3 ms·

I don’t doubt that the writer of the memo had the best of intentions with this memo. And there’s even some parts that I could support. But the main thing that

I don’t doubt that the writer of the memo had the best of intentions with this memo. And there’s even some parts that I could support. But the main thing that gets to me is the idea of biological differences being partially to blame. He views males as predetermined to be better engineers. And he was a senior engineer who was in a hiring position. Someone who is hiring engineers, that views female engineers as biologically inferior for the job, allows for a system of discriminatory hiring to occur.

angersock 9y ago
You shouldn't have changed your comment, even if you are scared of reprisal. Your observation about people inferring motives and being hard to argue with was on point.
ng12 9y ago
> that views female engineers as biologically inferior for the job Did you read the article? Here's the money quote: > His hypothesis implies that personality differences mean a smaller percentage of women will be interested in and/or qualified for a Google job than men, but that doesn’t mean any of the women at Google fall below the “qualified” threshold. None of his expressed views lead me to assume that he'd think less of a female candidate that made it through the screening process -- and that's a viewpoint he's explicitly concerned about protecting. Even if some of his opinions did lead him to have biases at least he's open about them and interested in examining them which is the first step to fixing them.
Consultant32452 9y ago
>But the main thing that gets to me is the idea of biological differences being partially to blame. The fact that something "gets you" doesn't in any way determine whether or not it's true. >He views males as predetermined to be better engineers. No he doesn't. >that views female engineers as biologically inferior for the job He doesn't appear to believe that either. I feel like for you to believe what you do about the content of that memo you either didn't actually read it or have a serious lack of understanding of statistics. This chart from the memo will hopefully help. http://i.imgur.com/IaVS70v.jpg http://i.imgur.com/IaVS70v.jpg

angersock 9y ago

You shouldn't have changed your comment, even if you are scared of reprisal. Your observation about people inferring motives and being hard to argue with was on point.

ng12 9y ago

> that views female engineers as biologically inferior for the job Did you read the article? Here's the money quote: > His hypothesis implies that personality differences mean a smaller percentage of women will be interested in and/or qualified for a Google job than men, but that doesn’t mean any of the women at Google fall below the “qualified” threshold. None of his expressed views lead me to assume that he'd think less of a female candidate that made it through the screening process -- and that's a viewpoint he's explicitly concerned about protecting. Even if some of his opinions did lead him to have biases at least he's open about them and interested in examining them which is the first step to fixing them.

Consultant32452 9y ago

>But the main thing that gets to me is the idea of biological differences being partially to blame. The fact that something "gets you" doesn't in any way determine whether or not it's true. >He views males as predetermined to be better engineers. No he doesn't. >that views female engineers as biologically inferior for the job He doesn't appear to believe that either. I feel like for you to believe what you do about the content of that memo you either didn't actually read it or have a serious lack of understanding of statistics. This chart from the memo will hopefully help. http://i.imgur.com/IaVS70v.jpg http://i.imgur.com/IaVS70v.jpg