4 ms·

His cardinal sin was saying that men and women are biologically different. He could've said a lot, but as soon as he tried to give a biological explanation for

His cardinal sin was saying that men and women are biologically different. He could've said a lot, but as soon as he tried to give a biological explanation for why girls prefer Barbies and boys prefer toy cars, he entered taboo territory. It's a thought crime because it implies that cultural influences aren't 100% responsible for why more men are interested in STEM than women.

s73v3r_ 9y ago
No, he tried to use unrelated data on the biological differences between men and women to justify why Google shouldn't try to reach out more to women to diversify their workforce.
- neveroffensive 9y ago
  This is also a bit of a miss-characterization. He tried to use data on the biological difference between men and women which _may_ be unrelated to justify why Google shouldn't forcefully diversify their workforce if it dose so at the cost of hiring the best people. Edit: I don't think that either side in this debate has actually met the burden of proof necessary to conclusively say that biological differences do/don't correlate on any level.
- gowld 9y ago
  The memo had a section dedicated to changing Google to make it more welcoming to women. It mentioned "pair programming" as one female-friendly culture change.
  - mcguire 9y ago
    "We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles at Google can be and we shouldn't deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this)."
bduerst 9y ago
Except he said women also lacked the abilities to be in tech and higher level management positions. This isn't just about children picking toys. >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.
- aianus 9y ago
  It is entirely uncontroversial and well-supported to say that there are many more extremely stupid, or criminal, or violent, or genetically ill men than women at the bottom of the bell curve. Why is it so unbelievable that there are more men at the other end with extremely high ability? Just the fact that we have two different chromosomes X and Y is enough to increase our genetic variance (because if a gene on the X is faulty or extreme, we have no backup).
  - bduerst 9y ago
    It's not so much as unbelievable as in the burden of proof is not met for causation. Observational correlation does not mean causation. It's analogous to how a racist would argue that because there are more african american men in U.S. prisons, they are there because they are biologically inferior - when in reality, socioeconomic factors are demonstrably one of the largest causes and there aren't links to genetics. This is the argument that Damore was making, that there are less women in engineering and leadership positions not because of social constructs, but because of biological factors. The evidence he provided did not demonstrate ability differences. Sure, differences in preferences, yes, but those could be caused by the social constructs he was arguing against, and he didn't want to admit that. Edit: Forgive me if I'm wrong, but aren't you also the HN user that tried to argue for taking away reproductive rights from poor people?
    - aianus 9y ago
      > It's not so much as unbelievable as in the burden of proof is not met for causation. I agree that the burden of proof has not been met. From the studies cited on this Wikipedia page[0] it appears some studies have found this effect but it's not an accepted conclusion. > Forgive me if I'm wrong, but aren't you also the HN user that tried to argue for taking away reproductive rights from poor people? Link? I don't recall posting that and I do not support reproductive coercion of any kind. Although I do believe that poor people having children are setting themselves and their children up for suffering and maybe I said they shouldn't do so? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variability_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variability_hypothesis

s73v3r_ 9y ago

No, he tried to use unrelated data on the biological differences between men and women to justify why Google shouldn't try to reach out more to women to diversify their workforce.

neveroffensive 9y ago
This is also a bit of a miss-characterization. He tried to use data on the biological difference between men and women which _may_ be unrelated to justify why Google shouldn't forcefully diversify their workforce if it dose so at the cost of hiring the best people. Edit: I don't think that either side in this debate has actually met the burden of proof necessary to conclusively say that biological differences do/don't correlate on any level.
gowld 9y ago
The memo had a section dedicated to changing Google to make it more welcoming to women. It mentioned "pair programming" as one female-friendly culture change.
- mcguire 9y ago
  "We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles at Google can be and we shouldn't deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this)."

bduerst 9y ago

Except he said women also lacked the abilities to be in tech and higher level management positions. This isn't just about children picking toys. >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.

aianus 9y ago
It is entirely uncontroversial and well-supported to say that there are many more extremely stupid, or criminal, or violent, or genetically ill men than women at the bottom of the bell curve. Why is it so unbelievable that there are more men at the other end with extremely high ability? Just the fact that we have two different chromosomes X and Y is enough to increase our genetic variance (because if a gene on the X is faulty or extreme, we have no backup).
- bduerst 9y ago
  It's not so much as unbelievable as in the burden of proof is not met for causation. Observational correlation does not mean causation. It's analogous to how a racist would argue that because there are more african american men in U.S. prisons, they are there because they are biologically inferior - when in reality, socioeconomic factors are demonstrably one of the largest causes and there aren't links to genetics. This is the argument that Damore was making, that there are less women in engineering and leadership positions not because of social constructs, but because of biological factors. The evidence he provided did not demonstrate ability differences. Sure, differences in preferences, yes, but those could be caused by the social constructs he was arguing against, and he didn't want to admit that. Edit: Forgive me if I'm wrong, but aren't you also the HN user that tried to argue for taking away reproductive rights from poor people?
  - aianus 9y ago
    > It's not so much as unbelievable as in the burden of proof is not met for causation. I agree that the burden of proof has not been met. From the studies cited on this Wikipedia page[0] it appears some studies have found this effect but it's not an accepted conclusion. > Forgive me if I'm wrong, but aren't you also the HN user that tried to argue for taking away reproductive rights from poor people? Link? I don't recall posting that and I do not support reproductive coercion of any kind. Although I do believe that poor people having children are setting themselves and their children up for suffering and maybe I said they shouldn't do so? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variability_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variability_hypothesis