5 ms·

I can't help but agree with almost everything he said about general traits in men. They seek esteem over most everything else, and are competitive by nature. An

I can't help but agree with almost everything he said about general traits in men. They seek esteem over most everything else, and are competitive by nature. And that explains at least part of the reason they're drawn to leadership positions in companies. Of course I'm not going to get fired for saying that publicly.

drewrv 9y ago
If men are more naturally drawn to leadership positions, but not actually better leaders, diversity efforts make a lot of sense. In such a scenario you would want to actively encourage women to seek status and lead.
- matt_wulfeck 9y ago
  I completely agree, or make leadership positions less desirable for men. The essay actually touches on these points.
DonaldPShimoda 9y ago
Is it not possible that men are more competitive and seek leadership positions because most leadership positions are already held by men? Looking upwards and seeing people like yourself would be encouraging — it says "You can do this!" Modern society has built an image of men becoming successful, and so in a self-fulfilling prophecy the society's leadership positions are dominated by men who were told they would end up there. I don't think there is a natural (i.e. biological) imperative that drives men and women significantly differently in this regard. It seems to me to be primarily caused by societal expectations which are enforced starting from a young age.
- Frondo 9y ago
  Yep, the idea there is that representation matters. After Obama was elected, there was a whole spate of articles quoting young Black children, saying, "if he can do it, I can do it." A new world of possibility opened up to them, just because someone had done it. When one of those recent Star Wars movies came out (I haven't seen any of them, so I might get the details wrong), and one of the leads was a Latino guy, I saw a few interviews with Latinx fans basically saying the same thing--"now I can see myself as the hero of the story". Representation matters.
  - anjc 9y ago
    Of course it matters, but being represented in a movie isn't going to make Latino people be able to force push in real life. There are firmly established natural explanations for male drive which aren't overcome by representation.
    - DonaldPShimoda 9y ago
      > but being represented in a movie isn't going to make Latino people be able to force push in real life. I'm... confused why you decided this was a valid argument. Nobody said that anybody would assume this. The point of the other comment was that young Latino kids are used to seeing white males as the protagonists in stories, but seeing a Latino guy as a protagonist has altered how they perceive themselves.
- anjc 9y ago
  > I don't think there is a natural (i.e. biological) imperative that drives men and women significantly differently in this regard. Yep, the links between testosterone and hierarchy/drive/dominance have been established for decades. Its effects can be examined between males, and across multiple species, but there's actually no natural imperative which drives men in this regard. Come on man.
  - nippples 9y ago
    You gotta understand, those literature students who learned critical theory know far better about these topics than biologists and psychologists. Of course hormones mean nothing. You think it's adrenaline making your heart beat stronger when you think you're in danger, or is it really social constructs all the way down? There isn't such as thing as true objectivity. We shouldn't even aim for objectivity. War is peace.
    - DonaldPShimoda 9y ago
      I kind of resent the way you say "literature students" as though (1) you think it's valid to assume from my comment that I'm a literature student (I'm not) and (2) that somehow literature students in general are all the way you describe (they aren't). Maybe in the future consider adding to the discussion constructively instead of resorting to silly (baseless) hyperbolic rhetoric.
  - DonaldPShimoda 9y ago
    Sorry, I wasn't very specific with my phrasing and I think I misrepresented my opinions. Of course I'm aware that hormones play a role in this stuff — that's basic science, and it was my fault for not addressing that more carefully. But hormones are only a part of the story, and I think they're less important than maybe you do. I don't think the defense of "but testosterone!" is a valid explanation for the incredible disparity in representation we see in the upper echelons of society. Yes, it plays a role, but it isn't everything. Most leadership positions are held by men, and I think that the way younger people (or people "lower in the hierarchy" I suppose) perceive this is more important than the natural inclinations due to hormonal differences. And that's what I meant by my use of the word "significantly" in my original comment. Not that the biological imperatives don't exist, but that they are not significant when compared to the societal imperatives.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > Looking upwards and seeing people like yourself would be encouraging... Is it? You presume male employees see themselves in their bosses. If a male employee is gay, Zoroastrian, or a little person, does he look at all the male CEOs and say, "Hey, all those males are just like me! I can do it too!"
  - DonaldPShimoda 9y ago
    > If a male employee is gay, Zoroastrian, or a little person, does he look at all the male CEOs and say, "Hey, all those males are just like me! I can do it too!" It's possible that they don't, which may explain why we don't see a lot of openly gay executives, for example. Remember when Tim Cook came out? He was the only openly gay Fortune 500 CEO. It was fairly recent, so I can't imagine a significant change has happened yet, but it's possible that more closeted gay executives may come out, which in turn may encourage younger people to pursue leadership roles like these. I'm not saying it's an absolute thing — I mean, Tim Cook was able to get where he is without having a gay CEO to look up to. But having that representation may help those who are slightly less determined (but still qualified). You see what I mean?
HoppedUpMenace 9y ago
So by agreeing, you are basically saying you believe in the idea of biological differences playing a role in the gender imbalance at Google? Or to put it another way, you believe women don't strive for the same things as men due to genetic makeup?
- matt_wulfeck 9y ago
  You only need to remember your experiences in high school to know that biology plays a role in men and women striving for different things.
  - HoppedUpMenace 9y ago
    People strive for things based on personal and perceived expectations around them, biology has nothing to do with it, unless you are speaking of one's personal talents, which is gender neutral anyway.
- doubleshame 9y ago
  It's established to be a CONTRIBUTING factor. What makes it controversial is that we can't know HOW MUCH it contributes. It's very bad to use this factor as a basis for discrimination. It's awesome to use differentiating factors that we already know of to make our collective spaces better and more accepting of everyone.
  - HoppedUpMenace 9y ago
    Establishing or assuming anything about anyone based on one's biology is very misguided and ignorant. It is very similar to any number of times anyone has approached me to ask if I knew how to speak Spanish because clearly, since I look the part, I am assumed to know how.
    - doubleshame 9y ago
      Once there was this women sitting at table. I wanted to go talk to her. I wanted to say "Hi, the rain really is beautiful, isn't it". But I didn't know if she associated the rain with painful trigger emotions, so I didn't. I wanted to say "Hi". But I didn't know if she spoke English, and I didn't want to discriminate against people who don't, so I didn't. I wanted to say "Hi" in all the possible languages of the world. But I didn't want to discriminate against deaf people, so I didn't. If she was deaf, would she not have been offended? So in the end, in this fictional story, I didn't say anything at all. There is no certain knowledge, there are only distributions. I know nothing, and I am learning more all the time. But I do the best I can based on my past experiences. A bayesian approach to the world, will not neglect what you know; but it will update your model rapidly based on new information, perhaps information specific to the person that you are interacting with. Communication is impossible without good faith. So, the next time someone asks you if you speak Spanish, tell them you do not, and use the opportunity to show them the world that is uniquely you. Let your identity have an integrity that YOU own. The next time they see a person who looks Spanish, they might approach it differently. And they'll also remember that Spanish looking people are nice people to interact with.
Obi_Juan_Kenobi 9y ago
The issue with the essay is that it's connecting two points that do not necessarily connect. First, you have biological differences between men and women. These are reasonably well characterized, and the sorts of psychological differences that might impact the workplace are small but present. It's still very difficult to get into specifics, however, as definitions/measuring is difficult (lots of room for error here) but the thesis of 'this may be relevant, and we should be able to discuss this' is supported. Then you have the various stereotypes about men and women that we observe in the current population. There's a lot of nuance here and, again, a lot of room to confirm your own biases, but on the whole there are certainly differences. The question is mostly nature vs. nurture and how much of this is cultural historical artifact. The problem comes from trying to explain the latter with the former. This is difficult to do in a scientific way; the essay mentions castration and some cultural practices that can suggest some aspects of this relationship, but it's a far cry from being generally explanatory. It's all terribly specific and contextual and the state of the art is so far away from explaining bias/discrimination in hiring/employment that it's arguably not worth mentioning. The equality/diversity contradiction is a good enough point to make, but it doesn't accomplish much. The real thesis is that Google's hiring practices are discriminatory, but there's not a clear scientific answer to that at all. Aiming for rough equality seems like a conservative approach; the distributions for these metrics suggest something like single-digit-percent differences between populations of men and women (i.e. lots of overlap due to variance). A 'worst-case' for discrimination against men seems very likely far less severe than the current state of discrimination against women where 9:1 ratios are not unheard of. And this is certainly a wonderful opportunity for debate and may not be correct, it currently is not proven to be incorrect by any stretch, and thus it cannot be claimed that the hiring practices are discriminatory.
- tynpeddler 9y ago
  A 'worst-case' for discrimination against men seems very likely far less severe than the current state of discrimination against women where 9:1 ratios are not unheard of. And this is certainly a wonderful opportunity for debate and may not be correct, it currently is not proven to be incorrect by any stretch, and thus it cannot be claimed that the hiring practices are discriminatory. You can't compare the population ratios of engineers to the population ratios in the general population. You have to compare it to the population ratios in the applicant pool. Google does not control the world, and it isn't desirable that they do so. The gender gap in the tech industry is as concerning as the gender gap among garbage collectors. If you don't care the same amount about both, you're being hypocritical.

drewrv 9y ago

If men are more naturally drawn to leadership positions, but not actually better leaders, diversity efforts make a lot of sense. In such a scenario you would want to actively encourage women to seek status and lead.

matt_wulfeck 9y ago
I completely agree, or make leadership positions less desirable for men. The essay actually touches on these points.

DonaldPShimoda 9y ago

Is it not possible that men are more competitive and seek leadership positions because most leadership positions are already held by men? Looking upwards and seeing people like yourself would be encouraging — it says "You can do this!" Modern society has built an image of men becoming successful, and so in a self-fulfilling prophecy the society's leadership positions are dominated by men who were told they would end up there. I don't think there is a natural (i.e. biological) imperative that drives men and women significantly differently in this regard. It seems to me to be primarily caused by societal expectations which are enforced starting from a young age.

Frondo 9y ago
Yep, the idea there is that representation matters. After Obama was elected, there was a whole spate of articles quoting young Black children, saying, "if he can do it, I can do it." A new world of possibility opened up to them, just because someone had done it. When one of those recent Star Wars movies came out (I haven't seen any of them, so I might get the details wrong), and one of the leads was a Latino guy, I saw a few interviews with Latinx fans basically saying the same thing--"now I can see myself as the hero of the story". Representation matters.
- anjc 9y ago
  Of course it matters, but being represented in a movie isn't going to make Latino people be able to force push in real life. There are firmly established natural explanations for male drive which aren't overcome by representation.
  - DonaldPShimoda 9y ago
    > but being represented in a movie isn't going to make Latino people be able to force push in real life. I'm... confused why you decided this was a valid argument. Nobody said that anybody would assume this. The point of the other comment was that young Latino kids are used to seeing white males as the protagonists in stories, but seeing a Latino guy as a protagonist has altered how they perceive themselves.
anjc 9y ago
> I don't think there is a natural (i.e. biological) imperative that drives men and women significantly differently in this regard. Yep, the links between testosterone and hierarchy/drive/dominance have been established for decades. Its effects can be examined between males, and across multiple species, but there's actually no natural imperative which drives men in this regard. Come on man.
- nippples 9y ago
  You gotta understand, those literature students who learned critical theory know far better about these topics than biologists and psychologists. Of course hormones mean nothing. You think it's adrenaline making your heart beat stronger when you think you're in danger, or is it really social constructs all the way down? There isn't such as thing as true objectivity. We shouldn't even aim for objectivity. War is peace.
  - DonaldPShimoda 9y ago
    I kind of resent the way you say "literature students" as though (1) you think it's valid to assume from my comment that I'm a literature student (I'm not) and (2) that somehow literature students in general are all the way you describe (they aren't). Maybe in the future consider adding to the discussion constructively instead of resorting to silly (baseless) hyperbolic rhetoric.
- DonaldPShimoda 9y ago
  Sorry, I wasn't very specific with my phrasing and I think I misrepresented my opinions. Of course I'm aware that hormones play a role in this stuff — that's basic science, and it was my fault for not addressing that more carefully. But hormones are only a part of the story, and I think they're less important than maybe you do. I don't think the defense of "but testosterone!" is a valid explanation for the incredible disparity in representation we see in the upper echelons of society. Yes, it plays a role, but it isn't everything. Most leadership positions are held by men, and I think that the way younger people (or people "lower in the hierarchy" I suppose) perceive this is more important than the natural inclinations due to hormonal differences. And that's what I meant by my use of the word "significantly" in my original comment. Not that the biological imperatives don't exist, but that they are not significant when compared to the societal imperatives.
humanrebar 9y ago
> Looking upwards and seeing people like yourself would be encouraging... Is it? You presume male employees see themselves in their bosses. If a male employee is gay, Zoroastrian, or a little person, does he look at all the male CEOs and say, "Hey, all those males are just like me! I can do it too!"
- DonaldPShimoda 9y ago
  > If a male employee is gay, Zoroastrian, or a little person, does he look at all the male CEOs and say, "Hey, all those males are just like me! I can do it too!" It's possible that they don't, which may explain why we don't see a lot of openly gay executives, for example. Remember when Tim Cook came out? He was the only openly gay Fortune 500 CEO. It was fairly recent, so I can't imagine a significant change has happened yet, but it's possible that more closeted gay executives may come out, which in turn may encourage younger people to pursue leadership roles like these. I'm not saying it's an absolute thing — I mean, Tim Cook was able to get where he is without having a gay CEO to look up to. But having that representation may help those who are slightly less determined (but still qualified). You see what I mean?

HoppedUpMenace 9y ago

So by agreeing, you are basically saying you believe in the idea of biological differences playing a role in the gender imbalance at Google? Or to put it another way, you believe women don't strive for the same things as men due to genetic makeup?

matt_wulfeck 9y ago
You only need to remember your experiences in high school to know that biology plays a role in men and women striving for different things.
- HoppedUpMenace 9y ago
  People strive for things based on personal and perceived expectations around them, biology has nothing to do with it, unless you are speaking of one's personal talents, which is gender neutral anyway.
doubleshame 9y ago
It's established to be a CONTRIBUTING factor. What makes it controversial is that we can't know HOW MUCH it contributes. It's very bad to use this factor as a basis for discrimination. It's awesome to use differentiating factors that we already know of to make our collective spaces better and more accepting of everyone.
- HoppedUpMenace 9y ago
  Establishing or assuming anything about anyone based on one's biology is very misguided and ignorant. It is very similar to any number of times anyone has approached me to ask if I knew how to speak Spanish because clearly, since I look the part, I am assumed to know how.
  - doubleshame 9y ago
    Once there was this women sitting at table. I wanted to go talk to her. I wanted to say "Hi, the rain really is beautiful, isn't it". But I didn't know if she associated the rain with painful trigger emotions, so I didn't. I wanted to say "Hi". But I didn't know if she spoke English, and I didn't want to discriminate against people who don't, so I didn't. I wanted to say "Hi" in all the possible languages of the world. But I didn't want to discriminate against deaf people, so I didn't. If she was deaf, would she not have been offended? So in the end, in this fictional story, I didn't say anything at all. There is no certain knowledge, there are only distributions. I know nothing, and I am learning more all the time. But I do the best I can based on my past experiences. A bayesian approach to the world, will not neglect what you know; but it will update your model rapidly based on new information, perhaps information specific to the person that you are interacting with. Communication is impossible without good faith. So, the next time someone asks you if you speak Spanish, tell them you do not, and use the opportunity to show them the world that is uniquely you. Let your identity have an integrity that YOU own. The next time they see a person who looks Spanish, they might approach it differently. And they'll also remember that Spanish looking people are nice people to interact with.

Obi_Juan_Kenobi 9y ago

The issue with the essay is that it's connecting two points that do not necessarily connect. First, you have biological differences between men and women. These are reasonably well characterized, and the sorts of psychological differences that might impact the workplace are small but present. It's still very difficult to get into specifics, however, as definitions/measuring is difficult (lots of room for error here) but the thesis of 'this may be relevant, and we should be able to discuss this' is supported. Then you have the various stereotypes about men and women that we observe in the current population. There's a lot of nuance here and, again, a lot of room to confirm your own biases, but on the whole there are certainly differences. The question is mostly nature vs. nurture and how much of this is cultural historical artifact. The problem comes from trying to explain the latter with the former. This is difficult to do in a scientific way; the essay mentions castration and some cultural practices that can suggest some aspects of this relationship, but it's a far cry from being generally explanatory. It's all terribly specific and contextual and the state of the art is so far away from explaining bias/discrimination in hiring/employment that it's arguably not worth mentioning. The equality/diversity contradiction is a good enough point to make, but it doesn't accomplish much. The real thesis is that Google's hiring practices are discriminatory, but there's not a clear scientific answer to that at all. Aiming for rough equality seems like a conservative approach; the distributions for these metrics suggest something like single-digit-percent differences between populations of men and women (i.e. lots of overlap due to variance). A 'worst-case' for discrimination against men seems very likely far less severe than the current state of discrimination against women where 9:1 ratios are not unheard of. And this is certainly a wonderful opportunity for debate and may not be correct, it currently is not proven to be incorrect by any stretch, and thus it cannot be claimed that the hiring practices are discriminatory.

tynpeddler 9y ago
A 'worst-case' for discrimination against men seems very likely far less severe than the current state of discrimination against women where 9:1 ratios are not unheard of. And this is certainly a wonderful opportunity for debate and may not be correct, it currently is not proven to be incorrect by any stretch, and thus it cannot be claimed that the hiring practices are discriminatory. You can't compare the population ratios of engineers to the population ratios in the general population. You have to compare it to the population ratios in the applicant pool. Google does not control the world, and it isn't desirable that they do so. The gender gap in the tech industry is as concerning as the gender gap among garbage collectors. If you don't care the same amount about both, you're being hypocritical.