7 ms·

> You likely feel that your capability is more in question, that you have to prove yourself more than the men on the team, and that this person you work next to

> You likely feel that your capability is more in question, that you have to prove yourself more than the men on the team, and that this person you work next to (or for) starts out with an assumption that you're less capable. I have a hard time understanding how one could come to such a conclusion. (In the following, "P(X|Y)" should understood as "the probability of X given Y") Starting with probabilities: P(capable|your-gender-race-etc) != P(capable|you-being-you) If your employer hired you and another peer, and assuming you were both put through the same hiring process for the same job, wouldn't you expect that you're of similar caliber, regardless of background? Would it not be irrational to expect anything else (unless, I suppose, you have little faith in said hiring process)? Strangely, there are people who respond the way you suggest: http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/google-employees-anti-diversity-manifesto-womens-neuroticism-goes-viral-n790401 http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/google-employe... In the video embedded in the article above, the Executive Editor of Recode responds with "I don't know about you, but I ate stress for breakfast and I like my big title at Recode." She and the news anchor then sarcastically tease each other for not being cut out for their jobs, as if anyone made a personal claim to that effect. But here's the thing: no one said they're unfit for their positions. What the author of the memo did express, however, was that he believed in the possibility of biological differences resulting in the distributions of capability of each gender being offset by some amount -- there's even a graphic of two normal distributions slightly offset right within the memo to help illustrate this point. I won't go into any argument for or against this belief, as that's a deviation from the topic that you first rose. However, I will address the implications of this belief: suppose for the sake of argument that we, too, share this belief. What does this say about any given female colleague? At worst, we could say she might be one of a minority of women who share in both an interest in and ability to write software. However, this shouldn't evoke any ill feelings, as not only is the probability at hand just a number, it's also a number which does not apply to her as an individual: we have from observation (e.g. passing the interview, acing performance reviews, 1-on-1 experience, etc) that the probability of her being a solid engineer is 100%; that is, the probability of any one random woman possessing both the interest and aptitude in software development is irrelevant, and conflating that general probability with the conditional probability of your colleague being fit for her job would be irrational. Now, here's where I ask you for your help: is there some angle that I'm missing here? I will admit that I tend to be more on the reptilian side of things, insofar as it behooves me to sequester my emotions; assuming agreement with my analysis (and if not, please do point out any flaws), is it unfair to expect people to not be emotionally stirred by a remark that decidedly has no bearing on them as an individual? The one thing I might understand (even if I can't empathize with it) is the tendency for many to equate oneself with their "group", such that an expression that can be taken to be a slight against a group resembling themselves is taken as a personal attack. While I find it hard to imagine, I suppose what could be happening in such scenarios is that many people feel targeted merely by association. As a white man with an extensive background in dance, I suppose this could be like being offended by tropes like "most white men have no rhythm" -- for me, I'm not "most white men", I'm Charles Strahan: I've won two state German folk dancing competitions, I led the Latin dance club in my high school days, and I generally (I think) don't suck at dancing; I couldn't give a single fuck what someone says about "most white men", or "most blue eyed people", or whatever -- it doesn't apply to me. To broaden the scope a bit, the same goes for insults like "most men who dance are <insert inflammatory remark regarding masculinity>". Is this what I'm missing, or something else entirely?

HelloMcFly 9y ago
This is a fairly robust comment, so I'll respond where I can. The first thing I'll say is that this is a emotional, human event. When you introduce emotion and feelings of identity into a conversation, event, etc., any inclination that reference mathematical equations is probably off the mark from the outset. > If your employer hired you and another peer, and assuming you were both put through the same hiring process for the same job, wouldn't you expect that you're of similar caliber, regardless of background? You would assume that, until persons like the memo writer explicitly claim that the bar is lowered for you. Suddenly it starts feeling like tokenism. And what's more insidious is that when you prime people to believe their achievements were given and not earned, their performance suffers, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. > But here's the thing: no one said they're unfit for their positions. The author explicitly claimed the bar has been lowered for diversity candidates. That is tantamount to challenging fitness for their roles for diversity incumbents. When you combine the author's belief that certain sub-groups lack aptitude in general, and then challenge the validity and fairness of hiring/selection procedures, then you've effectively challenged the legitimacy of every diversity incumbent. Every single one. Or, it could be argued. I could also argue the opposite if I had to. > is it unfair to expect people to not be emotionally stirred by a remark that decidedly has no bearing on them as an individual? I think it unfair to expect topics of identity - for one's self and the groups that they culturally identify with - to not elicit emotional reactions. Further, when you're a part of a group that has historically been treated a certain way based on your association with that group (by choice or not), it is reflexively natural to view comments like the memo as having personal meaning. Finally, given the rest of the content of the memo, I think it is not unreasonable to assume that many of those remarks might indeed have bearing on an individual.
- cstrahan 9y ago
  Thanks a ton for the response! Just to be clear to anyone stumbling along this: I don't necessarily agree with what the author of the memo wrote, and I think he should have anticipated backlash and hurt feelings that resulted; however, I am interested in sussing out what he wrote and what he meant by what he wrote, as there seems to be quite a difference in interpretation among those who have read it. I raise these questions because I want to better understand the position of those who believe what he wrote was intended to be anti-diversity and/or supremacist, and I want to challenge my own comprehension and interpretation of what he wrote, and what it entails. Also, I don't know how Google HR conducts their business, and I presume we're all expressing our views under the premise (that is, something taken to be true for the sake of argument, regardless of whether we otherwise believe it to be true or false) that his remarks regarding discriminatory practices reflect what he knows to be true of the hiring and retention policies, unless someone explicitly states that they reject the premise as absurd (which, I should note, has not yet been communicated here or elsewhere). This leaves for discussion whether his conclusion follows from his premise. However, as stated earlier, I have no interest in arguing for or against the validity of his argument: I merely want to better understand what his argument is in the first place, and why we all seem to have come to a different understanding thereof. > The first thing I'll say is that this is a emotional, human event. When you introduce emotion and feelings of identity into a conversation, event, etc., any inclination that reference mathematical equations is probably off the mark from the outset. Definitely. That's mostly me trying to understand post hoc why I'm not perturbed by analogous situations which do apparently offend others, with the presumption that my brain meat subconsciously works through the logic in a similar way and subsequently dismisses any emotional reaction. My thinking was that I might learn something by seeing how the other side of the coin views their internal workings; not that I could ask people to change the way they feel a given a particular stimulus. > You would assume that, until persons like the memo writer explicitly claim that the bar is lowered for you. Suddenly it starts feeling like tokenism. And what's more insidious is that when you prime people to believe their achievements were given and not earned, their performance suffers, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. From my interpretation of what the author wrote (I quote: "Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business."), it was my impression that he was explicitly addressing discrimination against the majority in favor of the minorities in the context of interviewing and performance review. If anyone felt subject to tokenism, I would think that would be a direct result of the (supposed, explicit) discriminatory policy (paraphrasing from the memo: pass on candidates from the majority, and in groups of similarly underperforming individuals, keep the minorities while firing those from the majority), not those who speak out against it and the implications thereof. Similarly, if I ever came to work for a place that, as it would later be revealed, was headed by a closeted white racist, I would feel like my being hired there was cheapened by the fact that I had been given preference over my non-white peers, just because I was born into this world with white skin; I wouldn't attribute my upset to the journalist who broke the story and pointed out, rightfully so, that this (hypothetical) employer gave me and the rest of the all white staff an advantage. This is corroborated by accounts told by friends and others online, wherein they felt patronized when they discovered that -- say, the conference that invited them, or the employer that hired them -- might have done so due to their policy of imposing a strict representation quota (which was discovered not from hearsay and/or conjecture by a third party, but communicated directly to them by the organizers/hiring manager); their experience was spoiled because they felt reduced to their gender or skin color, rather than being there because they're acknowledged and respected as experts in their field (which they are). With this topic being such a volatile one, I feel like I need to clarify: discriminatory hiring (and retention) practices and offering a leg up to the disenfranchised (say, by providing training, financial aid and any other supportive resources) are two totally different things, and its my understanding that the author was talking about the former. As just one example of the latter, seeing services like free daycare at tech conferences is incredibly refreshing, and I think that's just one small step among many, many more that should be taken to make tech more accessible. Does my interpretation of the memo differ from yours in this respect? And, assuming a policy that, in writing, explicitly sets forth to give preferential treatment to those of a particular gender or ethnic background, wouldn't it: 1) be a logical (though certainly upsetting) inference from the policy alone that "if my gender/ethnicity matches what they're seeking, I might not have been hired solely due to my (perceived and/or real) fitness for the role" 2) and if so, wouldn't that inference be a fault of the policy makers, and not the person pointing out it out? I should note that all of this is taking as a premise -- solely for taking the memo at its word so we may discuss its content and the implications thereof -- that Google has such a policy (I don't personally have a belief either way as I haven't seen their policies, but I don't dismiss this possibility because I do know hiring managers at other companies that have been in the position of outright rejecting non-minorities to meet hard quotas, strictly in accordance with company policy). What I don't hear is anyone suggesting that they take exception to the claim that Google has such a policy, and that the author is instead trying to put forward a damaging inference that isn't grounded in the letter of their hiring practices; if we take this alternative view as a premise instead, I would completely understand: it would be a dick move to imply that anyone was hired by their employer beyond reasons of fitness when the employer has no (known, explicit) policy for doing so. If this is key to why people are upset, though, no one is communicating it. If one disagrees with an argument because they believe it takes a falsehood as a premise (i.e. Google's supposed hiring policy), they must explicitly say so, otherwise people (like myself) will be confused at how we came to a different conclusion solely based on the rules of inference, and no constructive exchange of views can occur. > The author explicitly claimed the bar has been lowered for diversity candidates. That is tantamount to challenging fitness for their roles for diversity incumbents. [...] This takes us back to my last point: if (and this is a big if!) the policy, in writing, literally, explicitly states "lower the bar for <such and such> candidates", should we then fault the memo author for pointing out the demeaning, demoralizing consequences that you subsequently list, or the people responsible for patronizingly lowering the bar with respect to hiring and retention (again, this is a separate issue from providing assistance to the disenfranchised, as the latter implies nothing about the ability of the recipient of such assistance)? Or have I somehow got that backward: that setting lower expectations of performance isn't in itself demeaning, while suggesting that's the case is demeaning? Now, if you're suggesting that you believe that the author is ascribing something to Google's hiring policies that isn't explicitly there, in ink, then I completely agree: that would be a seriously shitty thing to suggest that people are there just because they've had the bar lowered for them. That would be a deplorable notion to spread around. To say the least, I would be appalled if I ever heard a coworker suggest "Oh, Dan? Yeah, he's just here because of the color of his skin. Susan? She's just here because she's a woman". I would straight up lose my shit. I don't know if my confusion stems from a difference in the premises held, a difference in my understanding of what those premises entail, or perhaps a difference in what I thought the author was arguing as a conclusion. Whichever it may be, I'd greatly appreciate any suggestions on what I might have gotten wrong! > I think it unfair to expect topics of identity - for one's self and the groups that they culturally identify with - to not elicit emotional reactions. I suppose what was causing a disconnect for me is the fact that I don't feel like part of any group, have no desire to do so, and I don't care how people acknowledge my identity (so long as their actions don't impede my pursuits; otherwise, let them think and say what they may). I totally get that other people are different, though, and out of respect, I try my best to acknowledge and respect their identity in accordance with their desires. Thanks again for your input! And sorry for the lengthy response. This stuff is subtle, and with it being an emotionally charged topic, I feel a certain level of care must be taken in fear of accidentally being taken the wrong way, and/or offending many people -- neither of which I want to have happen.

HelloMcFly 9y ago

This is a fairly robust comment, so I'll respond where I can. The first thing I'll say is that this is a emotional, human event. When you introduce emotion and feelings of identity into a conversation, event, etc., any inclination that reference mathematical equations is probably off the mark from the outset. > If your employer hired you and another peer, and assuming you were both put through the same hiring process for the same job, wouldn't you expect that you're of similar caliber, regardless of background? You would assume that, until persons like the memo writer explicitly claim that the bar is lowered for you. Suddenly it starts feeling like tokenism. And what's more insidious is that when you prime people to believe their achievements were given and not earned, their performance suffers, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. > But here's the thing: no one said they're unfit for their positions. The author explicitly claimed the bar has been lowered for diversity candidates. That is tantamount to challenging fitness for their roles for diversity incumbents. When you combine the author's belief that certain sub-groups lack aptitude in general, and then challenge the validity and fairness of hiring/selection procedures, then you've effectively challenged the legitimacy of every diversity incumbent. Every single one. Or, it could be argued. I could also argue the opposite if I had to. > is it unfair to expect people to not be emotionally stirred by a remark that decidedly has no bearing on them as an individual? I think it unfair to expect topics of identity - for one's self and the groups that they culturally identify with - to not elicit emotional reactions. Further, when you're a part of a group that has historically been treated a certain way based on your association with that group (by choice or not), it is reflexively natural to view comments like the memo as having personal meaning. Finally, given the rest of the content of the memo, I think it is not unreasonable to assume that many of those remarks might indeed have bearing on an individual.

cstrahan 9y ago
Thanks a ton for the response! Just to be clear to anyone stumbling along this: I don't necessarily agree with what the author of the memo wrote, and I think he should have anticipated backlash and hurt feelings that resulted; however, I am interested in sussing out what he wrote and what he meant by what he wrote, as there seems to be quite a difference in interpretation among those who have read it. I raise these questions because I want to better understand the position of those who believe what he wrote was intended to be anti-diversity and/or supremacist, and I want to challenge my own comprehension and interpretation of what he wrote, and what it entails. Also, I don't know how Google HR conducts their business, and I presume we're all expressing our views under the premise (that is, something taken to be true for the sake of argument, regardless of whether we otherwise believe it to be true or false) that his remarks regarding discriminatory practices reflect what he knows to be true of the hiring and retention policies, unless someone explicitly states that they reject the premise as absurd (which, I should note, has not yet been communicated here or elsewhere). This leaves for discussion whether his conclusion follows from his premise. However, as stated earlier, I have no interest in arguing for or against the validity of his argument: I merely want to better understand what his argument is in the first place, and why we all seem to have come to a different understanding thereof. > The first thing I'll say is that this is a emotional, human event. When you introduce emotion and feelings of identity into a conversation, event, etc., any inclination that reference mathematical equations is probably off the mark from the outset. Definitely. That's mostly me trying to understand post hoc why I'm not perturbed by analogous situations which do apparently offend others, with the presumption that my brain meat subconsciously works through the logic in a similar way and subsequently dismisses any emotional reaction. My thinking was that I might learn something by seeing how the other side of the coin views their internal workings; not that I could ask people to change the way they feel a given a particular stimulus. > You would assume that, until persons like the memo writer explicitly claim that the bar is lowered for you. Suddenly it starts feeling like tokenism. And what's more insidious is that when you prime people to believe their achievements were given and not earned, their performance suffers, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. From my interpretation of what the author wrote (I quote: "Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business."), it was my impression that he was explicitly addressing discrimination against the majority in favor of the minorities in the context of interviewing and performance review. If anyone felt subject to tokenism, I would think that would be a direct result of the (supposed, explicit) discriminatory policy (paraphrasing from the memo: pass on candidates from the majority, and in groups of similarly underperforming individuals, keep the minorities while firing those from the majority), not those who speak out against it and the implications thereof. Similarly, if I ever came to work for a place that, as it would later be revealed, was headed by a closeted white racist, I would feel like my being hired there was cheapened by the fact that I had been given preference over my non-white peers, just because I was born into this world with white skin; I wouldn't attribute my upset to the journalist who broke the story and pointed out, rightfully so, that this (hypothetical) employer gave me and the rest of the all white staff an advantage. This is corroborated by accounts told by friends and others online, wherein they felt patronized when they discovered that -- say, the conference that invited them, or the employer that hired them -- might have done so due to their policy of imposing a strict representation quota (which was discovered not from hearsay and/or conjecture by a third party, but communicated directly to them by the organizers/hiring manager); their experience was spoiled because they felt reduced to their gender or skin color, rather than being there because they're acknowledged and respected as experts in their field (which they are). With this topic being such a volatile one, I feel like I need to clarify: discriminatory hiring (and retention) practices and offering a leg up to the disenfranchised (say, by providing training, financial aid and any other supportive resources) are two totally different things, and its my understanding that the author was talking about the former. As just one example of the latter, seeing services like free daycare at tech conferences is incredibly refreshing, and I think that's just one small step among many, many more that should be taken to make tech more accessible. Does my interpretation of the memo differ from yours in this respect? And, assuming a policy that, in writing, explicitly sets forth to give preferential treatment to those of a particular gender or ethnic background, wouldn't it: 1) be a logical (though certainly upsetting) inference from the policy alone that "if my gender/ethnicity matches what they're seeking, I might not have been hired solely due to my (perceived and/or real) fitness for the role" 2) and if so, wouldn't that inference be a fault of the policy makers, and not the person pointing out it out? I should note that all of this is taking as a premise -- solely for taking the memo at its word so we may discuss its content and the implications thereof -- that Google has such a policy (I don't personally have a belief either way as I haven't seen their policies, but I don't dismiss this possibility because I do know hiring managers at other companies that have been in the position of outright rejecting non-minorities to meet hard quotas, strictly in accordance with company policy). What I don't hear is anyone suggesting that they take exception to the claim that Google has such a policy, and that the author is instead trying to put forward a damaging inference that isn't grounded in the letter of their hiring practices; if we take this alternative view as a premise instead, I would completely understand: it would be a dick move to imply that anyone was hired by their employer beyond reasons of fitness when the employer has no (known, explicit) policy for doing so. If this is key to why people are upset, though, no one is communicating it. If one disagrees with an argument because they believe it takes a falsehood as a premise (i.e. Google's supposed hiring policy), they must explicitly say so, otherwise people (like myself) will be confused at how we came to a different conclusion solely based on the rules of inference, and no constructive exchange of views can occur. > The author explicitly claimed the bar has been lowered for diversity candidates. That is tantamount to challenging fitness for their roles for diversity incumbents. [...] This takes us back to my last point: if (and this is a big if!) the policy, in writing, literally, explicitly states "lower the bar for <such and such> candidates", should we then fault the memo author for pointing out the demeaning, demoralizing consequences that you subsequently list, or the people responsible for patronizingly lowering the bar with respect to hiring and retention (again, this is a separate issue from providing assistance to the disenfranchised, as the latter implies nothing about the ability of the recipient of such assistance)? Or have I somehow got that backward: that setting lower expectations of performance isn't in itself demeaning, while suggesting that's the case is demeaning? Now, if you're suggesting that you believe that the author is ascribing something to Google's hiring policies that isn't explicitly there, in ink, then I completely agree: that would be a seriously shitty thing to suggest that people are there just because they've had the bar lowered for them. That would be a deplorable notion to spread around. To say the least, I would be appalled if I ever heard a coworker suggest "Oh, Dan? Yeah, he's just here because of the color of his skin. Susan? She's just here because she's a woman". I would straight up lose my shit. I don't know if my confusion stems from a difference in the premises held, a difference in my understanding of what those premises entail, or perhaps a difference in what I thought the author was arguing as a conclusion. Whichever it may be, I'd greatly appreciate any suggestions on what I might have gotten wrong! > I think it unfair to expect topics of identity - for one's self and the groups that they culturally identify with - to not elicit emotional reactions. I suppose what was causing a disconnect for me is the fact that I don't feel like part of any group, have no desire to do so, and I don't care how people acknowledge my identity (so long as their actions don't impede my pursuits; otherwise, let them think and say what they may). I totally get that other people are different, though, and out of respect, I try my best to acknowledge and respect their identity in accordance with their desires. Thanks again for your input! And sorry for the lengthy response. This stuff is subtle, and with it being an emotionally charged topic, I feel a certain level of care must be taken in fear of accidentally being taken the wrong way, and/or offending many people -- neither of which I want to have happen.