4 ms·

So you're going to ask management what they are going to do about someone who is stating well accepted scientific facts [1]? I hope we never become colleagues.

So you're going to ask management what they are going to do about someone who is stating well accepted scientific facts [1]? I hope we never become colleagues. [1]http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/ http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-...

halostatue 9y ago
It’s pretty easy to find at least one scientist who will deny global warming, or that smoking doesn’t cause cancer. That doesn’t make that scientist right any more than these (all male, all white) scientists. The assertions of the author of the screed are not well-accepted, and they are not facts. They are conjecture, and the author attempted to make universals out of primarily American ways of thinking and ingrained ways of discrimination.
- ctlby 9y ago
  But they are well-accepted, and they have been for decades. If scientific consensus is any measure of truth, you should be defending his propositions with the same fervor you would global warming. Anything else is just science denialism.
  - nxmehta 9y ago
    They are? That's news to me. Several of the studies he cites on biological differences in genders are well accepted, so far as I know the field. But the key conclusions that he draws from those studies (and really, the entire point of the memo) don't have any direct scientific support that I know of. Perhaps I am missing some key references. Care to provide citations for some of these? "Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things ... These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics." There's a citation for the first part. What's the evidence for the conclusion drawn? "Neuroticism ... This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs." Citation for why neuroticism leads to fewer women in high stress jobs? How about the entire "Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap" section? That contains stuff like this: "Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things" "Women on average are more cooperative" "Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average" Each of these statements (which at least hit my radar of being scientifically supported from the literature I know) is followed by some suggestions on how to improve the workplace for women. Implicit, of course, is that these aggregate scientific differences are somehow responsible for the gender gaps in tech. Any citations for why the quoted statements explain anything at all about gender differences in tech, rather than say, other STEM fields (biology? medicine? they have very different gender gaps). It would be great to have the references I'm missing, because without them it sure appears the author is citing well accepted studies in order to make it look like his unsupported conclusions have "evidence".
    - ctlby 9y ago
      Fair point. I'm here to defend the factual basis for his conclusions, not the logic that got him there. At the end of the day, he told a just-so story; in this, he's no different than the "blame discrimination" camp. At least this story is an empirical one backed by self-reported work place surveys, cross-cultural analyses, etc. The fundamentalists opposing him just have some anecdotes, some unreproducible stereotype threat studies, and a healthy dose of religious conviction.
- mvdwoord 9y ago
  Did you actually read the article I linked?
  - halostatue 9y ago
    Yes. I’ve also read other articles. The stance presented by the memo author does not represent “broad” scientific consensus, it represents a pseudo-scientific basis for continued discrimination. The same thing was tried back in the 1800s to explain why certain humans should be enslaved to others.
    - mvdwoord 9y ago
      How interesting, I have read other articles too. I am unqualified to make any authoritative claims on this subject (and many others), but people who seem to be just that appear to disagree with you. Most arguments against the manifesto (sic) I have seen, seem to be either ad hominem or claiming some form of "discrimination" .. as in prejudice. In the light of the current discussion around gender, mostly in the US, I am just not convinced. And it seems that many people who actually are qualified agree (no, a group of self referencing "gender studies" professors does not convince). Anyway, it's coming up 5AM here and I will not bother you further with my slave-owner-descendant misconceptions.
    - madez 9y ago
      No, you did not read the article. You claim all scientists in the article were male scientists, while in fact one is female.
    - snth 9y ago
      Then please link to some of these articles. You are doing what you are complaining about: merely asserting.
- lexcorvus 9y ago
  The views in the article represent the scientific consensus. Scott Alexander covers some of the most salient points here: http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exaggerated-differences/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagger... See Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate for a book-length treatment. (all male, all white) scientists This is both ad hominem and wrong (the fourth scientist featured, Dr. Debra W. Soh, is an East Asian woman).
- plainOldText 9y ago
  I agree, it's certainly possible to find scientists who will support one stance or another, but please do read the linked article in its entirety before spreading misinformation. One of the scientists is actually a woman (and non-white btw), Debra Soh, who holds a PhD in sexual neuroscience.
jasonwatkinspdx 9y ago
I don't think you read your own link well enough: > "Sex researchers recognize that these differences are not inherently supportive of sexism or stratifying opportunities based on sex. It is only because a group of individuals have chosen to interpret them that way, and to subsequently deny the science around them, that we have to have this conversation at a public level." -- Dr. Debra W Soh The problem is the author is repeating a pattern common in these discussions, where some kernels of empirically supported science are used to justify opinions unsupported by them. That we can measure some differences in MRI in no way establishes that under-representation of women in tech is a result of biological inevitability. We know for certain this isn't the case due to history itself, as well as variation in representation by location and culture.
- Buge 9y ago
  Did the employee support "stratifying opportunities based on sex"?
  - jasonwatkinspdx 9y ago
    The author asserted that gender imbalance at google is the result of evolutionary/biological factors, and that diversity programs attempting to establish parity in representation are damaging to google and should be abandoned. Look at this and explain to me how evolutionary psychology or biology explain what happened to women in CS in the US: https://developers.hp.com/sites/default/files/Intl%20Womens%20Week%20percent-degrees-women-usa-annotated.jpg https://developers.hp.com/sites/default/files/Intl%20Womens%... If the author's positions sound mild or plausible to you, I don't believe you've actually read the science on this issue. What the original author said simply isn't supported in the way they claim. That we can measure slight differences in aggregate between women and men in no way explains what's going on as a sole factor.
    - backpropaganda 9y ago
      This measures percentage, not absolute numbers. The percentage dropped because loads of men joined tech when tech became lucrative. Before that it was a niche field.
dang 9y ago
> I hope we never become colleagues. This crosses into personal attack, which is not allowed here. Please don't do that again.

halostatue 9y ago

It’s pretty easy to find at least one scientist who will deny global warming, or that smoking doesn’t cause cancer. That doesn’t make that scientist right any more than these (all male, all white) scientists. The assertions of the author of the screed are not well-accepted, and they are not facts. They are conjecture, and the author attempted to make universals out of primarily American ways of thinking and ingrained ways of discrimination.

ctlby 9y ago
But they are well-accepted, and they have been for decades. If scientific consensus is any measure of truth, you should be defending his propositions with the same fervor you would global warming. Anything else is just science denialism.
- nxmehta 9y ago
  They are? That's news to me. Several of the studies he cites on biological differences in genders are well accepted, so far as I know the field. But the key conclusions that he draws from those studies (and really, the entire point of the memo) don't have any direct scientific support that I know of. Perhaps I am missing some key references. Care to provide citations for some of these? "Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things ... These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics." There's a citation for the first part. What's the evidence for the conclusion drawn? "Neuroticism ... This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs." Citation for why neuroticism leads to fewer women in high stress jobs? How about the entire "Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap" section? That contains stuff like this: "Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things" "Women on average are more cooperative" "Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average" Each of these statements (which at least hit my radar of being scientifically supported from the literature I know) is followed by some suggestions on how to improve the workplace for women. Implicit, of course, is that these aggregate scientific differences are somehow responsible for the gender gaps in tech. Any citations for why the quoted statements explain anything at all about gender differences in tech, rather than say, other STEM fields (biology? medicine? they have very different gender gaps). It would be great to have the references I'm missing, because without them it sure appears the author is citing well accepted studies in order to make it look like his unsupported conclusions have "evidence".
  - ctlby 9y ago
    Fair point. I'm here to defend the factual basis for his conclusions, not the logic that got him there. At the end of the day, he told a just-so story; in this, he's no different than the "blame discrimination" camp. At least this story is an empirical one backed by self-reported work place surveys, cross-cultural analyses, etc. The fundamentalists opposing him just have some anecdotes, some unreproducible stereotype threat studies, and a healthy dose of religious conviction.
mvdwoord 9y ago
Did you actually read the article I linked?
- halostatue 9y ago
  Yes. I’ve also read other articles. The stance presented by the memo author does not represent “broad” scientific consensus, it represents a pseudo-scientific basis for continued discrimination. The same thing was tried back in the 1800s to explain why certain humans should be enslaved to others.
  - mvdwoord 9y ago
    How interesting, I have read other articles too. I am unqualified to make any authoritative claims on this subject (and many others), but people who seem to be just that appear to disagree with you. Most arguments against the manifesto (sic) I have seen, seem to be either ad hominem or claiming some form of "discrimination" .. as in prejudice. In the light of the current discussion around gender, mostly in the US, I am just not convinced. And it seems that many people who actually are qualified agree (no, a group of self referencing "gender studies" professors does not convince). Anyway, it's coming up 5AM here and I will not bother you further with my slave-owner-descendant misconceptions.
  - madez 9y ago
    No, you did not read the article. You claim all scientists in the article were male scientists, while in fact one is female.
  - snth 9y ago
    Then please link to some of these articles. You are doing what you are complaining about: merely asserting.
lexcorvus 9y ago
The views in the article represent the scientific consensus. Scott Alexander covers some of the most salient points here: http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exaggerated-differences/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagger... See Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate for a book-length treatment. (all male, all white) scientists This is both ad hominem and wrong (the fourth scientist featured, Dr. Debra W. Soh, is an East Asian woman).
plainOldText 9y ago
I agree, it's certainly possible to find scientists who will support one stance or another, but please do read the linked article in its entirety before spreading misinformation. One of the scientists is actually a woman (and non-white btw), Debra Soh, who holds a PhD in sexual neuroscience.

jasonwatkinspdx 9y ago

I don't think you read your own link well enough: > "Sex researchers recognize that these differences are not inherently supportive of sexism or stratifying opportunities based on sex. It is only because a group of individuals have chosen to interpret them that way, and to subsequently deny the science around them, that we have to have this conversation at a public level." -- Dr. Debra W Soh The problem is the author is repeating a pattern common in these discussions, where some kernels of empirically supported science are used to justify opinions unsupported by them. That we can measure some differences in MRI in no way establishes that under-representation of women in tech is a result of biological inevitability. We know for certain this isn't the case due to history itself, as well as variation in representation by location and culture.

Buge 9y ago
Did the employee support "stratifying opportunities based on sex"?
- jasonwatkinspdx 9y ago
  The author asserted that gender imbalance at google is the result of evolutionary/biological factors, and that diversity programs attempting to establish parity in representation are damaging to google and should be abandoned. Look at this and explain to me how evolutionary psychology or biology explain what happened to women in CS in the US: https://developers.hp.com/sites/default/files/Intl%20Womens%20Week%20percent-degrees-women-usa-annotated.jpg https://developers.hp.com/sites/default/files/Intl%20Womens%... If the author's positions sound mild or plausible to you, I don't believe you've actually read the science on this issue. What the original author said simply isn't supported in the way they claim. That we can measure slight differences in aggregate between women and men in no way explains what's going on as a sole factor.
  - backpropaganda 9y ago
    This measures percentage, not absolute numbers. The percentage dropped because loads of men joined tech when tech became lucrative. Before that it was a niche field.

dang 9y ago

> I hope we never become colleagues. This crosses into personal attack, which is not allowed here. Please don't do that again.