4 ms·

Yes, there was misrepresentation. Google's CEO said: “To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is

Yes, there was misrepresentation. Google's CEO said: “To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not O.K.” He said no such thing. This is a cruel smear. Google, including its CEO and VP of Diversity & Newspeak, acted like thugs. And no, this has nothing to do with at-will employment. It has to do with hypocrisy. Google claimed they be open and tolerant, and then they proceeded to directly contradict that ethos by firing Demore and viciously lying about him on the way out the door.

CalChris 9y ago
> Yes, there was misrepresentation. > Google's CEO said: “To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not O.K.” Possible non bias causes of the gender gap in tech ... On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. Work your rhetorical magic on that.
- cxseven 9y ago
  Colleagues selected by Google already made the cut, so that's more predictive than gender?
- engel 9y ago
  He says that if 10% of men and 8% of women are suitable for tech, and google hires unbiased from suitable people, then google should expect a 55:45 gender gap. That doesn't mean that the female colleagues are unsuitable for tech, since they were exactly hired among people who were suitable. He is also not saying that this explains the complete gender gap, just that there is no point in blindly aiming at 50:50 without considering research on the underlying distribution. He may have the research wrong, but otherwise the point seems to stand? EDIT: Of course, this argument only works for a binary 'suitable/not suitable' distinction. If 'tech talent' was said to be normal distributed, with men having a slightly higher expectation, it would follow that the average men above some cut was also better than the average woman above the same cut. So in that way he does attack his colleagues.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    This is still misrepresenting. He said those gender-based tendencies lead men and women to prefer and be interested in different things. Preference and interest has nothing to do with "suitability". To say that 100% of men and women are suitable to work in tech, but that maybe only 20-30% of the women would actually want to would be a more accurate representation of what he wrote. It's hard to see what's sexist about suggesting women should work wherever they prefer to, rather than being told they should become software engineers.
  - egonschiele 9y ago
    That makes sense. My next question would be: > He says that if 10% of men and 8% of women are suitable for tech Why would a higher % of men be more suitable for tech? In the paper he suggests it is partly due to biological differences. Do you agree with that?
    - davidsong 9y ago
      Depends on what you deem suitable. If you're aiming to get people who have a strong desire for exploring and creating systems then you'd likely end up with more people with Aspergic traits, a majority of which are male.
- Udik 9y ago
  Easy. Imagine a company that hires only people at least 6'1'' tall (1.85 for us Europeans). The employees genders ratio would be skewed towards males. You could argue that there are biological differences that make the number of suitable female hires smaller, and you would be right. Does that make your female colleagues shorter? Not at all. They are and remain, as all other employees, at least 6'1''.
  - engel 9y ago
    Actually this argument only works for binary treats. Like "tall" vs "short". If hired random people above 6'1", we would still expect that most women hired were only slightly above the cut, while the men were a bit further up.
    - Udik 9y ago
      Also most hired men would be only slightly above the cut, if I'm not wrong. In any case, I'd be happy enough of being above the cut, some people are never satisfied, really :).
ribosometronome 9y ago
>Women, on average, have more: >Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing). >These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics. ... >Women on average are more prone to anxiety. Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits." I don't know how you can come away from reading his memo and not arrive at the conclusion he thinks men and women are different and those differences make them less suited to the Google workplace. His solution is that diversity efforts need to focus not just on evolving recruiting/training but the way work is structured and you can absolutely argue that's not a super-evil-misogynistic thing to say. But that's very different than pretending he didn't say women, on average, aren't well suited to the current environment.
- leifaffles 9y ago
  The intentional blurring of the difference between "individuals" and "group averages" is out of control. Here some quotes from the essay that underscore this distinction: > Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions. > I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).
egonschiele 9y ago
From the paper: At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story. On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because: ● They’re universal across human cultures ● They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone ● Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males ● The underlying traits are highly heritable ● They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective 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. I agree that he doesn't use the term "biologically suited" anywhere. I would instead say that he suggested: "men and women have biological differences, and those differences partially explain why where are fewer women in tech". Do you agree with that?

CalChris 9y ago

> Yes, there was misrepresentation. > Google's CEO said: “To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not O.K.” Possible non bias causes of the gender gap in tech ... On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. Work your rhetorical magic on that.

cxseven 9y ago
Colleagues selected by Google already made the cut, so that's more predictive than gender?
engel 9y ago
He says that if 10% of men and 8% of women are suitable for tech, and google hires unbiased from suitable people, then google should expect a 55:45 gender gap. That doesn't mean that the female colleagues are unsuitable for tech, since they were exactly hired among people who were suitable. He is also not saying that this explains the complete gender gap, just that there is no point in blindly aiming at 50:50 without considering research on the underlying distribution. He may have the research wrong, but otherwise the point seems to stand? EDIT: Of course, this argument only works for a binary 'suitable/not suitable' distinction. If 'tech talent' was said to be normal distributed, with men having a slightly higher expectation, it would follow that the average men above some cut was also better than the average woman above the same cut. So in that way he does attack his colleagues.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  This is still misrepresenting. He said those gender-based tendencies lead men and women to prefer and be interested in different things. Preference and interest has nothing to do with "suitability". To say that 100% of men and women are suitable to work in tech, but that maybe only 20-30% of the women would actually want to would be a more accurate representation of what he wrote. It's hard to see what's sexist about suggesting women should work wherever they prefer to, rather than being told they should become software engineers.
- egonschiele 9y ago
  That makes sense. My next question would be: > He says that if 10% of men and 8% of women are suitable for tech Why would a higher % of men be more suitable for tech? In the paper he suggests it is partly due to biological differences. Do you agree with that?
  - davidsong 9y ago
    Depends on what you deem suitable. If you're aiming to get people who have a strong desire for exploring and creating systems then you'd likely end up with more people with Aspergic traits, a majority of which are male.
Udik 9y ago
Easy. Imagine a company that hires only people at least 6'1'' tall (1.85 for us Europeans). The employees genders ratio would be skewed towards males. You could argue that there are biological differences that make the number of suitable female hires smaller, and you would be right. Does that make your female colleagues shorter? Not at all. They are and remain, as all other employees, at least 6'1''.
- engel 9y ago
  Actually this argument only works for binary treats. Like "tall" vs "short". If hired random people above 6'1", we would still expect that most women hired were only slightly above the cut, while the men were a bit further up.
  - Udik 9y ago
    Also most hired men would be only slightly above the cut, if I'm not wrong. In any case, I'd be happy enough of being above the cut, some people are never satisfied, really :).

ribosometronome 9y ago

>Women, on average, have more: >Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing). >These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics. ... >Women on average are more prone to anxiety. Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits." I don't know how you can come away from reading his memo and not arrive at the conclusion he thinks men and women are different and those differences make them less suited to the Google workplace. His solution is that diversity efforts need to focus not just on evolving recruiting/training but the way work is structured and you can absolutely argue that's not a super-evil-misogynistic thing to say. But that's very different than pretending he didn't say women, on average, aren't well suited to the current environment.

leifaffles 9y ago
The intentional blurring of the difference between "individuals" and "group averages" is out of control. Here some quotes from the essay that underscore this distinction: > Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions. > I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).

egonschiele 9y ago

From the paper: At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story. On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because: ● They’re universal across human cultures ● They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone ● Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males ● The underlying traits are highly heritable ● They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective 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. I agree that he doesn't use the term "biologically suited" anywhere. I would instead say that he suggested: "men and women have biological differences, and those differences partially explain why where are fewer women in tech". Do you agree with that?