4 ms·

What is your understanding of those ideas? >questioned the company’s gender diversity policies It did that. > made statements about women’s biological suitab

What is your understanding of those ideas? >questioned the company’s gender diversity policies It did that. > made statements about women’s biological suitability for technical jobs. It did this too. But I'd argue the NYT opinion piece is too vague here. "made statements about" does really mean anything. I suppose the "suitability for" is a bit wrong. More like "biological inclination towards" technical jobs? That changes things slightly but I can't see it as a huge misrepresentation. The underlying idea of the memo is that biology can partly explain women's career choices (true) and that Google should recognize this and factor it into their diversity targets more than they do. That second part is highly debatable. Without controlling for gender bias and many cultural/historical effects, I'm doubtful we can even really begin to detect how much biology influences the choices of any given individual in the real world. How can we blame biology for a woman's choice if the mere fact that she's a woman causes her to be reviewed more harshly by others for the same work? Taken less seriously? Etc etc. These are real effects, and until they are gone, it will be impossible to determine what role biology plays on average participation levels in tech. (edited to clarify NYT opinion piece, as opposed to NYT article)

humanrebar 9y ago
I think the NYT author implies that Damore thinks women have less "biological suitability" than men. There's a big difference between "biological suitability" and "biological inclination", at least when it comes to tone. One implies women can't do something and the other implies women generally don't care to do it. The latter is not controversial in the right context. Men aren't as inclined to watch period romance movies. That doesn't mean they can't watch them. People, maybe fairly, have been criticizing Damore for his writing prowess. The same people should have a higher standard for a professional writer published in the NYT.
- ucaetano 9y ago
  > I think the NYT author implies > The same people should have a higher standard for a professional writer published in the NYT. This isn't an article by the NYT. It's an opinion piece by someone unrelated to the newspaper: Jonathan Taplin is the director emeritus of the University of Southern California’s Annenberg Innovation Lab and the author of “Move Fast and Break Things: How Google, Facebook and Amazon Cornered Culture and Undermined Democracy.”
- oddlyaromatic 9y ago
  While I think Damore was quite wrong, I do also cringe when I hear most of the soundbites. There are very good reasons to criticize what he said, but an unfair summary kind ruins the whole idea of discourse about the memo. Damore's writing prowess is maybe not the issue exactly, other than it is a symptom of the lack of clarity of his ideas. Unclear ideas, unclear writing. It's certainly reasonable to conclude from Damore's memo that what he believes is that "women choose (and succeed at) tech jobs at a lower rate than men because on average they have biological characteristics that mean they tend to be more suitable for other kinds of work" ... preference, biology, culture, expectations, it's all one big interconnected system. He's not at all clear about what, given the biology, he thinks the "natural" rate is... unless he thinks it's already about right? So it's not clear what he means, or even if he knows what he means. Taplin could certainly have been more precise in the NYT, but Damore did nothing to control interpretation of his words (nothing, at least, that succeeded). To me this is like trying to optimize software in the wrong place. Biology is surely a factor somewhere in the chain, but many other things are causing more problems, and in ways that are easier to fix, so we probably shouldn't spend time on the biology thing just yet, because it won't cause much impact overall.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    It sounds like you agree that the piece should be edited (they still can, at least the digital version). It's worth pointing out that Damore allegedly posted his thoughts in an internal forum with the intent of editing and developing his ideas. He didn't get a world class editor (present performance notwithstanding) or the opportunity to print retractions with a presumption of good faith and professionalism.
    - oddlyaromatic 9y ago
      I supposed I very slightly lean towards an edit for increased clarity on Taplin's part, but it I don't think the current phrasing is meaningfully wrong, in the way that you do. Damore left the door wide open to that interpretation, and I'm not at all sure it isn't what he thinks. > He didn't get a world class editor (present performance notwithstanding) or the opportunity to print retractions I'm sure he is surprised at his memo's international newsmaking, but he is not modifying his stance based on the feedback he has received. In his recent WSJ article [0], Damore wrote "I committed heresy against the Google creed by stating that not all disparities between men and women that we see in the world are the result of discriminatory treatment" ... which indicates he still thinks the memo was basically fine and that that's all he was doing. He's focusing on the echo chamber and the most gentle and obvious idea in his memo (that not 100% of gender variance is socially constructed). He assumes the only people who were not in agreement with him and complained were those who believe "that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and all people are inherently the same." He takes no responsibility for not ever quantifying the biological effect, yet still recommending changes to the processes based only on that the biological component exists at all. This makes no sense to me. Unless maybe he cannot even see the logical gap there because it is filled with his own beliefs and stereotypes about gender. I assume that article gave him the opportunity to consult a world class editor, and he may print retractions if he chooses. [0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-i-was-fired-by-google-1502481290 https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-i-was-fired-by-google-15024...
- unityByFreedom 9y ago
  > There's a big difference between "biological suitability" and "biological inclination", at least when it comes to tone He mentions aptitude in the essay: "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." He also fumbles over his description of this in one of his interviews [1]. > People, maybe fairly, have been criticizing Damore for his writing prowess. Yeah, words matter, particularly when you're claiming your essay is representative of current science, and that you were a PhD student. [1] https://youtu.be/TN1vEfqHGro?t=30m13s https://youtu.be/TN1vEfqHGro?t=30m13s
- nodamage 9y ago
  Except that he literally wrote: "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."
ucaetano 9y ago
> But I'd argue the NYT is too vague here. This isn't an article by the NYT. It's an opinion piece by someone unrelated to the newspaper: Jonathan Taplin is the director emeritus of the University of Southern California’s Annenberg Innovation Lab and the author of “Move Fast and Break Things: How Google, Facebook and Amazon Cornered Culture and Undermined Democracy.”
- oddlyaromatic 9y ago
  I've made the correction in my comment. I knew it was the opinion section, wasn't aware I was giving the wrong impression. Still not sure, but it's a harmless change. I did feel the person who responded to me was still correct to have high expectations of linguistic precision for a professional author being published by a national organization.

humanrebar 9y ago

I think the NYT author implies that Damore thinks women have less "biological suitability" than men. There's a big difference between "biological suitability" and "biological inclination", at least when it comes to tone. One implies women can't do something and the other implies women generally don't care to do it. The latter is not controversial in the right context. Men aren't as inclined to watch period romance movies. That doesn't mean they can't watch them. People, maybe fairly, have been criticizing Damore for his writing prowess. The same people should have a higher standard for a professional writer published in the NYT.

ucaetano 9y ago
> I think the NYT author implies > The same people should have a higher standard for a professional writer published in the NYT. This isn't an article by the NYT. It's an opinion piece by someone unrelated to the newspaper: Jonathan Taplin is the director emeritus of the University of Southern California’s Annenberg Innovation Lab and the author of “Move Fast and Break Things: How Google, Facebook and Amazon Cornered Culture and Undermined Democracy.”
oddlyaromatic 9y ago
While I think Damore was quite wrong, I do also cringe when I hear most of the soundbites. There are very good reasons to criticize what he said, but an unfair summary kind ruins the whole idea of discourse about the memo. Damore's writing prowess is maybe not the issue exactly, other than it is a symptom of the lack of clarity of his ideas. Unclear ideas, unclear writing. It's certainly reasonable to conclude from Damore's memo that what he believes is that "women choose (and succeed at) tech jobs at a lower rate than men because on average they have biological characteristics that mean they tend to be more suitable for other kinds of work" ... preference, biology, culture, expectations, it's all one big interconnected system. He's not at all clear about what, given the biology, he thinks the "natural" rate is... unless he thinks it's already about right? So it's not clear what he means, or even if he knows what he means. Taplin could certainly have been more precise in the NYT, but Damore did nothing to control interpretation of his words (nothing, at least, that succeeded). To me this is like trying to optimize software in the wrong place. Biology is surely a factor somewhere in the chain, but many other things are causing more problems, and in ways that are easier to fix, so we probably shouldn't spend time on the biology thing just yet, because it won't cause much impact overall.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  It sounds like you agree that the piece should be edited (they still can, at least the digital version). It's worth pointing out that Damore allegedly posted his thoughts in an internal forum with the intent of editing and developing his ideas. He didn't get a world class editor (present performance notwithstanding) or the opportunity to print retractions with a presumption of good faith and professionalism.
  - oddlyaromatic 9y ago
    I supposed I very slightly lean towards an edit for increased clarity on Taplin's part, but it I don't think the current phrasing is meaningfully wrong, in the way that you do. Damore left the door wide open to that interpretation, and I'm not at all sure it isn't what he thinks. > He didn't get a world class editor (present performance notwithstanding) or the opportunity to print retractions I'm sure he is surprised at his memo's international newsmaking, but he is not modifying his stance based on the feedback he has received. In his recent WSJ article [0], Damore wrote "I committed heresy against the Google creed by stating that not all disparities between men and women that we see in the world are the result of discriminatory treatment" ... which indicates he still thinks the memo was basically fine and that that's all he was doing. He's focusing on the echo chamber and the most gentle and obvious idea in his memo (that not 100% of gender variance is socially constructed). He assumes the only people who were not in agreement with him and complained were those who believe "that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and all people are inherently the same." He takes no responsibility for not ever quantifying the biological effect, yet still recommending changes to the processes based only on that the biological component exists at all. This makes no sense to me. Unless maybe he cannot even see the logical gap there because it is filled with his own beliefs and stereotypes about gender. I assume that article gave him the opportunity to consult a world class editor, and he may print retractions if he chooses. [0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-i-was-fired-by-google-1502481290 https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-i-was-fired-by-google-15024...
unityByFreedom 9y ago
> There's a big difference between "biological suitability" and "biological inclination", at least when it comes to tone He mentions aptitude in the essay: "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." He also fumbles over his description of this in one of his interviews [1]. > People, maybe fairly, have been criticizing Damore for his writing prowess. Yeah, words matter, particularly when you're claiming your essay is representative of current science, and that you were a PhD student. [1] https://youtu.be/TN1vEfqHGro?t=30m13s https://youtu.be/TN1vEfqHGro?t=30m13s
nodamage 9y ago
Except that he literally wrote: "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."

ucaetano 9y ago

> But I'd argue the NYT is too vague here. This isn't an article by the NYT. It's an opinion piece by someone unrelated to the newspaper: Jonathan Taplin is the director emeritus of the University of Southern California’s Annenberg Innovation Lab and the author of “Move Fast and Break Things: How Google, Facebook and Amazon Cornered Culture and Undermined Democracy.”

oddlyaromatic 9y ago
I've made the correction in my comment. I knew it was the opinion section, wasn't aware I was giving the wrong impression. Still not sure, but it's a harmless change. I did feel the person who responded to me was still correct to have high expectations of linguistic precision for a professional author being published by a national organization.