10 ms·

What statements in particular are you calling false? Genuinely curious.

lordCarbonFiber 9y ago
On the off chance you're being sincere, this entire list basically (cited directly from the work itself). ● They’re universal across human cultures -- Some are, such as physiological differences (muscle mass, skeletal structure, etc) and a general gradient assertiveness but that leaves a lot of other traits with a high degree of variance (and ignores the fact that a population of engineers is not randomly selected so isn't appear guasian with respect to averages of the global population)[0][1] ● They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone -- citation needed ● Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males -- I can't imagine that's a statistically significant sample and still citation needed ● The underlying traits are highly heritable -- citation needed ● They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective -- evolutionary psychology is not mature field and has a lot of issues [2] Just as an aside, extraordinary claims (ie this group that has been historically disadvantaged is really just inferior) requires extraordinary evidence. Im lumping baseless statements in with statements directly contradicted by existing study. His misunderstanding of the central limit theorem in producing the graph included in the memo compounds things. There's really no reason to believe any given distribution of people, especially given the people working at google are a very specific selection from the total population. His citations [3] only really loosely correlate with the thesis and certainly don't point to the universality that he depends on. Really the crux of the issue is the faulty axiom that women (or anyone really) working at google (or anywhere with a selection process)should display traits as if they were randomly selected from the population. Which kills all of his other arguments. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem [1]:https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul_Costa3/publication/11825676_Gender_Differences_in_Personality_Traits_Across_Cultures_Robust_and_Surprising_Findings/links/00b7d52db42cda259e000000/Gender-Differences-in-Personality-Traits-Across-Cultures-Robust-and-Surprising-Findings.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul_Costa3/publication... [2]:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016230959290021U?via%3Dihub http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/01623095929...
- ellius 9y ago
  So he should be fired for having an incorrect belief backed up by shoddy science?
  - lordCarbonFiber 9y ago
    He was fired for being an asshole about it. Like you'd be fired from most places for being an asshole. Most mega corps are pretty sensitive about their brand and what you can post as a representative of the company.
    - ellius 9y ago
      I read the whole thing and didn't really see the part where he was an asshole about it. I agree with your general point though that any company probably would've done the same. To me that gives the lie to every company that bullshits about being open to different viewpoints. Maybe that's true to the extent your opinions don't become their problem, but it's another example of why workers should never trust their employers very far.
- ntuch 9y ago
  > a population of engineers is not randomly selected so isn't appear guasian with respect to averages of the global population That's totally irrelevant - so irrelevant that the fact you posted it suggests you don't understand what's being discussed here. The "manifesto" didn't say anything even remotely in the same universe as, "male employees of Google are different from female employees" (a claim to which you might respond, "that's not true because engineers aren't randomly selected." The manifesto explained why there are fewer females in the field of engineering. It's like if I point out that there are fewer Asians playing professional basketball because Asians tend to be shorter. Your statement is like saying that professional basketball players aren't selected randomly, they're selected (in part) for height. Totally irrelevant to a discussion of why there are fewer overall. I'm on mobile right now. If you like, I'll gladly take apart the rest of your post when I get home. But this bit is a good start. It's really indicative of the kind of person who has criticized the memo.

On the off chance you're being sincere, this entire list basically (cited directly from the work itself). ● They’re universal across human cultures -- Some are, such as physiological differences (muscle mass, skeletal structure, etc) and a general gradient assertiveness but that leaves a lot of other traits with a high degree of variance (and ignores the fact that a population of engineers is not randomly selected so isn't appear guasian with respect to averages of the global population)[0][1] ● They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone -- citation needed ● Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males -- I can't imagine that's a statistically significant sample and still citation needed ● The underlying traits are highly heritable -- citation needed ● They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective -- evolutionary psychology is not mature field and has a lot of issues [2] Just as an aside, extraordinary claims (ie this group that has been historically disadvantaged is really just inferior) requires extraordinary evidence. Im lumping baseless statements in with statements directly contradicted by existing study. His misunderstanding of the central limit theorem in producing the graph included in the memo compounds things. There's really no reason to believe any given distribution of people, especially given the people working at google are a very specific selection from the total population. His citations [3] only really loosely correlate with the thesis and certainly don't point to the universality that he depends on. Really the crux of the issue is the faulty axiom that women (or anyone really) working at google (or anywhere with a selection process)should display traits as if they were randomly selected from the population. Which kills all of his other arguments. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem [1]:https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul_Costa3/publication/11825676_Gender_Differences_in_Personality_Traits_Across_Cultures_Robust_and_Surprising_Findings/links/00b7d52db42cda259e000000/Gender-Differences-in-Personality-Traits-Across-Cultures-Robust-and-Surprising-Findings.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul_Costa3/publication... [2]:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016230959290021U?via%3Dihub http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/01623095929...

ellius 9y ago
So he should be fired for having an incorrect belief backed up by shoddy science?
- lordCarbonFiber 9y ago
  He was fired for being an asshole about it. Like you'd be fired from most places for being an asshole. Most mega corps are pretty sensitive about their brand and what you can post as a representative of the company.
  - ellius 9y ago
    I read the whole thing and didn't really see the part where he was an asshole about it. I agree with your general point though that any company probably would've done the same. To me that gives the lie to every company that bullshits about being open to different viewpoints. Maybe that's true to the extent your opinions don't become their problem, but it's another example of why workers should never trust their employers very far.
ntuch 9y ago
> a population of engineers is not randomly selected so isn't appear guasian with respect to averages of the global population That's totally irrelevant - so irrelevant that the fact you posted it suggests you don't understand what's being discussed here. The "manifesto" didn't say anything even remotely in the same universe as, "male employees of Google are different from female employees" (a claim to which you might respond, "that's not true because engineers aren't randomly selected." The manifesto explained why there are fewer females in the field of engineering. It's like if I point out that there are fewer Asians playing professional basketball because Asians tend to be shorter. Your statement is like saying that professional basketball players aren't selected randomly, they're selected (in part) for height. Totally irrelevant to a discussion of why there are fewer overall. I'm on mobile right now. If you like, I'll gladly take apart the rest of your post when I get home. But this bit is a good start. It's really indicative of the kind of person who has criticized the memo.