7 ms·

> He was fired because he basically said women are underrepresented in IT because they are biologically unsuited for it. I don't understand why people keep rep

by dx034 9y ago

> He was fired because he basically said women are underrepresented in IT because they are biologically unsuited for it. I don't understand why people keep repeating that statement. He said that biological differences explain the different ratios of men and women, NOT that women are not suited for tech jobs. He explicitely did not say (nor mean) that a woman can't be a good software engineer. Just that on average, more men than women will show the features needed for software engineers. That is a huge difference. It doesn't disqualify any woman working at Google. It just means that the goal to reach 50% women could lead to a worse outcome. Disclaimer: I don't necessarily support his claims, nor do I support his memo as such. I just think that it's worth thinking about and that there should be more scientific studies to explore this. Diversity campaigns should be based on science, not on populism.

zimpenfish 9y ago
> He explicitely did not say (nor mean) that a woman can't be a good software engineer. > Just that on average, more men than women will show the features needed for software engineers. Read those two sentences you wrote again. You'll be shocked when you see it.
- throwaway257157 9y ago
  I'm not seeing it. Help me out? It's not a contradiction, if that's what you're implying. Have you ever taken a statistics class?
  - zimpenfish 9y ago
    Oh, throwaway257157, if I thought you were posting in good faith, I'd certainly engage with you but using a newly created account means you aren't.
    - anon_d 9y ago
      They are publically defending an argument that got someone fired, so using a throwaway account is totally reasonable here.
    - jshevek 9y ago
      No. Assuming someone is posting in bad faith for this reason is an act of bad faith. Your statement reveals hypocrisy.
      - zimpenfish 9y ago
        A throwaway account created specifically to post one comment is a sign of bad faith. It's entirely possible that I am wrong but the lack of subsequent engagement suggests otherwise.
        jshevek 9y ago
        "using a newly created account means you aren't." This is wrong. Using a newly created account does not mean the communicator is approaching this in bad faith. That's a complete non sequitor. "lack of subsequent engagement suggests otherwise." Not at all. There are numerous reason they might not engage further within this time frame - or ever.
        zimpenfish 9y ago
        > Using a newly created account does not mean [...] bad faith Specifically to post one (1) comment strongly implies it though. You disagree, fine; we'll agree to differ on this.
    - hhhsdfnn888 9y ago
      Wow you post a seemingly legit email address and other details, then act like a douche. Personally, I don't want to be signed up for spam, or have it found in some AshleyMadison like leak. I don't care about fake points. I don't care about community rep. So I don't curate an online persona. But you know what, zimpenfish, you're right. The first conclusion that crosses the mind if zimpenfish is of course the right answer.
    - depressedpanda 9y ago
      The point the throwaway raises is valid, though. Where is the contradiction?
      - zimpenfish 9y ago
        If you can't see it already, I doubt anything I could say to you would help that.
        depressedpanda 9y ago
        What I see is that you don't understand statistics. And, rather than offer a snide comment, I will try to show you why. Here are the two statements you quoted: > He explicitely did not say (nor mean) that a woman can't be a good software engineer. > Just that on average, more men than women will show the features needed for software engineers. Rephrased: a) a woman can be a good software engineer b) on average, more men possess the skill set required for a software engineer There is no contradiction between a) and b) whatsoever, since a) is about an individual and b) is about average features of different groups. Of course, one may argue about the veracity of either a) or b). But, regardless of their factual accuracy, you did not make the point you think you did.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- jcims 9y ago
  I took the liberty of labeling one of the diagrams in the document with two points labeled A and B. How would you interpret the relationship of these points if A was a man and B was a woman? http://imgur.com/a/kWyTi http://imgur.com/a/kWyTi
  - zimpenfish 9y ago
    I would definitely agree that A was to the left of B. I would also concede that B is to the right of A. But since the only label on the graph is an unidentified "Trait", I couldn't really comment any further. What point are you trying to make?
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      That the value on the y axis, for those two points taken from presented distributions, is the fucking same... It's hard to make that point even more obvious.
      - jshevek 9y ago
        It's pretty clear from the totality of this person's comments that they are here to obfuscate and troll. Not sure why this is allowed on HN.
        zimpenfish 9y ago
        Would you care to revise your statement given https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14981300 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14981300 ?
      - depressedpanda 9y ago
        What? It's a normal distribution graph. The height of the curve denotes how many of a particular group (group is denoted by the blue and green curves) score with regard to some trait x. The y-values for A and B on the graph are irrelevant.
GVIrish 9y ago
> I don't understand why people keep repeating that statement. He said that biological differences explain the different ratios of men and women, NOT that women are not suited for tech jobs. He explicitely did not say (nor mean) that a woman can't be a good software engineer. Just that on average, more men than women will show the features needed for software engineers. The problem is that his whole argument is based around biological determinism and those are the same arguments that true misogynists often use to discriminate against women. He even stated 'Neuroticism' as a trait women are predisposed to, which could've been pulled right out of an argument for why women shouldn't be allowed to vote. Damore devotes zero attention to the impact of culture on what fields women go into. And in a nutshell, that's a major reason this manifesto is problematic and got him fired. Women in IT sometimes have to contend with attitudes that 'women are bad at math' or 'women are irrational' or 'women only care about aesthetics'. These are the attitudes that make some technical fields unwelcoming to women. He hedges a little bit by saying 'distribution in traits between genders may be a part of why the gender gap exists' but then he proceeds to discuss that as the only reason the gender gap exists.
- type0 9y ago
  > The problem is that his whole argument is based around biological determinism It's not based on biological determinism, he provides references to the current state of psychological research and simply wants a discussion about the policy > this manifesto it's not a manifesto by any means unless you want to call everything a manifesto including your post. > Women in IT sometimes have to contend with attitudes that 'women are bad at math' or 'women are irrational' or 'women only care about aesthetics'. There were no such things in his text, not even remotely close > then he proceeds to discuss that as the only reason the gender gap exists. He explicitly questions those causes, please stop projecting your ideology on things you read
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  > He even stated 'Neuroticism' as a trait women are predisposed to, which could've been pulled right out of an argument for why women shouldn't be allowed to vote. Did you read this article? Or references linked by the original memo? Even this article clearly points out that "neuroticism" thing is pretty much established, accepted, and uncontroversial science.
davidiach 9y ago
I think it has to do with low knowledge of statistics. The funny thing is that all the following sentences can be true at the same time: 1. Across the whole population, fewer women than men have the biological/psychological traits needed to become software engineers. 2. Female engineers are underrepresented in Silicon Valley and face many different forms of discrimination. 3. Female engineers at Google are on average better than their male colleagues. I'm not suggesting any of these sentences are necessarily true, just that they can be. This is not intuitive, unless you know a bit of statistics.
hhhsdfnn888 9y ago
And he also said maybe he was biased to see only data that supported his claim. That would have been a sure fire sign I was out of my element. Free speech all you want. But there are going to be consequences. > I just think that it's worth thinking about and that there should be more scientific studies to explore this. There are. All you have to do is Google it.

by dx034 9y ago

zimpenfish 9y ago

> He explicitely did not say (nor mean) that a woman can't be a good software engineer. > Just that on average, more men than women will show the features needed for software engineers. Read those two sentences you wrote again. You'll be shocked when you see it.

throwaway257157 9y ago
I'm not seeing it. Help me out? It's not a contradiction, if that's what you're implying. Have you ever taken a statistics class?
- zimpenfish 9y ago
  Oh, throwaway257157, if I thought you were posting in good faith, I'd certainly engage with you but using a newly created account means you aren't.
  - anon_d 9y ago
    They are publically defending an argument that got someone fired, so using a throwaway account is totally reasonable here.
  - jshevek 9y ago
    No. Assuming someone is posting in bad faith for this reason is an act of bad faith. Your statement reveals hypocrisy.
    - zimpenfish 9y ago
      A throwaway account created specifically to post one comment is a sign of bad faith. It's entirely possible that I am wrong but the lack of subsequent engagement suggests otherwise.
      - jshevek 9y ago
        "using a newly created account means you aren't." This is wrong. Using a newly created account does not mean the communicator is approaching this in bad faith. That's a complete non sequitor. "lack of subsequent engagement suggests otherwise." Not at all. There are numerous reason they might not engage further within this time frame - or ever.
        zimpenfish 9y ago
        > Using a newly created account does not mean [...] bad faith Specifically to post one (1) comment strongly implies it though. You disagree, fine; we'll agree to differ on this.
  - hhhsdfnn888 9y ago
    Wow you post a seemingly legit email address and other details, then act like a douche. Personally, I don't want to be signed up for spam, or have it found in some AshleyMadison like leak. I don't care about fake points. I don't care about community rep. So I don't curate an online persona. But you know what, zimpenfish, you're right. The first conclusion that crosses the mind if zimpenfish is of course the right answer.
  - depressedpanda 9y ago
    The point the throwaway raises is valid, though. Where is the contradiction?
    - zimpenfish 9y ago
      If you can't see it already, I doubt anything I could say to you would help that.
      - depressedpanda 9y ago
        What I see is that you don't understand statistics. And, rather than offer a snide comment, I will try to show you why. Here are the two statements you quoted: > He explicitely did not say (nor mean) that a woman can't be a good software engineer. > Just that on average, more men than women will show the features needed for software engineers. Rephrased: a) a woman can be a good software engineer b) on average, more men possess the skill set required for a software engineer There is no contradiction between a) and b) whatsoever, since a) is about an individual and b) is about average features of different groups. Of course, one may argue about the veracity of either a) or b). But, regardless of their factual accuracy, you did not make the point you think you did.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jcims 9y ago
I took the liberty of labeling one of the diagrams in the document with two points labeled A and B. How would you interpret the relationship of these points if A was a man and B was a woman? http://imgur.com/a/kWyTi http://imgur.com/a/kWyTi
- zimpenfish 9y ago
  I would definitely agree that A was to the left of B. I would also concede that B is to the right of A. But since the only label on the graph is an unidentified "Trait", I couldn't really comment any further. What point are you trying to make?
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    That the value on the y axis, for those two points taken from presented distributions, is the fucking same... It's hard to make that point even more obvious.
    - jshevek 9y ago
      It's pretty clear from the totality of this person's comments that they are here to obfuscate and troll. Not sure why this is allowed on HN.
      - zimpenfish 9y ago
        Would you care to revise your statement given https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14981300 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14981300 ?
    - depressedpanda 9y ago
      What? It's a normal distribution graph. The height of the curve denotes how many of a particular group (group is denoted by the blue and green curves) score with regard to some trait x. The y-values for A and B on the graph are irrelevant.

GVIrish 9y ago

> I don't understand why people keep repeating that statement. He said that biological differences explain the different ratios of men and women, NOT that women are not suited for tech jobs. He explicitely did not say (nor mean) that a woman can't be a good software engineer. Just that on average, more men than women will show the features needed for software engineers. The problem is that his whole argument is based around biological determinism and those are the same arguments that true misogynists often use to discriminate against women. He even stated 'Neuroticism' as a trait women are predisposed to, which could've been pulled right out of an argument for why women shouldn't be allowed to vote. Damore devotes zero attention to the impact of culture on what fields women go into. And in a nutshell, that's a major reason this manifesto is problematic and got him fired. Women in IT sometimes have to contend with attitudes that 'women are bad at math' or 'women are irrational' or 'women only care about aesthetics'. These are the attitudes that make some technical fields unwelcoming to women. He hedges a little bit by saying 'distribution in traits between genders may be a part of why the gender gap exists' but then he proceeds to discuss that as the only reason the gender gap exists.

type0 9y ago
> The problem is that his whole argument is based around biological determinism It's not based on biological determinism, he provides references to the current state of psychological research and simply wants a discussion about the policy > this manifesto it's not a manifesto by any means unless you want to call everything a manifesto including your post. > Women in IT sometimes have to contend with attitudes that 'women are bad at math' or 'women are irrational' or 'women only care about aesthetics'. There were no such things in his text, not even remotely close > then he proceeds to discuss that as the only reason the gender gap exists. He explicitly questions those causes, please stop projecting your ideology on things you read
TeMPOraL 9y ago
> He even stated 'Neuroticism' as a trait women are predisposed to, which could've been pulled right out of an argument for why women shouldn't be allowed to vote. Did you read this article? Or references linked by the original memo? Even this article clearly points out that "neuroticism" thing is pretty much established, accepted, and uncontroversial science.

davidiach 9y ago

I think it has to do with low knowledge of statistics. The funny thing is that all the following sentences can be true at the same time: 1. Across the whole population, fewer women than men have the biological/psychological traits needed to become software engineers. 2. Female engineers are underrepresented in Silicon Valley and face many different forms of discrimination. 3. Female engineers at Google are on average better than their male colleagues. I'm not suggesting any of these sentences are necessarily true, just that they can be. This is not intuitive, unless you know a bit of statistics.

hhhsdfnn888 9y ago

And he also said maybe he was biased to see only data that supported his claim. That would have been a sure fire sign I was out of my element. Free speech all you want. But there are going to be consequences. > I just think that it's worth thinking about and that there should be more scientific studies to explore this. There are. All you have to do is Google it.