4 ms·

You're confusing the way things are versus the way things should be. Evolutionary biology explains the way things are. Diversity measures combats that with the

by omikun 9y ago

You're confusing the way things are versus the way things should be. Evolutionary biology explains the way things are. Diversity measures combats that with the goal of getting us to the way things should be. There are a host of reasons why things are the way they are now. The memo tries to offload some of that to biological explanations and cites studies. Then he makes a leap of faith and recommends the should based on that. The studies only explain why things are the way they are, not whether that is a good or a bad thing. Specifically, he says at the top of the memo "Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business." I'm not aware of any studies that backs this up.

hasenj 9y ago
Without further clarification or elaboration, your comment does not seem to make much sense. Consider the extreme case of children vs adults. Should we advocate for policies that force companies to employ children because we think it's more equal that way? I'm not trying to say women are children or anything like that, just taking your position to it's absurd conclusion to show that it's at least questionable.
- omikun 9y ago
  That's hardly a fair comparison. It's not illegal for women to work (anymore).
  - hasenj 9y ago
    That's not a fair interpretation of my comment. You said: > Evolutionary biology explains the way things are. Diversity measures combats that with the goal of getting us to the way things should be. But you provide no reason why you want things to be a certain way. For example, if it is true that less women are interested in STEM, then, why do you think that we should have 50/50 men and women in STEM? That just seems like arbitrarily trying to enforce your vision on reality for no good reason.
vowelless 9y ago
> Evolutionary biology explains the way things are. Diversity measures combats that with the goal of getting us to the way things should be Who specifically told you how things should be? I fear I am witnessing the birth of a new religion here and I'm not done recovering from the teachings of the imams I grew up with...
- omikun 9y ago
  No one told me. I'm still trying to figure it out. But mainstream gender equality says there should be a roughly equal split while the memo says the split should be something else and implied it should be more men than women by citing reasons for why there currently are more men than women. Oh, am I not allowed to form an opinion on what should be? Please correct me if I am wrong but perhaps your opinion is no one should have an opinion on what should be and let things be status quo? Keep in mind the whole discussion is around what should be the goal of diversity measures.
  - vowelless 9y ago
    I didn't mean to be antagonistic. Apologize if I came off that way. Part of the discussion around the memo indeed is having an open discussion about what things should be like. Of course I would like to see more women in tech and also make sure everyone is comfortable. My gf is also in tech. My only qualm is that many people seem to axiomatically take the position that a 50/50 split should be the case. I just don't see why. Why not 70/30 or 30/70 or maybe exactly match the gender ratio in the US? What about trans or third gender ? You're right that the memo similarly makes "should " claims. I am not acquitting it of that issue. Just trying to understand where people are coming up with this idea that 50/50 is the right split and that we should use that as an optimisation function in hiring as opposed to pure, blind meritocracy.
    - omikun 9y ago
      I should apologize too. I was just a bit flustered. 50/50 split might be naive. It assumes men and women should be equally represented and that makes liberally minded folks feel good. But what's the alternative? Status quo? A different and arbitrary split? I don't see any good arguments against equal representation. The current diversity initiative is biasing towards 50/50 and the memo guy didn't like it but didn't suggest what it should be, only that it should be less because biology. You can see why some people might read that as a first step back to status quo. Personally, I feel 50/50 is a good first approximation. Maybe it's really 70/30, but no one knows and there aren't any studies to back any up. Oh wait there is: Bear, Julia B., and Anita Williams Woolley. "The role of gender in team collaboration and performance." Interdisciplinary science reviews 36.2 (2011): 146-153.
golemotron 9y ago
> Specifically, he says at the top of the memo "Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business." I'm not aware of any studies that backs this up. The unfairness is implicit. If more men are temperamentally inclined to 'thing' based work, it is unfair to push them toward work that they feel less affinity for. Society should support our freedoms, not impair them.
biggerbistro 9y ago
Actually, diversity measures make things worse by promoting below-average candidates unfairly based on their superficial attributes (skin color, sex etc). This actually achieves the opposite of what is intended as it reduces fitness selection of whatever genes make someone good at/interested in STEM topics. By going against meritocracy you are harming the vulnerable groups by giving them a crutch to rely on.
- omikun 9y ago
  I don't think anyone is promoting below-average hires as part of diversity programs. If that was the case, they could just hire only women until the desired gender balance is met. I get the feeling your position is exactly what Google referred to as toxic. Imagine a woman hired in a diversity program hears your position. Do you think she will feel welcomed and understood?
  - biggerbistro 9y ago
    Is that not what a diversity program amounts to? If the candidate was superior on merit alone then market forces would reward those companies that ignored race and gender in their hiring decisions and punish the racist/sexist ones that were passing up perfectly good candidates. If all existing companies are racist/sexist then the potential entrepreneur that starts a competitor and scoops up all the "ignored talent" would make a killing. Perhaps instead of whining about gender ratios we should be the change we want to see while making a ton of money at the same time?
    - alokitr 9y ago
      I sincerely don't think diversity programs amount to that. And if you know any that do, call them out because they are not diversity programs, they are "discrimination" programs in essence. As a side note, I think you expect too much from talent in this specific case. There have been more than one companies that have hired excellent talent only to succumb to the market forces.
      - 9y ago

by omikun 9y ago

hasenj 9y ago

Without further clarification or elaboration, your comment does not seem to make much sense. Consider the extreme case of children vs adults. Should we advocate for policies that force companies to employ children because we think it's more equal that way? I'm not trying to say women are children or anything like that, just taking your position to it's absurd conclusion to show that it's at least questionable.

omikun 9y ago
That's hardly a fair comparison. It's not illegal for women to work (anymore).
- hasenj 9y ago
  That's not a fair interpretation of my comment. You said: > Evolutionary biology explains the way things are. Diversity measures combats that with the goal of getting us to the way things should be. But you provide no reason why you want things to be a certain way. For example, if it is true that less women are interested in STEM, then, why do you think that we should have 50/50 men and women in STEM? That just seems like arbitrarily trying to enforce your vision on reality for no good reason.

vowelless 9y ago

> Evolutionary biology explains the way things are. Diversity measures combats that with the goal of getting us to the way things should be Who specifically told you how things should be? I fear I am witnessing the birth of a new religion here and I'm not done recovering from the teachings of the imams I grew up with...

omikun 9y ago
No one told me. I'm still trying to figure it out. But mainstream gender equality says there should be a roughly equal split while the memo says the split should be something else and implied it should be more men than women by citing reasons for why there currently are more men than women. Oh, am I not allowed to form an opinion on what should be? Please correct me if I am wrong but perhaps your opinion is no one should have an opinion on what should be and let things be status quo? Keep in mind the whole discussion is around what should be the goal of diversity measures.
- vowelless 9y ago
  I didn't mean to be antagonistic. Apologize if I came off that way. Part of the discussion around the memo indeed is having an open discussion about what things should be like. Of course I would like to see more women in tech and also make sure everyone is comfortable. My gf is also in tech. My only qualm is that many people seem to axiomatically take the position that a 50/50 split should be the case. I just don't see why. Why not 70/30 or 30/70 or maybe exactly match the gender ratio in the US? What about trans or third gender ? You're right that the memo similarly makes "should " claims. I am not acquitting it of that issue. Just trying to understand where people are coming up with this idea that 50/50 is the right split and that we should use that as an optimisation function in hiring as opposed to pure, blind meritocracy.
  - omikun 9y ago
    I should apologize too. I was just a bit flustered. 50/50 split might be naive. It assumes men and women should be equally represented and that makes liberally minded folks feel good. But what's the alternative? Status quo? A different and arbitrary split? I don't see any good arguments against equal representation. The current diversity initiative is biasing towards 50/50 and the memo guy didn't like it but didn't suggest what it should be, only that it should be less because biology. You can see why some people might read that as a first step back to status quo. Personally, I feel 50/50 is a good first approximation. Maybe it's really 70/30, but no one knows and there aren't any studies to back any up. Oh wait there is: Bear, Julia B., and Anita Williams Woolley. "The role of gender in team collaboration and performance." Interdisciplinary science reviews 36.2 (2011): 146-153.

golemotron 9y ago

> Specifically, he says at the top of the memo "Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business." I'm not aware of any studies that backs this up. The unfairness is implicit. If more men are temperamentally inclined to 'thing' based work, it is unfair to push them toward work that they feel less affinity for. Society should support our freedoms, not impair them.

biggerbistro 9y ago

Actually, diversity measures make things worse by promoting below-average candidates unfairly based on their superficial attributes (skin color, sex etc). This actually achieves the opposite of what is intended as it reduces fitness selection of whatever genes make someone good at/interested in STEM topics. By going against meritocracy you are harming the vulnerable groups by giving them a crutch to rely on.

omikun 9y ago
I don't think anyone is promoting below-average hires as part of diversity programs. If that was the case, they could just hire only women until the desired gender balance is met. I get the feeling your position is exactly what Google referred to as toxic. Imagine a woman hired in a diversity program hears your position. Do you think she will feel welcomed and understood?
- biggerbistro 9y ago
  Is that not what a diversity program amounts to? If the candidate was superior on merit alone then market forces would reward those companies that ignored race and gender in their hiring decisions and punish the racist/sexist ones that were passing up perfectly good candidates. If all existing companies are racist/sexist then the potential entrepreneur that starts a competitor and scoops up all the "ignored talent" would make a killing. Perhaps instead of whining about gender ratios we should be the change we want to see while making a ton of money at the same time?
  - alokitr 9y ago
    I sincerely don't think diversity programs amount to that. And if you know any that do, call them out because they are not diversity programs, they are "discrimination" programs in essence. As a side note, I think you expect too much from talent in this specific case. There have been more than one companies that have hired excellent talent only to succumb to the market forces.
    - 9y ago