4 ms·

Right they cited "perpetuating harmful gender stereotypes". From which we can infer that Google believes that claiming that absent any discrimination or social

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.
        manfredo 7y ago
        > You claimed his argument was limited to preference, I'm merely showing that Damore was talking about preference and ability. Arguing distribution is a red herring. Nobody is assuming that Damore is referring to women the individual, but women as a whole. If this was your takeaway, then I did not explain it well enough. Every individual has a distribution of ability. Some are better at math, some are better at sports, some are better at reading, etc. 2/3rds of boys are better at math than they are at reading. 2/3rds of girls are better at reading than they are at math. However, girls are actually better than boys at both reading and math - it's just that they score better at an even bigger margin at reading. Is it inconceivable to think that the fact that girls are better at reading than math 2/3rds of the time makes girls more likely to prefer reading as compared to math (and vice versa for boys)? That's the point that Damore was making: the distribution in ability affects boys' and girls' preferences. It does not say that the average girl has less ability than the average boy. If you want to split hairs, you could say that making this argument is sexist because it says girls score better than the boys on average in both reading and in math. But I get the sense that this isn't the angle you're making. > 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. Both of these points have to do with specific parts of the job (salary negotiation, asking for promotion, dealing with stress). These factors exist in all jobs, not just tech. Furthermore he later offers suggestions to try and mitigate this - he brought these things up because he wanted to offer positive changes. The point remains: Damore did not write that women "aren't physically suited" (~~your words~~) to tech work.

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.
      - manfredo 7y ago
        > You claimed his argument was limited to preference, I'm merely showing that Damore was talking about preference and ability. Arguing distribution is a red herring. Nobody is assuming that Damore is referring to women the individual, but women as a whole. If this was your takeaway, then I did not explain it well enough. Every individual has a distribution of ability. Some are better at math, some are better at sports, some are better at reading, etc. 2/3rds of boys are better at math than they are at reading. 2/3rds of girls are better at reading than they are at math. However, girls are actually better than boys at both reading and math - it's just that they score better at an even bigger margin at reading. Is it inconceivable to think that the fact that girls are better at reading than math 2/3rds of the time makes girls more likely to prefer reading as compared to math (and vice versa for boys)? That's the point that Damore was making: the distribution in ability affects boys' and girls' preferences. It does not say that the average girl has less ability than the average boy. If you want to split hairs, you could say that making this argument is sexist because it says girls score better than the boys on average in both reading and in math. But I get the sense that this isn't the angle you're making. > 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. Both of these points have to do with specific parts of the job (salary negotiation, asking for promotion, dealing with stress). These factors exist in all jobs, not just tech. Furthermore he later offers suggestions to try and mitigate this - he brought these things up because he wanted to offer positive changes. The point remains: Damore did not write that women "aren't physically suited" (~~your words~~) to tech work.