6 ms·

A lot of people on "our side" did a bad job of simply refuting the argument presented. Its straightforward to do in one sentence: "While there may be scientifi

A lot of people on "our side" did a bad job of simply refuting the argument presented. Its straightforward to do in one sentence: "While there may be scientific evidence of differences between men and women, using these differences to conclude that women are biologically less inclined to engineering is a gross leap in reasoning that is not at all supported by the facts." Then you can go on and explain why for historical and societal reasons putting forth this weak theory is highly offensive and damaging to a large group of people. Of course, many feel that you shouldn't _have_ to explain this to people, but unfortunately in todays environment, you do!

lobotryas 9y ago
You start by saying something is not "supported by the facts" and then go on by talking about how it's "highly offensive" (i.e.: hurts your feelings). I just want you to meditate on this for a bit.
- mwytock 9y ago
  I'm not sure what the contradiction is here? Also, I wasn't making any claim about my own feelings, the massive response shows that the memo was highly offensive to many people.
  - LunaSea 9y ago
    Something being offensive doesn't mean it's wrong or that it shouldn't be debated.
    - mwytock 9y ago
      Well, saying things that are clearly wrong and offensive to large numbers of people is typically looked down upon amongst educated people and highly discouraged at the workplace. For example, think of other stereotypes about other groups (blacks, hispanics, jews) and think about what the response would be if an employee was publishing 10 page manifestos with loosely connected scientific arguments in support of these views.
      - LunaSea 9y ago
        There is nothing that is clearly wrong about the memo in itself and lots of Googlers actually voiced support for it and agreed. So your comment would be equally offensive to them because you call them uneducated and their opinion invalid. Creating a strawman argument around racial stereotypes is just an added layer of misdirection and tastelessness.
        yorwba 9y ago
        There is something clearly wrong about the memo: it uses the direction of various effects to make a qualitative argument to explain a quantitative difference in gender distribution. If he had instead used the effect sizes in his reasoning, and predicted the resulting distribution (allowing direct comparison with reality), it would be much easier to objectively determine where he is right and where wrong. I'm fairly convinced that some of the things he mentions have a large enough effect to measurably affect the gender distribution among Google's employees, but some are guaranteed to be smaller than the noise floor. As it stands, his argument is easily dismissed as a collection of mostly irrelevant trivia.
        srslack 9y ago
        No, there's something wrong with your reading comprehension. >things he mentions have a large enough effect to measurably affect the gender distribution among Google's employees, That's not one of the points of the memo. One of (the primary) point is to potentially explain a gap instead of relying solely on the assumption that the sole cause is discrimination, or "bro culture" or whatever trash rags like Model View Culture are calling it. The memo is not about the ability, nor the preferences, of Google employees, specifically. It's about the ability, and/or preferences, of a potential hiring pool. And, if you actually read it, you'd know that the author used a qualifier: "may." As in: "Women are more likely to have these personality types and these interests, and this may explain the gap." As opposed to "all women have these personality types, abilities, and interests." If women are coming out of university with a related degree or solid references for a software engineering career, at rates approximate to their original distribution (half of the population), we could say that there's obviously some sort of discrimination going on. But they are not. If they were, I would be prominent among the many who are outraged about the distribution of women in these particular careers. I believe the author of the memo would, as well. But, again, they are not. And it is unhealthy to blame it solely on sexism, if at all. I'm not surprised at the outrage, really. You get that when telling faux-progressives, who worship at the alter of tabula rasa social science models, that the mind is not a blank slate. You see it in the Scandinavian countries, where certain "gendered" career choices are more clear than ever. But if we listened to the outraged mob, you'd think that these countries were some patriarchal backwater. But that's obviously not the case. Another thing you'd have to ask yourself, if you were being honest, is: why "engineering"? The gap is bordering on nonexistent, if at all, in fields like law or medicine. So why is that this deficit exists in these vaguely related (if only by name) "engineering" careers. That's another thing the author decided to ask, and was shit on for it.
jamesrcole 9y ago
I'm all for people arguing against it, but your 'one sentence' doesn't argue the point at all, it just asserts it. It literally just asserts that it "is a gross leap in reasoning that is not at all supported by the facts". I'm all for someone arguing for the points in that quoted fragment, but you can't claim that they're true just because you've said them.
- mwytock 9y ago
  You're right, my one sentence is just trying to explain the basic point to people who may not get it. Its not trying to lay out a complete thesis in support. I'm not sure if thats a necessary exercise, especially for the CEO.
chongli 9y ago
"While there may be scientific evidence of differences between men and women, using these differences to conclude that women are biologically less inclined to engineering is a gross leap in reasoning that is not at all supported by the facts." That is not true. The facts support the exact opposite conclusion: that prenatal exposure to androgens orients a person toward things/systems rather than people. [0] [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3166361/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3166361/
- mwytock 9y ago
  I'm not sure what you are arguing, can you be more explicit? You're saying that you agree with the fundamental point of the memo?
  - chongli 9y ago
    I'm saying that the scientific research agrees with the point of the memo. Whether or not I agree is irrelevant to the facts.
    - mwytock 9y ago
      I see. Well I'm saying it does not. Obviously we disagree about what the scientific research says.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - LunaSea 9y ago
        Could you link to these research papers you are mentioning?
        mwytock 9y ago
        See citation above. I'm saying its much too strong a claim to go from this paper to the conclusion that women are biologically less inclined to engineering. EDIT: To be consistent with my original statement (see child)
ebola1717 9y ago
I think people have done a very good job of saying that. They just get drowned out by outrage from the right, and overly clipped soundbites from both sides. My twitter feed has tons of very thoughtful pieces responding to the memo. They just never breach the front page of Hacker News.
- mwytock 9y ago
  Maybe. I don't think Sundar Pichai or Danielle Brown did though, they just said "this is not OK" and "code of conduct". Perhaps they felt they didn't need to engage with this kind of argument, but that mentality is exactly what has a lot of people upset.

lobotryas 9y ago

You start by saying something is not "supported by the facts" and then go on by talking about how it's "highly offensive" (i.e.: hurts your feelings). I just want you to meditate on this for a bit.

mwytock 9y ago
I'm not sure what the contradiction is here? Also, I wasn't making any claim about my own feelings, the massive response shows that the memo was highly offensive to many people.
- LunaSea 9y ago
  Something being offensive doesn't mean it's wrong or that it shouldn't be debated.
  - mwytock 9y ago
    Well, saying things that are clearly wrong and offensive to large numbers of people is typically looked down upon amongst educated people and highly discouraged at the workplace. For example, think of other stereotypes about other groups (blacks, hispanics, jews) and think about what the response would be if an employee was publishing 10 page manifestos with loosely connected scientific arguments in support of these views.
    - LunaSea 9y ago
      There is nothing that is clearly wrong about the memo in itself and lots of Googlers actually voiced support for it and agreed. So your comment would be equally offensive to them because you call them uneducated and their opinion invalid. Creating a strawman argument around racial stereotypes is just an added layer of misdirection and tastelessness.
      - yorwba 9y ago
        There is something clearly wrong about the memo: it uses the direction of various effects to make a qualitative argument to explain a quantitative difference in gender distribution. If he had instead used the effect sizes in his reasoning, and predicted the resulting distribution (allowing direct comparison with reality), it would be much easier to objectively determine where he is right and where wrong. I'm fairly convinced that some of the things he mentions have a large enough effect to measurably affect the gender distribution among Google's employees, but some are guaranteed to be smaller than the noise floor. As it stands, his argument is easily dismissed as a collection of mostly irrelevant trivia.
        srslack 9y ago
        No, there's something wrong with your reading comprehension. >things he mentions have a large enough effect to measurably affect the gender distribution among Google's employees, That's not one of the points of the memo. One of (the primary) point is to potentially explain a gap instead of relying solely on the assumption that the sole cause is discrimination, or "bro culture" or whatever trash rags like Model View Culture are calling it. The memo is not about the ability, nor the preferences, of Google employees, specifically. It's about the ability, and/or preferences, of a potential hiring pool. And, if you actually read it, you'd know that the author used a qualifier: "may." As in: "Women are more likely to have these personality types and these interests, and this may explain the gap." As opposed to "all women have these personality types, abilities, and interests." If women are coming out of university with a related degree or solid references for a software engineering career, at rates approximate to their original distribution (half of the population), we could say that there's obviously some sort of discrimination going on. But they are not. If they were, I would be prominent among the many who are outraged about the distribution of women in these particular careers. I believe the author of the memo would, as well. But, again, they are not. And it is unhealthy to blame it solely on sexism, if at all. I'm not surprised at the outrage, really. You get that when telling faux-progressives, who worship at the alter of tabula rasa social science models, that the mind is not a blank slate. You see it in the Scandinavian countries, where certain "gendered" career choices are more clear than ever. But if we listened to the outraged mob, you'd think that these countries were some patriarchal backwater. But that's obviously not the case. Another thing you'd have to ask yourself, if you were being honest, is: why "engineering"? The gap is bordering on nonexistent, if at all, in fields like law or medicine. So why is that this deficit exists in these vaguely related (if only by name) "engineering" careers. That's another thing the author decided to ask, and was shit on for it.

jamesrcole 9y ago

I'm all for people arguing against it, but your 'one sentence' doesn't argue the point at all, it just asserts it. It literally just asserts that it "is a gross leap in reasoning that is not at all supported by the facts". I'm all for someone arguing for the points in that quoted fragment, but you can't claim that they're true just because you've said them.

mwytock 9y ago
You're right, my one sentence is just trying to explain the basic point to people who may not get it. Its not trying to lay out a complete thesis in support. I'm not sure if thats a necessary exercise, especially for the CEO.

chongli 9y ago

"While there may be scientific evidence of differences between men and women, using these differences to conclude that women are biologically less inclined to engineering is a gross leap in reasoning that is not at all supported by the facts." That is not true. The facts support the exact opposite conclusion: that prenatal exposure to androgens orients a person toward things/systems rather than people. [0] [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3166361/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3166361/

mwytock 9y ago
I'm not sure what you are arguing, can you be more explicit? You're saying that you agree with the fundamental point of the memo?
- chongli 9y ago
  I'm saying that the scientific research agrees with the point of the memo. Whether or not I agree is irrelevant to the facts.
  - mwytock 9y ago
    I see. Well I'm saying it does not. Obviously we disagree about what the scientific research says.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - LunaSea 9y ago
      Could you link to these research papers you are mentioning?
      - mwytock 9y ago
        See citation above. I'm saying its much too strong a claim to go from this paper to the conclusion that women are biologically less inclined to engineering. EDIT: To be consistent with my original statement (see child)

ebola1717 9y ago

I think people have done a very good job of saying that. They just get drowned out by outrage from the right, and overly clipped soundbites from both sides. My twitter feed has tons of very thoughtful pieces responding to the memo. They just never breach the front page of Hacker News.

mwytock 9y ago
Maybe. I don't think Sundar Pichai or Danielle Brown did though, they just said "this is not OK" and "code of conduct". Perhaps they felt they didn't need to engage with this kind of argument, but that mentality is exactly what has a lot of people upset.