4 ms·

This story so neatly sums up the debate. Here's Google's cunning solution to their problem: http://valleywag.gawker.com/google-drops-i-o-ticket-prices-for-top-

This story so neatly sums up the debate. Here's Google's cunning solution to their problem: http://valleywag.gawker.com/google-drops-i-o-ticket-prices-for-top-female-coders-to-1595044050 http://valleywag.gawker.com/google-drops-i-o-ticket-prices-f... Not only making a version of the competition where males are excluded (lowering the bar) but also tying it to financial rewards that men are not eligible for (free Google IO tickets with travel). This is Google's problem in a nutshell. When one step removed from the the legally constrained hiring process, they openly and publicly engage in sexism against men. The game is rigged to ensure women win even though they can't compete, and women are granted special privileges that men are denied simply because of their chromosomes. If Google wants to spend its money that way, it can. But its management can't then turn around and be shocked, SHOCKED, to discover that male employees are drawing the obvious conclusions: women are less interested in coding and there seem to be fewer of them at the top levels of skill. Also note the hilariously misleading way Valleywag reported this: "Now the tech giant has a meritocratic pricing plan to encourage more women to attend their banner Google I/O conference ... the company is going to cover ticket and travel costs to Google I/O for women who performed well in its "CodeJam" coding competition." 1. Preventing men from competing is not meritocratic almost by definition. 2. They disguise this fact by making the link be "CodeJam" although it doesn't go to CodeJam, it goes to the separate "CodeJam to I/O for Women" site. Followup edit Clicking a link from the ValleyWag story brings me to madewithcode.com which seems to be some website designed by Google to encourage girls to code. This website is astounding. It essentially buys into Damore's view of the science wholesale. The top featured project is "Design a ZAC Zac Posen dress that turns heads", other projects are "Accessorizer: take your selfies to the next level", "Help Riley from Pixar's Inside Out solve some of life's problems", "Help a robot", "Code a heart to bring people together", "Dance visualiser" ... all on a bright pink background. These projects are very clearly designed to appeal to teenage girls. They're about clothes, helping people, relationships etc. It seems to me like an open admission that girls do have different interests to boys, before they got anywhere near a hiring pipeline with "unconscious biases".

Udik 9y ago
I'm not much concerned about the sexism against men- others even argued that Google doesn't try to fill a finite set of positions, they basically hire whoever passes the bar. However, I'm very concerned about ideological denial of reality, in any field and every form. It's scary to realise that people can basically convince themselves to see anything they want, to the point of deeming any other view as unacceptable, if there is enough peer pressure to do so.
- peoplewindow 9y ago
  I think the argument you cite is a good example of the ideologically driven denial of reality. Google does not have and has never had infinite headcount. Even at times when Google's revenue was way ahead of its ability to spend it, there was always a limit looming somewhere in the future. What's more, the bar is not an objective thing. Companies that find themselves the belle of the ball can raise their bar until the numbers who are passing match the companies ability to absorb them. Google is notorious for this; lots of people there who are overqualified for the work they're doing. So it isn't possible to tip the hiring pipeline towards women without causing men to lose out. It might not seem like that at the time when it's go go go, but eventually, headcount limits appear.
- dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
  In this case you have not only peer pressure, and that is enormous, but also from the management - you not only suspect, but at this point you are sure you will be fired for expressing an opinion that may be true, but not in line with the official view. What incentives do you have to pursue the truth? More importantly, how can you be genuinely interested in improving the situation inside the company?

Udik 9y ago

I'm not much concerned about the sexism against men- others even argued that Google doesn't try to fill a finite set of positions, they basically hire whoever passes the bar. However, I'm very concerned about ideological denial of reality, in any field and every form. It's scary to realise that people can basically convince themselves to see anything they want, to the point of deeming any other view as unacceptable, if there is enough peer pressure to do so.

peoplewindow 9y ago
I think the argument you cite is a good example of the ideologically driven denial of reality. Google does not have and has never had infinite headcount. Even at times when Google's revenue was way ahead of its ability to spend it, there was always a limit looming somewhere in the future. What's more, the bar is not an objective thing. Companies that find themselves the belle of the ball can raise their bar until the numbers who are passing match the companies ability to absorb them. Google is notorious for this; lots of people there who are overqualified for the work they're doing. So it isn't possible to tip the hiring pipeline towards women without causing men to lose out. It might not seem like that at the time when it's go go go, but eventually, headcount limits appear.
dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
In this case you have not only peer pressure, and that is enormous, but also from the management - you not only suspect, but at this point you are sure you will be fired for expressing an opinion that may be true, but not in line with the official view. What incentives do you have to pursue the truth? More importantly, how can you be genuinely interested in improving the situation inside the company?