3 ms·

Please allow me to honestly engage with you and break this down. You're a black man at Google. There is a study that says that ON AVERAGE across a large popul

Please allow me to honestly engage with you and break this down. You're a black man at Google. There is a study that says that ON AVERAGE across a large population of people, black men are relatively uneducated and relatively underperform on a particular aptitude test. It is a known fact that although the larger population has 50% black people, only 10% of Google employees are black. Now, let's assume that the common intention is to ensure equal OPPORTUNITY for all men. Please assume good faith for the purposes of this demonstration. One fine day, you wake up to see an article posted by a white man that makes the following claims - on average white men perform better at the standardized test (link to study) - the standardized test tests similar skills that are needed for programming, and is similar to the Google interview - therefore fewer black men get through the interview - further, it is unfair to just give black people extra marks to pass. it leads to bad performance at work and diminishes the achievement of a black man who got in on pure effort Now, a black man who cares would - ask, wait a minute, why are blank men underperforming on the tests? Perhaps we skills fix our schools and colleges! - point out flaws in the article (study is bad because... / AA is good because... / Other assumption is wrong because...) These are engaging with the article in good faith. A person interested in equal opportunity would not do the following - burn the white man. Arrrggghhh! - oh no that guy shared a study that shows that the black community is behind and points out what could be the problem. Let's shoot the messenger. - falsely assign ecological bias to the article: white man said that all black men are bad programmers (not true, he was talking about populations) These engage with the article in a manner that damages your goal of equal opportunity for black people. Look for the opportunity to find systemic biases and problems and correct them. Assume good faith. Don't be blind to something that makes you feel bad (and it shouldn't!) And therefore seek to burn it down without a thought.

dopamean 9y ago
I think you've made some incorrect assumptions about who I am and what I think about these issues. Maybe I'm wrong but I'll leave a few points so we're on the same page: I have been involved in the hiring process at more than one tech company and it was apparent that there were far, far fewer women in the pipeline than men. Even if we hired every single person who applied the balance would still lean very heavily toward men. Again, this is just in my personal experience. I don't believe it is the job tech companies to do extra work to hire more of any underrepresented group in the industry until the problem in the pipeline is addressed. I think the argument that there is something biological about women that makes them less interested in tech comes from what amounts to pseudoscience at best and that argument shouldn't be validated because it gets in the way of solving the problem with the pipeline. I have never (and would never) advocated for any group of people to be given "extra marks to pass" in a situation where their ability to do a job is important. I don't think the author of that memo at Google should have been fired. Though I do understand how from a corporate standpoint they felt that they had to. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with the "person interested in equal opportunity would not do..." I didn't do those things. I'm not blind to anything and I think all I did in my comment was ask a pretty simple question that you didn't even attempt to answer.
- doubleshame 9y ago
  You are a man of far more experience than I am. Thank you for sharing. I believe I included a lot of the general discussion we've seen in my response. To answer your question as I gleaned it from children of sibling posts: how to foster inclusion of foreign looking ideas: - always assume good faith (this really covers it all actually) - listen carefully and understand what was meant - always speak to the point that was being made instead of to the person, or worse to the words themselves - allow both yourself and the other people to change their opinions Ideas are just memes. We need to have the humility to see that and not associate people / ego / self with them.
- bostonvaulter2 9y ago
  You've said many things about what you don't believe and what you don't agree with. What of the memo (if any) do you agree with and what do you actually believe about how companies should approach diversity?
  - dopamean 9y ago
    I don't think what I believe about the memo matters. I just wanted to hear what people had to say with regards to being inclusive of people with ideas they don't agree with. Judging by how few responses I got that even attempted to answer that question I'm going to guess that many people aren't interested in being inclusive of people with dissenting opinions that they find offensive. In the interest of answering part of your question (since I just complained about how few answered mine) I'll say that I do think there is a role for companies to play when it comes to diversity. I'd love to see companies get involved much earlier than when it comes time to hire. Because I believe the problem is with the pipeline I think that if companies want to address the problem then they should start where the pipeline starts: early education. If Google is more interested in getting more women involved in tech I would support the idea of Google hosting a summer camp for girls at their HQ. Or funding programs to do those kinds of things in other places in the country. Of course I have no idea if this kind of thing would work and it would require patience (years) to see if it would pay off. But it seems like a good place to start. I haven't really thought a ton about how to solve the pipeline problem but it seems obvious that you'd start at the beginning rather than the end. Perhaps I'm wrong. What do you think?

dopamean 9y ago

I think you've made some incorrect assumptions about who I am and what I think about these issues. Maybe I'm wrong but I'll leave a few points so we're on the same page: I have been involved in the hiring process at more than one tech company and it was apparent that there were far, far fewer women in the pipeline than men. Even if we hired every single person who applied the balance would still lean very heavily toward men. Again, this is just in my personal experience. I don't believe it is the job tech companies to do extra work to hire more of any underrepresented group in the industry until the problem in the pipeline is addressed. I think the argument that there is something biological about women that makes them less interested in tech comes from what amounts to pseudoscience at best and that argument shouldn't be validated because it gets in the way of solving the problem with the pipeline. I have never (and would never) advocated for any group of people to be given "extra marks to pass" in a situation where their ability to do a job is important. I don't think the author of that memo at Google should have been fired. Though I do understand how from a corporate standpoint they felt that they had to. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with the "person interested in equal opportunity would not do..." I didn't do those things. I'm not blind to anything and I think all I did in my comment was ask a pretty simple question that you didn't even attempt to answer.

doubleshame 9y ago
You are a man of far more experience than I am. Thank you for sharing. I believe I included a lot of the general discussion we've seen in my response. To answer your question as I gleaned it from children of sibling posts: how to foster inclusion of foreign looking ideas: - always assume good faith (this really covers it all actually) - listen carefully and understand what was meant - always speak to the point that was being made instead of to the person, or worse to the words themselves - allow both yourself and the other people to change their opinions Ideas are just memes. We need to have the humility to see that and not associate people / ego / self with them.
bostonvaulter2 9y ago
You've said many things about what you don't believe and what you don't agree with. What of the memo (if any) do you agree with and what do you actually believe about how companies should approach diversity?
- dopamean 9y ago
  I don't think what I believe about the memo matters. I just wanted to hear what people had to say with regards to being inclusive of people with ideas they don't agree with. Judging by how few responses I got that even attempted to answer that question I'm going to guess that many people aren't interested in being inclusive of people with dissenting opinions that they find offensive. In the interest of answering part of your question (since I just complained about how few answered mine) I'll say that I do think there is a role for companies to play when it comes to diversity. I'd love to see companies get involved much earlier than when it comes time to hire. Because I believe the problem is with the pipeline I think that if companies want to address the problem then they should start where the pipeline starts: early education. If Google is more interested in getting more women involved in tech I would support the idea of Google hosting a summer camp for girls at their HQ. Or funding programs to do those kinds of things in other places in the country. Of course I have no idea if this kind of thing would work and it would require patience (years) to see if it would pay off. But it seems like a good place to start. I haven't really thought a ton about how to solve the pipeline problem but it seems obvious that you'd start at the beginning rather than the end. Perhaps I'm wrong. What do you think?