5 ms·

First, the author of this article is David Brooks -- a well known, very conservative, commentator. So, it might be fair and balanced in a Fox News sense of the

First, the author of this article is David Brooks -- a well known, very conservative, commentator. So, it might be fair and balanced in a Fox News sense of the phrase but not fair and balanced as most people would understand the phrase. And for the general population skew in interests/preferences to make any difference whatsoever to the makeup of Google's technical and leadership staff the argument would have to be that the population that makes up the part of the interest curve on the 'high interest' part of the graph for the underrepresented groups is completely exhausted or would be completely exhausted before parity is reached. I'd bet big that Google could completely fill their entire company with underrepresented people that rank very high on the interest/preference curve and never make a dent in that population. There are over 7 billion people in the world. That's a big pool. Even the thinner parts of the graph represent huge numbers of people. And Google completely controls their hiring so they can pick and choose -- they are not pulling people at random from that general population. They can easily pick people that compare very favorably with any other colleague on the interest/preference scale.

ameister14 9y ago
I take issue with your first point but not your second. I don't believe that the fact that a commentator is conservative means they are spewing propaganda as Fox News is. Fox News is conservative, and Fox News is unfair and unbalanced. The conservative nature of Fox News is not why it is unfair and unbalanced. Totally agree on the second part, though. Huge pool of candidates, honestly ridiculous to think that this would explain the imbalance at Google.
humanrebar 9y ago
So "conservative" is the same as "unfair and/or unbalanced"? The New York Times (not exactly conservative) has considered him worth printing for quite some time now. Isn't this attitude more or less what Damore was concerned about in his memo?
- clavalle 9y ago
  No, but he has an agenda that he's promoting with this opinion piece, which, as someone who disagrees with him, has some pretty obvious holes which I point out.
  - Spivak 9y ago
    Right, but the issue right now is that everyone is pushing an agenda. The only constant is the literal text and the current research which, by accounts from qualified people, don't seem to be in conflict. In the conversation of this issue the facts, what tribe you belong to, and what ought to be done in response to them have been tied together. Unless we can disconnect those everyone's reality is going to be shaped by the latters rather than the former.
    - clavalle 9y ago
      It's strange to me that people don't recognize the disconnect within the memo itself: Basically, it starts off by saying 'Statistics of the general population don't have anything to say about individuals.' Then turns around and says 'Here's a bunch of statistics on the general population that show why there are fewer individuals in various sought after positions.' It's like a spouse saying "I know being poor doesn't make you a bad person but here's a bunch of statistics showing otherwise which might make you change your mind about your poor friends."
      - novembermike 9y ago
        An individual is an individual. Individuals make up a group. You can apply statistics to individuals in a way that you can't apply to an individual. I'm repeating the word to make a point. Your second quote might say "individuals" but it's talking about a group.
        clavalle 9y ago
        But you can't apply the statistics backward. Say you have a population of 10,000. You can come to some meaningful statistical conclusions about that group. If you consciously pick 100 individuals from that original population you also have a group, it's true. But you can't use the conclusions from the first group on the second, much smaller, group. You can discover some new statically valid facts on the new group -- they may even be similar to the original statistics -- but that is far from a given. The only thing you can reasonably say is that the new group will fall somewhere in the domain of the original measurements. Unless, of course, the new group is chosen at random or semi-random in regards to the measured characteristics, in which case you can have some sort of expectation for the new group and even measure (statistically) the amount of randomness. But when it comes to the question at hand: ability to handle stress, high achievement potential, leadership talent -- these are all things I would assume Google chooses non-randomly from the overall general population pool. So there is no reason to think the relevant characteristics of the small sub set should show any similarity to the general population at all for these characteristics especially when the differences in the general population are relatively small.
GreaterFool 9y ago
The author of the memo didn't argue that the male-female ratio is where it should be. It is almost certainly skewed due to gender biases. However, eliminating gender biases from recruitment is not necessarily the same as forced diversity (forced due to ideology that dictates that anything different than 50-50 is immoral). If Google were to announce that they will hire 50% women wouldn't that be illegal under Title VII? That would amount to affirmative action which is only allowed in certain limited situations (race can be taken into consideration for university admissions).
- clavalle 9y ago
  I don't think anyone is saying anything different from 50-50 is immoral but that anything different (in this case vastly different) than 50-50 deserves some attention. I don't think announcing a policy of hiring 50% women is necessary. Like you said, it is 'almost certainly skewed due to gender biases' so the obvious way forward is to try to track down those biases and remove them from the process. There is also some questions about how to make the workplace more attractive to certain employees and applicants. Putting policies and services in place to cater to those employees goes a bit beyond mere removal of bias but could help as well.
  - Spivak 9y ago
    > anything different than 50-50 deserves some attention. If what these researchers are saying about preferences is true you should be more suspicious of an exact 50-50 split than any other because it suggests that people are pulling the strings behind the scenes to make it so.
    - clavalle 9y ago
      Well, the current research only shows weak tendencies that admit to wide variation. It shows what /is/ and /has been/ not what /could be/. One thing that really bothered me about the memo is how Damore kept repeating that those he was speaking against believe /only/ culture and environment lead to differences. That he was more enlightened and believe that other things like biologically based preferences might have an effect too. Well, of course, human beings are a complex interplay of biology and ecology and self-determination! The question is one of where the balance is when talking about individuals up to company size groups. I don't think anyone would argue against biology having some effect on behavior. But there are still open questions about where biology stops and environment begins; how much an effect can self-determination within and individual and the group can override those biological and environmental aspects to radically change outcomes (a distinguishing feature of human sapience is the ability to reflect and change, after all.)? I am not saying Damore is lying but he sure chose what aspect of the truth to show very carefully which, in some ways, can be worse. It gives the veneer of reasonableness and logic but, in only showing part of the picture, hides the greater truths.

ameister14 9y ago

I take issue with your first point but not your second. I don't believe that the fact that a commentator is conservative means they are spewing propaganda as Fox News is. Fox News is conservative, and Fox News is unfair and unbalanced. The conservative nature of Fox News is not why it is unfair and unbalanced. Totally agree on the second part, though. Huge pool of candidates, honestly ridiculous to think that this would explain the imbalance at Google.

humanrebar 9y ago

So "conservative" is the same as "unfair and/or unbalanced"? The New York Times (not exactly conservative) has considered him worth printing for quite some time now. Isn't this attitude more or less what Damore was concerned about in his memo?

clavalle 9y ago
No, but he has an agenda that he's promoting with this opinion piece, which, as someone who disagrees with him, has some pretty obvious holes which I point out.
- Spivak 9y ago
  Right, but the issue right now is that everyone is pushing an agenda. The only constant is the literal text and the current research which, by accounts from qualified people, don't seem to be in conflict. In the conversation of this issue the facts, what tribe you belong to, and what ought to be done in response to them have been tied together. Unless we can disconnect those everyone's reality is going to be shaped by the latters rather than the former.
  - clavalle 9y ago
    It's strange to me that people don't recognize the disconnect within the memo itself: Basically, it starts off by saying 'Statistics of the general population don't have anything to say about individuals.' Then turns around and says 'Here's a bunch of statistics on the general population that show why there are fewer individuals in various sought after positions.' It's like a spouse saying "I know being poor doesn't make you a bad person but here's a bunch of statistics showing otherwise which might make you change your mind about your poor friends."
    - novembermike 9y ago
      An individual is an individual. Individuals make up a group. You can apply statistics to individuals in a way that you can't apply to an individual. I'm repeating the word to make a point. Your second quote might say "individuals" but it's talking about a group.
      - clavalle 9y ago
        But you can't apply the statistics backward. Say you have a population of 10,000. You can come to some meaningful statistical conclusions about that group. If you consciously pick 100 individuals from that original population you also have a group, it's true. But you can't use the conclusions from the first group on the second, much smaller, group. You can discover some new statically valid facts on the new group -- they may even be similar to the original statistics -- but that is far from a given. The only thing you can reasonably say is that the new group will fall somewhere in the domain of the original measurements. Unless, of course, the new group is chosen at random or semi-random in regards to the measured characteristics, in which case you can have some sort of expectation for the new group and even measure (statistically) the amount of randomness. But when it comes to the question at hand: ability to handle stress, high achievement potential, leadership talent -- these are all things I would assume Google chooses non-randomly from the overall general population pool. So there is no reason to think the relevant characteristics of the small sub set should show any similarity to the general population at all for these characteristics especially when the differences in the general population are relatively small.

GreaterFool 9y ago

The author of the memo didn't argue that the male-female ratio is where it should be. It is almost certainly skewed due to gender biases. However, eliminating gender biases from recruitment is not necessarily the same as forced diversity (forced due to ideology that dictates that anything different than 50-50 is immoral). If Google were to announce that they will hire 50% women wouldn't that be illegal under Title VII? That would amount to affirmative action which is only allowed in certain limited situations (race can be taken into consideration for university admissions).

clavalle 9y ago
I don't think anyone is saying anything different from 50-50 is immoral but that anything different (in this case vastly different) than 50-50 deserves some attention. I don't think announcing a policy of hiring 50% women is necessary. Like you said, it is 'almost certainly skewed due to gender biases' so the obvious way forward is to try to track down those biases and remove them from the process. There is also some questions about how to make the workplace more attractive to certain employees and applicants. Putting policies and services in place to cater to those employees goes a bit beyond mere removal of bias but could help as well.
- Spivak 9y ago
  > anything different than 50-50 deserves some attention. If what these researchers are saying about preferences is true you should be more suspicious of an exact 50-50 split than any other because it suggests that people are pulling the strings behind the scenes to make it so.
  - clavalle 9y ago
    Well, the current research only shows weak tendencies that admit to wide variation. It shows what /is/ and /has been/ not what /could be/. One thing that really bothered me about the memo is how Damore kept repeating that those he was speaking against believe /only/ culture and environment lead to differences. That he was more enlightened and believe that other things like biologically based preferences might have an effect too. Well, of course, human beings are a complex interplay of biology and ecology and self-determination! The question is one of where the balance is when talking about individuals up to company size groups. I don't think anyone would argue against biology having some effect on behavior. But there are still open questions about where biology stops and environment begins; how much an effect can self-determination within and individual and the group can override those biological and environmental aspects to radically change outcomes (a distinguishing feature of human sapience is the ability to reflect and change, after all.)? I am not saying Damore is lying but he sure chose what aspect of the truth to show very carefully which, in some ways, can be worse. It gives the veneer of reasonableness and logic but, in only showing part of the picture, hides the greater truths.