4 ms·

You overgeneralize and mischaracterize the memo with your claims, which leads me to suspect you never read it. >Do you realize how subjective this is and how i

You overgeneralize and mischaracterize the memo with your claims, which leads me to suspect you never read it. >Do you realize how subjective this is and how impossible it is to prove that today there are no other influences at play than biology He never claims there are no other influences at play - From the memo; note the works "in part" and "may explain" - Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. > And that we've maxed on the number of woman in this field and we're now at an equilibrium determined by biology? There is no such claim of this whatsoever. Your comment is a great example of the problems with this debate.

taysic 9y ago
One of his main points in the memo is at the top:"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. " What am I missing? This is the topic he explores the most in his memo and I don't see anything analyzing social effects. While his paper is nuanced, he basically only focuses on the biological argument and seeks to change company policy as a result of this. One of these being... to end the diversity goals. Yes I did read the memo.
- where_do_i_live 9y ago
  I'm not sure what your counter argument is exactly. He argued to change their diversity goals and implementation, with an intention to do a better job of getting a _more_ not less diverse company, including more woman and minorities. He did not argue to end all diversity goals outright, again that appears to be a mischaracterization.
  - taysic 9y ago
    I suppose you can say his argument was implied then in my eyes since he spent the first large part of the memo reviewing the biology of women and then stopped short there. No time was spent exploring inherent biases in history or how they may affecting things today. This is why those policies were put into place so why not make it the meat of the discussion. Though the implication may be that his approach will create a setup in which there will be more diversity that is highly debatable... again the reason why these policies are there in the first place. I don't feel the argument was so strong. Does he have other examples in history when a minority group allowed the free market to dictate things after a long period of bias and things quickly adjusted overnight?
    - where_do_i_live 9y ago
      He concedes the very point you mention here. That there are _real_ historical biases that should be corrected and removed. From the memo: I hope it’s clear that I'm not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn't try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. He's saying that the inability to get to a 50/50% split on gender lines may be unrealistic. He makes no comment on if the 20/80 split that currently exists is fair or not. Just because he doesn't go into the history of all bias that did exist in the past, doesn't mean he discounts it and unworthy to be addressed. Further, at what point does a society atone for past biases? If you are even trying to correct the injustice in the past, should you not have an idea on what normalization might be like? Perhaps and this is his question, an exact 50/50 is not what a idealistic lack of bias would create in the first place. And the thesis is that it would not be created in that fashion because women self-select to enter different professions for biologically based reasons. Now all those items might be false - its a hypothesis, not a universal truth - but it appears the research from social psychologists backs up his claims as valid. Now perhaps they still want to argue between themselves, and fine I'm ok with that go for it - but it appears he's done with with good faith. And even if you think his arguments are poor, or he's naive, or anything else, that's fine too. The problem is - and this is where my main issue and the root of all of this - is that he should not have been fired for this. This appears to be a betrayal of liberal free speech values that many people claim to support.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- Hikikomori 9y ago
  My main take-away reading it was that he argued for diversity in thought instead of mandated diversity that looks good in a picture or in statistics.
  - taysic 9y ago
    The point of these policies isn't to make things look good in a picture but to reduce the effect of existing biases in hiring woman. And to give people a chance after some questionable history. Diversity of thought is an admirable thing and can often be amplified when people from different backgrounds and perspectives gather.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

taysic 9y ago

One of his main points in the memo is at the top:"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. " What am I missing? This is the topic he explores the most in his memo and I don't see anything analyzing social effects. While his paper is nuanced, he basically only focuses on the biological argument and seeks to change company policy as a result of this. One of these being... to end the diversity goals. Yes I did read the memo.

where_do_i_live 9y ago
I'm not sure what your counter argument is exactly. He argued to change their diversity goals and implementation, with an intention to do a better job of getting a _more_ not less diverse company, including more woman and minorities. He did not argue to end all diversity goals outright, again that appears to be a mischaracterization.
- taysic 9y ago
  I suppose you can say his argument was implied then in my eyes since he spent the first large part of the memo reviewing the biology of women and then stopped short there. No time was spent exploring inherent biases in history or how they may affecting things today. This is why those policies were put into place so why not make it the meat of the discussion. Though the implication may be that his approach will create a setup in which there will be more diversity that is highly debatable... again the reason why these policies are there in the first place. I don't feel the argument was so strong. Does he have other examples in history when a minority group allowed the free market to dictate things after a long period of bias and things quickly adjusted overnight?
  - where_do_i_live 9y ago
    He concedes the very point you mention here. That there are _real_ historical biases that should be corrected and removed. From the memo: I hope it’s clear that I'm not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn't try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. He's saying that the inability to get to a 50/50% split on gender lines may be unrealistic. He makes no comment on if the 20/80 split that currently exists is fair or not. Just because he doesn't go into the history of all bias that did exist in the past, doesn't mean he discounts it and unworthy to be addressed. Further, at what point does a society atone for past biases? If you are even trying to correct the injustice in the past, should you not have an idea on what normalization might be like? Perhaps and this is his question, an exact 50/50 is not what a idealistic lack of bias would create in the first place. And the thesis is that it would not be created in that fashion because women self-select to enter different professions for biologically based reasons. Now all those items might be false - its a hypothesis, not a universal truth - but it appears the research from social psychologists backs up his claims as valid. Now perhaps they still want to argue between themselves, and fine I'm ok with that go for it - but it appears he's done with with good faith. And even if you think his arguments are poor, or he's naive, or anything else, that's fine too. The problem is - and this is where my main issue and the root of all of this - is that he should not have been fired for this. This appears to be a betrayal of liberal free speech values that many people claim to support.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
Hikikomori 9y ago
My main take-away reading it was that he argued for diversity in thought instead of mandated diversity that looks good in a picture or in statistics.
- taysic 9y ago
  The point of these policies isn't to make things look good in a picture but to reduce the effect of existing biases in hiring woman. And to give people a chance after some questionable history. Diversity of thought is an admirable thing and can often be amplified when people from different backgrounds and perspectives gather.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]