Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber [UPDATE] Author Fired

[matrix07012]

Quote

A software engineer’s 10-page screed against Google’s diversity initiatives is going viral inside the company, being shared on an internal meme network and Google+. The document’s existence was first reported by Motherboard, and Gizmodo has obtained it in full.

In the memo, which is the personal opinion of a male Google employee and is titled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber,” the author argues that women are underrepresented in tech not because they face bias and discrimination in the workplace, but because of inherent psychological differences between men and women. “We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism,” he writes, going on to argue that Google’s educational programs for young women may be misguided.

 

The entire memo

 

Background [1]

People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document.[2] Google has several biases and honest discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. What follows is by no means the complete story, but it’s a perspective that desperately needs to be told at Google.

Google’s biases

At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices.

Left Biases

• Compassion for the weak
• Disparities are due to injustices
• Humans are inherently cooperative
• Change is good (unstable)
• Open
• Idealist

Right Biases

• Respect for the strong/authority
• Disparities are natural and just
• Humans are inherently competitive
• Change is dangerous (stable)
• Closed
• Pragmatic

Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors.

Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I’ll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that’s required to actually discriminate to create equal representation.

Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech [3]

At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story.

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 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. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.

Personality differences

Women, on average, have more:

• Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing).
• These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.
• 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. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.
• 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 contrary to what a social constructionist would argue, research suggests that “greater nation-level gender equality leads to psychological dissimilarity in men’s and women’s personality traits.” Because as “society becomes more prosperous and more egalitarian, innate dispositional differences between men and women have more space to develop and the gap that exists between men and women in their personality becomes wider.” We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism.

Men’s higher drive for status

We always ask why we don’t see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.

Status is the primary metric that men are judged on[4], pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths.

Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap

Below I’ll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women’s representation in tech and without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making strides in many of these areas, but I think it’s still instructive to list them:

• Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things
• 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 and 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).
• Women on average are more cooperative
• Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there’s more we can do. This doesn’t mean that we should remove all competitiveness from Google. Competitiveness and self reliance can be valuable traits and we shouldn’t necessarily disadvantage those that have them, like what’s been done in education. Women on average are more prone to anxiety. Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits.
• Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average
• Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture) part time work though can keep more women in tech.
• The male gender role is currently inflexible
• Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role. If we, as a society, allow men to be more “feminine,” then the gender gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech and leadership for traditionally feminine roles.

Philosophically, I don’t think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principles reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google—with Google’s diversity being a component of that. For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google’s funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged.

The Harm of Google’s biases

I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:

• Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race [5]
• A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates
• Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate
• Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
• Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination [6]

These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology[7] that can irreparably harm Google.

Why we’re blind

We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ[8] and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren't on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social scientists learn left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap[9]. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs.

In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and areeable than men. We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue [sic] affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and whiner[10]. Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of women’s oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is spent to water only one side of the lawn.

The same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness[11], which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftists protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silence, psychologically unsafe environment.

Suggestions

I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).

My concrete suggestions are to:

De-moralize diversity.

• As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”

Stop alienating conservatives.

• Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.
• In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.
• Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.

Confront Google’s biases.

• I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.
• I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.

Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.

• These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.

Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs.

• Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts.
• There’s currently very little transparency into the extend of our diversity programs which keeps it immune to criticism from those outside its ideological echo chamber.
• These programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-progressives.
• I realize that some of our programs may be precautions against government accusations of discrimination, but that can easily backfire since they incentivize illegal discrimination.

Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity.

• We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive effects and should (hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination.
• We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of diversity
• Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our products, but the benefits are less clear for those more removed from UX.

De-emphasize empathy.

• I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.

Prioritize intention.

• Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offense and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by judging unintentional transgressions.
• Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with violence and isn’t backed by evidence.

Be open about the science of human nature.

• Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems.

Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees.

• We haven’t been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made mandatory.
• Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely useful, but the political bias of the presentation is clear from the factual inaccuracies and the examples shown.
• Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes. Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the training suggests (I’m not advocating for using stereotypes, I [sic] just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).

[1] This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google’s Mountain View campus, I can’t speak about other offices or countries.

[2] Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I’d be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations.

[3] Throughout the document, by “tech”, I mostly mean software engineering.

[4] For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and women by beauty. Again, this has biological origins and is culturally universal.

[5] Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race.

[6] Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs.

[7] Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.”

[8] Ironically, IQ tests were initially championed by the Left when meritocracy meant helping the victims of the aristocracy.

[9] Yes, in a national aggregate, women have lower salaries than men for a variety of reasons. For the same work though, women get paid just as much as men. Considering women spend more money than men and that salary represents how much the employees sacrifices (e.g. more hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink our stereotypes around power.

[10] “The traditionalist system of gender does not deal well with the idea of men needing support. Men are expected to be strong, to not complain, and to deal with problems on their own. Men’s problems are more often seen as personal failings rather than victimhood,, due to our gendered idea of agency. This discourages men from bringing attention to their issues (whether individual or group-wide issues), for fear of being seen as whiners, complainers, or weak.”

[11] Political correctness is defined as “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against,” which makes it clear why it’s a phenomenon of the Left and a tool of authoritarians.

 

 

 

Response from Google's Vice President of Diversity, Integrity & Governance, Danielle Brown

Quote

Googlers,

I’m Danielle, Google’s brand new VP of Diversity, Integrity & Governance. I started just a couple of weeks ago, and I had hoped to take another week or so to get the lay of the land before introducing myself to you all. But given the heated debate we’ve seen over the past few days, I feel compelled to say a few words.

Many of you have read an internal document shared by someone in our engineering organization, expressing views on the natural abilities and characteristics of different genders, as well as whether one can speak freely of these things at Google. And like many of you, I found that it advanced incorrect assumptions about gender. I’m not going to link to it here as it’s not a viewpoint that I or this company endorses, promotes or encourages.

Diversity and inclusion are a fundamental part of our values and the culture we continue to cultivate. We are unequivocal in our belief that diversity and inclusion are critical to our success as a company, and we’ll continue to stand for that and be committed to it for the long haul. As Ari Balogh said in his internal G+ post, “Building an open, inclusive environment is core to who we are, and the right thing to do. ‘Nuff said. “

Google has taken a strong stand on this issue, by releasing its demographic data and creating a company wide OKR on diversity and inclusion. Strong stands elicit strong reactions. Changing a culture is hard, and it’s often uncomfortable. But I firmly believe Google is doing the right thing, and that’s why I took this job.

Part of building an open, inclusive environment means fostering a culture in which those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions. But that discourse needs to work alongside the principles of equal employment found in our Code of Conduct, policies, and anti-discrimination laws.

I’ve been in the industry for a long time, and I can tell you that I’ve never worked at a company that has so many platforms for employees to express themselves—TGIF, Memegen, internal G+, thousands of discussion groups. I know this conversation doesn’t end with my email today. I look forward to continuing to hear your thoughts as I settle in and meet with Googlers across the company.

Thanks,

Danielle

 

Reply to public response and misrepresentation

Quote

I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem. Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber. Despite what the public response seems to have been, I’ve gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change.

 

 

My response:

Google's extreme left wing bias has been known for a very long time and I've always wanted to know how regular Google employees feel about it. Now I know and I mostly agree with the author of this memo. Forced diversity creates what it tries to eliminate, discrimination.

 

I've seen many people overreacting to this memo for no apparent reason. That's why there's a author's reply. What the author says about differences between genders aren't stereotypes and are supported by science.

 

UPDATE:

James Damore, the Google engineer who wrote the note, confirmed his dismissal in an email, saying that he had been fired for “perpetuating gender stereotypes.”

 

“The company was founded under the principles of freedom of expression, diversity, inclusiveness and science-based thinking,” Alphabet Chairman Eric Schmidt said at the time. “You’ll also find that all of the other companies in our industry agree with us.”

 

My response:

I don't agree with him getting fired, but Google is a private company and they have the right to do so and I respect that. Although I find the quote from Alphabet's chairman quite ironic.

 

 

Source: http://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320

New source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/google-fires-employee-behind-controversial-diversity-memo

 

PS: This news is highly political, but it's about one of the biggest tech companies on the planet, so I believe it has a place here. If mods believe otherwise, please lock this thread.

Edited August 8, 2017 by matrix07012
Updated

[Notional]

Intersectional feminism (SJW) functions in practice like a cult. If you dare to oppose their narrative, you become guilty of wrong-think, and they will rain fire on you. Usually with terms like racist, sexist and misogynist. This is the same ideology/cult calling all gamers misogynists because they wanted ethics in gaming journalism, aka. GamerGate.

 

Their modus operandi is taken out of the hand book of Goebbels and other socialists, specifically in most communist regimes.

 

I can't say I agree with everything stated in this manifesto, but at least it's trying to fight back against this oppressive ideology. Good for them. But it will be deemed wrong-think, and the person will probably get fired.

 

Remember, if you don't adhere to the cult, then you're a wrong thinker, and they will conclude you to be alt right. Because everyone who disagrees with them are /s.

[mr moose]

Depends on what you define as forced diversity,  The problem is giving the job to the best person, if it happens to be a woman the men cry forced diversity, if it happens to be a man the woman cry discrimination.    Personally anyone who thinks there is a gender gap when it comes to technology and academic intelligence can summarily have their opinion dismissed.  Ignorance is no substitute for a genuine complaint. 

[spartaman64]

i sort of agree with both? there are biases involved that can hinder a woman from getting into positions and people who say they dont exist are delusional but at the same time i agree that 50/50 split shouldn't be the goal as there are psychological differences between the average man and woman. 

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

i sort of agree with both? there are biases involved that can hinder a woman from getting into positions and people who say they dont exist are delusional but at the same time i agree that 50/50 split shouldn't be the goal as there are psychological differences between the average man and woman. 

I'm trying to think of a job at google where the physiological differences would be enough to warrant biasing a gender.   Unless they have a building construction division I am not aware of.

[Sauron]

8 minutes ago, matrix07012 said:

Google's extreme left wing bias has been known for a very long time and I've always wanted to know how regular Google employees view this. Now I know and I fully agree with the author of this memo. Forced diversity creates what it tries to eliminate, discrimination.

That's funny considering just a few months ago google was on the exact opposite end of that stick, being accused of bias against female employees. Remember this? That is part of the reason google has a "VP of Diversity" in the first place. PR is complicated and in the end you can't satisfy everyone. If I had to guess I'd say nobody at Google intentionally underpays or overhires women, but whatever they do there's always someone ready to call them extreme left or misoginistic. People must make a political issue out of everything, don't they? Perhaps echo chambers work both ways.

 

Now, as to the topic itself, it's definitely true that, STATISTICALLY, women show less interest in computer technology than men. However, I find it arrogant of an engineer to go and write a document about male and female psychology. He is not a psychologist and even within the psychology community there is debate on whether these statistics are born off inherent differences or upbringing.

 

In particular, someone speaking out like this as a google employee is no longer expressing "just a personal opinion". Talking about one's workplace environment like this inevitably forces a declaration from the company, and the company cannot afford to openly agree with an ambiguous position like this. He should have been more generic, talked about trends in the world rather than his personal experience. If you make such a direct accusation, you should expect a direct rebuttal. Or can criticism only go one way?

 

Personally, I believe applicants for a job should be evaluated exclusively based on what they can bring to the company, not on their gender or anything else, but I also think that if there is reason to suspect discrimination there should at least be some sort of supervision. I also think that a massive company like google does in fact need a diverse environment in certain offices, otherwise they risk losing touch with cultures they want to market to. Engineering generally isn't as affected by this, but often hearing a different perspective can make a big impact on your design - so, it may be in their interest to try and have a minimum number of "diverse" or at least female employees to have some sort of feedback from those fronts. You'd need some in depth analysis to figure it out for sure (which I'm sure they've done) but I don't think the concept is so far fetched.

[Sauron]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I'm trying to think of a job at google where the physiological differences would be enough to warrant biasing a gender.   Unless they have a building construction division I am not aware of.

Cooking, driving

 

/S

[matrix07012]

31 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The Depends on what you define as forced diversity,  The problem is giving the job to the best person, if it happens to be a woman the men cry forced diversity, if it happens to be a man the woman cry discrimination.    Personally anyone who thinks there is a gender gap when it comes to technology and academic intelligence can summarily have their opinion dismissed.  Ignorance is no substitute for a genuine complaint. 

I would define forced diversity as "discrimination based on persons gender, skin color, sexuality etc in the name of fighting discrimination".

There are differences between men and women that result in the over representation of men in STEM fields and tech in general.

Women's IQ is more concerned around the average while men's IQ is more spread. There're also psychological differences which can be observed shortly after birth. Female toddlers generally focus more on pictures of faces while male toddlers have tendency to focus on mechanical objects.

Also preferences in toys that can be observed even in monkeys.

22 minutes ago, Sauron said:

That's funny considering just a few months ago google was on the exact opposite end of that stick, being accused of bias against female employees. Remember this? That is part of the reason google has a "VP of Diversity" in the first place. PR is complicated and in the end you can't satisfy everyone. If I had to guess I'd say nobody at Google intentionally underpays or overhires women, but whatever they do there's always someone ready to call them extreme left or misoginistic. People must make a political issue out of everything, don't they? Perhaps echo chambers work both ways.

 

Now, as to the topic itself, it's definitely true that, STATISTICALLY, women show less interest in computer technology than men. However, I find it arrogant of an engineer to go and write a document about male and female psychology. He is not a psychologist and even within the psychology community there is debate on whether these statistics are born off inherent differences or upbringing.

 

In particular, someone speaking out like this as a google employee is no longer expressing "just a personal opinion". Talking about one's workplace environment like this inevitably forces a declaration from the company, and the company cannot afford to openly agree with an ambiguous position like this. He should have been more generic, talked about trends in the world rather than his personal experience. If you make such a direct accusation, you should expect a direct rebuttal. Or can criticism only go one way?

 

Personally, I believe applicants for a job should be evaluated exclusively based on what they can bring to the company, not on their gender or anything else, but I also think that if there is reason to suspect discrimination there should at least be some sort of supervision. I also think that a massive company like google does in fact need a diverse environment in certain offices, otherwise they risk losing touch with cultures they want to market to. Engineering generally isn't as affected by this, but often hearing a different perspective can make a big impact on your design - so, it may be in their interest to try and have a minimum number of "diverse" or at least female employees to have some sort of feedback from those fronts. You'd need some in depth analysis to figure it out for sure (which I'm sure they've done) but I don't think the concept is so far fetched.

I'm fully aware of google being accused of paying women less and I'm looking forward to the result of the investigation.

Me and the author are not calling for discrimination of anyone. Hiring people based on merit is what I believe is right. Diversity is a biproduct of that.

One of ways how to naturally achieve diversity is opening offices in different parts of the world, which Google does.

 The active need for diversity actively opposes hiring people based on how well they are suited for the job, since you are forced to discriminate based on outside characteristics like gender, skin color etc. to achieve the "right" level of diversity.

[divito]

Much of the "manifesto" wasn't incorrect, factually speaking. The problem lies in the social concepts and psychological barriers that have created the responses in the first place.

[potoooooooo]

2 minutes ago, divito said:

Much of the "manifesto" wasn't incorrect, factually speaking. The problem lies in the social concepts and psychological barriers that have created the responses in the first place.

Yup. The guy who wrote that is 100% a closet sexist who is worried about women taking his job.

 

The only reason women aren't equally represented in tech is because society forced them away...and by society i mean this guy times 1 million

[Okjoek]

I personally don't get why the tech industry is so male dominant, but I have a hard time believing that it's sexism or discrimination. Personally I get the feeling that females don't like anything that distracts us from paying attention to them. Probably a wrong observation, but whatever...

 

I don't consider social justice as big a problem as economic justice, and economic justice... well let's just say I'm waiting for machines to take so many jobs that capitalism becomes anemic and cannot circulate the very blood it needs to function.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, matrix07012 said:

I would define forced diversity as "discrimination based on persons gender, skin color, sexuality etc in the name of fighting discrimination".

There's are differences between men and women that result in the over representation of men in STEM fields and tech in general.

Women's IQ is more concerned around the average while men's IQ is more spread. There're also psychological differences which can be observed shortly after birth. Female toddlers generally focus more on pictures of faces while male toddlers have tendency to focus on mechanical objects.

Also preferences in toys that can be observed even in monkeys.

I'm fully aware of google being accused of paying women less and I'm looking forward to the result of the investigation.

Me and the author are not calling for discrimination of anyone. Hiring people based on merit is what I believe is right. Diversity is a biproduct of that.

One of ways how to naturally achieve diversity is opening offices in different parts of the world, which Google does.

 The active need for diversity actively opposes hiring people based on how well they are suited for the jo, since you are forced to discriminate based on outside characteristics like gender, skin color etc.

 

You are going to have to present me with some pretty serious (and supported) research before you expect me to accept that there is a physiological difference big enough to  warrant a noticeable imbalance between men and woman employed within an academic corporation.

 

Arguable at absolute best there is a 3-4 point difference in IQ specifically relating to math, language and reasoning in favor of men, but that g (general intelligence) is not different and not the cause.  If you make all other aspects equal then you should see less than 3% bias in gender employment.  There are no other gender specific differences.

 

 

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289605000851?via%3Dihub

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289605000887?via%3Dihub

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1348/000712605X53542/abstract;jsessionid=C6D7A4E80B7C2B25F2C734025D4B28E5.f03t01

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019188690300480X?via%3Dihub

 

Don't want to read all the studies, here's the conclusion:

 

Yes there's is a difference, but it's nowhere near big enough to make a lick of difference.

 

[Tech_Dreamer]

read about this earlier & didn't deliberately post it here on news assuming it'll be tagged political & a severe shitstorm would ensue from the first comment on , But damn! you peeps surprised me. a proper discussion so far .

[Misanthrope]

Even though he made enough concessions, the tone was too focused on just complaining about deferring to women for hiring and promotion when possible. I understand he is trying to correct the over-correction so to speak, but his attempts at also talking about the short-comings of men in the organization felt mostly as token niceties to not be called an outright misogynist. 

 

All I'm saying is that there's better ways to make this exact arguments without sounding like you lifted your entire tirade out of a Sargon of Akkad video.

[divito]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

You are going to have to present me with some pretty serious (and supported) research before you expect me to accept that there is a physiological difference big enough to  warrant a noticeable imbalance between men and woman employed within an academic corporation.

 

Arguable at absolute best there is a 3-4 point difference in IQ specifically relating to math, language and reasoning in favor of men, but that g (general intelligence) is not different and not the cause.  If you make all other aspects equal then you should see less than 3% bias in gender employment.  There are no other gender specific differences.

 

 

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289605000851?via%3Dihub

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289605000887?via%3Dihub

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1348/000712605X53542/abstract;jsessionid=C6D7A4E80B7C2B25F2C734025D4B28E5.f03t01

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019188690300480X?via%3Dihub

 

Don't want to read all the studies, here's the conclusion:

 

Yes there's is a difference, but it's nowhere near big enough to make a lick of difference.

 

Physiology is only one aspect that contributes to the difference in representation though. There are still psychology attributes, societal pressures, opportunity, and general individualistic differences/interest that will factor in as well. And that speaks nothing of actual knowledge and skill.

Ultimately, forced diversity is a politically correct facet that is ridiculous for a lot of reasons.

[Misanthrope]

10 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

You are going to have to present me with some pretty serious (and supported) research before you expect me to accept that there is a physiological difference big enough to  warrant a noticeable imbalance between men and woman employed within an academic corporation.

 

Arguable at absolute best there is a 3-4 point difference in IQ specifically relating to math, language and reasoning in favor of men, but that g (general intelligence) is not different and not the cause.  If you make all other aspects equal then you should see less than 3% bias in gender employment.  There are no other gender specific differences.

 

 

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289605000851?via%3Dihub

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289605000887?via%3Dihub

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1348/000712605X53542/abstract;jsessionid=C6D7A4E80B7C2B25F2C734025D4B28E5.f03t01

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019188690300480X?via%3Dihub

 

Don't want to read all the studies, here's the conclusion:

 

Yes there's is a difference, but it's nowhere near big enough to make a lick of difference.

 

The problem is not in the position per se: Both genders are perfectly capable of fulfilling the functions needed. The problem is in the available pool of qualified candidates applying for the positions. I believe the author of the memo was speaking to intentionally hiring women at the expense of a more qualified applicant when Google's composition should basically mirror the pool of available candidates with a heavy slant towards men in engineering positions simply because more men choose engineering degrees vs women out of their own volition and free will. 

[matrix07012]

18 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

You are going to have to present me with some pretty serious (and supported) research before you expect me to accept that there is a physiological difference big enough to  warrant a noticeable imbalance between men and woman employed within an academic corporation.

 

Arguable at absolute best there is a 3-4 point difference in IQ specifically relating to math, language and reasoning in favor of men, but that g (general intelligence) is not different and not the cause.  If you make all other aspects equal then you should see less than 3% bias in gender employment.  There are no other gender specific differences.

 

 

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289605000851?via%3Dihub

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289605000887?via%3Dihub

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1348/000712605X53542/abstract;jsessionid=C6D7A4E80B7C2B25F2C734025D4B28E5.f03t01

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019188690300480X?via%3Dihub

 

Don't want to read all the studies, here's the conclusion:

 

Yes there's is a difference, but it's nowhere near big enough to make a lick of difference.

 

http://nmichiganave.blogspot.cz/2007/08/why-women-will-never-get-paid-more-than.html?m=1

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/why-brilliant-girls-tend-favor-non-stem-careers

Here are some that I have on hand and I will try to remember to find some more tomorrow when I get on my computer.

[PlayStation 2]

This reminds me of the bullshit surrounding getting women interested in STEM. Wanna know why men have disproportionally higher numbers in terms of jobs than women? Because there's more men who'd want to get into STEM jobs than women. It's all a case of forced diversity in the name of social justice. If a woman was unjustly disqualified from a job because she's a woman? Raise hell, I'd support you as long as your case is legitimate, but this is just a case of Google forcing diversity down our throats for no reason.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, divito said:

Physiology is only one aspect that contributes to the difference in representation though. There are still psychology attributes, societal pressures, opportunity, and general individualistic differences/interest that will factor in as well. And that speaks nothing of actual knowledge and skill.

Ultimately, forced diversity is a politically correct facet that is ridiculous for a lot of reasons.

 

So are you trying to argue that there is a legitimate gender difference that can explain the current gap?     Because if you are you'll actually need to provide some citations. I have already provided 4, and can easily show more.  There is no noted or observed attribute specific to gender that would legitimize a bias in employment in this specific field.

 

If we were talking about construction or sport where there are observed differences then I'm totally open to that, but not in academia where little to no evidence exists.   

 

2 hours ago, matrix07012 said:

http://nmichiganave.blogspot.cz/2007/08/why-women-will-never-get-paid-more-than.html?m=1

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/why-brilliant-girls-tend-favor-non-stem-careers

Not to sure what your point is.  

 

2 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

The problem is not in the position per se: Both genders are perfectly capable of fulfilling the functions needed. The problem is in the available pool of qualified candidates applying for the positions. I believe the author of the memo was speaking to intentionally hiring women at the expense of a more qualified applicant when Google's composition should basically mirror the pool of available candidates with a heavy slant towards men in engineering positions simply because more men choose engineering degrees vs women out of their own volition and free will. 

 

Yes, and I am saying that if someone tries to argue there is a physiological difference that precludes woman (where one does not exist) then you can ignore them.  Because if someone feels the need to lie to further their cause, then there is no way you can determine if it is driven from a genuine concern or a political ideal. 

 

 

[divito]

Just now, mr moose said:

 

So are you trying to argue that there is a legitimate gender difference that can explain the current gap?     Because if you are you'll actually need to provide some citations. I have already provided 4, and can easily show more.  There is no noted or observed attribute specific to gender that would legitimize a bias in employment in this specific field.

 

If we were talking about construction or sport where there are observed differences then I'm totally open to that, but not in academia where little to no evidence exists.   

I'm not saying there is one specific difference that contributes to the gap. It's an amalgamation of all of those differences that contribute to the "gap." There are so many physiological differences, it'd be silly to claim one is responsible for the multitude of things that have been documented, between admissions applications, score results, job performance, etc...

[Misanthrope]

10 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Yes, and I am saying that if someone tries to argue there is a physiological difference that precludes woman (where one does not exist) then you can ignore them.  Because if someone feels the need to lie to further their cause, then there is no way you can determine if it is driven from a genuine concern or a political ideal. 

I didn't see that from the author: He tried to point out the inherent differences that might lead to this difference in distribution among males and females. At most you can say that he spoke out of term when he should only be concerned with the available candidates instead of trying to explain why the candidate distribution is like it is.

 

However, he's not wrong: The behavioral differences exist and women do favor other majors and areas of expertise. This are only percentages of course and there's no absolutes but you can't just deny this differences exist and have a very real impact on the composition of a tech company like Google.

[christianled59]

In the tech industry, the gap seems (from my observation) to be a result of less females being interested in the field whatsoever. Not as many women get computer science/engineering/ any tech related degree as men. Considering how liberal many universities are, I'm wiling to bet women aren't being forced out of those degrees, but choosing not to get them.

 

In most of my computer science classes, there were only 4-5 women in a class with 20ish men. 

 

 

Similarly, it seems any STEM degree has similar skewed diversity. When people cry "wage gap", I find it hard not to roll my eyes at the idea. If a man and a women are working under the same employer doing the same job and were paid differently, it would be very very easy to notice. That is typically not the case. There are just simply less women in higher paying jobs which is likely a result of choice and not discrimination. (not denying there is discrimination, I'm just saying it is very likely less).

 

 

Being an employer myself, I only have a single female employee. Small team of varying professions. Its not about discrimination, she's literally one of 2 females to ever apply out of hundreds of applications. 

[Grinners]

58 minutes ago, potoooooooo said:

Yup. The guy who wrote that is 100% a closet sexist who is worried about women taking his job.

 

The only reason women aren't equally represented in tech is because society forced them away...and by society i mean this guy times 1 million

Can't tell if srs or satire...

 

Men and women are different. They have different interests. There is evidence to suggest that the more equal and free a society, the more people will gravitate towards their respective traditionally gender based careers.

 

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-trial-to-improve-gender-equality-failing-study/8664888

 

Having gender removed from applications actually made less women get hired in the above situation. 

 

This means that women (whilst underrepresented) were being hired partly based on their gender, not their ability.

 

But i suspect no amount of real world evidence will convince you that men and women are different or have different interests or skills on average. 

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, divito said:

I'm not saying there is one specific difference that contributes to the gap. It's an amalgamation of all of those differences that contribute to the "gap." There are so many physiological differences, it'd be silly to claim one is responsible for the multitude of things that have been documented, between admissions applications, score results, job performance, etc...

Your still not presenting me with any evidence.  There are huge differences from one person to the next they are not gender specific.

 

2 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

I didn't see that from the author: He tried to point out the inherent differences that might lead to this difference in distribution among males and females. At most you can say that he spoke out of term when he should only be concerned with the available candidates instead of trying to explain why the candidate distribution is like it is.

 

However, he's not wrong: The behavioral differences exist and women do favor other majors and areas of expertise. This are only percentages of course and there's no absolutes but you can't just deny this differences exist and have a very real impact on the composition of a tech company like Google.

I am not talking about preferences.  The issue is the author of the memo is trying to insinuate the there is a specific gender difference (that would be physiological because all other differences are environmental and thus not gender specific) as a reason for the difference:

 

Quote

 

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

 

 

These statements are not supported by any research.  I'm sure I'm not the only person who questions someones motives when they make such statements.

[divito]

10 minutes ago, mr moose said:

There are huge differences from one person to the next they are not gender specific.

Precisely. If there are huge physiological differences among individuals of the same sex, it'd be quite dismissive to think that no part of those differences impact other facets of individual performance. As is the nature of the small amount of studies, and statistics in general, most differences can be attributed to a margin of error.