6 ms·

Sure, here is a concrete example of a linked document that supports his position http://www.bradley.edu/dotAsset/165918.pdf http://www.bradley.edu/dotAsset/1659

Sure, here is a concrete example of a linked document that supports his position http://www.bradley.edu/dotAsset/165918.pdf http://www.bradley.edu/dotAsset/165918.pdf and the references therein. In particular, > sex differences in personality traits can be detected in early childhood [..] and remain fairly constant across adulthood [..] The effects of these sex differences lead to predictable differences in men’s and women’s leisure behaviors, occupational preferences, and health-related outcomes [emphasis mine] Overall I think it's possible for reasonable people to disagree on whether group differences in neuroticism and agreeability or an affinity to people vs. things etc. etc. are or are not not relevant to the thesis. I respect your point of view that they do not. I'm just saying a reasonable argument can be made for the other side too. (To be clear, he also makes several bad arguments, I'm not defending him. I'm just saying that some of his claims are supported by science.)

geofft 9y ago
Occupational preferences are not the subject of the document, though. The subject is occupational qualification. The specific things he criticizes Google for doing are actions taken once minority candidates have already applied for a job, that is, once they have already expressed interest in the occupation they're applying for: they're about reducing unconscious bias in hiring, reducing the false negative rate in Google's notoriously noisy interview process, ensuring that internal groups meet standards of representation, etc. I just reread the document to confirm I read it right the first time. The subtle implication, and I'd argue one of the most harmful effects of the document, is the claim that biases (whether from nature or nurture) in interest also translate to biases in ability. There's a huge difference between saying "More men than women are interested in the job but we've got to hire the most qualified people regardless of either gender or interest" (and he almost gets there in his discussion of men seeking high-status jobs!), which I don't think I could really complain about, and "More men than women are interested in the job so our efforts to hire women are 'effectively lowering the bar' and probably illegal." If you are at the point where you have 10 resumes on your desk from 10 qualified women, and 10 resumes on your desk from 10 qualified men, and you put together a team of 9 men and one woman, no matter how true it is that women as a whole are less interested in the job, it's not relevant. (Incidentally, that's a quote from the portion of the abstract where they're mentioning existing research instead of their own, and it cites three sources, the first of which is a book by a lawyer that appears to be targeted at the general non-fiction market. I'm rather surprised that this is a permissible citation in a scientific paper, and I'm wondering if my standards are wrong or this isn't a super reputable journal.)
- brighteyes 9y ago
  > Occupational preferences are not the subject of the document, though. The subject is occupational qualification. No, he talks about both: > I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. and > These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. (emphasis mine in both cases). And that linked document does support that claim of his. (Again, I'm not defending all his claims; just that one.)
  - geofft 9y ago
    Sure, I agree that he consciously talks about both preference and ability. Why is he talking about preference? Does that have to do with his thesis? I think it's because he wants to write sentences like that one about "preferences and abilities" in an attempt to pretend that arguments about preferences translate to arguments about abilities. That is, I would have agreed with a claim that he has two distinct theses (preferences and abilities), except that the actual purpose of the essay is indisputably about abilities, and there's no reason to also add a thesis about preferences other than to muddy the discussion about abilities. A similar essay about preferences alone wouldn't have drawn nearly as much attention because it wouldn't be suggesting that the women already at Google shouldn't be there and it wouldn't be relevant to the Google D&I programs he mentions.
    - brighteyes 9y ago
      > Why is he talking about preference? Does that have to do with his thesis? If preferences partially explain why psychology is dominated by women and why computer science is dominated by men, then preferences can partially explain part of why psychologists tend to be women and tech employees tend to be men. And that's a big part of the memo: why is there a gender gap, what causes it, etc. So it's not surprising that one issue he focuses on is preferences. And he's not alone in doing so, that preferences are important in the tech gender gap discussion is something agreed upon by both sides: * A lot of important diversity work done by progressives focuses on increasing interest in tech among young girls: girls' preferences matter. * And on the other side, conservatives tend to say that preferences explain most of the tech gender gap and not discrimination.
geofft 9y ago
As a side note, the first author of that very paper (Schmitt) says that Damore has reached conclusions not justified by the paper: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/google-fires-engineer-over-anti-diversity-memo https://www.wired.co.uk/article/google-fires-engineer-over-a... He's making the same counterclaim that I am - that while there are biological differences and they almost certainly affect interest, there's basically no rationale to conclude that they're the cause of the specific situation Google is attempting to change with the specific initiatives he's denouncing (and calling illegal), and there's also no rationale to entirely discount cultural factors, including both gender roles and sexism, as causes of the situation.
- brighteyes 9y ago
  Yes, I agree his suggestions to stop those initiatives is a bad idea. And that it doesn't follow we should stop those because of that study. But regarding > and there's also no rationale to entirely discount cultural factors He doesn't do that. First, the section's very title is > Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech and > I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes (emphasis mine in both). Proposing that biology may play a role is not the same as saying that biology is everything.
- Aapjes 9y ago
  geofft, By your reasoning brighteyes has just proven that you have reached conclusions not justified by the paper, so will you resign from your job, given that you think such incompetence on the part of Dalmore is inexcusable and makes him incapable to do his job?
  - geofft 9y ago
    If this were an internal company forum where I were making serious policy proposals that I expected the company to take seriously -- that is, if this were something I were doing as part of my job, and I were paying as much attention to detail as I should for every part of my job -- and if I had a senior title, then yes, definitely, I would offer my resignation or at least request a demotion. I would be letting my coworkers down if I continued to insist on a senior title and senior levels of respect. But I am being much less rigorous here than I would be for work. I don't try to be deliberately wrong on HN, but my standards for accuracy and professionalism (and copyediting, there are incomplete sentences in too many of my comments) are less exacting than they are for my employed work. (And if I have done such a thing, which I don't believe I have. I'm really not sure why you say I've reached conclusions not justified by the paper?)

geofft 9y ago

Occupational preferences are not the subject of the document, though. The subject is occupational qualification. The specific things he criticizes Google for doing are actions taken once minority candidates have already applied for a job, that is, once they have already expressed interest in the occupation they're applying for: they're about reducing unconscious bias in hiring, reducing the false negative rate in Google's notoriously noisy interview process, ensuring that internal groups meet standards of representation, etc. I just reread the document to confirm I read it right the first time. The subtle implication, and I'd argue one of the most harmful effects of the document, is the claim that biases (whether from nature or nurture) in interest also translate to biases in ability. There's a huge difference between saying "More men than women are interested in the job but we've got to hire the most qualified people regardless of either gender or interest" (and he almost gets there in his discussion of men seeking high-status jobs!), which I don't think I could really complain about, and "More men than women are interested in the job so our efforts to hire women are 'effectively lowering the bar' and probably illegal." If you are at the point where you have 10 resumes on your desk from 10 qualified women, and 10 resumes on your desk from 10 qualified men, and you put together a team of 9 men and one woman, no matter how true it is that women as a whole are less interested in the job, it's not relevant. (Incidentally, that's a quote from the portion of the abstract where they're mentioning existing research instead of their own, and it cites three sources, the first of which is a book by a lawyer that appears to be targeted at the general non-fiction market. I'm rather surprised that this is a permissible citation in a scientific paper, and I'm wondering if my standards are wrong or this isn't a super reputable journal.)

brighteyes 9y ago
> Occupational preferences are not the subject of the document, though. The subject is occupational qualification. No, he talks about both: > I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. and > These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. (emphasis mine in both cases). And that linked document does support that claim of his. (Again, I'm not defending all his claims; just that one.)
- geofft 9y ago
  Sure, I agree that he consciously talks about both preference and ability. Why is he talking about preference? Does that have to do with his thesis? I think it's because he wants to write sentences like that one about "preferences and abilities" in an attempt to pretend that arguments about preferences translate to arguments about abilities. That is, I would have agreed with a claim that he has two distinct theses (preferences and abilities), except that the actual purpose of the essay is indisputably about abilities, and there's no reason to also add a thesis about preferences other than to muddy the discussion about abilities. A similar essay about preferences alone wouldn't have drawn nearly as much attention because it wouldn't be suggesting that the women already at Google shouldn't be there and it wouldn't be relevant to the Google D&I programs he mentions.
  - brighteyes 9y ago
    > Why is he talking about preference? Does that have to do with his thesis? If preferences partially explain why psychology is dominated by women and why computer science is dominated by men, then preferences can partially explain part of why psychologists tend to be women and tech employees tend to be men. And that's a big part of the memo: why is there a gender gap, what causes it, etc. So it's not surprising that one issue he focuses on is preferences. And he's not alone in doing so, that preferences are important in the tech gender gap discussion is something agreed upon by both sides: * A lot of important diversity work done by progressives focuses on increasing interest in tech among young girls: girls' preferences matter. * And on the other side, conservatives tend to say that preferences explain most of the tech gender gap and not discrimination.

geofft 9y ago

As a side note, the first author of that very paper (Schmitt) says that Damore has reached conclusions not justified by the paper: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/google-fires-engineer-over-anti-diversity-memo https://www.wired.co.uk/article/google-fires-engineer-over-a... He's making the same counterclaim that I am - that while there are biological differences and they almost certainly affect interest, there's basically no rationale to conclude that they're the cause of the specific situation Google is attempting to change with the specific initiatives he's denouncing (and calling illegal), and there's also no rationale to entirely discount cultural factors, including both gender roles and sexism, as causes of the situation.

brighteyes 9y ago
Yes, I agree his suggestions to stop those initiatives is a bad idea. And that it doesn't follow we should stop those because of that study. But regarding > and there's also no rationale to entirely discount cultural factors He doesn't do that. First, the section's very title is > Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech and > I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes (emphasis mine in both). Proposing that biology may play a role is not the same as saying that biology is everything.
Aapjes 9y ago
geofft, By your reasoning brighteyes has just proven that you have reached conclusions not justified by the paper, so will you resign from your job, given that you think such incompetence on the part of Dalmore is inexcusable and makes him incapable to do his job?
- geofft 9y ago
  If this were an internal company forum where I were making serious policy proposals that I expected the company to take seriously -- that is, if this were something I were doing as part of my job, and I were paying as much attention to detail as I should for every part of my job -- and if I had a senior title, then yes, definitely, I would offer my resignation or at least request a demotion. I would be letting my coworkers down if I continued to insist on a senior title and senior levels of respect. But I am being much less rigorous here than I would be for work. I don't try to be deliberately wrong on HN, but my standards for accuracy and professionalism (and copyediting, there are incomplete sentences in too many of my comments) are less exacting than they are for my employed work. (And if I have done such a thing, which I don't believe I have. I'm really not sure why you say I've reached conclusions not justified by the paper?)