5 ms·

> that women were not as well suited toward engineering roles While this is, notably, what a Microsoft employee in a non-engineering role reportedly said (in a

> that women were not as well suited toward engineering roles While this is, notably, what a Microsoft employee in a non-engineering role reportedly said (in an unclear and unexplained reference to purported "thought patterns") referencing their own diversity efforts, Damore's memo did not allege that women at Google or any other company might be less suited; only that the pool of those who would be interested enough to pursue the field in the first place might be smaller.

joshuamorton 7y ago
> Damore's memo did not allege that women at Google or any other company might be less suited It did though. Damore hedges a bunch, but >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. Can be reduced to > I’m simply stating that the distribution of [...] 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.
- silversconfused 7y ago
  That's not saying women are unsuitable, so your first point is just incorrect. It is really saying there are fewer suitable women. Which is true, and there is a huge movement to remedy that by making it more inclusive. Not that I'm on-board with lowering the bar hiring unqualified applicants or anything, but I think changing project structures to use better use underutilized talent is great for employers and employees. Though, IMHO, the most honest way to do any of this is by evaluating candidates sight unseen, with no name presented, to remove bias. I like that other approaches are attempted, but this one is my favorite. It doesn't make my resume less favorable. :)
- pacala 7y ago
  Thanks for sharing the quote. Given the redacted variant, I understand that you take issue with the "abilities" part. Do you also take issue with the "preferences" part?
  - joshuamorton 7y ago
    Unfortunately, I think there's enough subtlety and nuance to that discussion, and it's charged enough, that I don't particularly feel comfortable giving an answer that is both honest and what I would consider "satisfying" to your question. Sorry.
- lopmotr 7y ago
  The problem is that science agrees with it. Surely setting policies that accommodate nature will be more effective than pretending nature fits whatever the popular ideology says. About abilities, it's well known that men have a higher standard deviation of IQ, which, as Damore explained, means there are more men of high IQ than there are women. Google preferentially hires high IQ people so it will be skewed towards men, all else being equal.
  - joshuamorton 7y ago
    > The problem is that science agrees with it. Not really. Science certainly agrees that there are differences between males and females. But if you can find me a peer reviewed article showing a causal relationship between sex and performance in a software engineering career, controlling for environmental and social factors, you'd be the first. > Google preferentially hires high IQ people so it will be skewed towards men, all else being equal. Note here you aren't arguing about performance, but about culture. But to throw a wrench in your argument, Google hires mostly college graduates, which as we all know, skew female. Sprinklinga wrong "ceteris paribus" into your line of thinking isn't conducive to interesting discussion.
    - lopmotr 7y ago
      If I can find a paper showing the sex-IQ relationship and another showing a IQ-software engineering performance relationship, will that satisfy you? Though, so save myself time, do you really doubt the 2nd one? Yes, I think they probably do get more females by preferring graduates than they would if they didn't have that bias towards graduates. What do you mean by a wrong ceteris paribus? Of course it's wrong in the sense that all else isn't equal in reality, but you can still consider what would happen if it was. Or do you mean it's not even possible for all the other factors to be constant because they're correlated with the one we're changing so we still have to make a choice about which ones to really hold constant?

joshuamorton 7y ago

> Damore's memo did not allege that women at Google or any other company might be less suited It did though. Damore hedges a bunch, but >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. Can be reduced to > I’m simply stating that the distribution of [...] 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.

silversconfused 7y ago
That's not saying women are unsuitable, so your first point is just incorrect. It is really saying there are fewer suitable women. Which is true, and there is a huge movement to remedy that by making it more inclusive. Not that I'm on-board with lowering the bar hiring unqualified applicants or anything, but I think changing project structures to use better use underutilized talent is great for employers and employees. Though, IMHO, the most honest way to do any of this is by evaluating candidates sight unseen, with no name presented, to remove bias. I like that other approaches are attempted, but this one is my favorite. It doesn't make my resume less favorable. :)
pacala 7y ago
Thanks for sharing the quote. Given the redacted variant, I understand that you take issue with the "abilities" part. Do you also take issue with the "preferences" part?
- joshuamorton 7y ago
  Unfortunately, I think there's enough subtlety and nuance to that discussion, and it's charged enough, that I don't particularly feel comfortable giving an answer that is both honest and what I would consider "satisfying" to your question. Sorry.
lopmotr 7y ago
The problem is that science agrees with it. Surely setting policies that accommodate nature will be more effective than pretending nature fits whatever the popular ideology says. About abilities, it's well known that men have a higher standard deviation of IQ, which, as Damore explained, means there are more men of high IQ than there are women. Google preferentially hires high IQ people so it will be skewed towards men, all else being equal.
- joshuamorton 7y ago
  > The problem is that science agrees with it. Not really. Science certainly agrees that there are differences between males and females. But if you can find me a peer reviewed article showing a causal relationship between sex and performance in a software engineering career, controlling for environmental and social factors, you'd be the first. > Google preferentially hires high IQ people so it will be skewed towards men, all else being equal. Note here you aren't arguing about performance, but about culture. But to throw a wrench in your argument, Google hires mostly college graduates, which as we all know, skew female. Sprinklinga wrong "ceteris paribus" into your line of thinking isn't conducive to interesting discussion.
  - lopmotr 7y ago
    If I can find a paper showing the sex-IQ relationship and another showing a IQ-software engineering performance relationship, will that satisfy you? Though, so save myself time, do you really doubt the 2nd one? Yes, I think they probably do get more females by preferring graduates than they would if they didn't have that bias towards graduates. What do you mean by a wrong ceteris paribus? Of course it's wrong in the sense that all else isn't equal in reality, but you can still consider what would happen if it was. Or do you mean it's not even possible for all the other factors to be constant because they're correlated with the one we're changing so we still have to make a choice about which ones to really hold constant?