Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber [UPDATE] Author Fired

[Commodus]

9 hours ago, Jito463 said:

Where was your "documented evidence" of "privileged white male"?  You show me yours, I'll show you mine.

No, you don't get to pull this cowardly bullshit.  You want to parrot sexist pseudoscience about women being basket cases who are worse at programming and leadership, you provide evidence of it.

[Commodus]

5 hours ago, MrDynamicMan said:

Well, it's not false, it's simply explaining existing phenomenon. You're already moralizing his position, and I don't belirve it creates any more internal tension than diversity quotas. Also, If I was a women I wouldn't really give a damn, he's not saying women can't be engineers, he's explaining the evolutionary psychology why men have a higher predisposition to the field. 

This is in no way an Alt right viewpoint. From his use of language I'd say he's a center liberal. Having been someone who has had conversations with many members of the Alt right their narrative would something like this: on average (minority) performs worse at (task) therefore (minority) should be completely barred from (task/social group). 

Also, it's rather petty to try and off a viewpoint as alt-right, and if this guy goes public with his identity I suspect he'll do well in the "skeptic" circles.

But it's not "simply explaining existing phenomenon."  It's pseudoscientific crap that sounds legitimate, but omits any real evidence.  That you trust his statements explicitly says more about what you want to believe than whether or not it's true.

 

Also, news flash: you're not a woman.  Every woman I know who's seen this document has said he's a sexist asshole and that they're glad he was fired.  Instead of imagining what women would think, maybe you should actually ask them and understand why it's sexist.

[Misanthrope]

11 minutes ago, Kumaresh said:

Well, if we go by that logic, then the mean is a very simplistic measure, and variance and range would be much more preferable to be examined in this context then.....

It would and that would lead to a far more nuanced and mature conversation vs Breitbard screaming "SJWs done did it again!" On one side and some extremists tweeting "Ok you fired the guy, now fire all the employees who agreed with him too!"

 

But such is life, we're not going to have much in the way of nuanced discussions. Despite the tone at times being difficult I'd like to personally thank all involved here for keeping this discussion relatively civil and reasonable. I know, I know it doesn't looks like it but trust me: 8 pages on News for a political thread is unprecedented for this forums lately.

[Sniperfox47]

Just want to point out since I didn't see it mentioned, Sundar Pichai issued an internal email reply and it leaked.

 

https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/8/16111724/google-sundar-pichai-employee-memo-diversity

 

While I think it's a positive move if the dialogue the reply speaks about happens and I greatly respect the quick reply to dealing with the issue, I also find it disheartening that he called out the use "neuroticism",  "stress tolerance", and "agreeability". While I feel his message was mostly a positive one, it's frustrating that his response was basically 'Yeah, let's talk about it, but don't use technical trait psychology terms with factual references because that's perpetuating a stereotype.'

[Commodus]

10 hours ago, Memories4K said:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/

Guy, this really isn't anything new; i don't say that to insult you but to comfort you in that this isn't some psycho alt-right nazi speak of whatever. This is actual psychology. Modern trait theory/psychometrics. I'm not sure what you were taught growing up or if you just so happened to never intuitively notice the relationship between behavior and sex but it's not about exceptions like myself and those women you know who don't "fit the mold". This isn't about stereotypes, NOBODY is saying that all men/women act like this and have these traits to the exact same levels.

Also, nobody is saying that they're only EXCLUSIVELY hiring based on gender; there's controversy because it's a FACTOR.

Only that's actually not a good example.  While I don't strictly challenge the core data, I have a few major problems with that study and how the ex-Googler made use of it (assuming it's the one he's thinking of).

 

First: it doesn't address the "why."  For example, with neuroticism: if women are more likely to be anxious and depressed, why is that?  It's not said.  You and the ex-Googler infer that this is some innate trait of women, but there's no evidence for that.  However, there's plenty of evidence that women are far more likely to be victims of abuse and sexual assault.  Body image issues are far more likely in women thanks to a society that places tremendous importance on a woman's waist size.  What if they're more likely to be anxious or depressed because they were more likely to have been beaten, raped, taunted or shamed?  I'm not definitively saying this is the case, but we really need a study that identifies the root causes, not just the symptoms.

 

After that, there's another looming question: if this is the study he's working from, why does he cherry pick the features he considers advantages and deal breakers?  After all, men in the study are found to be more prone to anger, while women score higher in "order, dutifulness, and self-discipline."  I could write a document claiming that men don't belong in programming because they're headstrong, prone to rage and have trouble fulfilling duties, and I could point to the same study.  And are there any actual findings that illustrate how the presence of these traits, and the degree to which they're present, affects work ability?  No -- and that's a huge problem.  Whatever findings the ex-Googler is drawing from, he's applying a personal spin that omits 'inconvenient' facts and skips necessary follow-up research. 

 

And lastly, even if we buy the claims that these are typical, inherent traits and that they're damaging in Google's work environment (but conveniently, no typical male traits are damaging)... well, the numbers still wouldn't really add up.  You'd have to demonstrate that enough women are so neurotic, so uninterested in ideas and so ill-suited to leadership that the company's existing gender ratios in tech roles reflect the number of women who defy those traits.  And simply speaking, I don't think you can.  Unless you believe the average woman is a genuine basket case who frets over every little thing, is utterly uninterested in ideas and declines leadership roles at every turn, the odds are that there are still plenty of women who would be fine software engineers.

[Misanthrope]

9 minutes ago, Commodus said:

owever, there's plenty of evidence that women are far more likely to be victims of abuse and sexual assault.  Body image issues are far more likely in women thanks to a society that places tremendous importance on a woman's waist size.  What if they're more likely to be anxious or depressed because they were more likely to have been beaten, raped, taunted or shamed?  I'm not definitively saying this is the case, but we really need a study that identifies the root causes, not just the symptoms.

You're talking about an interdisciplinary, life long study beyond the scope of almost any researcher to perform scientifically. Look I agree with most of your other points here but conflating this issues into this discussion even as just a suggestion is so far off base and off topic that I absolutely have to find issue. This is an inherent problem with intersectionality and it's insinuation on topics where is so tangentially related as to be pragmatically impossible for anybody without a Sociology degree to even grasp.

 

 

[Memories4K]

2 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

This is why I criticize the tone because while it might be possible the author realized this to me is not immediately apparent in his writing and does something akin to what you're doing here assuming "well this are averages, women are more likely to behave like this and have this preferences" when actually no, women already working at Google and possibly looking at internal promotions are again, on average, likely a far cry from those characteristics.

You're misunderstanding it; the point is that women are far less predisposed for the work, not that women are incapable of the work. There's no reason that women shouldn't be able to work to the same quality as another man, if not better/worse, in IT but that's not what's being talked about.

[Sniperfox47]

15 minutes ago, Commodus said:

First: it doesn't address the "why."  For example, with neuroticism: if women are more likely to be anxious and depressed, why is that?  It's not said.  You and the ex-Googler infer that this is some innate trait of women, but there's no evidence for that.  However, there's plenty of evidence that women are far more likely to be victims of abuse and sexual assault.  Body image issues are far more likely in women thanks to a society that places tremendous importance on a woman's waist size.  What if they're more likely to be anxious or depressed because they were more likely to have been beaten, raped, taunted or shamed?  I'm not definitively saying this is the case, but we really need a study that identifies the root causes, not just the symptoms.

Except the why is completely irrelevant to the question at hand... His point is that they tend to, on average, be more likely to have these traits, and that these traits may cause them to not be as interested in such a field...

 

His point has nothing to do with them being inherent traits. If they're societal issues that sucks, but whether it's societal issues or inherent traits doesn't change their likely hood to persue STEM fields...

 

18 minutes ago, Commodus said:

After that, there's another looming question: if this is the study he's working from, why does he cherry pick the features he considers advantages and deal breakers?  After all, men in the study are found to be more prone to anger, while women score higher in "order, dutifulness, and self-discipline."  I could write a document claiming that men don't belong in programming because they're headstrong, prone to rage and have trouble fulfilling duties, and I could point to the same study.  And are there any actual findings that illustrate how the presence of these traits, and the degree to which they're present, affects work ability?  No -- and that's a huge problem.  Whatever findings the ex-Googler is drawing from, he's applying a personal spin that omits 'inconvenient' facts and skips necessary follow-up research. 

Except he's not saying certain traits make them better or worse at the field... You're missing the whole point... He's saying these are causes that may result in them being more likely to choose other fields over engineering and other STEM fields, not that they make them inherently better or worse at STEM...

 

20 minutes ago, Commodus said:

And lastly, even if we buy the claims that these are typical, inherent traits and that they're damaging in Google's work environment (but conveniently, no typical male traits are damaging)... well, the numbers still wouldn't really add up.  You'd have to demonstrate that enough women are so neurotic, so uninterested in ideas and so ill-suited to leadership that the company's existing gender ratios in tech roles reflect the number of women who defy those traits.  And simply speaking, I don't think you can.  Unless you believe the average woman is a genuine basket case who frets over every little thing, is utterly uninterested in ideas and declines leadership roles at every turn, the odds are that there are still plenty of women who would be fine software engineers.

Dude, read his fucking article. He never says they're damaging or inherent... Just that they may be traits that lead individuals to choose a different field >.>

[Memories4K]

2 hours ago, Notional said:

Here's what 4 scientists have to say about it:

https://archive.is/VlNfl#selection-1275.0-1275.11 (main site is down, so I use an archive link, org link: http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/).

 

It's interesting that a woman actually in STEM, is not offended, but agree. Imagine that.

 

Well i mean Deborah has a PhD in sexual neuroscience; so she's far more qualified than anybody to talk about the behavioral differences between men/women, except maybe somebody who studies sexual behavior in evolutionary psychology who would be around the same level of understanding.
Look at that, Geoffrey is an evolutionary psychologist.
Great source lad.

[Memories4K]

1 hour ago, Commodus said:

No, you don't get to pull this cowardly bullshit.  You want to parrot sexist pseudoscience about women being basket cases who are worse at programming and leadership, you provide evidence of it.

It's not pseudo-science and nobody is saying women are inferior to men in programming/leadership; don't misrepresent people's arguments.

[Memories4K]

1 hour ago, Commodus said:

But it's not "simply explaining existing phenomenon."  It's pseudoscientific crap that sounds legitimate, but omits any real evidence.  That you trust his statements explicitly says more about what you want to believe than whether or not it's true.

 

Also, news flash: you're not a woman.  Every woman I know who's seen this document has said he's a sexist asshole and that they're glad he was fired.  Instead of imagining what women would think, maybe you should actually ask them and understand why it's sexist.

I want you to provide me evidence from a published peer-reviewed journal that says there is no such thing as sexual dimorphism or differences in recorded behavior between men/women on average.
I won't be part of your conservative anti-science bullshit, especially your sexist bullshit where you believe every women is part of a hivemind and i wouldn't find a woman who agrees with the memo.

[Misanthrope]

6 minutes ago, Memories4K said:

You're misunderstanding it; the point is that women are far less predisposed for the work, not that women are incapable of the work. There's no reason that women shouldn't be able to work to the same quality as another man, if not better/worse, in IT but that's not what's being talked about.

That point is understood. My point is that there's women already working at Google that, like all employees, look forward to promotion opportunities to advance their careers and this memo is not very encouraging since it doesn't do enough to clarify that 1) This is a statistic, not a stereotype 2) This goes out of the window for current employees. Since salary negotiation and leadership is discussed in the very same points it's not unreasonable to at least attempt to clarify this points further.

 

I know, too much concession, clarification and tip toeing around seems to be what I'm asking for but given the extreme reactions on both sides I posted about earlier to me it's a necessary evil when discussing sensitive topics.

 

That is to say I do not agree with people just calling out for blood without even attempting to discern what the author intended beyond his tone but at the same time I do not think it's reasonable for so many people to declare "Fuck your feelings we're talking facts!" when we've shown the information is not only not complete but easy to misinterpret. 

[Sniperfox47]

4 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

That point is understood. My point is that there's women already working at Google that, like all employees, look forward to promotion opportunities to advance their careers and this memo is not very encouraging since it doesn't do enough to clarify that 1) This is a statistic, not a stereotype 2) This goes out of the window for current employees. Since salary negotiation and leadership is discussed in the very same points it's not unreasonable to at least attempt to clarify this points further.

Except again, he's not saying in any way shape or form that such individuals should not be considered, just that such individuals should not be considered at the expense of other more qualified individuals for the sake of a diversity quota.

 

His points are with regards to why the candidate pool contains less women, and why forced diversity is not the solution.

[Memories4K]

26 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Only that's actually not a good example.  While I don't strictly challenge the core data, I have a few major problems with that study and how the ex-Googler made use of it (assuming it's the one he's thinking of).

 

First: it doesn't address the "why."  For example, with neuroticism: if women are more likely to be anxious and depressed, why is that?  It's not said.  You and the ex-Googler infer that this is some innate trait of women, but there's no evidence for that.  However, there's plenty of evidence that women are far more likely to be victims of abuse and sexual assault.  Body image issues are far more likely in women thanks to a society that places tremendous importance on a woman's waist size.  What if they're more likely to be anxious or depressed because they were more likely to have been beaten, raped, taunted or shamed?  I'm not definitively saying this is the case, but we really need a study that identifies the root causes, not just the symptoms.

 

After that, there's another looming question: if this is the study he's working from, why does he cherry pick the features he considers advantages and deal breakers?  After all, men in the study are found to be more prone to anger, while women score higher in "order, dutifulness, and self-discipline."  I could write a document claiming that men don't belong in programming because they're headstrong, prone to rage and have trouble fulfilling duties, and I could point to the same study.  And are there any actual findings that illustrate how the presence of these traits, and the degree to which they're present, affects work ability?  No -- and that's a huge problem.  Whatever findings the ex-Googler is drawing from, he's applying a personal spin that omits 'inconvenient' facts and skips necessary follow-up research. 

 

And lastly, even if we buy the claims that these are typical, inherent traits and that they're damaging in Google's work environment (but conveniently, no typical male traits are damaging)... well, the numbers still wouldn't really add up.  You'd have to demonstrate that enough women are so neurotic, so uninterested in ideas and so ill-suited to leadership that the company's existing gender ratios in tech roles reflect the number of women who defy those traits.  And simply speaking, I don't think you can.  Unless you believe the average woman is a genuine basket case who frets over every little thing, is utterly uninterested in ideas and declines leadership roles at every turn, the odds are that there are still plenty of women who would be fine software engineers.

Whoa, whoa, whoa; hold on. You don't challenge the core data. I just gave you evidence when you asked for it.
Your problem with it though is how the memo used that data?

You didn't read the study did you?
why are you back-peddling? hahaha
It's not about why, there's many factors to that; some of which you have listed, but it proves that SEXUAL DIFFERENCES IN BEHAVIOR ARE NOT ONLY SOCIETAL. You need to stop reaching for any societal problem too because there's also plenty for men to be anxious about in regards to imprisonment, false-rape accusations, societal apathy as well but they also scored differently.

He's not cherry-picking anything, you need to go look at the big five and it's significance as a job success indicator; why are there far more men in the military than women and how does that relate to the big five despite the fact women on average seem to be more orderly? 
You're trying really hard to spin this into your worldview so you don't have to face the fact you might actually be wrong about something, you don't want to "fight the dragon" because if you do you will come out of it changed.
He's not applying any personal spin, you need to actually read up on psychometrics related to FFM.

You keep spinning this to fit your narrative, NOBODY IS SAYING ALL WOMEN ARE AS NEUROTIC AS THE AVERAGE OR UNFIT FOR LEADERSHIP. I'm literally giving you the data you're asking for but you simply won't accept it because you want to protect your worldview and lack the humility to adapt when you're wrong.

[Jito463]

1 hour ago, Commodus said:

No, you don't get to pull this cowardly b*******.  You want to parrot sexist pseudoscience about women being basket cases who are worse at programming and leadership, you provide evidence of it.

You don't get to make sexist, racist comments about "privileged white males" and then jump on your high horse and play the white knight.  I never made such a claim, and you're completely over exaggerating my statements.  Your "high horse" is naught but a wooden rocking horse that's built for children.  Get over yourself.

 

 

I'm done trying to converse politely with you.  Good day, sir.

22 minutes ago, Memories4K said:

It's not pseudo-science and nobody is saying women are inferior to men in programming/leadership; don't misrepresent people's arguments.

Thank you.

[Memories4K]

19 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

That point is understood. My point is that there's women already working at Google that, like all employees, look forward to promotion opportunities to advance their careers and this memo is not very encouraging since it doesn't do enough to clarify that 1) This is a statistic, not a stereotype 2) This goes out of the window for current employees. Since salary negotiation and leadership is discussed in the very same points it's not unreasonable to at least attempt to clarify this points further.

 

I know, too much concession, clarification and tip toeing around seems to be what I'm asking for but given the extreme reactions on both sides I posted about earlier to me it's a necessary evil when discussing sensitive topics.

 

That is to say I do not agree with people just calling out for blood without even attempting to discern what the author intended beyond his tone but at the same time I do not think it's reasonable for so many people to declare "Fuck your feelings we're talking facts!" when we've shown the information is not only not complete but easy to misinterpret. 

1) I mean if you NEED that kind of clarification when he already sourced it within the memo, but sure.

2) Well this memo also comes as a response to the fact Google was found out to have paid their female workers less than male workers on average, i honestly thought he clarified it fine considering the relevancy internally at Google but i can understand if he were to be e-mailing outside of Google.

No it makes sense but now it's kinda the gift of hindsight hahaha i can't really expect the leaked memo to be updated but i do understand. I really don't believe it's easy to misinterpret at all unless you're some ideologue that lacks humility or empathy, he's making it very clear within the memo what it's about and what he sees that Google as a corporation seems to not be forthright to. Incomplete sure, we're not given the direct sources of the data but you can see that he did in fact have many sources in his memo, given the tone of the memo though and the fact the author has come out as a classical liberal i'm inclined to believe it wasn't a Breitbart article in every source hahaha

[Memories4K]

25 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Except again, he's not saying in any way shape or form that such individuals should not be considered, just that such individuals should not be considered at the expense of other more qualified individuals for the sake of a diversity quota.

 

His points are with regards to why the candidate pool contains less women, and why forced diversity is not the solution.

^^^This right here.

[Brooksie359]

52 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Only that's actually not a good example.  While I don't strictly challenge the core data, I have a few major problems with that study and how the ex-Googler made use of it (assuming it's the one he's thinking of).

 

First: it doesn't address the "why."  For example, with neuroticism: if women are more likely to be anxious and depressed, why is that?  It's not said.  You and the ex-Googler infer that this is some innate trait of women, but there's no evidence for that.  However, there's plenty of evidence that women are far more likely to be victims of abuse and sexual assault.  Body image issues are far more likely in women thanks to a society that places tremendous importance on a woman's waist size.  What if they're more likely to be anxious or depressed because they were more likely to have been beaten, raped, taunted or shamed?  I'm not definitively saying this is the case, but we really need a study that identifies the root causes, not just the symptoms.

 

After that, there's another looming question: if this is the study he's working from, why does he cherry pick the features he considers advantages and deal breakers?  After all, men in the study are found to be more prone to anger, while women score higher in "order, dutifulness, and self-discipline."  I could write a document claiming that men don't belong in programming because they're headstrong, prone to rage and have trouble fulfilling duties, and I could point to the same study.  And are there any actual findings that illustrate how the presence of these traits, and the degree to which they're present, affects work ability?  No -- and that's a huge problem.  Whatever findings the ex-Googler is drawing from, he's applying a personal spin that omits 'inconvenient' facts and skips necessary follow-up research. 

 

And lastly, even if we buy the claims that these are typical, inherent traits and that they're damaging in Google's work environment (but conveniently, no typical male traits are damaging)... well, the numbers still wouldn't really add up.  You'd have to demonstrate that enough women are so neurotic, so uninterested in ideas and so ill-suited to leadership that the company's existing gender ratios in tech roles reflect the number of women who defy those traits.  And simply speaking, I don't think you can.  Unless you believe the average woman is a genuine basket case who frets over every little thing, is utterly uninterested in ideas and declines leadership roles at every turn, the odds are that there are still plenty of women who would be fine software engineers.

He is just trying to explain why not as many women go into stem. Is he right? Nobody really can say one way or the other with certainty but he was not trying to say women are not good at stem jobs he was just saying there is an underlying reason as to why not as many women go into stem and as a result trying to achieve a percentage of women in the workplace that is higher than the average in the feild through discrimination based on gender is flawed and impractical.

[Commodus]

8 minutes ago, Memories4K said:

Whoa, whoa, whoa; hold on. You don't challenge the core data. I just gave you evidence when you asked for it.
Your problem with it though is how the memo used that data?

You didn't read the study did you?
why are you back-peddling? hahaha
It's not about why, there's many factors to that; some of which you have listed, but it proves that SEXUAL DIFFERENCES IN BEHAVIOR ARE NOT ONLY SOCIETAL. You need to stop reaching for any societal problem too because there's also plenty for men to be anxious about in regards to imprisonment, false-rape accusations, societal apathy as well but they also scored differently.

He's not cherry-picking anything, you need to go look at the big five and it's significance as a job success indicator; why are there far more men in the military than women and how does that relate to the big five despite the fact women on average seem to be more orderly? 
You're trying really hard to spin this into your worldview so you don't have to face the fact you might actually be wrong about something, you don't want to "fight the dragon" because if you do you will come out of it changed.
He's not applying any personal spin, you need to actually read up on psychometrics related to FFM.

You keep spinning this to fit your narrative, NOBODY IS SAYING ALL WOMEN ARE AS NEUROTIC AS THE AVERAGE OR UNFIT FOR LEADERSHIP. I'm literally giving you the data you're asking for but you simply won't accept it because you want to protect your worldview and lack the humility to adapt when you're wrong.

Here's the thing: in science, it's not enough to simply dump data in someone's lap and say "see!  Proof!"  It has to be complete data, illustrating the actual point you're trying to prove and not just providing superficial support to your preconceived ideas.  And I don't see that.  It's akin to those old race studies that 'proved' non-whites weren't as intelligent by citing IQ tests, but conveniently excluded crucial factors like access to education.

 

I did read the study, and again, it doesn't actually go into the "why," just that genders tended to skew toward trait X or Y.  And I'm sorry, but jail time and false rape accusations are not a regular enough stressor to play into a study like this.  FBI data indicates that 8 percent of rape accusations are "unfounded" -- and the actual figure of false rape accusations is much lower than that, because "unfounded" includes cases where the woman didn't resist (usually because she knew she would be beaten or killed).  That means that the vast majority of cases were well-founded.  Meanwhile, the data I provided earlier indicates that 1 in 6 women have been victims of attempted or completed rape.  That's not including groping or harassment.  In other words, sexual assault is a widespread, persistent problem for women that could seriously skew their emotional responses, while false rape accusations are an insignificant speck on men's psyches.

 

You claim I'm trying to spin this to fit my narrative, but that's not true; I'm just trying to get real evidence, not token "here, now get off my back" links.  And I didn't say you were claiming that all women were seriously neurotic or incapable of leadership -- it's that you're implying a large chunk of them are, or at least that enough of them are that low ratios at Google and other tech companies are justifiable.  The evidence doesn't support this; even if many women are more likely to be anxious, are they so anxious that they can't excel as programmers?  Why should we protect the status quo knowing that it leads to homogenous work cultures where those women that do get in are harassed and ostracized?  Shouldn't we create a welcoming environment for women in tech instead of suggesting that it's largely pointless for them, like you do?

[FakeNSA]

4 minutes ago, Kumaresh said:

On a more serious note, while I may not be technically qualified to answer some of the questions raised in this thread, I know for a fact that some people need to CALM THE FUCK DOWN. Relax, take a chill pill. The question seems to have boiled down to whether women are naturally disinclined towards the tech industry on average, or whether there are systemic factors which seem to be driving them away from this particular field. Whenever you have a really long chain of arguments, it would be wise to consider all of your PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS and then run a sanity check on everything you say. Double check or even triple check everything you say and what others say as well and follow certain scenarios to their logical conclusions. I will help with this process tomorrow, good night everybody

Good night. I am in agreement, that this is a war of two deeply intrenched beliefs. Perhaps we should just leave this for a few hours. Y'all are getting a little too heated in here, and we might get locked for it.

[Memories4K]

1 hour ago, Commodus said:

Here's the thing: in science, it's not enough to simply dump data in someone's lap and say "see!  Proof!"  It has to be complete data, illustrating the actual point you're trying to prove and not just providing superficial support to your preconceived ideas.  And I don't see that.  It's akin to those old race studies that 'proved' non-whites weren't as intelligent by citing IQ tests, but conveniently excluded crucial factors like access to education.

 

I did read the study, and again, it doesn't actually go into the "why," just that genders tended to skew toward trait X or Y.  And I'm sorry, but jail time and false rape accusations are not a regular enough stressor to play into a study like this.  FBI data indicates that 8 percent of rape accusations are "unfounded" -- and the actual figure of false rape accusations is much lower than that, because "unfounded" includes cases where the woman didn't resist (usually because she knew she would be beaten or killed).  That means that the vast majority of cases were well-founded.  Meanwhile, the data I provided earlier indicates that 1 in 6 women have been victims of attempted or completed rape.  That's not including groping or harassment.  In other words, sexual assault is a widespread, persistent problem for women that could seriously skew their emotional responses, while false rape accusations are an insignificant speck on men's psyches.

 

You claim I'm trying to spin this to fit my narrative, but that's not true; I'm just trying to get real evidence, not token "here, now get off my back" links.  And I didn't say you were claiming that all women were seriously neurotic or incapable of leadership -- it's that you're implying a large chunk of them are, or at least that enough of them are that low ratios at Google and other tech companies are justifiable.  The evidence doesn't support this; even if many women are more likely to be anxious, are they so anxious that they can't excel as programmers?  Why should we protect the status quo knowing that it leads to homogenous work cultures where those women that do get in are harassed and ostracized?  Shouldn't we create a welcoming environment for women in tech instead of suggesting that it's largely pointless for them, like you do?

It was complete data and it perfectly illustrated my point, what is this hahaha
It's not about why, that was never the point, you keep calling this some kind of pseudo-science when it's a long-standing merit based theory. 
LMAO WUT
Indentured servitude and the threat of the destruction of your entire livelihood are not regular enough stressors but your equally paranoid stressors for women are?

Get the fuck out of here with that when 44% of cases using the same statistics did not proceed due to insufficient evidence. You want to use statistics to fit your narrative but you won't actually read the studies.
Also, you provided no such data earlier; i'm the only one who's actually provided data. Your apathy is very clear.
You are literally dodging and trying to squirm out of any kind of responsibility by dodging your original position in order to not seem wrong, that is trying to fit your narrative. No, i didn't even imply a large chunk of women are neurotic, that's the thing; i implied strictly that a low ratio of women is justifiable and that women on average do in fact have higher levels of neuroticism. It's not just simply being neurotic, neuroticism is a personality trait. You keep thinking that neuroticism is some kind of insult instead of a personality trait.
The evidence doesn't support this? The evidence literally supports this hahaha You're really being transparent here

No i'm done, i can mildly tolerate your racist and sexist attitude on POC and women but you really are an ideologue who lacks the humility to be sincere.

[Soonercoop]

I personally think that the reason there is a "gap" in tech or any other field is largely due to societal pressures. Women have historically been pressured to pursue certain careers and grow up seeing the lasting effects of these pressures in what careers their mothers or other women pursue. In the same way that as a child a favorite color like pink or purple is considered "effeminate" and trucks, cars, and dinosaurs are not, jobs like teaching, lower level medical jobs, etc. have long been considered by society as "effeminate". These pressures fuel their interests (usually not technology) and thus the careers they pursue (usually not technology). Anyone who thinks that discrimination, physiological differences, etc is largely or solely responsible for this gap is looking for a reason to be angry at "the man" because it makes them feel like they are correct in the current storm of corruption and controversy in politics. The way we fix this "gap" is to treat each both genders as the same throughout development, something almost nobody who complains about it does, and that would be near impossible to do because gender roles are ingrained in every aspect of society and history. Using buzzwords like "sexist" and "misogynist" towards people who think forced diversity is not the answer doesn't help anybody either, it simply fuels the hate for left-leaning views and policies among those who are unwilling to accept fast change.

 

inb4 this post is removed

[Tech_Dreamer]

Pragmatism vs ideology

 

Talking based on facts vs Talking to impress a collective audience based on what they like .

[skyace65]

Just going to add my own two cents and anecdotal experiences.

 

Saying women on average aren't as interested as men in stuff like coding is completely accurate.

 

Back in high school(I graduated 2 years ago) I was the president of the technology club. The majority of the club was men. We focused on robotics and video game design, though if you had a new idea for something the club could do you were welcome to try, we even had a drone at one point until it was grounded for insurance reasons. The club was open to everyone, and if you were interested all you had to do was show up. Please tell me how discrimination stopped women from joining our club.

 

Right now I'm currently attending a college for animation, and the majority of people in my major are guys. And before someone brings it up I'm aware that CalArts(it's an animation school) in California is mostly women. However from the student work I've seen they focus more on 2D animation while my schools program focuses on 3D. Back to my school, we also have a coding major. And the majority of people I've met in the coding major are men. So after college If I want to start an animation or videogame company with the people I know from school, it's going to be mostly men.

 

How is any tech company supposed to have close to 50/50 representation when the people graduating with STEM degrees isn't 50/50 men and women? And furthermore why is it a problem as long as women aren't being discouraged? Someone give me clear evidence of most colleges or highschools discouraging women from going into STEM.

 

And I understand that genuine sexism in some companies does exist, and it deserves to be called out and stopped. However if the thought that you might end up in a shitty situation when you have a job was enough to stop someone from studying STEM, me and many other people wouldn't be trying to get into the game industry after reading about how some game companies treat their employees during crunch time.

[mr moose]

7 hours ago, dexT said:

Maybe in Melbourne you're "fairly right wing" but from the exchanges I've had with you it seems to be the polar opposite.

 

My ideals do place me mostly in the right camp.  If I was in the US my leaning would be toward the republicans.  However I am not a moron and I have in-depth experience in sociology, education and a 20 year interests in politics.   Which leads me to understand that certain political parties/members are not representative of the wing they classically are considered to represent.   I have enough experience with sociology to know it is not on the whole just random people making shit up to passify an ideal, that is the media/lobby group realm.   Same with general political position, not all socialists are naive morons who don't understand they are taking the world into communism, and not all republicans are young earth morons who want to see homosexuals burnt at the stake.  There is a lot of crossover in middle.

 

The biggest issue with being heavily engaged to one side is that any leaning that is not 100% toward them is seen as against.  For many cannot accept that the swinging voter is exactly that, and when a different view is expressed they are not seen as swinging or middle ground but as the opposing political force.