Google male engineeer saying female engineers shouldn't be engineers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the link to the full article where behavioral scientists respond to the memo:
http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/

I think a lot of people won't like that response because it doesn't comply with their own biases. Most people aren't rational thinkers, but instead emotional thinkers.

Lol. Those aren't "scientists." That's 4 social scientists advancing theories that are literally impossible to disentangle from the background social constraints, and are completely uniformed by a HUGE body of other research on gender performance, discrimination, and employment outcomes. The one person most heavily relied upon by Damore (Dr Schmitt) literally says the opposite of the Damore memo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if a Google employee would get fired if it was known that he/she supported a traditional or biblical view of marriage?

Hopefully. No one needs that kind of crazy in the workplace.

So no Christians or Muslims, then? Simply for believing in traditional marriage, and not actively discriminating? You're quite the bigot.

Not believing. Using those beliefs in the workplace to create a hostile work environment. Nobody cares what you do on your own time, but there are rules about what you can do at work.

Fair enough. What if he or she wrote an editorial or a letter to the editor defending traditional marriage, but did not identify as an employee of Google, simply a resident of Mountain View, CA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So if there are no gender differences, that means transsexuals don't really need to exist right? If males and females are the same in how they think, they no one is born with the wrong body, since both men and women think alike right?

Bingo!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the link to the full article where behavioral scientists respond to the memo:
http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/

I think a lot of people won't like that response because it doesn't comply with their own biases. Most people aren't rational thinkers, but instead emotional thinkers.

The fact that those respondents are behavioral scientists is irrelevant to their short responses which are primarily based on their opinions or are assertions without backup.

The first response hinges on one man's perception of culture in academia and of the comments to the manifesto. He is neither a cultural anthropologist nor has he backed up his assertions that academia is close-minded or that none of the responses were well thought out. Even on this site, the latter is not true.

The second himself said he's not an expert but also that he doesn't necessarily think any sex differences should matter when it comes to performance as a software developer...refuting the argument.

The third dances around the issue by saying that diversity is only necessary if there are inherent differences (a fact that can be argued since it leaves out the entire nurture or cultural aspects of differences) and that if it's necessary one should still expect differences of outcome. He says nothing about whether one should still tackle systematic bias.

The fourth seems to hinge entirely on her opinion that she didn't find the memo offensive...and calling everyone who disagrees with her unscientific. Hmmm...that might be unscientific.

Honestly, these debates are wearying. Yes, there are likely differences in ability between men and women. But no one has demonstrated that those differences make men better Google engineers than women, in which case literally everything else is irrelevant. There is a *huge* skew in outcomes at Google, and there are many women reporting their actual experiences of being marginalized. But all of that data is supposedly irrelevant, and research that is by definition hugely biased because you can't exactly raise humans in a vacuum to understand their true natures without nurture is definitive?

Get rid of gender bias in work, and I'll talk about inherent differences in ability. Until then, this is all exactly what it seems to be. Whiny victimization by people who feel threatened at losing their entitled status.

I'm not really even ready to concede that! The research on how girls get math anxiety is really persuasive to me. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/well/family/trying-to-add-up-girls-and-math.html?_r=0

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if a Google employee would get fired if it was known that he/she supported a traditional or biblical view of marriage?

Hopefully. No one needs that kind of crazy in the workplace.

So no Christians or Muslims, then? Simply for believing in traditional marriage, and not actively discriminating? You're quite the bigot.

Not believing. Using those beliefs in the workplace to create a hostile work environment. Nobody cares what you do on your own time, but there are rules about what you can do at work.

Fair enough. What if he or she wrote an editorial or a letter to the editor defending traditional marriage, but did not identify as an employee of Google, simply a resident of Mountain View, CA?

Then there's a much stronger case. That might be protected under state law that protects political viewpoints or out-of-work activities (I believe NY and California have such laws). If it expresses a religious viewpoint, then it would also be protected under federal anti-discrimination law. And if all the employee is doing is wearing a religious symbol at work or making known their affiliation with a church with a particular point of view, then I believe that would also be protected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The fact that those respondents are behavioral scientists is irrelevant to their short responses which are primarily based on their opinions or are assertions without backup.
...

Get rid of gender bias in work, and I'll talk about inherent differences in ability. Until then, this is all exactly what it seems to be. Whiny victimization by people who feel threatened at losing their entitled status.

I'm not an expert, but the Quillette did include links to what seem like respected academic journals at the bottom of the article. Are those studies not accurate?

As for gender bias, I agree. Does Google have an effort underway to ensure there are sufficient men in positions like marketing, PR, and HR? In most companies I worked in, these departments were dominated by women, and I saw no effort to promote diversity.

My point is not about the science (which as a physicist I am only partially able to critique). My point is that the science is irrelevant...because none of the science can address whether those biological differences have anything to do with how well someone will perform as a Google engineer. It might have been missed, but a former Googler addressed this point quite well, explaining that many of the things the manifesto writer claimed were weakening Google in the name of diversity were actually strengths in how they did their work and developed engineers into the management tracks:
https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788

I don't work at Google, so I can't speak to their diversity hiring efforts in HR. It seems to me that there could be advantages to promoting more diversity in those divisions, but I have no idea. What I do know is that company's like Google don't do things out of kindness or a sense of what's right. Everything they do is toward increasing their bottom line, and if they can earn some nice PR in the meantime that's just a bonus. There are very good reasons to think that having a product development and engineering that reflects the people buying or using your products will result in products that your buyers and users prefer. That alone is a reason to have a few more than 20% of your engineers be women.

From what I've seen, studies related to the benefits of diversity in technology don't really point one way or the other. I think there is something to be said when it comes to human factors design for having diverse viewpoints as different groups use technology differently.

I've never seen such a study. Can you point to one? It would depend greatly on how the benefits are designed, though.

Also, human factors engineering, especially in software, is no longer really a standalone discipline. It's core to how software is designed and developed...and no SW architect, which is the career pinnacle of someone who stays on the technical non-management track, worth their salt would design without a deep understanding all of the use cases for the SW being developed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if there are no gender differences, that means transsexuals don't really need to exist right? If males and females are the same in how they think, they no one is born with the wrong body, since both men and women think alike right?

Bingo!

let's flip this for you ... if you believe that gender differences are SO ingrained and important that all affirmative action is "lowering the bar", then you must therefore believe that people can be authentically transgender.

[Anonymous]

https://twitter.com/NPR/status/894711002964660224

If what NPR says is true, that doesn't portend well for those who claim there are no differences between men and women in the workplace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the link to the full article where behavioral scientists respond to the memo:
http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/

I think a lot of people won't like that response because it doesn't comply with their own biases. Most people aren't rational thinkers, but instead emotional thinkers.

The fact that those respondents are behavioral scientists is irrelevant to their short responses which are primarily based on their opinions or are assertions without backup.

The first response hinges on one man's perception of culture in academia and of the comments to the manifesto. He is neither a cultural anthropologist nor has he backed up his assertions that academia is close-minded or that none of the responses were well thought out. Even on this site, the latter is not true.

The second himself said he's not an expert but also that he doesn't necessarily think any sex differences should matter when it comes to performance as a software developer...refuting the argument.

The third dances around the issue by saying that diversity is only necessary if there are inherent differences (a fact that can be argued since it leaves out the entire nurture or cultural aspects of differences) and that if it's necessary one should still expect differences of outcome. He says nothing about whether one should still tackle systematic bias.

The fourth seems to hinge entirely on her opinion that she didn't find the memo offensive...and calling everyone who disagrees with her unscientific. Hmmm...that might be unscientific.

Honestly, these debates are wearying. Yes, there are likely differences in ability between men and women. But no one has demonstrated that those differences make men better Google engineers than women, in which case literally everything else is irrelevant. There is a *huge* skew in outcomes at Google, and there are many women reporting their actual experiences of being marginalized. But all of that data is supposedly irrelevant, and research that is by definition hugely biased because you can't exactly raise humans in a vacuum to understand their true natures without nurture is definitive?

Get rid of gender bias in work, and I'll talk about inherent differences in ability. Until then, this is all exactly what it seems to be. Whiny victimization by people who feel threatened at losing their entitled status.

I'm not really even ready to concede that! The research on how girls get math anxiety is really persuasive to me. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/well/family/trying-to-add-up-girls-and-math.html?_r=0

FWIW, differences don't have to mean "men are better than women at math". I don't think that's actually true, but I would believe that there are ways that women approach certain topics that are different than men...and I would also believe that traditional assessment techniques favor the male approach since that's been the dominant one for so long.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if a Google employee would get fired if it was known that he/she supported a traditional or biblical view of marriage?

Hopefully. No one needs that kind of crazy in the workplace.

So no Christians or Muslims, then? Simply for believing in traditional marriage, and not actively discriminating? You're quite the bigot.

As a woman, I fully admit I'm pretty skeptical about hiring or working with Mormon men. They don't believe women should have authority over men, and that can't help but cross over into their work life.

Bigotry means intolerance of others' opinions or beliefs. I don't tolerate others beliefs that I am inferior to them. If that makes me a bigot, so be it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://twitter.com/NPR/status/894711002964660224

If what NPR says is true, that doesn't portend well for those who claim there are no differences between men and women in the workplace.

That's a strawman argument. Few people are suggesting that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The fact that those respondents are behavioral scientists is irrelevant to their short responses which are primarily based on their opinions or are assertions without backup.
...

Get rid of gender bias in work, and I'll talk about inherent differences in ability. Until then, this is all exactly what it seems to be. Whiny victimization by people who feel threatened at losing their entitled status.

I'm not an expert, but the Quillette did include links to what seem like respected academic journals at the bottom of the article. Are those studies not accurate?

As for gender bias, I agree. Does Google have an effort underway to ensure there are sufficient men in positions like marketing, PR, and HR? In most companies I worked in, these departments were dominated by women, and I saw no effort to promote diversity.

My point is not about the science (which as a physicist I am only partially able to critique). My point is that the science is irrelevant...because none of the science can address whether those biological differences have anything to do with how well someone will perform as a Google engineer. It might have been missed, but a former Googler addressed this point quite well, explaining that many of the things the manifesto writer claimed were weakening Google in the name of diversity were actually strengths in how they did their work and developed engineers into the management tracks:
https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788

I don't work at Google, so I can't speak to their diversity hiring efforts in HR. It seems to me that there could be advantages to promoting more diversity in those divisions, but I have no idea. What I do know is that company's like Google don't do things out of kindness or a sense of what's right. Everything they do is toward increasing their bottom line, and if they can earn some nice PR in the meantime that's just a bonus. There are very good reasons to think that having a product development and engineering that reflects the people buying or using your products will result in products that your buyers and users prefer. That alone is a reason to have a few more than 20% of your engineers be women.

From what I've seen, studies related to the benefits of diversity in technology don't really point one way or the other. I think there is something to be said when it comes to human factors design for having diverse viewpoints as different groups use technology differently.

I've never seen such a study. Can you point to one? It would depend greatly on how the benefits are designed, though.

Also, human factors engineering, especially in software, is no longer really a standalone discipline. It's core to how software is designed and developed...and no SW architect, which is the career pinnacle of someone who stays on the technical non-management track, worth their salt would design without a deep understanding all of the use cases for the SW being developed.

I'm not sure if you really need a study. As a business manager, doesn't it seem obvious that you're going to be at a disadvantage if you dismiss a whole 50% of the entire population from a specific job category? Even if at the highest levels there are actual gender differences (which I don't think but we can concede here for the sake of argument), most workplaces are not seeking out only the top of the top. It seems to me that the firm that figures out how to tap hidden human capital (especially if this talent is eschewed by other firms) is going to have a huge advantage. It's gender arbitrage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the link to the full article where behavioral scientists respond to the memo:
http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/

I think a lot of people won't like that response because it doesn't comply with their own biases. Most people aren't rational thinkers, but instead emotional thinkers.

The fact that those respondents are behavioral scientists is irrelevant to their short responses which are primarily based on their opinions or are assertions without backup.

The first response hinges on one man's perception of culture in academia and of the comments to the manifesto. He is neither a cultural anthropologist nor has he backed up his assertions that academia is close-minded or that none of the responses were well thought out. Even on this site, the latter is not true.

The second himself said he's not an expert but also that he doesn't necessarily think any sex differences should matter when it comes to performance as a software developer...refuting the argument.

The third dances around the issue by saying that diversity is only necessary if there are inherent differences (a fact that can be argued since it leaves out the entire nurture or cultural aspects of differences) and that if it's necessary one should still expect differences of outcome. He says nothing about whether one should still tackle systematic bias.

The fourth seems to hinge entirely on her opinion that she didn't find the memo offensive...and calling everyone who disagrees with her unscientific. Hmmm...that might be unscientific.

Honestly, these debates are wearying. Yes, there are likely differences in ability between men and women. But no one has demonstrated that those differences make men better Google engineers than women, in which case literally everything else is irrelevant. There is a *huge* skew in outcomes at Google, and there are many women reporting their actual experiences of being marginalized. But all of that data is supposedly irrelevant, and research that is by definition hugely biased because you can't exactly raise humans in a vacuum to understand their true natures without nurture is definitive?

Get rid of gender bias in work, and I'll talk about inherent differences in ability. Until then, this is all exactly what it seems to be. Whiny victimization by people who feel threatened at losing their entitled status.

I'm not really even ready to concede that! The research on how girls get math anxiety is really persuasive to me. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/well/family/trying-to-add-up-girls-and-math.html?_r=0

FWIW, differences don't have to mean "men are better than women at math". I don't think that's actually true, but I would believe that there are ways that women approach certain topics that are different than men...and I would also believe that traditional assessment techniques favor the male approach since that's been the dominant one for so long.

I just find it so hard to disentangle from role-based beliefs. I can believe that where we are now, yes, grown women and men approach problems differently sometimes.

[Anonymous]

Is there any difference between James Damore and Colin Kapernick expressing an opinion? Just asking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if a Google employee would get fired if it was known that he/she supported a traditional or biblical view of marriage?

Hopefully. No one needs that kind of crazy in the workplace.

So no Christians or Muslims, then? Simply for believing in traditional marriage, and not actively discriminating? You're quite the bigot.

As a woman, I fully admit I'm pretty skeptical about hiring or working with Mormon men. They don't believe women should have authority over men, and that can't help but cross over into their work life.

Bigotry means intolerance of others' opinions or beliefs. I don't tolerate others beliefs that I am inferior to them. If that makes me a bigot, so be it.

Well, if your bias against Mormons were actually put into place, then yes, you would be violating anti-discrimination law. Absolutely. You can privately dislike Mormons, but you can't discriminate against them in the workforce.