6 ms·

I read the memo before reading the media coverage. I was very surprised at how controversial it was. It's claims were pretty modest: it did not claim that women

I read the memo before reading the media coverage. I was very surprised at how controversial it was. It's claims were pretty modest: it did not claim that women were any less capable than men at technology, and it repeatedly stated that innate differences likely do not account for all of the disparity between men and women in tech. All it argued was that just because a disparity exists we should not assume that it is evidence of discrimination, and that policies designed to engineer an outcome closer to 50/50 are likely creating discrimination rather than reducing it.

gwbas1c 7y ago
Ok, now go re-read Google's official response. Note that they did not respond to "we should not assume that it is evidence of discrimination, and that policies designed to engineer an outcome closer to 50/50 are likely creating discrimination"
- manfredo 7y ago
  Right they cited "perpetuating harmful gender stereotypes". From which we can infer that Google believes that claiming that absent any discrimination or social pressure women would not work in tech at the same rates as men as "perpetuating gender stereotypes".
  - threeseed 7y ago
    You are misrepresenting their point. There are many reasons why women don't go into IT. And whilst you can look at at it holistically it is ultimately a personal decision. And so if you take that personal decision and instead make it about some gender stereotype e.g. they aren't physically suited then it discourages women from entering IT.
    - manfredo 7y ago
      > And so if you take that personal decision and instead make it about some gender stereotype e.g. they aren't physically suited then it discourages women from entering IT. The memo did not claim this. The references to innate differences were only in reference to women's choices. At no point did the author claim they women "aren't physically suited" to IT.
      - bduerst 7y ago
        He says it right here: [emphasis added] > 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. He's saying that women lack the ability to work in engineering and leadership because they are biologically different. His argument isn't limited to preference. And this is ignoring the fact that his supporting data used the Big5 psych method, which has been debunked as not being scientific in identifying biological differences due to it's lexical nature. Edit: Damore says that women more having extraversion and empathy, which "leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading." Saying they are having a harder time is saying they lack the ability.
        manfredo 7y ago
        Incorrect, you're overlooking the fact that he's referring to the distribution of ability. Nowhere does he say that women have less ability than men. For instance, for 2/3rds of girls reading is their best subject while for 2/3rds of boys math is their best subject. But, girls actually outscore boys in both reading and math. In fact, I believe he cited a study that referenced this sort of distribution in boys and girls. The differences in the distribution suggest that girls are more likely to prefer reading (because they're usually better at it than math) while boys are more like to prefer math (because they're usually better at math than reading). He's talking about how the distribution of ability affects preference. It does not say that girls are worse than boys than math - it actually says the opposite, that girls are slightly better at both math and reading.
        bduerst 7y ago
        Ability != Preference You claimed his argument was limited to preference, I am showing you that Damore was talking about preference and ability. Splitting hairs over distribution is a red herring. Nobody here is assuming that Damore is referring to women the individual, but women as a whole. > Nowhere does he say that women have less ability than men. Damore does, in several places: [emphasis added] >Women, on average, have more: > - Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness. This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. > - Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs. Note that the data he used here is cherry picked from a 90's study that used the Big5 method, which has since been debunked for use in biological differentiation.
- bduerst 7y ago
  Google fired Damore for his perpetuating of gender stereotypes. He even confirmed it with the media.
  - nailer 7y ago
    Well yes that's the point: if data perpetuates sex stereotypes then is it immoral to discuss the data?
    - bduerst 7y ago
      The answer is yes when the data is cherry picked to fit a narrative.
      - concordDance 7y ago
        Maybe you should be editting the wikipedia page on human sex differences? Because currently it strongly gives the impression that those differences are real and substantial
        bduerst 7y ago
        The Big5 study that Damore chose specifically has been debunked as being not scientific for claiming biological differentiation in human psychology, because of it's lexical nature. This is a few steps above "boys and girls have different sex organs" on wikipedia.
        stevenhuang 7y ago
        You don't believe there are psychological differences between genders?
        booboolayla 7y ago
        Psychological differences between sexes have been known to humanity since before language was invented, are you seriously claiming they do not exist?
pat12 7y ago
Keep in mind it has becoming controversial to say that the world #1 women tennis player, Serena Williams, would be rank #700 in the men's circuit: https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/breaking/ct-john-mcenroe-serena-williams-tennis-20170625-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/breaking/ct-john-mcenr... This is the world we live in. EDIT: added link

gwbas1c 7y ago

Ok, now go re-read Google's official response. Note that they did not respond to "we should not assume that it is evidence of discrimination, and that policies designed to engineer an outcome closer to 50/50 are likely creating discrimination"

manfredo 7y ago
Right they cited "perpetuating harmful gender stereotypes". From which we can infer that Google believes that claiming that absent any discrimination or social pressure women would not work in tech at the same rates as men as "perpetuating gender stereotypes".
- threeseed 7y ago
  You are misrepresenting their point. There are many reasons why women don't go into IT. And whilst you can look at at it holistically it is ultimately a personal decision. And so if you take that personal decision and instead make it about some gender stereotype e.g. they aren't physically suited then it discourages women from entering IT.
  - manfredo 7y ago
    > And so if you take that personal decision and instead make it about some gender stereotype e.g. they aren't physically suited then it discourages women from entering IT. The memo did not claim this. The references to innate differences were only in reference to women's choices. At no point did the author claim they women "aren't physically suited" to IT.
    - bduerst 7y ago
      He says it right here: [emphasis added] > 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. He's saying that women lack the ability to work in engineering and leadership because they are biologically different. His argument isn't limited to preference. And this is ignoring the fact that his supporting data used the Big5 psych method, which has been debunked as not being scientific in identifying biological differences due to it's lexical nature. Edit: Damore says that women more having extraversion and empathy, which "leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading." Saying they are having a harder time is saying they lack the ability.
      - manfredo 7y ago
        Incorrect, you're overlooking the fact that he's referring to the distribution of ability. Nowhere does he say that women have less ability than men. For instance, for 2/3rds of girls reading is their best subject while for 2/3rds of boys math is their best subject. But, girls actually outscore boys in both reading and math. In fact, I believe he cited a study that referenced this sort of distribution in boys and girls. The differences in the distribution suggest that girls are more likely to prefer reading (because they're usually better at it than math) while boys are more like to prefer math (because they're usually better at math than reading). He's talking about how the distribution of ability affects preference. It does not say that girls are worse than boys than math - it actually says the opposite, that girls are slightly better at both math and reading.
        bduerst 7y ago
        Ability != Preference You claimed his argument was limited to preference, I am showing you that Damore was talking about preference and ability. Splitting hairs over distribution is a red herring. Nobody here is assuming that Damore is referring to women the individual, but women as a whole. > Nowhere does he say that women have less ability than men. Damore does, in several places: [emphasis added] >Women, on average, have more: > - Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness. This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. > - Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs. Note that the data he used here is cherry picked from a 90's study that used the Big5 method, which has since been debunked for use in biological differentiation.
bduerst 7y ago
Google fired Damore for his perpetuating of gender stereotypes. He even confirmed it with the media.
- nailer 7y ago
  Well yes that's the point: if data perpetuates sex stereotypes then is it immoral to discuss the data?
  - bduerst 7y ago
    The answer is yes when the data is cherry picked to fit a narrative.
    - concordDance 7y ago
      Maybe you should be editting the wikipedia page on human sex differences? Because currently it strongly gives the impression that those differences are real and substantial
      - bduerst 7y ago
        The Big5 study that Damore chose specifically has been debunked as being not scientific for claiming biological differentiation in human psychology, because of it's lexical nature. This is a few steps above "boys and girls have different sex organs" on wikipedia.
        stevenhuang 7y ago
        You don't believe there are psychological differences between genders?
        booboolayla 7y ago
        Psychological differences between sexes have been known to humanity since before language was invented, are you seriously claiming they do not exist?

pat12 7y ago

Keep in mind it has becoming controversial to say that the world #1 women tennis player, Serena Williams, would be rank #700 in the men's circuit: https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/breaking/ct-john-mcenroe-serena-williams-tennis-20170625-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/breaking/ct-john-mcenr... This is the world we live in. EDIT: added link