6 ms·

Did the author really say that women are too stupid? No. He used his words rather carefully. What might have angered some people is his statement that women are

Did the author really say that women are too stupid? No. He used his words rather carefully. What might have angered some people is his statement that women are more interested in people/relations while men are more interested in things. regardless of whether it's true, and if it is, whether the reasons are inherent or cultural - how is that bad? I can totally understand the author on this as I spent several years training both men and women. They do enjoy solving technical problems, but with time find them boring if left to solve them alone. But let them work in pairs or in groups, give some interaction, and the spark of interest is back. Most guys just didn't care or preferred to do it on their own. I was happy with the performance of both sexes, and to say one is better than the other is really sexist. But to state that they're different? I'm sorry, but we're born this way, there's nothing wrong with it!

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
unityByFreedom 9y ago
> regardless of whether it's true, and if it is, whether the reasons are inherent or cultural - how is that bad? Because it is bad to lie? The memo says women have a harder time leading. That conclusion is not supported by any of his sources. He is judging their aptitude there, so I think dopamean's example is reasonable.
- dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
  I'm not sure it's a lie. What he actually says: > Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness. This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. Now, these are discussed in the first paragraphs of the WP article he referenced: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology#Personality_traits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology#... At least one of the sources is reputable (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology). So you can't really accuse him of lying.
  - unityByFreedom 9y ago
    > these are discussed in the first paragraphs of the WP article he referenced Where? It doesn't say anything about one sex's aptitude for leading there.
    - josteink 9y ago
      So you are effectively nitpicking words, single words, present or not in a cited source out of a 10 page reasonable critique of existing policy? And for what? To justify a guy getting fired? For real?
      - SamBam 9y ago
        Saying "women have a harder time leading" is a pretty bold, striking statement, and one that needs some damn solid evidence if you're going to say it. To back it up just by saying "women are less assertive" is not remotely evidence of that statement. And it is a statement, whether or not it's introduced as a single word. To claim that this is "nitpicking a single word" is like saying that an article that includes the line "Scandinavians are taller, stupider, and blonder than other Europeans" is problematic only if we "nitpick a single word."
        josteink 9y ago
        > Saying "women have a harder time leading" is a pretty bold, striking statement, and one that needs some damn solid evidence if you're going to say it. To back it up just by saying "women are less assertive" is not remotely evidence of that statement. I'll admit that this may not follow directly from the linked research. So he doesn't have 100% scientific coverage. But who does? I see though that you really find this statement deeply problematic. Would you find it equally problematic if someone said "Men have a harder time showing empathy"? How about "white men"? Would you claim people needed "some damn solid evidence" to back those statements up? If not, may I ask why? Because this is by far the most common double standard I see when gender inequality is discussed, and seemingly everybody thinks that's just fine. Anyway: You seem to be nitpicking on a single aspect of a otherwise well structured, well sourced, 10 page long carefully laid out critique of existing systems in a internal memo. Your conclusion: that because of this tiny snafu in this otherwise good piece, he surely should be fired. Really? Honest question: Have you ever written a internal memo with this much effort put into it to back up your statements and arguments with scientific sources? I surely haven't. And I'm opinionated enough to write these kind of emails. I for one, am happy to work somewhere where we don't require people to get a PhD in their email-subject before being allowed to start a discussion. We call low barrier to entry. It supposedly increases diversity of thought.
- morgtheborg 9y ago
  Also, women DO have a harder time leading because their assertiveness is perceived significantly worse than similar assertiveness is men. I'll find the study if you'd like. And I think that's really what was missing from his piece; why do these differences exist and isn't it possible they are constructed rather than innate? He lists a few reasons he is convinced they are not, including their consistency across cultures, but I remain unconvinced all of his list of differences can be explained in this way. Particularly leading. There are way too many studies that show the biases women have to deal with in that regard and assuming they have no impact on behavior is silly.
  - camgunz 9y ago
    > Also, women DO have a harder time leading because their assertiveness is perceived significantly worse than similar assertiveness is men. Women aren't the problem in this scenario.
    - morgtheborg 9y ago
      That was my point. You can find sex "differences" but unless you somehow raised men and women separately, you'll be hard pressed to know which ones are innate and which ones are created through outside pressures. Not in all cases, of course, but in terms of behavior.
      - camgunz 9y ago
        No I get what you're saying. I'm saying the way you phrased it puts the onus on women. It's fairer to say, "men are worse employees because they can't handle a women being assertive" because men have the problem, not women.
        morgtheborg 9y ago
        And this is partially why people got so upset at that Googler. You understood what I said, but you're somehow displeased I didn't phrase it in the way you would have and are reading a direction of duty/responsibility that isn't in my comment nor in my thoughts.
dopamean 9y ago
I'm sorry but your response doesn't really answer my question at all. What I want to hear are some suggestions about how to include people who hold inflammatory opinions in a group that generally doesn't share those opinions.
- vivekd 9y ago
  How do you know that the group doesn't generally share those opinions if those opinions are considered "inflammatory" and stating them can be punished. Maybe they're just afraid to speak up.
- belorn 9y ago
  If people within a group can't empathize and find common ground, then any hard stance by either side will just further the conflict. I recall reading quotes from a famous peace talk mediator that this is the primary reason why long war continues, and war rarely ends until people by both sides start to recognize that there is more common held opinions than inflammatory ones. But if that doesn't incentivize to include people, what about deconstructing the inflammatory opinion? If we are talking about a person making a comment about skin color and crime, could we not start by agreeing that the average social economical status is not identical for all groups that people in a nation can be sorted into? Some groups will have more wealth in average, and others will have less. Can we also not conclude that social economic status today effects many areas, such as education and crime rate? From that we could conclude that what would be a inflammatory opinion would just be the logical extension of the current average social economical status, and we could politely respond to such opinion with facts that the underlying issue has nothing to do with race or skin color but is a simple result of historical social economical problems which society has been and is continuing working to improve. We can even empathize that this relation between social economical status and crime is universal, so anyone including those in the group that the person holding the inflammatory opinion are part of should receive support in the case of low social economical status. By this we find common ground.
- alok-g 9y ago
  1. Select the right audience for your message. (E.g., Does it need to go to the Google founders, or is the true audience open public since the problem is still bigger?) 2. Educate your audience ahead of time, or at least as the opening part of the message: 2a. What the intentions for the message are? (E.g., help understand the true root causes of diversity gaps, reiterate that there are invalid opinions commonly held, and also boldly indicate that someone needs to stand up even in a culture there people do not openly share such analysis and/or opinions.) 2b. What the approach is (which would be to deep dive into the correct root cause of the issues (e.g., why working women have lower average salary than working men)? And explain that without understanding of the true root causes, it will only take longer to reach the optimal balance, never reach it perfectly, and the current situation may already be the maxima under the current set of beliefs. 2c. What are common pitfalls and misconceptions (e.g., assuming all gender gaps are coming from discrimination as the memo writer noted)? 3. The core message: 3a. What are the knowns (existing research) that points to the root cause? 3b. What are the unknowns that still need researching? 3c. Summarize the proposed next steps. 4. If as a result of capturing all of the above, the message is becoming too long: 4a. Revisit if you are targeting the right audience. 4b. Split it into smaller logical blocks, and deliver them in steps, so that people can actually follow, getting convinced along the way, rather than get inflamed. 5. There will still be people unfortunately who would not understand all this but who will resist nevertheless. A second round of explanations/FAQs would be needed to address them. 6. There will still be people unfortunately ... (Your approach above should be devised to help reach consensus.) 7. If at any point you realize that something was wrong in your own thinking, correct it, and revisit if your broader message still stands and is worthy. If you come out wrong too often, it's good for you (having learned something new), but be prepared to loose trust.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

unityByFreedom 9y ago

> regardless of whether it's true, and if it is, whether the reasons are inherent or cultural - how is that bad? Because it is bad to lie? The memo says women have a harder time leading. That conclusion is not supported by any of his sources. He is judging their aptitude there, so I think dopamean's example is reasonable.

dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
I'm not sure it's a lie. What he actually says: > Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness. This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. Now, these are discussed in the first paragraphs of the WP article he referenced: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology#Personality_traits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology#... At least one of the sources is reputable (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology). So you can't really accuse him of lying.
- unityByFreedom 9y ago
  > these are discussed in the first paragraphs of the WP article he referenced Where? It doesn't say anything about one sex's aptitude for leading there.
  - josteink 9y ago
    So you are effectively nitpicking words, single words, present or not in a cited source out of a 10 page reasonable critique of existing policy? And for what? To justify a guy getting fired? For real?
    - SamBam 9y ago
      Saying "women have a harder time leading" is a pretty bold, striking statement, and one that needs some damn solid evidence if you're going to say it. To back it up just by saying "women are less assertive" is not remotely evidence of that statement. And it is a statement, whether or not it's introduced as a single word. To claim that this is "nitpicking a single word" is like saying that an article that includes the line "Scandinavians are taller, stupider, and blonder than other Europeans" is problematic only if we "nitpick a single word."
      - josteink 9y ago
        > Saying "women have a harder time leading" is a pretty bold, striking statement, and one that needs some damn solid evidence if you're going to say it. To back it up just by saying "women are less assertive" is not remotely evidence of that statement. I'll admit that this may not follow directly from the linked research. So he doesn't have 100% scientific coverage. But who does? I see though that you really find this statement deeply problematic. Would you find it equally problematic if someone said "Men have a harder time showing empathy"? How about "white men"? Would you claim people needed "some damn solid evidence" to back those statements up? If not, may I ask why? Because this is by far the most common double standard I see when gender inequality is discussed, and seemingly everybody thinks that's just fine. Anyway: You seem to be nitpicking on a single aspect of a otherwise well structured, well sourced, 10 page long carefully laid out critique of existing systems in a internal memo. Your conclusion: that because of this tiny snafu in this otherwise good piece, he surely should be fired. Really? Honest question: Have you ever written a internal memo with this much effort put into it to back up your statements and arguments with scientific sources? I surely haven't. And I'm opinionated enough to write these kind of emails. I for one, am happy to work somewhere where we don't require people to get a PhD in their email-subject before being allowed to start a discussion. We call low barrier to entry. It supposedly increases diversity of thought.
morgtheborg 9y ago
Also, women DO have a harder time leading because their assertiveness is perceived significantly worse than similar assertiveness is men. I'll find the study if you'd like. And I think that's really what was missing from his piece; why do these differences exist and isn't it possible they are constructed rather than innate? He lists a few reasons he is convinced they are not, including their consistency across cultures, but I remain unconvinced all of his list of differences can be explained in this way. Particularly leading. There are way too many studies that show the biases women have to deal with in that regard and assuming they have no impact on behavior is silly.
- camgunz 9y ago
  > Also, women DO have a harder time leading because their assertiveness is perceived significantly worse than similar assertiveness is men. Women aren't the problem in this scenario.
  - morgtheborg 9y ago
    That was my point. You can find sex "differences" but unless you somehow raised men and women separately, you'll be hard pressed to know which ones are innate and which ones are created through outside pressures. Not in all cases, of course, but in terms of behavior.
    - camgunz 9y ago
      No I get what you're saying. I'm saying the way you phrased it puts the onus on women. It's fairer to say, "men are worse employees because they can't handle a women being assertive" because men have the problem, not women.
      - morgtheborg 9y ago
        And this is partially why people got so upset at that Googler. You understood what I said, but you're somehow displeased I didn't phrase it in the way you would have and are reading a direction of duty/responsibility that isn't in my comment nor in my thoughts.

dopamean 9y ago

I'm sorry but your response doesn't really answer my question at all. What I want to hear are some suggestions about how to include people who hold inflammatory opinions in a group that generally doesn't share those opinions.

vivekd 9y ago
How do you know that the group doesn't generally share those opinions if those opinions are considered "inflammatory" and stating them can be punished. Maybe they're just afraid to speak up.
belorn 9y ago
If people within a group can't empathize and find common ground, then any hard stance by either side will just further the conflict. I recall reading quotes from a famous peace talk mediator that this is the primary reason why long war continues, and war rarely ends until people by both sides start to recognize that there is more common held opinions than inflammatory ones. But if that doesn't incentivize to include people, what about deconstructing the inflammatory opinion? If we are talking about a person making a comment about skin color and crime, could we not start by agreeing that the average social economical status is not identical for all groups that people in a nation can be sorted into? Some groups will have more wealth in average, and others will have less. Can we also not conclude that social economic status today effects many areas, such as education and crime rate? From that we could conclude that what would be a inflammatory opinion would just be the logical extension of the current average social economical status, and we could politely respond to such opinion with facts that the underlying issue has nothing to do with race or skin color but is a simple result of historical social economical problems which society has been and is continuing working to improve. We can even empathize that this relation between social economical status and crime is universal, so anyone including those in the group that the person holding the inflammatory opinion are part of should receive support in the case of low social economical status. By this we find common ground.
alok-g 9y ago
1. Select the right audience for your message. (E.g., Does it need to go to the Google founders, or is the true audience open public since the problem is still bigger?) 2. Educate your audience ahead of time, or at least as the opening part of the message: 2a. What the intentions for the message are? (E.g., help understand the true root causes of diversity gaps, reiterate that there are invalid opinions commonly held, and also boldly indicate that someone needs to stand up even in a culture there people do not openly share such analysis and/or opinions.) 2b. What the approach is (which would be to deep dive into the correct root cause of the issues (e.g., why working women have lower average salary than working men)? And explain that without understanding of the true root causes, it will only take longer to reach the optimal balance, never reach it perfectly, and the current situation may already be the maxima under the current set of beliefs. 2c. What are common pitfalls and misconceptions (e.g., assuming all gender gaps are coming from discrimination as the memo writer noted)? 3. The core message: 3a. What are the knowns (existing research) that points to the root cause? 3b. What are the unknowns that still need researching? 3c. Summarize the proposed next steps. 4. If as a result of capturing all of the above, the message is becoming too long: 4a. Revisit if you are targeting the right audience. 4b. Split it into smaller logical blocks, and deliver them in steps, so that people can actually follow, getting convinced along the way, rather than get inflamed. 5. There will still be people unfortunately who would not understand all this but who will resist nevertheless. A second round of explanations/FAQs would be needed to address them. 6. There will still be people unfortunately ... (Your approach above should be devised to help reach consensus.) 7. If at any point you realize that something was wrong in your own thinking, correct it, and revisit if your broader message still stands and is worthy. If you come out wrong too often, it's good for you (having learned something new), but be prepared to loose trust.