12 ms·

The Google Memo: Four Scientists Respond

201 points by mvdwoord 9y ago

kkleindev 9y ago
I believe that PG makes a very interesting point in Hackers and Painters saying that one shouldn't discuss about whether something is sexist, racist or offensive but rather just whether it is accurate or not.
- narag 9y ago
  TBH, that's irrelevant too. The interesting part here (at least for me, YMMV) is the reactions, from the owners, the media, the people... Not sure if we should credit the author with this shift of focus, though.
  - guywhocodes 9y ago
    I agree 100%, the only stake I have in this is the lack of argumentation paired with the amount of outrage and knee-jerk reactions being portrayed as normal by the media. The only counter arguments I see around this is essentially "this is not a person I generally agree with so their opinion has zero value. They might be a doctor in psychology but my opinion is more correct."
- zimpenfish 9y ago
  The problem is that as a rich white dude, he's really not ever going to be on the receiving end of those things and his "just rise above it" stance consequently doesn't carry any weight.
  - stagbeetle 9y ago
    Ideas should (albeit this is an idealistic notion) be judged by their content, not who speaks them. I'm well off and I have white skin, yet I started in poverty and I was discriminated against for the non-western country I came from. We all face challenges and injustices, there's never been an "us vs them."
    - zimpenfish 9y ago
      > Ideas should (albeit this is an idealistic notion) be judged by their content, not who speaks them. Funny how it's almost always (like 99% of the time) privileged white dudes bewailing this trope and almost always on topics they want to hold offensive opinions about.
      - stagbeetle 9y ago
        Perhaps, though it doesn't make it untrue.
        zimpenfish 9y ago
        Equally it doesn't make it true either.
  - RealityNow 9y ago
    Essentially what you're saying is that, because he's a white male, his opinion on the matter isn't taken as seriously. In other words, this is a clear case of sexism/racism.
    - dbenhur 9y ago
      Alternatively: his membership in a privileged class is unlikely to grant him especially accurate insight into the experience of individuals in less privileged classes, and more likely to reinforce his bias to justify his own privileged position.
      - justin_vanw 9y ago
        Deleting because apparently you can get brigaded and fired for any slightly dissenting opinion.
    - zimpenfish 9y ago
      > Essentially what you're saying is that, because he's a white male, his opinion on the matter isn't taken as seriously. Correct. Just as my opinion, as a privileged white dude, can be largely ignored on the topics of the problems of the less privileged because I do not have the experiences necessary to give them any weight.
imaginenore 9y ago
Good fact-based answers. But the reaction from the "progressives" is quite telling. Don't they realize that demanding to fire him without refuting his arguments only proves him right?
- mvdwoord 9y ago
  Perhaps them not realising that is why they behave in such a way. The whole thing is getting utterly bizarre though.
- casefields 9y ago
  Well he's now been fired. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/google-fires-employee-behind-controversial-diversity-memo https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/google-fi...
  - jacknews 9y ago
    “The company was founded under the principles of freedom of expression, diversity, inclusiveness and science-based thinking,” Clearly, this is either not entirely correct, or they have "evolved"
    - thick7in 9y ago
      Actually, fwiw, the company was founded under the principle "do no evil", but they already walked that back before this incident.
    - vpatryshev 9y ago
      The main principle was, I guess, "yes, we can, and you can't".
  - remarkEon 9y ago
    I'm not surprised. I'd be curious to know if he planned for this. What other outcome could he have expected?
  - daodedickinson 9y ago
guywhocodes 9y ago
The activity here correlates very well with the amount of actual citations and rebuttals of the original document. It's almost like it's just a massive act of collective misrepresentation, one of those "winning the narrative" kind of situations.
- vfulco 9y ago
  In other words an extension of the fake news which has been plaguing us for months now. The truth will set you free.
comex 9y ago
While it doesn't invalidate the takes, I'd like to point out that this is not exactly an unbiased selection of scientists. With the possible exception of David P Schmitt - the one with the relatively moderate take, whose research was cited in the original memo - they all appear to have at least mildly right-leaning political beliefs (see below). Also, the site Quilette itself is quite right-wing, as can be easily determined by looking at the homepage. Lee Jussim: gave a "talk about left-wing bias in social psychology" http://quillette.com/2015/12/04/rebellious-scientist-surprising-truth-about-stereotypes/ http://quillette.com/2015/12/04/rebellious-scientist-surpris... Geoffrey Miller: note wording of recent tweets, including - Compare the actual Google memo to how it's being misrepresented by SJWs, and you'll see what's wrong in America. - My new article for @QuilletteM: a new legal strategy the neurodivergent can use to fight for free speech on campus. https://twitter.com/primalpoly?lang=en https://twitter.com/primalpoly?lang=en and some earlier history that's just kind of bizarre: https://closetpuritan.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/diversityisourweakness/ https://closetpuritan.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/diversityisou... Debra Soh: wrote a column complaining about censorship at colleges, claiming "emotional grievances are being prioritized over logic and facts", and uncritically praising a "free speech" event hosted by Ben Shapiro (of Breitbart fame) https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/we-need-to-protect-free-speech-on-campus/article35476933/https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/we-need-to-protect-free-speech-on-campus/article35476933/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/we-need-to-protect-f...
- mvdwoord 9y ago
  There IS censorship at colleges, and emotional grievances ARE being prioritised over logic and facts. You can dislike Ben Shapiro, you can have a lot of valid criticism of breitbart but It's all just Ad Hominems. Good luck with those.
- sebastos 9y ago
  Phew - I was worried I would actually have to read the responses and form an opinion on the science. Good to hear that we can Kevin-Bacon them over to "uncritically praising" an event put on by Ben Shapiro. There can be little doubt that they're evil shills now, so I don't have to bother.
- 9y ago
Pilfer 9y ago
I had trouble loading the webpage. Here is a mirror/cached copy. https://archive.is/VlNfl https://archive.is/VlNfl
hackcasual 9y ago
You can find 4 scientists who'll tell you global warming is a hoax. Just find one who can take this manifesto, provide a thoughtful analysis, collect published critiques and discuss and argue them. This just seems to be a few modestly credentialed academics really just using this as a springboard for their own view points.
- dionidium 9y ago
  You might be interested in this debate: Steven Pinker & Elizabeth Spelke | The Science of Gender & Science | Mind Brain Behavior Discussion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Hb3oe7-PJ8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Hb3oe7-PJ8
- averagewall 9y ago
  Even without credentials, has anyone at all shown any part of the manifesto to be false yet?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - hackcasual 9y ago
    https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788 https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-man...
    - EddieRingle 9y ago
      > I’m not going to spend any length of time on (1); if anyone wishes to provide details as to how nearly every statement about gender in that entire document is actively incorrect,¹ and flies directly in the face of all research done in the field for decades, they should go for it. But I am neither a biologist, a psychologist, nor a sociologist, so I’ll leave that to someone else.
      - hackcasual 9y ago
mjg59 9y ago
Four scientists with no expertise in the field of diversity and, as a result, in no position to argue that the scientific argument made justifies the conclusions drawn (as one of them admits). A scientific argument is more than "Here's some science, here are some facts and here's the conclusion" - you have to use the science to explain the observed facts, and doing so takes more than saying "And therefore". There was no attempt to do so whatsoever, and so (from a scientific perspective) this was junk.
- true_religion 9y ago
  There has to be a more charitable explanation than your implied "four scientists don't know how to do science properly" thesis. Is diversity honestly so narrow a field, that a social psychologist, personality psychologists, evolutionary psychology, and a sexual neuroscientist are in no position to say anything? Gender diversity always seems to bring up two issues (1) are men and women different in mental reasoning, and if so where and how significant are these differences and (2) would differences in mental reasoning lead to different outcomes in choice of studies or employment? Is there a specific scientific field for that?
  - mjg59 9y ago
    > There has to be a more charitable explanation than your implied "four scientists don't know how to do science properly" thesis. Indeed - one of them knows how to. > Is diversity honestly so narrow a field, that a social psychologist, personality psychologists, evolutionary psychology, and a sexual neuroscientist are in no position to say anything? Unless they've done any research in it, sure. Why should any of them have more insight into diversity than, say, a nuclear physicist? The issue isn't whether there are gender-related differences that are relevant to the job. It's not even whether those are significant enough to result in a measurable difference in outcome. It's whether those factors are the primary reason for the observed disparity, and neither the document author or the quoted scientists present any evidence whatsoever that that's the case. Failing to do that means that the conclusions drawn (ie, that existing diversity initiatives discriminate against men while providing no benefit to the company) aren't scientific.
yawaramin 9y ago
The site seems to be experiencing the 'hug of death' right now, Internet Archive link: https://web.archive.org/web/20170808013732/http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/ https://web.archive.org/web/20170808013732/http://quillette.... Prof. Schmitt gets it right here: gender differences don't have any significant impact on women's capacity to perform any job--even physically strenuous jobs, with the right training. Certainly for information work, bringing up gender differences is just going down the wrong rabbit hole. It's like asking a job candidate if they're American when all you need to know is if they're legally authorised to work in the US. The other scientists unfortunately go down this rabbit hole. Prof. Miller especially consistently asks the wrong questions throughout his piece. First, he establishes biological sex differences but doesn't ask if they have any significant impact on women's capacity to perform a job. Second, he goes off on a tangent about his pet 'paradox' theory about the American public, arguing that gender equality would make diversity moot from a business advantage perspective. Let's just clarify why we want diversity in the workplace: it's not because minorities will bring different skills and traits to the table; it's because (a) excluding minorities is inhumane, and (b) because minorities will (hopefully) keep the organisation from making dumb mistakes like leaving out the main protagonist of their new film series from a major marketing campaign ( https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/12/15960372/hasbro-star-wars-monopoly-toys-wheresrey-insufficient-interest https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/12/15960372/hasbro-star-wars... ), sending Kylie Jenner out with a Pepsi to mend race relations ( http://time.com/4726500/pepsi-ad-kendall-jenner/ http://time.com/4726500/pepsi-ad-kendall-jenner/ ), and pushing for a Game of Thrones-style show about a modern-day Confederate America which won the war and kept slavery intact ( https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/08/no-confederate/535512/ https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/08/no... ). These are just three things that come immediately to mind, you can imagine how much shit there is out there that hasn't even reached national level yet.
- ad_hominem 9y ago
  > gender differences don't have any significant impact on women's capacity to perform any job--even physically strenuous jobs, with the right training That seems just plain wrong considering so many women fail Marine fitness tests: http://thehill.com/policy/defense/284252-report-6-out-of-7-female-recruits-fail-new-marines-fitness-test-for-combat http://thehill.com/policy/defense/284252-report-6-out-of-7-f... And FDNY had to relax physical fitness requirements in order to hire more women firefighters: https://www.bustle.com/articles/53536-fdny-wants-more-women-firefighters-but-is-cutting-strength-requirements-the-way-to-do-it https://www.bustle.com/articles/53536-fdny-wants-more-women-... Women also have to be separated from men in professional sports, otherwise in many sports it wouldn't even be close (e.g. the aged, #203-ranked male tennis player walloping both Williams sisters in their prime: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karsten_Braasch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karsten_Braasch). There's nothing wrong with admitting there are basic biological differences between men and women relating to strength.
ad_hominem 9y ago
> I think it’s really important to discuss this topic scientifically, keeping an open mind and using informed skepticism when evaluating claims about evidence. > ... > There have been (and likely will continue to be) many socio-structural barriers to women working in technological jobs. These include culturally-embedded gender stereotypes, biased socialization practices, in some cultures explicit employment discrimination, and a certain degree of masculinization of technological workplaces. Well that didn't last long
- EddieRingle 9y ago
  The top sentence is followed by three full paragraphs you clipped out. Only then do we reach the bottom statement you've quoted, albeit in the source is prefaced with the following: > Now, treating people as dichotomous sexes is exactly what many affirmative action policies do. As this is not my area of expertise, I can only offer my non-expert opinion on this issue, which is this: There have been (and likely will continue to be) many socio-structural barriers to women working in technological jobs. ...
stoobe 9y ago
Mirror: https://archive.is/VlNfl https://archive.is/VlNfl
stoobe 9y ago
In this thread: "I don't agree with what the scientists said so either they're cherry picked, or bad scientists, or right-wing" Republicans on global warming: "I don't believe the results so it must be that scientists don't know what they're talking about or they're biased." Can I join/found a pro-science party? Anyone want to join?
- candiodari 9y ago
  A pro-science party wouldn't toe even the republican line on many of these issues and therefore "be racist". It would say different races have ... shudder differences They might even point out that the difference between men and women, as measured in DNA differences, is bigger than the differences between humans and mice. This might result in some actual differences, and likely not just in appearance. Nobody seems to want to hear these obvious facts, we've just collectively agreed that we're going to ignore this and even change the science to reflect political opinion. Apparently the message that yes, sexes and races are different, and we've chosen to ignore that is considered a racist attitude itself.
  - stoobe 9y ago
    haha yeah, apparently acknowledging facts about average differences makes one a racists/bigot/asshole. my guess is that most people have a hard time distinguishing that statements about a population distribution do not mean an endorsement stereotyping.
    - almost_usual 9y ago
      Google would scout and hire anyone regardless of race or gender if they were talented enough.
      - canoebuilder 9y ago
        They would, "Software is an IQ business." - Bill Gates The fact that google is well known for seeking out the most intelligence and talented, and the fact that Asians and Jews are highly "over-represented" among googlers if one were to extrapolate a random population sample as being the only SJW approved workforce, the fact that these two groups are so over-represented implies that... Jews and Asians tend towards smarter rather than dumber, which anyone paying attention has kind of noticed.
bartof303 9y ago
I think the obvious point that the authors missed is that Google is not a University nor a scientific journal. It's a workplace and the author of the memo, just called into question the "biological" ability of women to be engineers.
- dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
  No, he didn't, and that's one of the most common misrepresentations of what he actually wrote. From TFA: "For what it’s worth, I think that almost all of the Google memo’s empirical claims are scientifically accurate. Moreover, they are stated quite carefully and dispassionately. Its key claims about sex differences are especially well-supported by large volumes of research across species, cultures, and history."
- jbmorgado 9y ago
  > "It's a workplace and the author of the memo, just called into question the "biological" ability of women to be engineers." That's totally wrong, what the memo called into question is the "biological" driven desire for woman to become engineers. It's never put into question in that memo, that when they do choose to be enginners they aren't as competent as their peers.
- koonsolo 9y ago
  Have you read the memo? He does not do that. He talks plenty about averages, and explicitly mentions that averages don't apply to individuals. Here is some news for you: The AVERAGE woman is not interested in technology as much as the AVERAGE man. If you think reality is sexist, so be it. Does that mean that every woman is average? No. There are plenty of women interested in technology doing great work. So why do you expect that there should be as many women working in technology as men? Why is it even a (US) problem?
dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
This article is a pleasure to read. Clear arguments and discussions to the point. A complete opposite of what many, if not most, commentators say.
peter_retief 9y ago
So its come down to banning dissent, firing people who say what they feel or believe. There is only one issue here and that is people must have the right to express an opinion without being punished so bear in mind this quote "Monsieur l’abbé, je déteste ce que vous écrivez, mais je donnerai ma vie pour que vous puissiez continuer à écrire." And remember that they first burn the books then they burn the people
mostlyferal 9y ago
Here is the very first empirical claim (other than describing the memo) in the scientists' responses: > In 1960, the most common slurs were insulting labels for demographic groups. In 2017, the most common slurs involve labelling anyone who you disagree with on issues such as affirmative action, diversity, gaps, and inequality as a racist, sexist, homophobe, or bigot. Citation? I suspect that this is wildly wrong, but unlike this scientist, I'd want to see the data first.
- redblacktree 9y ago
  From the other side, the slur seems to be "SJW." (Social Justice Warrior)
gasull 9y ago
Cache link because it is down for me at the moment: https://web.archive.org/web/20170808013732/quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/ https://web.archive.org/web/20170808013732/quillette.com/201...

201 points by mvdwoord 9y ago

I believe that PG makes a very interesting point in Hackers and Painters saying that one shouldn't discuss about whether something is sexist, racist or offensive but rather just whether it is accurate or not.

narag 9y ago
TBH, that's irrelevant too. The interesting part here (at least for me, YMMV) is the reactions, from the owners, the media, the people... Not sure if we should credit the author with this shift of focus, though.
- guywhocodes 9y ago
  I agree 100%, the only stake I have in this is the lack of argumentation paired with the amount of outrage and knee-jerk reactions being portrayed as normal by the media. The only counter arguments I see around this is essentially "this is not a person I generally agree with so their opinion has zero value. They might be a doctor in psychology but my opinion is more correct."
zimpenfish 9y ago
The problem is that as a rich white dude, he's really not ever going to be on the receiving end of those things and his "just rise above it" stance consequently doesn't carry any weight.
- stagbeetle 9y ago
  Ideas should (albeit this is an idealistic notion) be judged by their content, not who speaks them. I'm well off and I have white skin, yet I started in poverty and I was discriminated against for the non-western country I came from. We all face challenges and injustices, there's never been an "us vs them."
  - zimpenfish 9y ago
    > Ideas should (albeit this is an idealistic notion) be judged by their content, not who speaks them. Funny how it's almost always (like 99% of the time) privileged white dudes bewailing this trope and almost always on topics they want to hold offensive opinions about.
    - stagbeetle 9y ago
      Perhaps, though it doesn't make it untrue.
      - zimpenfish 9y ago
        Equally it doesn't make it true either.
- RealityNow 9y ago
  Essentially what you're saying is that, because he's a white male, his opinion on the matter isn't taken as seriously. In other words, this is a clear case of sexism/racism.
  - dbenhur 9y ago
    Alternatively: his membership in a privileged class is unlikely to grant him especially accurate insight into the experience of individuals in less privileged classes, and more likely to reinforce his bias to justify his own privileged position.
    - justin_vanw 9y ago
      Deleting because apparently you can get brigaded and fired for any slightly dissenting opinion.
  - zimpenfish 9y ago
    > Essentially what you're saying is that, because he's a white male, his opinion on the matter isn't taken as seriously. Correct. Just as my opinion, as a privileged white dude, can be largely ignored on the topics of the problems of the less privileged because I do not have the experiences necessary to give them any weight.

imaginenore 9y ago

Good fact-based answers. But the reaction from the "progressives" is quite telling. Don't they realize that demanding to fire him without refuting his arguments only proves him right?

mvdwoord 9y ago
Perhaps them not realising that is why they behave in such a way. The whole thing is getting utterly bizarre though.
casefields 9y ago
Well he's now been fired. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/google-fires-employee-behind-controversial-diversity-memo https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/google-fi...
- jacknews 9y ago
  “The company was founded under the principles of freedom of expression, diversity, inclusiveness and science-based thinking,” Clearly, this is either not entirely correct, or they have "evolved"
  - thick7in 9y ago
    Actually, fwiw, the company was founded under the principle "do no evil", but they already walked that back before this incident.
  - vpatryshev 9y ago
    The main principle was, I guess, "yes, we can, and you can't".
- remarkEon 9y ago
  I'm not surprised. I'd be curious to know if he planned for this. What other outcome could he have expected?
- daodedickinson 9y ago

guywhocodes 9y ago

The activity here correlates very well with the amount of actual citations and rebuttals of the original document. It's almost like it's just a massive act of collective misrepresentation, one of those "winning the narrative" kind of situations.

vfulco 9y ago
In other words an extension of the fake news which has been plaguing us for months now. The truth will set you free.

comex 9y ago

While it doesn't invalidate the takes, I'd like to point out that this is not exactly an unbiased selection of scientists. With the possible exception of David P Schmitt - the one with the relatively moderate take, whose research was cited in the original memo - they all appear to have at least mildly right-leaning political beliefs (see below). Also, the site Quilette itself is quite right-wing, as can be easily determined by looking at the homepage. Lee Jussim: gave a "talk about left-wing bias in social psychology" http://quillette.com/2015/12/04/rebellious-scientist-surprising-truth-about-stereotypes/ http://quillette.com/2015/12/04/rebellious-scientist-surpris... Geoffrey Miller: note wording of recent tweets, including - Compare the actual Google memo to how it's being misrepresented by SJWs, and you'll see what's wrong in America. - My new article for @QuilletteM: a new legal strategy the neurodivergent can use to fight for free speech on campus. https://twitter.com/primalpoly?lang=en https://twitter.com/primalpoly?lang=en and some earlier history that's just kind of bizarre: https://closetpuritan.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/diversityisourweakness/ https://closetpuritan.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/diversityisou... Debra Soh: wrote a column complaining about censorship at colleges, claiming "emotional grievances are being prioritized over logic and facts", and uncritically praising a "free speech" event hosted by Ben Shapiro (of Breitbart fame) https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/we-need-to-protect-free-speech-on-campus/article35476933/https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/we-need-to-protect-free-speech-on-campus/article35476933/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/we-need-to-protect-f...

mvdwoord 9y ago
There IS censorship at colleges, and emotional grievances ARE being prioritised over logic and facts. You can dislike Ben Shapiro, you can have a lot of valid criticism of breitbart but It's all just Ad Hominems. Good luck with those.
sebastos 9y ago
Phew - I was worried I would actually have to read the responses and form an opinion on the science. Good to hear that we can Kevin-Bacon them over to "uncritically praising" an event put on by Ben Shapiro. There can be little doubt that they're evil shills now, so I don't have to bother.
9y ago

Pilfer 9y ago

I had trouble loading the webpage. Here is a mirror/cached copy. https://archive.is/VlNfl https://archive.is/VlNfl

hackcasual 9y ago

You can find 4 scientists who'll tell you global warming is a hoax. Just find one who can take this manifesto, provide a thoughtful analysis, collect published critiques and discuss and argue them. This just seems to be a few modestly credentialed academics really just using this as a springboard for their own view points.

dionidium 9y ago
You might be interested in this debate: Steven Pinker & Elizabeth Spelke | The Science of Gender & Science | Mind Brain Behavior Discussion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Hb3oe7-PJ8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Hb3oe7-PJ8
averagewall 9y ago
Even without credentials, has anyone at all shown any part of the manifesto to be false yet?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- hackcasual 9y ago
  https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788 https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-man...
  - EddieRingle 9y ago
    > I’m not going to spend any length of time on (1); if anyone wishes to provide details as to how nearly every statement about gender in that entire document is actively incorrect,¹ and flies directly in the face of all research done in the field for decades, they should go for it. But I am neither a biologist, a psychologist, nor a sociologist, so I’ll leave that to someone else.
    - hackcasual 9y ago

mjg59 9y ago

Four scientists with no expertise in the field of diversity and, as a result, in no position to argue that the scientific argument made justifies the conclusions drawn (as one of them admits). A scientific argument is more than "Here's some science, here are some facts and here's the conclusion" - you have to use the science to explain the observed facts, and doing so takes more than saying "And therefore". There was no attempt to do so whatsoever, and so (from a scientific perspective) this was junk.

true_religion 9y ago
There has to be a more charitable explanation than your implied "four scientists don't know how to do science properly" thesis. Is diversity honestly so narrow a field, that a social psychologist, personality psychologists, evolutionary psychology, and a sexual neuroscientist are in no position to say anything? Gender diversity always seems to bring up two issues (1) are men and women different in mental reasoning, and if so where and how significant are these differences and (2) would differences in mental reasoning lead to different outcomes in choice of studies or employment? Is there a specific scientific field for that?
- mjg59 9y ago
  > There has to be a more charitable explanation than your implied "four scientists don't know how to do science properly" thesis. Indeed - one of them knows how to. > Is diversity honestly so narrow a field, that a social psychologist, personality psychologists, evolutionary psychology, and a sexual neuroscientist are in no position to say anything? Unless they've done any research in it, sure. Why should any of them have more insight into diversity than, say, a nuclear physicist? The issue isn't whether there are gender-related differences that are relevant to the job. It's not even whether those are significant enough to result in a measurable difference in outcome. It's whether those factors are the primary reason for the observed disparity, and neither the document author or the quoted scientists present any evidence whatsoever that that's the case. Failing to do that means that the conclusions drawn (ie, that existing diversity initiatives discriminate against men while providing no benefit to the company) aren't scientific.

yawaramin 9y ago

The site seems to be experiencing the 'hug of death' right now, Internet Archive link: https://web.archive.org/web/20170808013732/http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/ https://web.archive.org/web/20170808013732/http://quillette.... Prof. Schmitt gets it right here: gender differences don't have any significant impact on women's capacity to perform any job--even physically strenuous jobs, with the right training. Certainly for information work, bringing up gender differences is just going down the wrong rabbit hole. It's like asking a job candidate if they're American when all you need to know is if they're legally authorised to work in the US. The other scientists unfortunately go down this rabbit hole. Prof. Miller especially consistently asks the wrong questions throughout his piece. First, he establishes biological sex differences but doesn't ask if they have any significant impact on women's capacity to perform a job. Second, he goes off on a tangent about his pet 'paradox' theory about the American public, arguing that gender equality would make diversity moot from a business advantage perspective. Let's just clarify why we want diversity in the workplace: it's not because minorities will bring different skills and traits to the table; it's because (a) excluding minorities is inhumane, and (b) because minorities will (hopefully) keep the organisation from making dumb mistakes like leaving out the main protagonist of their new film series from a major marketing campaign ( https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/12/15960372/hasbro-star-wars-monopoly-toys-wheresrey-insufficient-interest https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/12/15960372/hasbro-star-wars... ), sending Kylie Jenner out with a Pepsi to mend race relations ( http://time.com/4726500/pepsi-ad-kendall-jenner/ http://time.com/4726500/pepsi-ad-kendall-jenner/ ), and pushing for a Game of Thrones-style show about a modern-day Confederate America which won the war and kept slavery intact ( https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/08/no-confederate/535512/ https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/08/no... ). These are just three things that come immediately to mind, you can imagine how much shit there is out there that hasn't even reached national level yet.

ad_hominem 9y ago
> gender differences don't have any significant impact on women's capacity to perform any job--even physically strenuous jobs, with the right training That seems just plain wrong considering so many women fail Marine fitness tests: http://thehill.com/policy/defense/284252-report-6-out-of-7-female-recruits-fail-new-marines-fitness-test-for-combat http://thehill.com/policy/defense/284252-report-6-out-of-7-f... And FDNY had to relax physical fitness requirements in order to hire more women firefighters: https://www.bustle.com/articles/53536-fdny-wants-more-women-firefighters-but-is-cutting-strength-requirements-the-way-to-do-it https://www.bustle.com/articles/53536-fdny-wants-more-women-... Women also have to be separated from men in professional sports, otherwise in many sports it wouldn't even be close (e.g. the aged, #203-ranked male tennis player walloping both Williams sisters in their prime: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karsten_Braasch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karsten_Braasch). There's nothing wrong with admitting there are basic biological differences between men and women relating to strength.

ad_hominem 9y ago

> I think it’s really important to discuss this topic scientifically, keeping an open mind and using informed skepticism when evaluating claims about evidence. > ... > There have been (and likely will continue to be) many socio-structural barriers to women working in technological jobs. These include culturally-embedded gender stereotypes, biased socialization practices, in some cultures explicit employment discrimination, and a certain degree of masculinization of technological workplaces. Well that didn't last long

EddieRingle 9y ago
The top sentence is followed by three full paragraphs you clipped out. Only then do we reach the bottom statement you've quoted, albeit in the source is prefaced with the following: > Now, treating people as dichotomous sexes is exactly what many affirmative action policies do. As this is not my area of expertise, I can only offer my non-expert opinion on this issue, which is this: There have been (and likely will continue to be) many socio-structural barriers to women working in technological jobs. ...

stoobe 9y ago

Mirror: https://archive.is/VlNfl https://archive.is/VlNfl

stoobe 9y ago

In this thread: "I don't agree with what the scientists said so either they're cherry picked, or bad scientists, or right-wing" Republicans on global warming: "I don't believe the results so it must be that scientists don't know what they're talking about or they're biased." Can I join/found a pro-science party? Anyone want to join?

candiodari 9y ago
A pro-science party wouldn't toe even the republican line on many of these issues and therefore "be racist". It would say different races have ... shudder differences They might even point out that the difference between men and women, as measured in DNA differences, is bigger than the differences between humans and mice. This might result in some actual differences, and likely not just in appearance. Nobody seems to want to hear these obvious facts, we've just collectively agreed that we're going to ignore this and even change the science to reflect political opinion. Apparently the message that yes, sexes and races are different, and we've chosen to ignore that is considered a racist attitude itself.
- stoobe 9y ago
  haha yeah, apparently acknowledging facts about average differences makes one a racists/bigot/asshole. my guess is that most people have a hard time distinguishing that statements about a population distribution do not mean an endorsement stereotyping.
  - almost_usual 9y ago
    Google would scout and hire anyone regardless of race or gender if they were talented enough.
    - canoebuilder 9y ago
      They would, "Software is an IQ business." - Bill Gates The fact that google is well known for seeking out the most intelligence and talented, and the fact that Asians and Jews are highly "over-represented" among googlers if one were to extrapolate a random population sample as being the only SJW approved workforce, the fact that these two groups are so over-represented implies that... Jews and Asians tend towards smarter rather than dumber, which anyone paying attention has kind of noticed.

bartof303 9y ago

I think the obvious point that the authors missed is that Google is not a University nor a scientific journal. It's a workplace and the author of the memo, just called into question the "biological" ability of women to be engineers.

dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
No, he didn't, and that's one of the most common misrepresentations of what he actually wrote. From TFA: "For what it’s worth, I think that almost all of the Google memo’s empirical claims are scientifically accurate. Moreover, they are stated quite carefully and dispassionately. Its key claims about sex differences are especially well-supported by large volumes of research across species, cultures, and history."
jbmorgado 9y ago
> "It's a workplace and the author of the memo, just called into question the "biological" ability of women to be engineers." That's totally wrong, what the memo called into question is the "biological" driven desire for woman to become engineers. It's never put into question in that memo, that when they do choose to be enginners they aren't as competent as their peers.
koonsolo 9y ago
Have you read the memo? He does not do that. He talks plenty about averages, and explicitly mentions that averages don't apply to individuals. Here is some news for you: The AVERAGE woman is not interested in technology as much as the AVERAGE man. If you think reality is sexist, so be it. Does that mean that every woman is average? No. There are plenty of women interested in technology doing great work. So why do you expect that there should be as many women working in technology as men? Why is it even a (US) problem?

dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago

This article is a pleasure to read. Clear arguments and discussions to the point. A complete opposite of what many, if not most, commentators say.

peter_retief 9y ago

So its come down to banning dissent, firing people who say what they feel or believe. There is only one issue here and that is people must have the right to express an opinion without being punished so bear in mind this quote "Monsieur l’abbé, je déteste ce que vous écrivez, mais je donnerai ma vie pour que vous puissiez continuer à écrire." And remember that they first burn the books then they burn the people

mostlyferal 9y ago

Here is the very first empirical claim (other than describing the memo) in the scientists' responses: > In 1960, the most common slurs were insulting labels for demographic groups. In 2017, the most common slurs involve labelling anyone who you disagree with on issues such as affirmative action, diversity, gaps, and inequality as a racist, sexist, homophobe, or bigot. Citation? I suspect that this is wildly wrong, but unlike this scientist, I'd want to see the data first.

redblacktree 9y ago
From the other side, the slur seems to be "SJW." (Social Justice Warrior)

gasull 9y ago

Cache link because it is down for me at the moment: https://web.archive.org/web/20170808013732/quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/ https://web.archive.org/web/20170808013732/quillette.com/201...