to help in this" is a much more productive approach.
TimTheTinker 9y ago
Here's a blog post that provides some support for the OOP's viewpoint (esp. as it pertains to STEM careers). https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/why-brilliant-girls-tend-favor-non-stem-careers https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/wh... It seems there's good evidence that on average, biology affects career preferences to an extent. (Preference differences were even shown in 2-day old infants and (with a rather large standard deviation & n=41, iirc) primates. The OOP's argument, to me, seemed to be primarily against institutionalized discrimination (e.g. affirmative action), which seems reasonable to me. Not that status quo is OK. But there are probably better ways to help -- like programs aimed at introducing girls to computer programming, for example.

blusterXY 9y ago

> tediously counter-argue every single argument I haven't seen a single criticism of the paper that even recognizes the author is referencing large-scale incontrovertible research involving the Big-5 personality model (the giveaway is the use of terms "agreeability", "conscienciousness", "neuroticism"). Instead we get what you offer: off-hand casual assertions that there must exist research which runs against large-n and replicable science-driven studies using the only mainstream and empirically-supported model of personality that seems to work. Basically, this makes criticisms like yours on-par with climate change denial in the sense that they either fail to grasp the point being made or offer personal observations on irrelevant points as rebuttal. It is bad news for Google either way, since the author is correct to point out among many other things that high levels of "agreeability" are demonstrably bad for anyone to have in corporate environments, and if this affects men in the same way it affects women then why are the solutions gender-excluding? Anyway, perhaps you should research the Big-5 model if you aren't familiar with it: very interesting new research coming out on it continually.

dieterrams 9y ago
> I haven't seen a single criticism of the paper that even recognizes the author is referencing large-scale incontrovertible research involving the Big-5 personality model (the giveaway is the use of terms "agreeability", "conscienciousness", "neuroticism"). I've seen that research. What conclusions do you think you can draw from it?
- blusterXY 9y ago
  The author of the paper is well-read, and the people criticizing his science understand neither the underlying science, nor what it implies for the problems they profess to care about.
  - sigmar 9y ago
    He doesn't cite any science so it is hard to appreciate that any of it is based on quality research. Seems like a lot of stereotypes mixed in with hedging. For example: suggesting that women are too emotional to "reason about the facts" as well as men do.
    - roenxi 9y ago
      He didn't say that - he said "Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts". That might be wrong. I think using emotions as a guide reason can work, sometimes very well. It doesn't link anything to women - women can be disengaged and men can be emotional in the ordinary course of their day.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - slavak 9y ago
      He cites plenty of science, it's just that Gizmodo conveniently edited out all of his references when they posted the text. Here's the full memo in its entirety: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...

rhapsodic 9y ago

>This really sucks and this proves to me that if you are female, you are basically screwed if you want to do something engineering like because even Engineers don't act analytically but emotionally based on prejudices. I think you should brush up on the meaning of the word "proves".

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

smsm42 9y ago

> At work I often get overtalked and still deliver over-average results because I emphasise being polite, use proper argument and I look 10 years younger than I am. That surely sucks and should not happen to you, or anybody. However, it happens - and it happens to many people that tend to be introverted, shy or just tend to be conflict-avoidant. You'd be surprised how many such people are among males. Not every male is a stereotypical hyper-aggressive alpha. > if you are female, you are basically screwed if you want to do something engineering like because even Engineers don't act analytically but emotionally based on prejudices. I find it somewhat disappointing that you just made judgement about millions of people working in certain area because you've had some bad experiences in one place with a handful of people - most of which probably didn't even realize their behavior is counter-productive and would be ready to accommodate given proper tools - such as meeting setup with explicit way of ensuring everybody has an opportunity to participate and somebody who is more extroverted and verbal does not hog the scene. There are many known methods to do this and many people who are trained in doing it, one only needs to be willing to look it up and use it. I would think it's much more productive approach then rendering a wholesale judgement on the whole field and declaring it hopeless. I would say approach of "if you're female and want to Engineering, you should be ready to overcome some challenges, and here are the tools for doing so and for those wanting to help in this" is a much more productive approach.

TimTheTinker 9y ago

Here's a blog post that provides some support for the OOP's viewpoint (esp. as it pertains to STEM careers). https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/why-brilliant-girls-tend-favor-non-stem-careers https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/wh... It seems there's good evidence that on average, biology affects career preferences to an extent. (Preference differences were even shown in 2-day old infants and (with a rather large standard deviation & n=41, iirc) primates. The OOP's argument, to me, seemed to be primarily against institutionalized discrimination (e.g. affirmative action), which seems reasonable to me. Not that status quo is OK. But there are probably better ways to help -- like programs aimed at introducing girls to computer programming, for example.