Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;53140560]You have to back your biotruths with more than just incidental evidence, if you wanna avoid it being a misogynistic viewpoint gl[/QUOTE] The "biotruth" that men and women tend to gravitate towards certain psychological traits? I didn't know that was something that defaults to being misogynistic. I mean, if it's sources you want, then sure. [url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11519935[/url] [url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18179326[/url] [url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15740445[/url] [url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24958978[/url] [url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2031866/[/url] [url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/[/url]

[QUOTE=Conscript;53140600]There's a couple important points tho 1. Women tends towards the mean of IQ whereas men vary more. You'll see more men at bottom and high rungs of society 2. Men use gray matter more than white matter, which means men are more tunnel visioned and task focused 3. Men have a smaller hippocampus 4. Men are more aggressive and competitive due to testosterone 5. Due to sexual biology men do not balance work and family like women do. [URL]https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hope-relationships/201402/brain-differences-between-genders[/URL] All these characteristics reward men in a competitive labor market, especially technical job markets that demand a lot from your life in lifelong learning and many hours None of these are political or controversial claims. You don't need to be an unreformed reactionary to see that people aren't blank slates[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Boaraes;53140601]The "biotruth" that men and women tend to gravitate towards certain psychological traits? I didn't know that was something that defaults to being misogynistic. I mean, if it's sources you want, then sure. [url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11519935[/url] [url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18179326[/url] [url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15740445[/url] [url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24958978[/url] [url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2031866/[/url] [url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/[/url][/QUOTE] I never said they were blank slates I'm well aware that physiological differences exist. That doesn't mean the state we have is purely a result thereof.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;53140602]I never said they were blank slates I'm well aware that physiological differences exist. That doesn't mean the state we have is purely a result thereof.[/QUOTE] We can agree on that. Do you agree that chalking up all disparity to systemic oppression and demanding equity is beyond a certain point a fool's errand and rent seeking behavior, and is also an injustice for the individual because of the the necessary changes being pretty total in scope and basically politicizing all aspects of life down to the interpersonal setting?

[QUOTE=Conscript;53140611]We can agree on that. Do you agree that chalking up all disparity to systemic oppression and attempting to correct is beyond a certain point a fool's errand and rent seeking behavior thereafter, and also an injustice to the individual because of the the necessary changes being pretty total in scope and basically politicizing all aspects of life down to the interpersonal setting?[/QUOTE] Yeah, at some point you'd be throwing in effort to go beyond what the "equilibrium ratio" would be without cultural pushes. Expecting 50-50 everything would be ludicrous (e.g. prosecutors will likely always be male-dominated.) Although as for the policy, it'd really have to depend on the policy itself. I don't think quotas are a great idea, but initiatives to encourage people to get into something I'm fine with.

[QUOTE=bitches;53140500]"politics" of offense typically don't include being put on a team with someone who said that 3/5 of women working for the company didn't deserve their job.[/QUOTE] Yeah, usually it's more like "I don't want you to feel safe talking about your political views" as posted above.[t]https://i.imgur.com/OCJOV8s.png[/t] Or "If you attend a tech conference well known to allow racist speakers, I will do what I can to drive you out of the industry". [media]https://twitter.com/justkelly_ok/status/960796811844780033[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/justkelly_ok/status/960798978907484160[/media] (ex-Googler, she left voluntarily long before the memo thing) [QUOTE=Conscript;53140501]I would rather a leader of a team be aware of natural strengths and differences to better utilize them instead of believing in a vulgar kind of relativism or social constructivism that gives no competitive advantage, just political points There really isn't a human society in recent history without a gendered division of labor. It's an evolutionary advantage as human offspring take more investment. You would [url=https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061207-sex-humans.html]beat a society[/url] without it.[/QUOTE] To a lot of us - myself included - there's great value in living in a society that prioritises equality over productivity/efficiency/social cohesion. Don't read this as support for any particular theory about gender differences - the idea that you can group most people into "men" and "women" and there's a great number of traits that [I]on average[/I] distinguish these two groups and that at least some of those differences are innate to the human species seems beyond reasonable discussion, but the details are still highly questionable because sociology is really really hard. Nor support for any particular hiring practices - I am going to say that I wouldn't want companies to hire underqualified personnel to forcefully achieve a 50/50 split on some demographic axis (but I'm not gonna comment on whether I think anyone does this either). There's also arguments to be made that diversity is inherently valuable in any team that does creative problem-solving (i.e. even hiring underqualified people from different backgrounds would increase productivity because of the different thoughts/viewpoints they'd bring to the table). But again, whether that's true, and whether that's [I]fair[/I], are two whole other discussions. But what I am saying is that I want to live in a society that resists Nature where it conflicts with my values instead of giving up and helping it along. Because whatever "practical" advantages it may have, a world where Men Are Men, go to work for a long hard day of chopping wood, then expect to come home to find dinner already prepared by their Stay At Home Wife, and this is the way of life everyone's strongly pushed from birth to adopt, maybe the [I]only[/I] way of life socially accepted, is just not a world I'd want to live in.

It doesn't seem like either of you are unreasonable. What's the disagreement in this thread?

[QUOTE=Boaraes;53140601]The "biotruth" that men and women tend to gravitate towards certain psychological traits? I didn't know that was something that defaults to being misogynistic. I mean, if it's sources you want, then sure. [url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11519935[/url] [url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18179326[/url] [url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15740445[/url] [url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24958978[/url] [url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2031866/[/url] [url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/[/url][/QUOTE] let me just post a graph from one of the articles you linked that says all I need to say about variance in personality traits: [img]https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/230750505012297728/414704836744052746/fpsyg-02-00178-g010.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;53140643]let me just post a graph from one of the articles you linked that says all I need to say about variance in personality traits: [img]https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/230750505012297728/414704836744052746/fpsyg-02-00178-g010.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Yeah, to think this is something people are getting up and arms over is kind of bizarre actually. It's like, yeah, these things have been studied and there is varying degrees of overlap depending on who you ask, but the overall narrative stays basically the same. This is what Damore is referring to in this part of his memo: [t]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGtsv1xUwAAcM_y.jpg[/t] It's rather silly to think this is anywhere near as harmful, misogynistic, discriminatory etc. as what people would want you to think.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;53140643]let me just post a graph from one of the articles you linked that says all I need to say about variance in personality traits: [img]https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/230750505012297728/414704836744052746/fpsyg-02-00178-g010.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] It's probably worth restating that the original memo very explicitly made the exact same point (before all images and source links were stripped off under the pretense of being trade secrets). [editline]18th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Boaraes;53140649]Yeah, to think this is something people are getting up and arms over is kind of bizarre actually.[/QUOTE] I don't think they actually are. A lot of people who are up in arms about it weren't exposed to this point because most articles labeled the memo as misogynist in the first five lines and omitted any of the original's explanations.

[QUOTE=Boaraes;53140649]Yeah, to think this is something people are getting up and arms over is kind of bizarre actually. It's like, yeah, these things have been studied and there is varying degrees of overlap depending on who you ask, but the overall narrative stays basically the same. This is what Damore is referring to in this part of his memo: [t]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGtsv1xUwAAcM_y.jpg[/t] It's rather silly to think this is anywhere near as harmful, misogynistic, discriminatory etc. as what people would want you to think.[/QUOTE] The differences between the means of the distributions are less one SD in the studies you cited, and in some cases this drops to less than half a SD. Individual variance completely swamps any gender difference when it comes to appraising a specific person. He even acknowledged this right at the start of his memo, yet spent 3,000 words explaining why we should focus on these differences in the workplace. Even if he wasn't fired for spreading this garbage in the workplace, he'd have been fired for applying such atrocious logic to his reasoning.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;53140665]The differences between the means of the distributions are less one SD in the studies you cited, and in some cases this drops to less than half a SD. Individual variance completely swamps any gender difference when it comes to appraising a specific person. He even acknowledged this right at the start of his memo, yet spent 3,000 words explaining why we should focus on these differences in the workplace. Even if he wasn't fired for spreading this garbage in the workplace, he'd have been fired for applying such atrocious logic to his reasoning.[/QUOTE] don't you think differences in agreeableness are going to contribute to differences in positions and therefore wages and leadership roles on a macro level, individual appraisals aside

[QUOTE=Conscript;53140720]don't you think differences in agreeableness are going to contribute to differences in positions and therefore wages and leadership roles on a macro level, individual appraisals aside[/QUOTE] You're missing my point. The variation between individuals is far greater than the difference between the average of each sex, and when evaluating people on an individual basis, this difference is not a relevant factor at all.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;53140764]You're missing my point. The variation between individuals is far greater than the difference between the average of each sex, and when evaluating people on an individual basis, this difference is not a relevant factor at all.[/QUOTE] Of course it is relevant to some degree, otherwise there wouldn't be a mean difference. This seems like something similar to Lewontin's fallacy. It's like saying that the variation in the kind of cars makes it difficult to distinguish them from trucks. I think we can see some shared characteristics, a mean of sorts, that will show up on a generalized level. We can make individual guesses regardless of individual variation and it will more often be true on average. This doesn't mean that for hiring purposes it will necessarily come up much, but you can reasonable expect the average difference in agreeableness to contribute to lifetime earnings difference as well as number of women in leadership positions for top companies. This means these two phenomenon aren't as supportive of political calls for affirmative hiring practices and quotas. Would you actually willing to put down money that on average in a tech company the women don't score higher on agreeableness than the men?

[QUOTE=DrTaxi;53140627]Yeah, usually it's more like "I don't want you to feel safe talking about your political views" as posted above.[t]https://i.imgur.com/OCJOV8s.png[/t] Or "If you attend a tech conference well known to allow racist speakers, I will do what I can to drive you out of the industry". [media]https://twitter.com/justkelly_ok/status/960796811844780033[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/justkelly_ok/status/960798978907484160[/media] (ex-Googler, she left voluntarily long before the memo thing)[/quote] Am I misunderstanding your point, or do you support attacking someone's livelihood because they hold opinions you don't like? [QUOTE=DrTaxi;53140627]But what I am saying is that I want to live in a society that resists Nature where it conflicts with my values instead of giving up and helping it along. Because whatever "practical" advantages it may have, a world where Men Are Men, go to work for a long hard day of chopping wood, then expect to come home to find dinner already prepared by their Stay At Home Wife, and this is the way of life everyone's strongly pushed from birth to adopt, maybe the [I]only[/I] way of life socially accepted, is just not a world I'd want to live in.[/QUOTE] Well, what if that's what the individuals want? Don't they get a choice in the matter? I mean there's nothing preventing a woman from seeking a job in a tech field, or getting a job there, just that there's less interest for those positions on average. So how would you resolve this lack of interest compared to other fields?

[QUOTE=Reshy;53140882]Am I misunderstanding your point, or do you support attacking someone's livelihood because they hold opinions you don't like?[/QUOTE] If you read it as agreement with Colm Buckley and Kelly Ellis, then yes, you misunderstood. I quoted them to point out that if you're gonna look for people creating a hostile work environment, people you wouldn't want to put on a team with <other group>, it's not guys like Damore you should be looking at. [QUOTE]Well, what if that's what the individuals want? Don't they get a choice in the matter? I mean there's nothing preventing a woman from seeking a job in a tech field, or getting a job there, just that there's less interest for those positions on average. So how would you resolve this lack of interest compared to other fields?[/QUOTE] That's quite a stretch. [quote][B]and this is the way of life everyone's strongly pushed from birth to adopt, maybe the only way of life socially accepted[/B][/quote] I want individuals to have the choice, and a society that doesn't set any norms for this.

[QUOTE=bitches;53140500]"politics" of offense typically don't include being put on a team with someone who said that 3/5 of women working for the company didn't deserve their job.[/QUOTE] It kills me that you're just creating claims that he hasn't made to get mad at

[QUOTE=bitches;53140500]"politics" of offense typically don't include being put on a team with someone [b]who said that 3/5 of women working for the company didn't deserve their job.[/b][/QUOTE] Citation please. You are just making things up and you don't even care to back this up.

New study just came out that supports hypothesis that the more liberalized and free a society is, the more individuals collectively make choices that result in gender disparities [url]http://www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem-girls-3848156-Feb2018/[/url]

[QUOTE=DrTaxi;53140940]I want individuals to have the choice, and a society that doesn't set any norms for this.[/QUOTE] That's fine I guess? I just don't think it should involve making a new set of norms to make it more equitable.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;53140665]The differences between the means of the distributions are less one SD in the studies you cited, and in some cases this drops to less than half a SD. Individual variance completely swamps any gender difference when it comes to appraising a specific person. He even acknowledged this right at the start of his memo, yet spent 3,000 words explaining why we should focus on these differences in the workplace. Even if he wasn't fired for spreading this garbage in the workplace, he'd have been fired for applying such atrocious logic to his reasoning.[/QUOTE] 1 Standard Deviation would be pretty huge. If this were regarding the agreeableness trait, it would mean nearly 85% of men were below the average woman in that trait.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;53143025]I'd say it is more economical. Gender roles are strong in "gender equal" countries too. This is my experience with Turkey and Germany, two countries that sort of fit the described two groups here. In my High School class, girls all went for STEM because they wanted to be able to earn their own money, which is nigh impossible with anything else. Here in Germany, however, you can study anything you want and probably still find employment. The incentive game is completely different. You can't make a free will argument without controlling for economic affluence and prospects for degrees.[/QUOTE] Makes sense, but that still seems to imply that more freedom means more gender disparity

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;53143265]I imagine that the economic "freedom" - as in being free to study any subject with no danger of real poverty as a consequence - does do that yes. However, I'd believe that this still isn't purely free will, and that gender role influence plays a big part in it. Gender roles would be easier to justify with less economic pressure against it.[/QUOTE] That honestly sounds like baseless speculation. If people with [I]free will[/I] make choices, then those are the choices that they want to make. Granted, the study does not in any way "prove" the hypothesis as no such thing is possible, but it does support it very strongly.