The Atlantic: The Most Common Error in Media Coverage of the Google Memo

[Destino]

Quote

This week, headlines across a diverse array of media outlets proclaimed that  at least one Google employee was so antagonistic to women that he circulated a 10-page “anti-diversity screed.”
 

That is how Gizmodo characterized the now infamous internal memo when publishing it Saturday. Similar language was used in headlines at Fox News, CNN, ABC News, the BBC, NBC News, Time, Slate, Engadget, The Huffington Post, PBS, Fast Company, and beyond (including a fleeting appearance in a headline here at The Atlantic).

But love or hate the memo, which makes a number of substantive claims, some of which I regard as wrongheaded (and which would’ve benefitted greatly from an editor with more emotional intelligence than the author to help him avoid alienating his audience, even if he was determined to raise all of the same arguments), the many characterizations of the memo as “anti-diversity” are inaccurate.

Using that shorthand is highly misleading.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/the-most-common-error-in-coverage-of-the-google-memo/536181/#article-comments

 

I thought it was worth reading no matter what you think of the memo. 

 

If you want to read the memo in full with all citations included you can do so here:  https://diversitymemo.com

[ixcuincle]

The memo is sexist garbage 

[Spaceman Spiff]

As someone who recruits for IT positions, I've met some fantastic female candidates that can run circles around men from a tech perspective.  I've also met some terrible ones that couldn't figure out CTRL ALT DEL.  Just like I've met some fantastic male candidates and others that are awful.

 

From my experience, nothing annoys people in the broad umbrella of IT than co-workers who can't pull their weight and constantly do things incorrectly.  Male or female.  I'm sure that's a "no ****" statement for a lot of work environments but for an industry that puts a high value on uptime and efficiency, there's not a lot of tolerance for people who can't/won't learn from mistakes and aren't interested in doing so. I think the very nature of most IT positions value nothing more than someone who can just "get it done" and moreover makes sure the issue at hand doesn't happen again.  The high powered C-level exec who can't access his files on a weekend and calls the service desk doesn't give a **** if the person on the end of the line is male or female, black or white...all that matters is that the person on the other end of the phone can find a quick way to fix the issue.  The Fortune 500 company who's looking to go into AWS wants it done quickly and efficiently and for the best price.  Again, I don't think they care who's doing it and as long as it gets done correctly.  This is similar to taking your car to a garage and getting it running correctly.  You don't care who's under the hood, just get it fixed so you can get back on the road and on with your day.

 

The Atlantic article does a good job (I skimmed it, admittedly) of bringing up points that people would like to ignore.  There are some good points in the google memo, there are others that are weird and, as the other states "wrongheaded".  

 

As I mentioned, I think the inherent nature of IT is to put a premium on people that can get the job done right the first time and do it efficiently.  As tech needs increase, I think schools are doing a good job of offering programming classes and IT classes at a young age in order to give more kids options.  (Options I wish I had.  I find this stuff interesting and would like to learn more of it.  I tried to install Linux on a laptop a few weeks ago and it took me almost all afternoon.)  What matters here is what people naturally gravitate to and the selective process of the craft as a profession moving forward.  I think it's perfectly fine that there aren't a lot of women in IT if that's due to the fact that they don't find it interesting.  On a similar note, there aren't a lot of men in the fashion arena, either, but no one's crying about that.  Just how it shakes out sometimes.  But just like sports has a way of weeding out the people that aren't good enough  to get to the next level (I couldn't make it past college baseball), IT does the same and that should be perfectly fine, too.  

[s0crates]

1 hour ago, ixcuincle said:

The memo is sexist garbage 

 

Which part?

[ixcuincle]

4 minutes ago, s0crates said:

 

Which part?

 

The part where he implies that women are biologically inferior to men and that is why they can't get IT jobs. 

[s0crates]

2 minutes ago, ixcuincle said:

 

The part where he implies that women are biologically inferior to men and that is why they can't get IT jobs. 

 

I must have missed that part when I read it, can you provide a quote?

[ixcuincle]

10 minutes ago, s0crates said:

 

I must have missed that part when I read it, can you provide a quote?

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/business/google-women-engineer-fired-memo.html

 

SAN FRANCISCO — Google on Monday fired a software engineer who wrote an internal memo that questioned the company’s diversity efforts and argued that the low number of women in technical positions was a result of biological differences instead of discrimination.

The memo, called “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber,” angered many in Silicon Valley because it relied on certain gender stereotypes — like the notion that women are less interested in high-stress jobs because they are more anxious — to rationalize the gender gap in the tech industry. The memo quickly spread outside the company, as other Google employees railed against many of its assumptions.

[BornaSkinsFan83]

Lmao.

 

I remember when i said the whole Bernie or Bust crowd seemed like white male privilege dressed differently and people on here scoffed and guffawed. I officially rest my case. 

 

Anyway, i don't give two ****s what some racist dry-dick IT ****--who wants the whole world to meet him on his terms goddammit--thinks about women. Enjoy unemployment ****head. Hopefully mommy's across suburbia up allowance a few bucks the next few months and the alt right can take care of you.

 

For real, stop giving these people relevance and power. They don't deserve it 

 

PS the White House just axed some dude on the NSC for writing a nutso conspiratard memo. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. 

[LeesburgSkinFan]

Wikileaks has already offered him a job.

[Spaceman Spiff]

6 minutes ago, LeesburgSkinFan said:

Wikileaks has already offered him a job.

 

Yeah, anyone that good in the tech field will get a job, sexist memos or not.  

[PeterMP]

A few points from recently having the related conversation at my work.

 

1.  It is easy to say that you are for diversity and value diversity.  However, like anything, how much you value something is directly related to how much you are willing to work for it.  If you aren't willing to do much to achieve diversity, then you don't really value much diversity.

 

I've gotten so that when somebody says they value diversity, I ask why.  If you value something, you should be able to tell me why and once it is known why you value it, then that leads to how much do you value it, which then leads to an easy conversation as to what should be done to achieve.

 

I've been in several meetings recently where people say they value diversity and then when you ask why, there is silence followed by a stream of BS.

 

2.  Many of the things that he rises as "solutions" only create a chicken an egg problem if you accept is underlying argument.

 

How do you create a quality cooperative and not competitive work environment if your work force is primarily male and male are good at and create competitive environments and not cooperative environments?

 

And if I can't create a quality cooperative environment given my current work force, how do I recruit women?

 

Don't I need some sort of critical mass of people that are good at cooperating (mostly women) to have a cooperative environment to recruit, retain, and have cooperative people (women) succeed to be promoted?

 

(And that's really the flip of this argument, right?  Females don't do well in the tech world because they are not competitive, but are cooperative and so the vice versa must also be true that males aren't good at cooperative environments.)

 

And then from there, then if I value cooperativity in my work force, then it makes sense to value the hiring and promotion of females even if it requires steps that might seem unfair to males.

 

(And his arguments go away.  Given his arguments, another way to think about what google is doing is saying, they want a more cooperative work environment and since men are naturally at a disadvantage to that sort of system, they are going to make sure they have a pool of women to hire from and so run training programs, etc. for women.)

 

and @s0crates (I suspect that you would reject this argument from an employer.  That is I believe a cooperative environment is best for my business to succeed and so am going to bias my hiring against males, which is why the document is sexist BS.)

 

3.  I think he vastly misunderestimates how biological process and normal and historical work/legal policies (e.g. the occurrence of employers offering maternity leave vs. paternity leave) affected who got what jobs and why.

[Destino]

Great response @PeterMP and what you wrote is exactly why I liked the article from the Atlantic.  It's possible to look at things reasonably and dispute points that we disagree with without reacting like we can't be expected to suffer a heretic insulting our holy book.    

 

 

[nonniey]

The funny thing is Google firing him proved the point he was trying to make.

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manifesto-isnt-sexist-or-anti-diversity-its-science/article35903359/

 

DEBRA SOH

No, the Google manifesto isn’t sexist or anti-diversity. It’s science

 

By now, most of us have heard about Google’s so-called “anti-diversity” manifesto and how James Damore, the engineer who wrote it, has been fired from his job.Titled Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber, Mr. Damore called out the current PC culture, saying the gender gap in Google’s diversity was not due to discrimination, but inherent differences in what men and women find interesting. Danielle Brown, Google’s newly appointed vice-president for diversity, integrity and governance, accused the memo of advancing “incorrect assumptions about gender,” and Mr. Damore confirmed last night he was fired for “perpetuating gender stereotypes.”Despite how it’s been portrayed, the memo was fair and factually accurate. Scientific studies have confirmed sex differences in the brain that lead to differences in our interests and behaviour.

As mentioned in the memo, gendered interests are predicted by exposure to prenatal testosterone – higher levels are associated with a preference for mechanically interesting things and occupations in adulthood. Lower levels are associated with a preference for people-oriented activities and occupations. This is why STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields tend to be dominated by men.

We see evidence for this in girls with a genetic condition called congenital adrenal hyperplasia, who are exposed to unusually high levels of testosterone in the womb. When they are born, these girls prefer male-typical, wheeled toys, such as trucks, even if their parents offer more positive feedback when they play with female-typical toys, such as dolls. Similarly, men who are interested in female-typical activities were likely exposed to lower levels of testosterone.

As well, new research from the field of genetics shows that testosterone alters the programming of neural stem cells, leading to sex differences in the brain even before it’s finished developing in utero. This further suggests that our interests are influenced strongly by biology, as opposed to being learned or socially constructed.Many people, including a former Google employee, have attempted to refute the memo’s points, alleging that they contradict the latest research.

I’d love to know what “research done […] for decades” he’s referring to, because thousands of studies would suggest otherwise. A single study, published in 2015, did claim that male and female brains existed along a “mosaic” and that it isn’t possible to differentiate them by sex, but this has been refuted by four – yes, four – academic studies since.......

 

 

 

 

Cameron's p 50/3
Player	Pos	Team	Pick

[PeterMP]

40 minutes ago, nonniey said:

The funny thing is Google firing him proved the point he was trying to make.

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manifesto-isnt-sexist-or-anti-diversity-its-science/article35903359/

 

DEBRA SOH

No, the Google manifesto isn’t sexist or anti-diversity. It’s science

 

By now, most of us have heard about Google’s so-called “anti-diversity” manifesto and how James Damore, the engineer who wrote it, has been fired from his job.Titled Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber, Mr. Damore called out the current PC culture, saying the gender gap in Google’s diversity was not due to discrimination, but inherent differences in what men and women find interesting. Danielle Brown, Google’s newly appointed vice-president for diversity, integrity and governance, accused the memo of advancing “incorrect assumptions about gender,” and Mr. Damore confirmed last night he was fired for “perpetuating gender stereotypes.”Despite how it’s been portrayed, the memo was fair and factually accurate. Scientific studies have confirmed sex differences in the brain that lead to differences in our interests and behaviour.

As mentioned in the memo, gendered interests are predicted by exposure to prenatal testosterone – higher levels are associated with a preference for mechanically interesting things and occupations in adulthood. Lower levels are associated with a preference for people-oriented activities and occupations. This is why STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields tend to be dominated by men.

We see evidence for this in girls with a genetic condition called congenital adrenal hyperplasia, who are exposed to unusually high levels of testosterone in the womb. When they are born, these girls prefer male-typical, wheeled toys, such as trucks, even if their parents offer more positive feedback when they play with female-typical toys, such as dolls. Similarly, men who are interested in female-typical activities were likely exposed to lower levels of testosterone.

As well, new research from the field of genetics shows that testosterone alters the programming of neural stem cells, leading to sex differences in the brain even before it’s finished developing in utero. This further suggests that our interests are influenced strongly by biology, as opposed to being learned or socially constructed.Many people, including a former Google employee, have attempted to refute the memo’s points, alleging that they contradict the latest research.

I’d love to know what “research done […] for decades” he’s referring to, because thousands of studies would suggest otherwise. A single study, published in 2015, did claim that male and female brains existed along a “mosaic” and that it isn’t possible to differentiate them by sex, but this has been refuted by four – yes, four – academic studies since.......

 

 

 

 

Cameron's p 50/3
Player	Pos	Team	Pick

 

This is based on the assumption that people like to play with things leads them to better or more drawn to science.  

 

It is clear that the male brain on average is different than the female brain.  However, from there, for the argument to follow, it essentially must be asserted that the male brain is better at science.  That's as assumption not well supported by evidence.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270278/

 

"We review the brain basis for sex differences in science and mathematics, describe consistent effects, and identify numerous possible correlates. Experience alters brain structures and functioning, so causal statements about brain differences and success in math and science are circular. A wide range of sociocultural forces contribute to sex differences in mathematics and science achievement and ability—including the effects of family, neighborhood, peer, and school influences; training and experience; and cultural practices. We conclude that early experience, biological factors, educational policy, and cultural context affect the number of women and men who pursue advanced study in science and math and that these effects add and interact in complex ways. There are no single or simple answers to the complex questions about sex differences in science and mathematics"

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-health/11401344/STEM-Is-there-any-science-behind-the-lack-of-women-in-science.html

 

"The problem is that, at the moment, we just don’t know if any of these differences make one gender, on average, better than the other at any task in particular. Professor Sumner says that is a big and controversial leap.

 

"No-one knows what these differences mean for people's ability to do different cognitive tasks," he says. "Though there is often speculation about verbal abilities versus spatial abilities…there is no actual evidence that these stereotypes relate to the measured brain differences at all.""

 

The author boot strapped from a scientifically accepted piece of information (e.g. that female brains are different than male brains on average) to one not scientifically accepted (e.g. that those differences cause the STEM gap).

[PeterMP]

In many countries, the STEM gap is very negligible.  I guess in those countries female brains are like male brains.  While in the US it is very large.

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/02/08/the_math_gender_gap_the_u_s_has_one_of_the_worst_in_the_developed_world.html

 

And note Shanghai has created an environment with essentially no gender gap and very high performing females and males so unless you believe there is something odd about females and males in Shanghai, it is possible to create a system that allows females and males to both be high achievers.

 

58 minutes ago, Destino said:

Great response @PeterMP and what you wrote is exactly why I liked the article from the Atlantic.  It's possible to look at things reasonably and dispute points that we disagree with without reacting like we can't be expected to suffer a heretic insulting our holy book.    

 

 

 

Let me be clear.  He should be insulted.  What he wrote was stupid and people that write stupid things when they think they are writing something serious and thoughtful should be insulted and ridiculed.

 

I have no problem with insulting him in the same manner as I would somebody that wrote something stupid about the Bible or Jesus when they thought they were being thoughtful.

[PokerPacker]

14 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

This is based on the assumption that people like to play with things will be better or more drawn to science.  

 

It is clear that the male brain on average is different than the female brain.  However, from there, for the argument to follow, it essentially must be asserted that the male brain is better at science.  That's as assumption not well supported by evidence.

I do not recall reading the claim that men are better at science.  I recall the argument that men typically had more interest in science.

[PeterMP]

Just now, PokerPacker said:

I do not recall reading the claim that men are better at science.  I recall the argument that men typically had more interest in science.

 

But is it because of their brain and/or they liked to play with things or is it because of something else.

[PokerPacker]

7 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

But is it because of their brain and/or they liked to play with things or is it because of something else.

I do not study neuroscience.  I'll leave that determination to someone more qualified.  In the absence of such qualified answers, I don't consider it unlikely.  I mean, our brain is who we are, and we are products of both nature and nurture.  Is it so absurd to think that factors related to our sex could also be related to our nature?

 

edit: The argument is not made that there is causal relationship between the toys they play with and the fields they are interested in.  The argument would more accurately be that a person has brain property A which correlates to an interest in toys of nature B as children and fields of study C as adults.  The relationship between B and C is not B causes C, but rather sharing a mutual cause A.

[PeterMP]

22 minutes ago, PokerPacker said:

I do not study neuroscience.  I'll leave that determination to someone more qualified.  In the absence of such qualified answers, I don't consider it unlikely.  I mean, our brain is who we are, and we are products of both nature and nurture.  Is it so absurd to think that factors related to our sex could also be related to our nature?

 

edit: The argument is not made that there is causal relationship between the toys they play with and the fields they are interested in.  The argument would more accurately be that a person has brain property A which correlates to an interest in toys of nature B as children and fields of study C as adults.  The relationship between B and C is not B causes C, but rather sharing a mutual cause A.

 

What is absurd is writing an article about how the STEM gap is science based on sexual differences in the brain when that conclusion is not actually currently supported by the available science.

 

Has science ruled out that possibility?  No.

 

But that's what nonniey's link said or did.

 

(Though as stated in my previous post, given what we see in other countries, it seems highly unlikely that the STEM gap the size that we see in the US is due to sexual natural differences.  You then have to start asserting things like the sexes are naturally different to a large extent in Shanghai than the US, which seems unlikely (e.g. there is a large ethnic component to pre-natal testosterone surge males get).

[SkinsHokieFan]

My biggest problem with this is you have a whiny, 20 something white guy engineer at Google ****ing about "diversity" and "echo chambers"

 

Silicon Valley is white guy tech bro culture, mixed in with dorky Indians and Asians in engineering/product, a bunch of white girls in marketing, and whoever is willing to be on the phone all day selling, in sales.

 

 What a whiny snowflake, I'd fire his ass for being a little **** 

[PF Chang]

Peter, I thought the linked article below was a more reasonable view on gender differences in STEM participation. Would be interested to see what you think: 

 

http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exaggerated-differences/ 

[s0crates]

2 hours ago, Destino said:

 

It's possible to look at things reasonably and dispute points that we disagree with without reacting like we can't be expected to suffer a heretic insulting our holy book.    

 

 

 

Apparently it is not possible for all of us.

[PokerPacker]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

What is absurd is writing an article about how the STEM gap is science based on sexual differences in the brain when that conclusion is not actually currently supported by the available science.

 

Has science ruled out that possibility?  No.

 

But that's what nonniey's link said or did.

 

(Though as stated in my previous post, given what we see in other countries, it seems highly unlikely that the STEM gap the size that we see in the US is due to sexual natural differences.  You then have to start asserting things like the sexes are naturally different to a large extent in Shanghai than the US, which seems unlikely (e.g. there is a large ethnic component to pre-natal testosterone surge males get).

I can respect that.  Your arguments have largely come from a place with disagreeing with some of the basis/assumptions of his memo.  What is bothering me is the people outright dismissing him not as wrong, but as a sexist/racist garbage human being.  I've only seen one attempt to support said narrative of the person, and that didn't even quote the memo itself but rather some tech journalist's opinion of it (which singled out the topic of women and anxiety).  Now as I have already stated, I am not a student of neuroscience, so I am not an expert on the matter.  But a cursory search of "women and anxiety" lead me to a page from the Anxiety and Depression Association of America (founded by a woman with a current president who is a woman and Executive Director who is a woman, if that matters) that states "Women are twice as likely to have an anxiety disorder as men." https://adaa.org/living-with-anxiety/women

 

 

 

[Llevron]

4 minutes ago, s0crates said:

 

Apparently it is not possible for all of us.

 

It's not But that has alot to do with.....your brain >_> 

 

I totally dig what y'all are doing in this thread tho keep it up. I'll add something to it when I can. I'm so interested in the way the brain works I almost wish i would have studied it in school.

 

[s0crates]

19 minutes ago, PokerPacker said:

But a cursory search of "women and anxiety" lead me to a page from the Anxiety and Depression Association of America (founded by a woman with a current president who is a woman and Executive Director who is a woman, if that matters) that states "Women are twice as likely to have an anxiety disorder as men." https://adaa.org/living-with-anxiety/women

 

 

That fact is sexist, and citing it is white male privilege. You have created an unsafe thread environment with your anti-diversity posting, and you should be banned.