5 ms·

Would you rather hire someone that likes what they do or someone who doesn't? Would you intuitively think that someone who loves their job are going to be more

Would you rather hire someone that likes what they do or someone who doesn't? Would you intuitively think that someone who loves their job are going to be more interested in bigger challenges and doing great work, or someone who doesn't care for the job?

humanrebar 9y ago
> Would you rather hire someone that likes what they do or someone who doesn't? I wouldn't assume someone's interest level based on their demographics. I would, you know, talk to them.
- dguaraglia 9y ago
  So, you are in favor of outreach programs where you get to talk to more people?
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    Sure. I do that already, both formally and informally. Though I've probably been underestimating how career limiting that can be. The Google firing was a really bad move if outreach programs are a good idea.
    - dguaraglia 9y ago
      Not sure I follow why you think the firing had something to do with outreach? You mean they'll be losing out on candidates like Damore?
      - humanrebar 9y ago
        I think people won't feel comfortable sharing freely, which undermines the whole point of it. It won't just affect candidates like Damore. People who don't feel like sharing probably won't feel like getting talked at, so there won't be much listening in the other direction either.
manigandham 9y ago
I optimize for productivity first, that doesn't always equate to someone who likes their job. Regardless, I'm not sure how that's related to my comment - the memo was discussing relative interests in software engineering (and other disciplines), not capabilities of people being able to do code better than others.
- dguaraglia 9y ago
  By perpetuating the stereotype that "women are less interested in engineering" and suggesting that your chances of getting a good female candidate are lower, Damore is introducing an unconscious bias against women. After all, "it's likely that she doesn't really like this", "she probably went into engineering because her parents pushed her", "maybe she's great now, but she'll lose interest once anxiety kicks in." Next time your engineers are scheduled to interview someone and they see a female name on the resume, they'll form an opinion (even if slight, and even if overridable by interacting with the person) about who the candidate is. Depending on how tired/stressed/bored they are that day, that opinion will play a smaller or bigger role in what they write down in the candidate report. That bias, by the way, exists today. Trying to justify it on the base of biological differences does nothing to fix it.
  - kansface 9y ago
    > That bias, by the way, exists today. Trying to justify it on the base of biological differences does nothing to fix You presupposed that the bias is why the disparity exists in the first place. Its plausible that we completely fix all biases in the industry and the gender ratio does not change whatsoever, or even gets worse.
    - dguaraglia 9y ago
      > You presupposed that the bias is why the disparity exists in the first place What in my comment tells you that? I made a conscious effort not to bring that up. > Its plausible that we completely fix all biases in the industry and the gender ratio does not change whatsoever, or even gets worse. This argument sounds like the global warming denier argument "What if it's not true? What if we make the world a better place to live for nothing?" It is plausible, but right now we have no way to measure it. We do, on the other hand, know that unconscious bias is affecting prospective female candidates. Why don't we focus on fixing the existing problem first?

humanrebar 9y ago

> Would you rather hire someone that likes what they do or someone who doesn't? I wouldn't assume someone's interest level based on their demographics. I would, you know, talk to them.

dguaraglia 9y ago
So, you are in favor of outreach programs where you get to talk to more people?
- humanrebar 9y ago
  Sure. I do that already, both formally and informally. Though I've probably been underestimating how career limiting that can be. The Google firing was a really bad move if outreach programs are a good idea.
  - dguaraglia 9y ago
    Not sure I follow why you think the firing had something to do with outreach? You mean they'll be losing out on candidates like Damore?
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      I think people won't feel comfortable sharing freely, which undermines the whole point of it. It won't just affect candidates like Damore. People who don't feel like sharing probably won't feel like getting talked at, so there won't be much listening in the other direction either.

manigandham 9y ago

I optimize for productivity first, that doesn't always equate to someone who likes their job. Regardless, I'm not sure how that's related to my comment - the memo was discussing relative interests in software engineering (and other disciplines), not capabilities of people being able to do code better than others.

dguaraglia 9y ago
By perpetuating the stereotype that "women are less interested in engineering" and suggesting that your chances of getting a good female candidate are lower, Damore is introducing an unconscious bias against women. After all, "it's likely that she doesn't really like this", "she probably went into engineering because her parents pushed her", "maybe she's great now, but she'll lose interest once anxiety kicks in." Next time your engineers are scheduled to interview someone and they see a female name on the resume, they'll form an opinion (even if slight, and even if overridable by interacting with the person) about who the candidate is. Depending on how tired/stressed/bored they are that day, that opinion will play a smaller or bigger role in what they write down in the candidate report. That bias, by the way, exists today. Trying to justify it on the base of biological differences does nothing to fix it.
- kansface 9y ago
  > That bias, by the way, exists today. Trying to justify it on the base of biological differences does nothing to fix You presupposed that the bias is why the disparity exists in the first place. Its plausible that we completely fix all biases in the industry and the gender ratio does not change whatsoever, or even gets worse.
  - dguaraglia 9y ago
    > You presupposed that the bias is why the disparity exists in the first place What in my comment tells you that? I made a conscious effort not to bring that up. > Its plausible that we completely fix all biases in the industry and the gender ratio does not change whatsoever, or even gets worse. This argument sounds like the global warming denier argument "What if it's not true? What if we make the world a better place to live for nothing?" It is plausible, but right now we have no way to measure it. We do, on the other hand, know that unconscious bias is affecting prospective female candidates. Why don't we focus on fixing the existing problem first?