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

> 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 :).

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 :).