6 ms·

From the Wired article (comment from the scientist): "And I believe there is good evidence of both sexism (including sex stereotypes) and real psychological se

by Smutte 9y ago

From the Wired article (comment from the scientist): "And I believe there is good evidence of both sexism (including sex stereotypes) and real psychological sex differences (some of which may be evolved) to be causes of the gender gaps across occupations," From the start of the memo: "Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don't have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership" They are saying the exact same thing? In what way does the scientist disagree in concrete words with things that is actually written in the memo? Also, to avoid further misunderstandings... Quote from link in the Wired article to Psychology Today: "Using someone’s biological sex to essentialize an entire group of people’s personality is like surgically operating with an axe" This is not what the memo did, as far as I can tell. See the quote from the memo again. He is suggesting that "biological sex" (the scientist's words) MAY IN PART explain why the split men/women is not EXACTLY THE SAME (sorry for caps). Do you see how the scientist never actually comments anything concrete in the memo, but only concepts that are related?

foolrush 9y ago
There is at least a sense that the scientist in question disagrees with the application of their research as it stands. Further, more recent research cited here, Brian Nosek (PhD Psychology): “My takeaways: Some observed effects are easy to attribute to culture and hard to attribute to biology in the simplistic dichotomy. Active discrimination occurs and is dramatic, but effects of culture seem more commonly subtle shaping of preferences and desires. And, its a really hard problem. Still room for bio, culture, and bioXculture interactions in ultimate accounts.” https://twitter.com/BrianNosek/status/895410735412543492 https://twitter.com/BrianNosek/status/895410735412543492 And finally, perhaps one of the more well qualified individuals, Suzanne Sadedin (PhD Evolutionary Biology, BA Psychology, and BSc Zoology): “Yes, men and women are biologically different — which doesn’t mean what the author thinks it does. The article perniciously misrepresents the nature and significance of known sex differences to advance what appears to be a covert alt-right agenda.” https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-biological-claims-made-in-the-anti-diversity-document-written-by-a-Google-employee-in-August-2017 https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-bio... TL;DR: The “facts” that many insist on, aren't quite as genuinely legible as the screed attempts to make them out to be. Ms. Sadedin’s commentary on the internal memo seems most critical of the interpretation.
- Smutte 9y ago
  Here is a good example and again consider the tone. It is central in this whole drama. When you dont know all the facts in every detail, a good tool is to just try to understand wheteher the person who is sharing information is after the truth or not. Clearly the people representing your links are not (according to me). Here is a good example from a pretty well known individual: http://www.nydailynews.com/amp/opinion/google-wrong-article-1.3399750 http://www.nydailynews.com/amp/opinion/google-wrong-article-... The tone and way of reasoning is like from another world compared to Sadedin.
- Smutte 9y ago
  Yes there are other links/comments from other people that give a better criticism. That is not what was discussed but although it is not as obvious, I think the same agenda shines through in your links. First quote doesn't say anything concrete. Someone thinks it is "easier" to attribute to culture without really linking it to the nature of Google recruiting from a small part of the population. The statement can be true without the memo being wrong. I understand the quote sounds like its critical of the memo, but really what does it say? That its hard to tell and that culture might (or even is) be a bigger factor? That would not be contrary to anything in the memo The second comment is the "least bad" critique that I have seen. However, to me its quite obviously written with an agenda. Read the comments under her post. Especially the ones from Jeremy Arnold. Note particularly his tone compared to hers and how he even points out her quite obvious agenda. Also notice how the conversation shifts to Julie Taylor and how the climate of discussion changed. My point is that I am not competent enough and dont have enough time to read through and understand all sources, find my own sources to balance her agenda etcetc. Lets hope more honest and competent people, who have the ability to see both sides, jump into the debate.

by Smutte 9y ago

foolrush 9y ago

There is at least a sense that the scientist in question disagrees with the application of their research as it stands. Further, more recent research cited here, Brian Nosek (PhD Psychology): “My takeaways: Some observed effects are easy to attribute to culture and hard to attribute to biology in the simplistic dichotomy. Active discrimination occurs and is dramatic, but effects of culture seem more commonly subtle shaping of preferences and desires. And, its a really hard problem. Still room for bio, culture, and bioXculture interactions in ultimate accounts.” https://twitter.com/BrianNosek/status/895410735412543492 https://twitter.com/BrianNosek/status/895410735412543492 And finally, perhaps one of the more well qualified individuals, Suzanne Sadedin (PhD Evolutionary Biology, BA Psychology, and BSc Zoology): “Yes, men and women are biologically different — which doesn’t mean what the author thinks it does. The article perniciously misrepresents the nature and significance of known sex differences to advance what appears to be a covert alt-right agenda.” https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-biological-claims-made-in-the-anti-diversity-document-written-by-a-Google-employee-in-August-2017 https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-bio... TL;DR: The “facts” that many insist on, aren't quite as genuinely legible as the screed attempts to make them out to be. Ms. Sadedin’s commentary on the internal memo seems most critical of the interpretation.

Smutte 9y ago
Here is a good example and again consider the tone. It is central in this whole drama. When you dont know all the facts in every detail, a good tool is to just try to understand wheteher the person who is sharing information is after the truth or not. Clearly the people representing your links are not (according to me). Here is a good example from a pretty well known individual: http://www.nydailynews.com/amp/opinion/google-wrong-article-1.3399750 http://www.nydailynews.com/amp/opinion/google-wrong-article-... The tone and way of reasoning is like from another world compared to Sadedin.
Smutte 9y ago
Yes there are other links/comments from other people that give a better criticism. That is not what was discussed but although it is not as obvious, I think the same agenda shines through in your links. First quote doesn't say anything concrete. Someone thinks it is "easier" to attribute to culture without really linking it to the nature of Google recruiting from a small part of the population. The statement can be true without the memo being wrong. I understand the quote sounds like its critical of the memo, but really what does it say? That its hard to tell and that culture might (or even is) be a bigger factor? That would not be contrary to anything in the memo The second comment is the "least bad" critique that I have seen. However, to me its quite obviously written with an agenda. Read the comments under her post. Especially the ones from Jeremy Arnold. Note particularly his tone compared to hers and how he even points out her quite obvious agenda. Also notice how the conversation shifts to Julie Taylor and how the climate of discussion changed. My point is that I am not competent enough and dont have enough time to read through and understand all sources, find my own sources to balance her agenda etcetc. Lets hope more honest and competent people, who have the ability to see both sides, jump into the debate.