google employee's internal diversity memo goes viral

[dowie]

He starts when an incorrect assertion and builds from there. The early days of software development saw a 50:50 mix of men and women. Clearly it isn't evolutionary traits that are holding women back. If women could succeed in the days of FORTRAN and COBOL, why can't they succeed in the days of JavaScript and Go?

Have women evolved since the 60s to make them less suited to technology? Or has the industry evolved to be less friendly towards women?

Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.

As I said, he claims that the "average" women can't handle stress as well as the "average" man. No evidence, just stated as fact. Not that Google is even trying to hire the average man or woman anyway.

again as already pointed out there are hyperlinks removed from the article so we don't know for sure which claims are supported or unsupported with evidence, regardless I posted a paper earlier in the thread supporting that claim

as for programming in the 60s - it has changed a bit over the decades since the time of punchcards, mainframes and COBOL etc.. I'm not sure that there is much evidence that google is systematically biased against women but rather that their applicant pool is likely skewed massively towards men to begin with, the lack of women in tech perhaps could do with being addressed earlier.

Though supposing there were issues with biased hiring/discrimination - surely the better approach would be to work out where those are and try to eliminate them, by going for some token/diversity hires to fudge the numbers a bit you're just treating the symptoms not the cause, in fact you're potentially letting the underlying issues remain but just concealing them.

I suspect though the biggest causal factor here is simply the make up of the applicant pool.

 

[FoxEye]

I suspect though the biggest causal factor here is simply the make up of the applicant pool.

The counter-argument is fairly obvious tho.

The more people see female judges, lawyers, programmers, etc... the greater the expectation of young women/girls that they can enter those professions too.

A tech scene where 80% are male might very well put school age girls off studying to enter a tech career.

/devil's advocate

 

[dowie]

The counter-argument is fairly obvious tho.

The more people see female judges, lawyers, programmers, etc... the greater the expectation of young women/girls that they can enter those professions too.

A tech scene where 80% are male might very well put school age girls off studying to enter a tech career.

/devil's advocate

I don't really see that as a counter argument (both can be true), nor do I see an issue per say in encouraging women to join tech firms. The author of them memo put forward some suggestions to try and help women in their careers - encouragement of part time work, less pressure in senior roles to encourage women to go for promotion etc...

 

[FoxEye]

I don't really see that as a counter argument (both can be true), nor do I see an issue per say in encouraging women to join tech firms. The author of them memo put forward some suggestions to try and help women in their careers - encouragement of part time work, less pressure in senior roles to encourage women to go for promotion etc...

Trouble is people are focused on outcomes not initiatives.

More females employed is a tangible outcome, more help for woman/girls is an initiative but might not lead to the desired outcome (as quickly as they want).

 

[FoxEye]

Was just featured on tonight's Newsnight programme. Two women discussing; one pro positive discrimination, one against.

Final quote was, "Diversity can make you the best candidate for the job; worst outcome is having a bunch of white men."

Again, singling out white men as a bad thing.

It's just ironic how she'll get away with saying this, and there will be no calls for her to be fired, no twitter outrage.

You really can express disdain for white men with complete immunity.

 

[Angilion]

The counter-argument is fairly obvious tho.

The more people see female judges, lawyers, programmers, etc... the greater the expectation of young women/girls that they can enter those professions too.

A tech scene where 80% are male might very well put school age girls off studying to enter a tech career.

/devil's advocate

That might be true, but I have two objections to the response to it:

1) Sexism is wrong. I don't care what excuse some sexists use to "justify" their sexism. It isn't justified, ever. There are no circumstances in which discriminating against a person solely because of their sex is justified, rational or acceptable, let alone a good thing to do that should be done as much as possible.

2) The belief in group identity that is the root cause of the problem is at best not being addressed at all and is usually being strengthened because the response is wholly dependent on belief in group identity and forcing everyone to comply with and publically support that belief.

It's only belief in group identity that results in the belief that a person requires lots of examples of the same group identity in something in order to even think about going into that thing themselves. It's not a rational belief. It should be discouraged, not encouraged.

Maybe, for example, Sebastian Loeb was partially inspired into rallying by watching Michele Mouton. I don't know if he did, but the timing is right - she was a famous rally driver when he was a child. If he did admire her ability and was inspired by it, why is that so completely wrong?

 

[FoxEye]

I think that whilst some group identity can be fluid and not entirely rational, group identity derived along male/female lines is pretty concrete and common in the real world.

It's probably fair to say that girls look for female role models, and certainly as a boy I was looking at male role models.

Nobody thinks all men are the same and all women are the same, or that males and females can't share commonality. But certainly growing up there certainly is a male/female grouping, where the boys did their thing and the girls did their thing. I don't think it's unrealistic to expect girls to look for female role models and vice versa, esp at school ages, where girls and boys really do move in different cirlces (until teens at least).

 

[Angilion]

I think that whilst some group identity can be fluid and not entirely rational, group identity derived along male/female lines is pretty concrete and common in the real world.

It's probably fair to say that girls look for female role models, and certainly as a boy I was looking at male role models.

Nobody thinks all men are the same and all women are the same, or that males and females can't share commonality. But certainly growing up there certainly is a male/female grouping, where the boys did their thing and the girls did their thing. I don't think it's unrealistic to expect girls to look for female role models and vice versa, esp at school ages, where girls and boys really do move in different cirlces (until teens at least).

I know that it happens. I know that it's common, concrete, expected and constantly reinforced.

I think that it shouldn't be. I think that it is neither necessary nor beneficial.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Was just featured on tonight's Newsnight programme. Two women discussing; one pro positive discrimination, one against.

Final quote was, "Diversity can make you the best candidate for the job; worst outcome is having a bunch of white men."

Again, singling out white men as a bad thing.

It's just ironic how she'll get away with saying this, and there will be no calls for her to be fired, no twitter outrage.

You really can express disdain for white men with complete immunity.

There's nothing wrong with white men, and I doubt she said there was. There is something wrong with a group of nothing but white men.

 

[dowie]

There's nothing wrong with white men, and I doubt she said there was. There is something wrong with a group of nothing but white men.

but that isn't what is being quoted - specifically she's apparently said it is the "worst outcome"

 

[FoxEye]

I know that it happens. I know that it's common, concrete, expected and constantly reinforced.

I think that it shouldn't be. I think that it is neither necessary nor beneficial.

As young children, nobody told the boys to play with other boys, nor the girls to play with other girls, from what I can remember.

As primary school kids that just happened. The boys ran around with a footballs, ninja turtles and fake guns; the girls... well, I have no idea what they did, tbh

Perhaps primary school is where the girl/boy grouping starts in earnest. But then I see adult males choosing to have boys' nights out, and women choosing to have girls' nights out... nobody is forcing this, it just seems convenient and natural for it to happen.

I make no grand claims but it seems that some degree of male/female grouping is actually entirely natural, and will probably always happen. The real argument is to what extent this is natural or desirable; how much it creeps into workplace and hiring practices and acts as a barrier to entry for women.

But I have little doubt that male/female grouping is not just a product of conditioning or society. Because it seems to be the case in all societies. It happens in other species too!

 

[FoxEye]

but that isn't what is being quoted - specifically she's apparently said it is the "worst outcome"

I'm going to be needlessly extra cautious here and say that I'm paraphrasing a little. Because at the end the two women - and the presenter - were somewhat talking over each other.

It was definitely "Diversity can make you the best candidate -" mumbled interjection along the lines of "not always", response something like "better than having a bunch of white men in charge <laughs>"

I played the damn thing back three or four times before posting, but paraphrased because on Newsnight they always let guests talk over each other (which is really, really annoying!), making the exact wording impossible to determine despite best efforts.

Suffice to say I have not misconstrued or perverted the POV of either speaker, which is the important bit.

 

[Angilion]

As young children, nobody told the boys to play with other boys, nor the girls to play with other girls, from what I can remember.

As primary school kids that just happened. The boys ran around with a footballs, ninja turtles and fake guns; the girls... well, I have no idea what they did, tbh

Perhaps primary school is where the girl/boy grouping starts in earnest. But then I see adult males choosing to have boys' nights out, and women choosing to have girls' nights out... nobody is forcing this, it just seems convenient and natural for it to happen.

I make no grand claims but it seems that some degree of male/female grouping is actually entirely natural, and will probably always happen. The real argument is to what extent this is natural or desirable; how much it creeps into workplace and hiring practices and acts as a barrier to entry for women.

But I have little doubt that male/female grouping is not just a product of conditioning or society. Because it seems to be the case in all societies. It happens in other species too!

Everything that's socialised strongly enough seems convenient and natural to the people concerned, whatever it is. Given that it's almost universal for people to treat people differently from birth based solely on what sex they think the person is (not even the person's actual sex - experiments have been done with adults interacting with the same baby dressed differently and with the adults being told they were a different baby with a different sex), that it continues throughout life and that there is a very vocal and increasingly powerful ideology devoted specifically to promoting sex group identity and prejudice and discrimination based on it (feminism), I think it's clear that sex group identity is very strongly and very actively conditioned and socialised. There might (or might not) be some degree of inherent sex group identity, but it is at least being greatly increased by socialisation and politics.

 

[FoxEye]

There's nothing wrong with white men, and I doubt she said there was. There is something wrong with a group of nothing but white men.

But that's another thing... would anyone - anyone - dare to complain about a board that was all black? All female?

Hells, no. It would be celebrated by all the media as a great triumph. An inspiration to others. A goal to strive for for all.

 

[FoxEye]

Everything that's socialised strongly enough seems convenient and natural to the people concerned, whatever it is. Given that it's almost universal for people to treat people differently from birth based solely on what sex they think the person is (not even the person's actual sex - experiments have been done with adults interacting with the same baby dressed differently and with the adults being told they were a different baby with a different sex), that it continues throughout life and that there is a very vocal and increasingly powerful ideology devoted specifically to promoting sex group identity and prejudice and discrimination based on it (feminism), I think it's clear that sex group identity is very strongly and very actively conditioned and socialised. There might (or might not) be some degree of inherent sex group identity, but it is at least being greatly increased by socialisation and politics.

But realistically, and given that we agree group identity along male/female lines is ingrained at a young age... what would you do to stop it? Given that our bias (not mine; no kids) as parents will be towards our own established (indoctrinated?) ideas and norms.

You'd have to say "no same-sex sleepovers"; "no boys-only friendships in the playground"... you'd have to enforce that boys and girls always played together outside school. And you'd have to make this the norm across the whole country because a small experiment wouldn't work without total isolation from the rest of the world.

And you'd have to have mixed sleepovers which I can see parents objecting to strongly.

I can't see us being prepared to experiment on children in this way. And if you don't, our ideas and norms will continually be transferred to our children.

 

[Angilion]

But realistically, and given that we agree group identity along male/female lines is ingrained at a young age... what would you do to stop it? Given that our bias (not mine; no kids) as parents will be towards our own established (indoctrinated?) ideas and norms.

You'd have to say "no same-sex sleepovers"; "no boys-only friendships in the playground"... you'd have to enforce that boys and girls always played together outside school. And you'd have to make this the norm across the whole country because a small experiment wouldn't work without total isolation from the rest of the world.

And you'd have to have mixed sleepovers which I can see parents objecting to strongly.

I can't see us being prepared to experiment on children in this way. And if you don't, our ideas and norms will continually be transferred to our children.

I don't think it could be done quickly, but other big changes have happened quickly so maybe I'd be wrong about that.

I'd be content with less fervent promotion of the idea of sex group identity by politicians, advertisers, etc. There has been a bit of that, but we're moving away from it again with the success of group identity political ideologies.

Realistically, I'm advocating just pushing it a bit less, not trying to eradicate it completely in a generation. I agree that wouldn't be possible and that the degree of authoritarianism needed to try to impose it would be a very bad thing. I'd like it to be ended within a generation, but I don't think that's realistic. In 200 years, maybe, but not in 20 years. Not without horrific authoritarianism that would be much worse than the problem it was trying to fix even if there wasn't any function creep in the authoritarianism (which of course there would be).

 

[Amp34]

True, TRUE Diversity is hiring the best person for the job, be that Male, Female or whatever gender identity someone decides to be on any given day.

Well true, true diversity could be argued as having a representative section of society to choose from. Currently that isn't the case, in part due to historic norms and the public perception of certain industries. Are women going to be as interested in an industry almost exclusively populated by white men for example? And if they do and enter the industry are they going to stick the job while surrounded by said group, especially if it comes with a male dominated culture?

Companies such as Google are predominantly white male, which is why there is a push towards greater diversity, to greater represent the world around them.

Not that I'm for positive discrimination, I'd rather push for getting people interested at a young age so there is a more societally representative pool to pick from in the first place - for both men and women, so opening up nursing and other female dominated industries to men as well (something that rarely seems to be discussed)

Also worth pointing out that some "positive discrimination" is put in place to counter "negative discrimination", that could be as simple as removing ages and DoB from CVs and applications, or more complex systems to try and remove the bias against foreign sounding names.

 

[SC04]

Companies only go pro-diversity for an easier life. Not that it's easy being diverse but it's better than taking flak from the 'you know whos' who are offended by anything and everything.

God forbid young boys grow up with a hunting instinct, make-shift weapons and tools, then gadgets and technic.

 

[Amp34]

There's nothing wrong with white men, and I doubt she said there was. There is something wrong with a group of nothing but white men.

A prime example:

https://www.google.ca/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-obamacare-men-mike-pence-picture-no-women-freedom-caucus-repeal-healthcare-bill-a7647426.html?amp

Diversity is generally good, forced diversity is obviously bad and so is no diversity, especially when dictating laws that don't even affect those making the decisions. Which is worse? Probably depends on the specific situation. Like everything broad brush strokes are rarely useful.

And another from the man that keeps on giving...

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.smh...ed-by-men-sparks-outrage-20170124-gtxn8b.html

but that isn't what is being quoted - specifically she's apparently said it is the "worst outcome"

See above. Would you not agree that in that circumstance forced diversity is likely to be a better outcome than the bunch of middle/older wealthy white men debating something heavily affecting women.

 

[Angilion]

Well true, true diversity could be argued as having a representative section of society to choose from. [..]

Which nobody is arguing for. A representative sample of society would result in almost everyone being unqualified for the job since almost everyone is unqualified for any particular job. For example, in the UK only about 3 in 1000 people are qualified doctors. If you wanted true diversity, then only 3 in 1000 people working as doctors could be qualified as doctors in order for those jobs to be filled by a representative sample of society. Also, a very large proportion of doctors would be children for the same reason.

What some people are arguing is that a few biological characteristics (usually sex and "race") are of such extreme importance that they define everyone, so a representative section of society must be measured by those characteristics alone. It's NewSpeak - what they call "diversity" is biological group identity, which is in key ways the opposite of real diversity. That's the least prejudiced view amongst advocates of "diversity". Many of them are just rationalising their own irrational prejudices against people with what they regard as the wrong biological traits. Racists using "diversity" to rationalise anti-"white" racism. Sexists using "diversity" to rationalise anti-male sexism. Sexual orientation, gender and sex changes are being brought into that as well.

I want real and relevant diversity. So, for example, in parliament I want people with diverse political views. In medicine I want people with diverse specialised medical knowledge and generalists. That sort of thing. What I don't want is the idea that all that matters is a person's sex, "race", sexual orientation or whatever is fashionable in any given time or place and that prejudice and discrimination on that basis is a good thing and that's what is usually meant by "diversity" nowadays. "Diversity" will almost always stifle diversity of opinion (as this incident shows), which is probably the most important diversity.

In short, "diversity" is bad for diversity. Or perhaps I should say that "diversity" is doubleplus ungood for diversity.

EDIT: There is a case for suspicious correlation. All things being equal and with a large enough sample size, the proportions of various types of irrelevant biological characteristics in a group of people should usually roughly mirror the proportions in society in general. When they don't, that's a suspicious correlation that warrants investigation. But it isn't a valid excuse for irrational prejudice and discrimination and it isn't a valid excuse for suppressing diversity of opinion and it isn't anything to do with real and relevant diversity.