6 ms·

Abilities follow from preferences at the level being discussed (potential hiring pool at Google). I am not good at being a nurse because I chose to become a so

Abilities follow from preferences at the level being discussed (potential hiring pool at Google). I am not good at being a nurse because I chose to become a software developer. I chose to become a software developer because I prefer working with computers over people. My preference in adolescence resulted in my being more capable as a software developer for a company like Google. That this one statement keeps getting taken out of context and misinterpreted shows how flimsy the claims against the memo are.

bduerst 9y ago
>That this one statement keeps getting taken out of context and misinterpreted Wrong again. When you look at the full context, Damore specifically says that it's not socially constructed like you're describing. Damore isn't arguing that women lack the ability for tech or leadership because they prefer to be nurses, his argument stems from biological differences: >> On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because: >> ● They’re universal across human cultures >> ● They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone >> ● Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males >> ● The underlying traits are highly heritable >> ● They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective >> Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” 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.
- moduspol 9y ago
  That's not the full context, though. The full context is that he's writing this memo in the first place to propose alternatives to a hiring policy. That is: the relevant group is the hiring pool for Google. By the time men and women reach the point where Google's hiring policy is relevant toward their outcomes, the distribution of their abilities is already quite different. That's not even really questionable: It's why there are so many fewer women in the hiring pool. It's selective interpretation to read this outside the context of the hiring policy.
  - bduerst 9y ago
    Except what you said about social constructs in your comment isn't argued in the memo, hence you're now projecting about "selective interpretation." Nobody is saying this isn't in context to hiring policies - that's your straw man. Damore was arguing that women were not in engineering and leadership positions because of preferences and biological abilities (in support of his memo's argument about hiring policies). The latter of which there is no evidence to support.
    - moduspol 9y ago
      > Nobody is saying this isn't in context to hiring policies - that's your straw man. You're evaluating the statement that way. That's not a straw man--it's removal of original context. > Damore was arguing that women were not in engineering and leadership positions because of preferences and biological abilities (in support of his memo's argument about hiring policies). Yet another example of the suspiciously common inability of opponents to comprehend the statement. The statement makes no mention of biological abilities, only distribution of abilities in general (and preferences), caused possibly in part by biological factors. And once again: The relevant group is the hiring pool for leadership / tech at Google, which undoubtedly has an unequal distribution of qualified men and women as a result of differing distributions of the abilities of men and women at that stage of their careers. Here's Damore's statement again, with the context from the purpose of the document added by me: > I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women (by the time they can be affected by Google's hiring policies) 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. Tah-dah! When it's not stripped of context, the meaning is more clear. I still don't suspect misinterpretations will stop, though.
      - bduerst 9y ago
        If you have to insert your own comments to read between the lines of Damore's memo, then that is the definition of selective interpretation.
- yorwba 9y ago
  Note that there are differences in certain abilities (most famously mental rotation) that are known to be affected by sex (male and female babies already perform differently). Now mental rotation isn't exactly relevant to software engineering, but there are other biological traits such as autism spectrum disorders that are anecdotally beneficial for software development. It wouldn't surprise me if there were a correlation between sex and programming ability. However, the number of skills required for software development is quite large and any correlation is likely to be very small. Additionally, there is no a priori reason to assume that the average woman isn't better suited to it than the average man, since there are lots of other effects that could drown out an underlying difference in ability. So Damore is technically correct, but that doesn't really matter in the end because he doesn't show that effect sizes are large enough to support his conclusions against the policies he opposes (whose evidence is also pretty weak).
  - bduerst 9y ago
    I'm not sure we share the same definition of "technically correct", when the evidence doesn't support Damore's claim that biological causes are why there are less women in software engineering and leadership. It's true that there are observable differences in spatial reasoning and reaction time across the sexes, but as you say, those are hardly requisites for being a good programmer.
    - fjsolwmv 9y ago
      Is the correlation between mild autism and successful computer programming completely irrelevant coincidence?
- YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
  >> Wrong again. Ow. I agree with you, but can you please not preface your comments with "wrong", "false", "no" etc? You're going on to argue (pretty convincingly) that the parent is wrong anyway, what's the point of cranking up the disagreement volume a notch, like that?
  - bduerst 9y ago
    Good point. It's hard to get through confirmation bias, even when the person accuses you of being intellectually dishonest, but I agree the tone is a bit much.

bduerst 9y ago

>That this one statement keeps getting taken out of context and misinterpreted Wrong again. When you look at the full context, Damore specifically says that it's not socially constructed like you're describing. Damore isn't arguing that women lack the ability for tech or leadership because they prefer to be nurses, his argument stems from biological differences: >> On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because: >> ● They’re universal across human cultures >> ● They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone >> ● Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males >> ● The underlying traits are highly heritable >> ● They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective >> Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” 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.

moduspol 9y ago
That's not the full context, though. The full context is that he's writing this memo in the first place to propose alternatives to a hiring policy. That is: the relevant group is the hiring pool for Google. By the time men and women reach the point where Google's hiring policy is relevant toward their outcomes, the distribution of their abilities is already quite different. That's not even really questionable: It's why there are so many fewer women in the hiring pool. It's selective interpretation to read this outside the context of the hiring policy.
- bduerst 9y ago
  Except what you said about social constructs in your comment isn't argued in the memo, hence you're now projecting about "selective interpretation." Nobody is saying this isn't in context to hiring policies - that's your straw man. Damore was arguing that women were not in engineering and leadership positions because of preferences and biological abilities (in support of his memo's argument about hiring policies). The latter of which there is no evidence to support.
  - moduspol 9y ago
    > Nobody is saying this isn't in context to hiring policies - that's your straw man. You're evaluating the statement that way. That's not a straw man--it's removal of original context. > Damore was arguing that women were not in engineering and leadership positions because of preferences and biological abilities (in support of his memo's argument about hiring policies). Yet another example of the suspiciously common inability of opponents to comprehend the statement. The statement makes no mention of biological abilities, only distribution of abilities in general (and preferences), caused possibly in part by biological factors. And once again: The relevant group is the hiring pool for leadership / tech at Google, which undoubtedly has an unequal distribution of qualified men and women as a result of differing distributions of the abilities of men and women at that stage of their careers. Here's Damore's statement again, with the context from the purpose of the document added by me: > I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women (by the time they can be affected by Google's hiring policies) 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. Tah-dah! When it's not stripped of context, the meaning is more clear. I still don't suspect misinterpretations will stop, though.
    - bduerst 9y ago
      If you have to insert your own comments to read between the lines of Damore's memo, then that is the definition of selective interpretation.
yorwba 9y ago
Note that there are differences in certain abilities (most famously mental rotation) that are known to be affected by sex (male and female babies already perform differently). Now mental rotation isn't exactly relevant to software engineering, but there are other biological traits such as autism spectrum disorders that are anecdotally beneficial for software development. It wouldn't surprise me if there were a correlation between sex and programming ability. However, the number of skills required for software development is quite large and any correlation is likely to be very small. Additionally, there is no a priori reason to assume that the average woman isn't better suited to it than the average man, since there are lots of other effects that could drown out an underlying difference in ability. So Damore is technically correct, but that doesn't really matter in the end because he doesn't show that effect sizes are large enough to support his conclusions against the policies he opposes (whose evidence is also pretty weak).
- bduerst 9y ago
  I'm not sure we share the same definition of "technically correct", when the evidence doesn't support Damore's claim that biological causes are why there are less women in software engineering and leadership. It's true that there are observable differences in spatial reasoning and reaction time across the sexes, but as you say, those are hardly requisites for being a good programmer.
  - fjsolwmv 9y ago
    Is the correlation between mild autism and successful computer programming completely irrelevant coincidence?
YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
>> Wrong again. Ow. I agree with you, but can you please not preface your comments with "wrong", "false", "no" etc? You're going on to argue (pretty convincingly) that the parent is wrong anyway, what's the point of cranking up the disagreement volume a notch, like that?
- bduerst 9y ago
  Good point. It's hard to get through confirmation bias, even when the person accuses you of being intellectually dishonest, but I agree the tone is a bit much.