3 ms·

And once again, the characterization of "allowing the debate" means one thing for James (why, he "cited studies") and another for everyone else (they are an ang

And once again, the characterization of "allowing the debate" means one thing for James (why, he "cited studies") and another for everyone else (they are an angry mob). The most telling bias in this piece is that characterization. Perhaps is James had not hamfistedly "cited" population research (as Brooks suggests) but then given very specific personal-level fixes (e.g., pair programming , suggestions of "pipeline" fixes, etc) he would not have cast quite so much doubt over his intent. What's also lost in this summary is one of the most important points: long term exposure to stereotypes has a powerful influence on people (many references of varying quality here: https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/courses/resources/women-mathematics-stereotypes-identity-achievement https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/courses/resources/women-m...). By embracing them, we actually create self-fulfilling prophecies. These prophecies may be based on a statistical mean, but what's lost in that simple numerical distillation is what harm befalls even modest outliers to the distribution. Stereotypes which may seem obvious and unimportant to 3/4 of a population may be a crushing burden and source of relentless stress to the remaining quarter. It's interesting how many of my peers fought to liberate themselves from stereotypes of "weakness" and "inferiority" that were tied around them as smart teenagers. But when it comes time to recognize the harm in these stereotypes to outliers in a other group, they appeal to the same logic that oppressed them. One might argue that these traits are adopted defense mechanisms well-impressed by abuse. I'm not sure that justifies them, though.

Danihan 9y ago
>Stereotypes which may seem obvious and unimportant to 3/4 of a population may be a crushing burden and source of relentless stress to the remaining quarter. What an excellent quote. As a politically right-leaning gay person, I feel this way basically all the time, except I'm more like the 5% or 10%. Being a minority of a minority sucks, you don't fit in anywhere.
- KirinDave 9y ago
  Try being non-binary. The men who've tried to wake my gay post my public coming out are still talking shit about me. Which is to say: I appreciate your status and it's difficulty even if I don't agree with your politics.
avs733 9y ago
While I agree, I think brook's argument is even more easily dismissable as the BS it is. One of several reasons for citing material on which an argument is based is to trace the flow of knowledge and tie statements to the prior research they interpret. James fundamentally misinterpreted much of the research he cited in ways that are overly summative to make a point he wanted to make. He sought research to give his biases the veneer of science without understanding what the authors of the underlying research meant. This whole incident, from the very beginning, represents one of the major problems with public understanding of science. There are basic ontological misconceptions about the relationship of researchers and research, about the generalizability of most scientific research, AND about how scientists within a field interpret and infer from results...and how future scientists build on that work. Because so much of that thinking work is invisible to the naked eye or is lost in media depictions, people think they have a greater understanding of how science constructs knowledge and they feel excessively qualified to infer and extrapolate research beyond what original authors had intended. As you note, when science is discussed through means, when people attempt to decontextualize science, and try and simply apply science as a post-hoc rationalization for their fears and biases they are the problem not the science and not those who call BS on bad uses of science.
- Spivak 9y ago
  Okay, help me out here. People keep saying that he mischaracterized existing research but then we have qualified people in the field saying that he got it right. https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manifesto-isnt-sexist-or-anti-diversity-its-science/article35903359/ https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manif...
  - avs733 9y ago
    This is deserving of a response obviously...and it is a vitally important point to understand clearly because the ramifications go beyond just this incident. I don't have a chance to write something tonight but I will try and write it up tomorrow and either post it here or post it on my blog.
humanrebar 9y ago
> Perhaps is James had not hamfistedly "cited" population research (as Brooks suggests) but then given very specific personal-level fixes (e.g., pair programming , suggestions of "pipeline" fixes, etc) he would not have cast quite so much doubt over his intent. I haven't heard this point before and I'd like to understand it. What's the problem here?
- KirinDave 9y ago
  James essentially keeps tackling what he views as the central issue, a "pipeline" problem. The larger body of feminist and even more centrist discourse has concluded that problem is not, in principle, what Google needs to address (other than at the very outermost edge of it's recruiting funnel, ensuring that recruiting engaged with organizations that support specific demographics). The internal problems with unfair treatment, unfair pay, and unequal opportunity need to be addressed first. James conveniently pretends these don't exist and suggests women aren't entering the field. We can tackle the problems there in other ways, but young women are not uninformed by their predecessors or the news. They see a constant drumbeat of credible stories about how the boys world of tech both abuses women and does not reward them equally. James's suggestion that it's merely a lack of social elements to keep women out of tech is somewhat offensive in this light, pushing the decision way from "self-defense and self-interest" to "biological predilection.'
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    Thanks for the elaboration. I think I understand the point now. > James conveniently pretends these don't exist and suggests women aren't entering the field. I'll only point out that this is an inference, not an implication. I inferred the opposite from the memo; that he recognized that sexism exists and needs to be addressed. But that only doing that is not sufficient to address the gender imbalance and that focusing on it alone is harmful.

Danihan 9y ago

>Stereotypes which may seem obvious and unimportant to 3/4 of a population may be a crushing burden and source of relentless stress to the remaining quarter. What an excellent quote. As a politically right-leaning gay person, I feel this way basically all the time, except I'm more like the 5% or 10%. Being a minority of a minority sucks, you don't fit in anywhere.

KirinDave 9y ago
Try being non-binary. The men who've tried to wake my gay post my public coming out are still talking shit about me. Which is to say: I appreciate your status and it's difficulty even if I don't agree with your politics.

avs733 9y ago

While I agree, I think brook's argument is even more easily dismissable as the BS it is. One of several reasons for citing material on which an argument is based is to trace the flow of knowledge and tie statements to the prior research they interpret. James fundamentally misinterpreted much of the research he cited in ways that are overly summative to make a point he wanted to make. He sought research to give his biases the veneer of science without understanding what the authors of the underlying research meant. This whole incident, from the very beginning, represents one of the major problems with public understanding of science. There are basic ontological misconceptions about the relationship of researchers and research, about the generalizability of most scientific research, AND about how scientists within a field interpret and infer from results...and how future scientists build on that work. Because so much of that thinking work is invisible to the naked eye or is lost in media depictions, people think they have a greater understanding of how science constructs knowledge and they feel excessively qualified to infer and extrapolate research beyond what original authors had intended. As you note, when science is discussed through means, when people attempt to decontextualize science, and try and simply apply science as a post-hoc rationalization for their fears and biases they are the problem not the science and not those who call BS on bad uses of science.

Spivak 9y ago
Okay, help me out here. People keep saying that he mischaracterized existing research but then we have qualified people in the field saying that he got it right. https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manifesto-isnt-sexist-or-anti-diversity-its-science/article35903359/ https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manif...
- avs733 9y ago
  This is deserving of a response obviously...and it is a vitally important point to understand clearly because the ramifications go beyond just this incident. I don't have a chance to write something tonight but I will try and write it up tomorrow and either post it here or post it on my blog.

humanrebar 9y ago

> Perhaps is James had not hamfistedly "cited" population research (as Brooks suggests) but then given very specific personal-level fixes (e.g., pair programming , suggestions of "pipeline" fixes, etc) he would not have cast quite so much doubt over his intent. I haven't heard this point before and I'd like to understand it. What's the problem here?

KirinDave 9y ago
James essentially keeps tackling what he views as the central issue, a "pipeline" problem. The larger body of feminist and even more centrist discourse has concluded that problem is not, in principle, what Google needs to address (other than at the very outermost edge of it's recruiting funnel, ensuring that recruiting engaged with organizations that support specific demographics). The internal problems with unfair treatment, unfair pay, and unequal opportunity need to be addressed first. James conveniently pretends these don't exist and suggests women aren't entering the field. We can tackle the problems there in other ways, but young women are not uninformed by their predecessors or the news. They see a constant drumbeat of credible stories about how the boys world of tech both abuses women and does not reward them equally. James's suggestion that it's merely a lack of social elements to keep women out of tech is somewhat offensive in this light, pushing the decision way from "self-defense and self-interest" to "biological predilection.'
- humanrebar 9y ago
  Thanks for the elaboration. I think I understand the point now. > James conveniently pretends these don't exist and suggests women aren't entering the field. I'll only point out that this is an inference, not an implication. I inferred the opposite from the memo; that he recognized that sexism exists and needs to be addressed. But that only doing that is not sufficient to address the gender imbalance and that focusing on it alone is harmful.