Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:14:29, your argument would hold more water if women weren't actively reporting hostile environments in the fields that you are saying they are simply less interested in pursuing further studies. I was told from first quarter of my freshman year onward by male classmates that they couldn't believe I could have gotten a higher grade on a physics problem set than them or that I didn't "look" or "dress" like a physicist. I chose to stay in the field, but many women who loved physics quite rationally opted to do other things.

I do think it's probably true that women have broader interests, but you are simply postulating that teaching math is more people-oriented than becoming a professional mathematician. You are not considering whether women are rationally pursuing teaching math to avoid the harassment they experienced experienced in math departments.

Now, my anecdotes aren't data, but there are plenty of data showing women face harassment in these male dominated fields. Like I said, get rid of that harassment, and then you can argue that the outcomes are based on innate differences.

It's also interesting your data on medical specialties, which I don't know the stats behind. All of the radiologists of my generation that I know are women who chose that specialty because it is family-friendly.

Those stats are from the American medical association.

https://wire.ama-assn.org/education/how-medical-specialties-vary-gender

I actually mispoke, turns out OB/GYN is 85%.

Wow, never realized it 's so high. So is there an outreach effort to get more men into those women-dominated areas of medicine?

Anonymous wrote:14:29, your argument would hold more water if women weren't actively reporting hostile environments in the fields that you are saying they are simply less interested in pursuing further studies. I was told from first quarter of my freshman year onward by male classmates that they couldn't believe I could have gotten a higher grade on a physics problem set than them or that I didn't "look" or "dress" like a physicist. I chose to stay in the field, but many women who loved physics quite rationally opted to do other things.

I do think it's probably true that women have broader interests, but you are simply postulating that teaching math is more people-oriented than becoming a professional mathematician. You are not considering whether women are rationally pursuing teaching math to avoid the harassment they experienced experienced in math departments.

Now, my anecdotes aren't data, but there are plenty of data showing women face harassment in these male dominated fields. Like I said, get rid of that harassment, and then you can argue that the outcomes are based on innate differences.

It's also interesting your data on medical specialties, which I don't know the stats behind. All of the radiologists of my generation that I know are women who chose that specialty because it is family-friendly.

Those stats are from the American medical association.

https://wire.ama-assn.org/education/how-medical-specialties-vary-gender

I actually mispoke, turns out OB/GYN is 85%.

14:29, your argument would hold more water if women weren't actively reporting hostile environments in the fields that you are saying they are simply less interested in pursuing further studies. I was told from first quarter of my freshman year onward by male classmates that they couldn't believe I could have gotten a higher grade on a physics problem set than them or that I didn't "look" or "dress" like a physicist. I chose to stay in the field, but many women who loved physics quite rationally opted to do other things.

I do think it's probably true that women have broader interests, but you are simply postulating that teaching math is more people-oriented than becoming a professional mathematician. You are not considering whether women are rationally pursuing teaching math to avoid the harassment they experienced experienced in math departments.

Now, my anecdotes aren't data, but there are plenty of data showing women face harassment in these male dominated fields. Like I said, get rid of that harassment, and then you can argue that the outcomes are based on innate differences.

It's also interesting your data on medical specialties, which I don't know the stats behind. All of the radiologists of my generation that I know are women who chose that specialty because it is family-friendly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From a business perspective, I can't see how it makes any sense to exclude an entire 50% of the workforce from a single job category. Your competitors who figure out how to tap into the talent of women are going to have an advantage.

Top CS/engineering programs are overwhelmingly male. Top companies hiring tech talent would be dumb to not hire the best. I don't think anyone would look at the top 100 engineers who are lets say 90 male and 10 female and not hire the 10 females. What doesn't make sense is why would you hire say 10 more females and only 80 males. Those 10 more qualified/talented males are going to go to a competitor and eat you alive.

You think that at the margins the top 11-20% of women engineers will be outperformed by the bottom 10% of top performing male engineers such that the competition hiring the men will will eat you alive? I think you vastly overvalue the input of people who are rank and file engineers. They're not game changers.

Ugh let me try this. You hire the best engineer period. The race/sex of them is irrelevant. Hiring a less qualified engineer because they are a woman/URM is stupid and is why diversity quotas/targets/initiatives are stupid

Sure. But teh fact is: that doesn't happen. Women get hired less. They get promoted less. And this knuckledragger thinks they shouldn't be there at all.

It's not that simple. You may need to make changes to your organization to keep the best woman engineer that you wouldn't for a man. For example, making sure sexual harassment and intimidation is never acceptable.

It isn't google's problem to single-handedly solve discrimination but it isn't anyone's right to ignore the problem, either. And any professional in STEM has learned about implicit bias which also shows how it isn't that simple. There are best practices for finding and retaining talented women and minorities that do not sacrifice the rights of men. Tiny changes like how a job ad is worded can significantly increase recruiting of these groups without sacrificing skill-set.

What "rights of men" are being sacrificed in current practice?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3166361/


Women with congenital adrenal hyperplasia, a condition that gives them a more typically-male hormone balance, tend to show male preferences for things rather than people.

Consistent with hormone effects on interests, females with CAH are considerably more interested than are females without CAH in male-typed toys, leisure activities, and occupations, from childhood through adulthood (reviewed in Blakemore et al., 2009; Cohen-Bendahan et al., 2005); adult females with CAH also engage more in male-typed occupations than do females without CAH (Frisén et al., 2009). Male-typed interests of females with CAH are associated with degree of androgen exposure, which can be inferred from genotype or disease characteristics (Berenbaum et al., 2000; Meyer-Bahlburg et al., 2006; Nordenström et al., 2002). Interests of males with CAH are similar to those of males without CAH because both are exposed to high (sex-typical) prenatal androgens and are reared as boys.

Of course, this doesn't mean that one sex or another make better engineers but would appear to hint of a biological distinction that effects the initial pipeline.

But who shapes the pipeline? It's not crazy to think that sex hormones can influence the brain. But I just think we have very, very far to go with math education and gender, and workplace fairness, and fairness between spouses in household labor, before we can conclude that it's all to to "girl brain."

About half the math majors in undergrad are women.

https://datausa.io/story/06-16-2016_math-teachers/

I was totally confused by this for a while until a someone directed me to the data on what people actually do with math degrees. The answer is mostly: they become math teachers. They work in elementary schools and high schools, with people. (https://datausa.io/story/06-16-2016_math-teachers/)

Then all those future math teachers leave for the schools after undergrad, and so math grad school ends up with pretty much the same male-tilted gender balance as CS, physics, and engineering grad school.

This seems to me like the clearest proof that women being underrepresented in CS/physics/etc is just about different interests. It’s not that they can’t do the work – all those future math teachers do just as well in their math majors as everyone else. It’s not that stereotypes of what girls can and can’t do are making them afraid to try – whatever stereotypes there are about women and math haven’t dulled future math teachers’ willingness to compete difficult math courses one bit. And it’s not even about colleges being discriminatory and hostile (or at least however discriminatory and hostile they are it doesn’t drive away those future math teachers). It’s just that women are more interested in some jobs, and men are more interested in others. Figure out a way to make math people-oriented, and women flock to it. If there were as many elementary school computer science teachers as there are math teachers, gender balance there would equalize without any other effort.


You actually see this in the medical field, where men and women graduate at similiar rates, but women cluster in people oriented specialties (OB/GYN, pediatrics, psychiatry, which skew 60-80% female) while men cluster in thing oriented specialities where they don't interact with patients (radiology, anesthesiology) and surgery where the patient isn't concious.

I’m not familiar with any gender breakdown of legal specialties, but I will bet you that family law, child-related law, and various prosocial helping-communities law are disproportionately female, and patent law, technology law, and law working with scary dangerous criminals are disproportionately male. And so on for most other fields.

I should write a Manifesto about how testosterone makes men morally inferior. They are incapable of being nice. They cause wars and are statistically more likely to rape and murder. Instead of being in society, we should relegate them to prisons since they are already more likely than women to cause crime.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From a business perspective, I can't see how it makes any sense to exclude an entire 50% of the workforce from a single job category. Your competitors who figure out how to tap into the talent of women are going to have an advantage.

Top CS/engineering programs are overwhelmingly male. Top companies hiring tech talent would be dumb to not hire the best. I don't think anyone would look at the top 100 engineers who are lets say 90 male and 10 female and not hire the 10 females. What doesn't make sense is why would you hire say 10 more females and only 80 males. Those 10 more qualified/talented males are going to go to a competitor and eat you alive.

You think that at the margins the top 11-20% of women engineers will be outperformed by the bottom 10% of top performing male engineers such that the competition hiring the men will will eat you alive? I think you vastly overvalue the input of people who are rank and file engineers. They're not game changers.

Ugh let me try this. You hire the best engineer period. The race/sex of them is irrelevant. Hiring a less qualified engineer because they are a woman/URM is stupid and is why diversity quotas/targets/initiatives are stupid

Sure. But teh fact is: that doesn't happen. Women get hired less. They get promoted less. And this knuckledragger thinks they shouldn't be there at all.

It's not that simple. You may need to make changes to your organization to keep the best woman engineer that you wouldn't for a man. For example, making sure sexual harassment and intimidation is never acceptable.

It isn't google's problem to single-handedly solve discrimination but it isn't anyone's right to ignore the problem, either. And any professional in STEM has learned about implicit bias which also shows how it isn't that simple. There are best practices for finding and retaining talented women and minorities that do not sacrifice the rights of men. Tiny changes like how a job ad is worded can significantly increase recruiting of these groups without sacrificing skill-set.

Anonymous wrote:Another scientist seems to agree with the memo writer on the science bits also:
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manifesto-isnt-sexist-or-anti-diversity-its-science/article35903359/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

I see she links to many studies, but are those accurate and authentic?

She ascribes to the same untested premises as the now ex-Googler did. That STEM is less people-oriented, and so it's logical that brain studies showing a preference for people-oriented activities in women is a good explanation for why they are underrepresented in STEM. Ask people with PhDs in the humanities and in the sciences which field is more collaborative. You might be surprised at the result.

People are focusing on the brain science instead of the implications of what he wrote...which is that there is a causal link between biological differences and engineering capability. The problem isn't necessarily that women don't like STEM, it could be that the pipeline to STEM careers heavily selects for people who like the independent aspects of those jobs instead of the collaborative ones. The interesting thing, though, is that if you ask anyone why I've been able to accomplish so much as a research scientist and now as a tech leader, they will almost always point to my verbal skills...and more often than not suggest other people, men and women, try to learn from me. I'm also one of those out in the tails math-y people, but that's only a fraction of what makes me good at my job.

Anonymous wrote:Another scientist seems to agree with the memo writer on the science bits also:
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manifesto-isnt-sexist-or-anti-diversity-its-science/article35903359/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

I see she links to many studies, but are those accurate and authentic?

She's the same person quoted in the other piece. But more importantly this isn't a debate about "science." (Which, by the way, will never be able to sort out nature and nurture here.) It's a debate about whether there can/should be more women engineers at Google. You can blather all you want about "sex difference in the brain," but that still does nothing to explain the massive disparities in hiring and STEM education; and all the many, many anecdotes by women in tech about the toxic culture.

Anonymous wrote:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3166361/


Women with congenital adrenal hyperplasia, a condition that gives them a more typically-male hormone balance, tend to show male preferences for things rather than people.

Consistent with hormone effects on interests, females with CAH are considerably more interested than are females without CAH in male-typed toys, leisure activities, and occupations, from childhood through adulthood (reviewed in Blakemore et al., 2009; Cohen-Bendahan et al., 2005); adult females with CAH also engage more in male-typed occupations than do females without CAH (Frisén et al., 2009). Male-typed interests of females with CAH are associated with degree of androgen exposure, which can be inferred from genotype or disease characteristics (Berenbaum et al., 2000; Meyer-Bahlburg et al., 2006; Nordenström et al., 2002). Interests of males with CAH are similar to those of males without CAH because both are exposed to high (sex-typical) prenatal androgens and are reared as boys.

Of course, this doesn't mean that one sex or another make better engineers but would appear to hint of a biological distinction that effects the initial pipeline.

But who shapes the pipeline? It's not crazy to think that sex hormones can influence the brain. But I just think we have very, very far to go with math education and gender, and workplace fairness, and fairness between spouses in household labor, before we can conclude that it's all to to "girl brain."

Another scientist seems to agree with the memo writer on the science bits also:
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manifesto-isnt-sexist-or-anti-diversity-its-science/article35903359/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

I see she links to many studies, but are those accurate and authentic?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3166361/


Women with congenital adrenal hyperplasia, a condition that gives them a more typically-male hormone balance, tend to show male preferences for things rather than people.

Consistent with hormone effects on interests, females with CAH are considerably more interested than are females without CAH in male-typed toys, leisure activities, and occupations, from childhood through adulthood (reviewed in Blakemore et al., 2009; Cohen-Bendahan et al., 2005); adult females with CAH also engage more in male-typed occupations than do females without CAH (Frisén et al., 2009). Male-typed interests of females with CAH are associated with degree of androgen exposure, which can be inferred from genotype or disease characteristics (Berenbaum et al., 2000; Meyer-Bahlburg et al., 2006; Nordenström et al., 2002). Interests of males with CAH are similar to those of males without CAH because both are exposed to high (sex-typical) prenatal androgens and are reared as boys.

Of course, this doesn't mean that one sex or another make better engineers but would appear to hint of a biological distinction that effects the initial pipeline.

At least we know one thing. Since Google is as bad as Berkeley when it comes to socialist groupthink, the DCUM anti-AA folks will no longer ever whine about their snowflake kids not getting jobs at Google because of those brown and black people taking their spots.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

yes. James Damore was insubordinate to his employer in a way that made it impossible for him to do his job, and created a hostile work environment. Colin Kapernick was not. Any other questions?

Not true, Colin Kapernick was insubordinate to his employer in a way that made it impossible for him to do his job and created a hostile work environment. That is why he isn't in the league anymore.

Who did Colin Kapernick create a hostile work environment for (based on their membership in a protected class)? Was there something in his contract requiring him to stand for the National Anthem? And he didn't get fired; he opted out of his contract. The fact he can't get on a team now is due to team owners' racism, not the other way around.

FWIW, google can be your friend...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/vikings/2016/08/28/alex-boone-rips-colin-kaepernick-national-anthem-49ers/89514450/

Try again, genius. "Marines" are not a protected class under federal discrimination law.

He was still offended, just like some of the liberals and women at Google. You can't qualify an "offended" person and clearly reaching on the protected class theory.

Kapernick did not actively harass Boone over this issue in their workplace or otherwise. Nor Kapernick automatically assume that Boone was an inferior football player due to his race, sex, or political beliefs. Kapernick made a one-time statement that had zero effect on Boone or his ability to practice his livelihood.

And Boom goes the dynamite! The hypocrisy of Google is wide and deep