5 ms·

At this point I would like to see an itemised list of James Damore's points on gender and women's interpretations of them. This is the pair programming text in

At this point I would like to see an itemised list of James Damore's points on gender and women's interpretations of them. This is the pair programming text in full: > Below I'll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I > outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women's > representation in tech without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making strides in > many of these areas, but I think it's still instructive to list them >> Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things >>> We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming >>> and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how >>> people-oriented certain roles at Google can be and we shouldn't deceive >>> ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get >>> female students into coding might be doing this) My understanding is: if we increase pair programming to make it more of a team activity, more women will enjoy programming, and more women will become programmers. We don't have to agree with the suggestion. But you've just shown us that our interpretations are wildly different. So, why? Edit: formatting

KirinDave 9y ago
Pair Programming is not a technique to improve social contact in software. It's a technique to improve product reliability and give more practical mentorship opportunities. We might argue James says women are asking for good mentorship opportunities herr. So why do women benefit from this specifically (and that's okay) but other mentorship program are considered unfair in this rubric? You say "we need pair programming" when reliability is difficult to gaurantee. Not because you're feeling lonely. It seems an awful lot like he's suggesting that women are especially in need of experienced minders.
- Sacho 9y ago
  That's a wholly uncharitable reading of what he's saying. A way more good faith interpretation would be the very simple equation of "working with just computer - more thing oriented, working with computer + partner - more people oriented". This may be wrong(I don't have any evidence to back it up, and neither did Damore), but it is wholly different from the sinister undertones you are seeing. (In fact, taking your "mentorship" interpretation, it is entirely possible that the women would be the one doing the mentoring, if their skill at engineering was hampered by a disinterest towards purely thing-oriented pursuits).
  - KirinDave 9y ago
    > That's a wholly uncharitable reading of what he's saying. I'm sorry, what? > A way more good faith interpretation would be the very simple equation of "working with just computer - more thing oriented, working with computer + partner - more people oriented". Except that women entering the field now have no such expectations but he is still complaining about special treatment.
- HelloNurse 9y ago
  If you impose social contact, people are going to practice social contact and improve at social contact. It might not be what some relatively antisocial people want, but it seems like an important improvement for the whole team.
  - KirinDave 9y ago
    I'm not sure why "pair programming" is the go-to tool here. It certainly implies something different to a lot of people, myself included. Pair programming is not a "social" outlet. It's collaborative, but "social?" That's quite a stretch of the word from where I think James used it.
    - 2muchcoffeeman 9y ago
      Like I said, I am not seeking agreement on the merit of his idea. You specifically said that the suggestion of Pair Programming, was due to James thinking that women are "less capable of individual action". But you also said "It's a technique to improve product reliability and give more practical mentorship opportunities." Which is also my understanding. I know at least one shop where everybody pair programs. It has nothing to do with programmers being inferior. I also agree that paring is more sociable since every day I will have to greet my team mate, talk about stuff, have a coffee, then get to work. I'm just trying to understand how "Pair Programming" changes meaning so much just because some dude wrote a manifesto. We can't even have a discussion if our understanding of the same document is so wildly different.

KirinDave 9y ago

Pair Programming is not a technique to improve social contact in software. It's a technique to improve product reliability and give more practical mentorship opportunities. We might argue James says women are asking for good mentorship opportunities herr. So why do women benefit from this specifically (and that's okay) but other mentorship program are considered unfair in this rubric? You say "we need pair programming" when reliability is difficult to gaurantee. Not because you're feeling lonely. It seems an awful lot like he's suggesting that women are especially in need of experienced minders.

Sacho 9y ago
That's a wholly uncharitable reading of what he's saying. A way more good faith interpretation would be the very simple equation of "working with just computer - more thing oriented, working with computer + partner - more people oriented". This may be wrong(I don't have any evidence to back it up, and neither did Damore), but it is wholly different from the sinister undertones you are seeing. (In fact, taking your "mentorship" interpretation, it is entirely possible that the women would be the one doing the mentoring, if their skill at engineering was hampered by a disinterest towards purely thing-oriented pursuits).
- KirinDave 9y ago
  > That's a wholly uncharitable reading of what he's saying. I'm sorry, what? > A way more good faith interpretation would be the very simple equation of "working with just computer - more thing oriented, working with computer + partner - more people oriented". Except that women entering the field now have no such expectations but he is still complaining about special treatment.
HelloNurse 9y ago
If you impose social contact, people are going to practice social contact and improve at social contact. It might not be what some relatively antisocial people want, but it seems like an important improvement for the whole team.
- KirinDave 9y ago
  I'm not sure why "pair programming" is the go-to tool here. It certainly implies something different to a lot of people, myself included. Pair programming is not a "social" outlet. It's collaborative, but "social?" That's quite a stretch of the word from where I think James used it.
  - 2muchcoffeeman 9y ago
    Like I said, I am not seeking agreement on the merit of his idea. You specifically said that the suggestion of Pair Programming, was due to James thinking that women are "less capable of individual action". But you also said "It's a technique to improve product reliability and give more practical mentorship opportunities." Which is also my understanding. I know at least one shop where everybody pair programs. It has nothing to do with programmers being inferior. I also agree that paring is more sociable since every day I will have to greet my team mate, talk about stuff, have a coffee, then get to work. I'm just trying to understand how "Pair Programming" changes meaning so much just because some dude wrote a manifesto. We can't even have a discussion if our understanding of the same document is so wildly different.