5 ms·

>controversial manifesto I don't see what's so controversial about the "manifesto." And it's not a manifesto, it's a pro-diversity memo that questions the impl

>controversial manifesto I don't see what's so controversial about the "manifesto." And it's not a manifesto, it's a pro-diversity memo that questions the implication that gender representation in software engineering must be 50/50 or there's clearly some sort of discrimination going on. Perhaps, like the author of the article, you haven't actually read the "manifesto." I'll be charitable and assume that you did: what, in your mind, do you fundamentally believe is controversial in the memo, and is it controversial because it spits in the face of the facts, or is it controversial because they're uncomfortable facts, for you personally?

michaelchisari 9y ago
I have read it, in it's entirety. I'm not going to comment on it's contents, other than I think that it uses very intellectual language to come to very lazy conclusions. But yes, I have read it. It's controversy is in the assertion that there is a class of people at Google who hold positions that they are not deserving of.
- srslack 9y ago
  >It's controversy is in the assertion that there is a class of people at Google who hold positions that they are not deserving of. But that's not what the "manifesto" is asserting, at all. The memo is questioning the wisdom of equal sex representation in a particular career choice, considering biological predispositions. At no point does the manifesto assert that genders, races, or classes of people are holding positions that they do not deserve at Google. What it does assert is that there are biological predispositions, personality types are brought up, and questions the wisdom of an even split of representation, just by considering the rate of women coming out of uni with a related degree. Again: at no point does the author assert your claims. What it does talk about is preferences, and biological predispositions. It also talks in generalities, but mentions individuals. It does not say "all women have these personality types and these interests therefore this explains the gap". It simply says that women are biologically predisposed to certain personality types, and interests, and it MAY explain the gap. If this were true, and even it were not (allowing for other explanations), it would be unwise to operate solely on the assumption that there's some sort of early or late discrimination going on which causes women to avoid entering this particular career.
  - michaelchisari 9y ago
    > biological predispositions
    - srslack 9y ago
      We're getting to the heart of the matter here. Presumably, you are upset about the implication that the mind is not a blank slate. So, are you upset because this makes you uncomfortable about biological predispositions, particularly the personality types that the author originally brought up, or do you hold that such a position flies in the face of the facts? If it's the latter, you can spare talking about your favorite social science models, because unfortunately they're not the "facts" we're looking for. Actually, they're not facts at all.
      - michaelchisari 9y ago
        Would you be spending this much time and effort defending someone who used company services and company time to write about while male hegemony in the US and at Google and how it results in lower performing people being hired and promoted without proper regard to merit or capability? Becuase I wouldn't.
        srslack 9y ago
        We'll end it here. You continue to misrepresent the memo's points time and time again. You either 1) did not read it or 2) have some seriously loaded biases. Probably erring on the side of 2). No one has claimed that the women who enter it perform poorly in this particular career, or that anyone has positions that they did not deserve at Google. The author did not even come close to anything resembling sexism, racism, or other related terms that have been reduced to buzzwords at this point. You, and others, were the ones who put these words into the author's mouth. I don't blame you, outrage culture is everywhere, dishonest media loves ad impressions, and it must feel good to have a common enemy that you can project when anyone questions the fundamental assumptions that you're operating on and virtue signal about the evil nazi on Twitter. And for the record, I disagree with the author's proposed solutions to tackling this particular gap. This is a really hard problem. But that doesn't mean that I do not recognize that part of what he's saying is the objective truth, and that there are biases that could be clouding better solutions for tackling this purported gender gap in software engineering, if there's anything to be solved.

michaelchisari 9y ago

I have read it, in it's entirety. I'm not going to comment on it's contents, other than I think that it uses very intellectual language to come to very lazy conclusions. But yes, I have read it. It's controversy is in the assertion that there is a class of people at Google who hold positions that they are not deserving of.

srslack 9y ago
>It's controversy is in the assertion that there is a class of people at Google who hold positions that they are not deserving of. But that's not what the "manifesto" is asserting, at all. The memo is questioning the wisdom of equal sex representation in a particular career choice, considering biological predispositions. At no point does the manifesto assert that genders, races, or classes of people are holding positions that they do not deserve at Google. What it does assert is that there are biological predispositions, personality types are brought up, and questions the wisdom of an even split of representation, just by considering the rate of women coming out of uni with a related degree. Again: at no point does the author assert your claims. What it does talk about is preferences, and biological predispositions. It also talks in generalities, but mentions individuals. It does not say "all women have these personality types and these interests therefore this explains the gap". It simply says that women are biologically predisposed to certain personality types, and interests, and it MAY explain the gap. If this were true, and even it were not (allowing for other explanations), it would be unwise to operate solely on the assumption that there's some sort of early or late discrimination going on which causes women to avoid entering this particular career.
- michaelchisari 9y ago
  > biological predispositions
  - srslack 9y ago
    We're getting to the heart of the matter here. Presumably, you are upset about the implication that the mind is not a blank slate. So, are you upset because this makes you uncomfortable about biological predispositions, particularly the personality types that the author originally brought up, or do you hold that such a position flies in the face of the facts? If it's the latter, you can spare talking about your favorite social science models, because unfortunately they're not the "facts" we're looking for. Actually, they're not facts at all.
    - michaelchisari 9y ago
      Would you be spending this much time and effort defending someone who used company services and company time to write about while male hegemony in the US and at Google and how it results in lower performing people being hired and promoted without proper regard to merit or capability? Becuase I wouldn't.
      - srslack 9y ago
        We'll end it here. You continue to misrepresent the memo's points time and time again. You either 1) did not read it or 2) have some seriously loaded biases. Probably erring on the side of 2). No one has claimed that the women who enter it perform poorly in this particular career, or that anyone has positions that they did not deserve at Google. The author did not even come close to anything resembling sexism, racism, or other related terms that have been reduced to buzzwords at this point. You, and others, were the ones who put these words into the author's mouth. I don't blame you, outrage culture is everywhere, dishonest media loves ad impressions, and it must feel good to have a common enemy that you can project when anyone questions the fundamental assumptions that you're operating on and virtue signal about the evil nazi on Twitter. And for the record, I disagree with the author's proposed solutions to tackling this particular gap. This is a really hard problem. But that doesn't mean that I do not recognize that part of what he's saying is the objective truth, and that there are biases that could be clouding better solutions for tackling this purported gender gap in software engineering, if there's anything to be solved.