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

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

I'd need to read the memo but the tweet by itself strikes me as no big deal.

[PeterMP]

It is the combination of the stupidity of all the tweets.

 

"If you make the actual KKK the only place where you can acknowledge the coolness of D&D terms, then you’ll just push people into the KKK."

 

Really?  The KKK is the only place in society where people acknowledge that wizards and knights and the like are cool?  

 

Tell him to watch the Worse Witch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Worst_Witch_(2017_TV_series)).  It is on Netflix.

 

And people are joining the KKK today based on the cool names?

 

He also said being conservative and working a google to being gay in the 1950s (which at the time sexual relationships between males was still illegal in many states).

 

http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/08/damore-says-being-conservative-at-google-is-like-being-gay.html

 

He's an idiot.  I originally said based on his memo he was stupid, lying or sexist.  I didn't see a reason why he would lie.  Being a google engineer, I figured he wasn't stupid.  So he must be sexist.

 

Re-evaluating based on the larger totality of his comments over the last few weeks, I've decided he's plain old stupid.  He might be sexist too.

 

I don't think anybody is claiming he's racist over the recent tweets.  Just stupid.

[grego]

38 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

It is the combination of the stupidity of all the tweets.

 

"If you make the actual KKK the only place where you can acknowledge the coolness of D&D terms, then you’ll just push people into the KKK."

 

Really?  The KKK is the only place in society where people acknowledge that wizards and knights and the like are cool?  

 

Tell him to watch the Worse Witch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Worst_Witch_(2017_TV_series)).  It is on Netflix.

 

And people are joining the KKK today based on the cool names?

 

He also said being conservative and working a google to being gay in the 1950s (which at the time sexual relationships between males was still illegal in many states).

 

http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/08/damore-says-being-conservative-at-google-is-like-being-gay.html

 

He's an idiot.  I originally said based on his memo he was stupid, lying or sexist.  I didn't see a reason why he would lie.  Being a google engineer, I figured he wasn't stupid.  So he must be sexist.

 

Re-evaluating based on the larger totality of his comments over the last few weeks, I've decided he's plain old stupid.  He might be sexist too.

 

I don't think anybody is claiming he's racist over the recent tweets.  Just stupid.

 

 

yeah, not sure if he was trying to be funny or what with the 'push people into the kkk' tweet, cuz it doesnt make a lot of sense. he's making a point about the terms like dragon, etc, but not doing it very well here. 

 

as far as his memo, where, if you could pick one example, would you say he was stupid? (or sexist?)

 

(btw, hes been accused of being alt-rightist, which is racist, i think, by anyones definition, about a dozen posts ago.)

[Llevron]

2 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

I'd need to read the memo but the tweet by itself strikes me as no big deal.

 

None of it is a big deal. Some dude with an opinion that got shared enough times thata people took sides. Thats it. Just like everything it became politicized and now people are trying to tell themselves it means something. 

 

Hes just some dude with an opinion. And you know what they say about those opinions.

[PeterMP]

13 minutes ago, grego said:

 

 

yeah, not sure if he was trying to be funny or what with the 'push people into the kkk' tweet, cuz it doesnt make a lot of sense. he's making a point about the terms like dragon, etc, but not doing it very well here. 

 

as far as his memo, where, if you could pick one example, would you say he was stupid? (or sexist?)

 

The memo has been discussed thoroughly in this thread, and I have many posts.  The issue with the memo is that it shows the same underlying logic as these series of tweets.  There is no single thing.  It is the logic that is manifest in the whole document resulting in conclusions that are not supported by the currently available data.  The logic is so badly flawed that you end up concluding the person is either lying, stupid, or sexist (in the case of the memo).

 

A is true (the KKK uses cool names) so B is true (people join the KKK because of the cool names) so the way to address B (people joining the KKK) is C (talk about the fact that the names used by the KKK are cool).

 

In doing so he's ignoring the large amount of evidence that there are racist people out there and they join the KKK because they are racist, and the better way to get people to not join the KKK is to teach and explain why racism is bad.

 

In the memo, he has women's brains are different than men's (A), so women aren't interested in tech jobs and don't go into tech fields (B) so the way to address it is to alter the way tech jobs are done to appeal to women or don't worry much about it (C)

 

The evidence of the link between A and B is essentially non-existent (several people that actually did the work came out publicly and said that their work doesn't support his conclusions), it ignores the evidence of sexism in STEM fields against women and females (even in their early schooling) that exist historically and yes even today, and it ignores the abundance of evidence that shows the best way to recruit historically under-represented groups (not just true of women in fields, but other groups in other fields, including men into nursing) into a field is through early exposure and quality mentoring.

[PeterMP]

I don't think he was being funny with the we are pushing people to join the KKK if we don't talk about their cool names.  At least with large scale social issues, I think that's the level of logic he's capable of exercising (at least at this stage of his life).

 

We now have multiple examples of it.  It is the same logic that results in believing that being a conservative at google is like being gay in the 1950s.

[grego]

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

 

 

In the memo, he has women's brains are different than men's (A), so women aren't interested in tech jobs and don't go into tech fields (B) so the way to address it is to alter the way tech jobs are done to appeal to women or don't worry much about it (C)

 

The evidence of the link between A and B is essentially non-existent (several people that actually did the work came out publicly and said that their work doesn't support his conclusions), it ignores the evidence of sexism in STEM fields against women and females (even in their early schooling) that exist historically and yes even today, and it ignores the abundance of evidence that shows the best way to recruit historically under-represented groups (not just true of women in fields, but other groups in other fields, including men into nursing) into a field is through early exposure and quality mentoring.

 

i'm not a scientist. so, i have to rely on what scientists say about this. are there scientists who believe evidence shows that womens and mens brains are, in general terms (which is important, because i think this is the point where is gets divisive) different in terms of what they are interested in. its appears to be a given as far as i can tell. 

 

heres an article from psychology today that addresses what i thought was the most controversial part of the memo- 

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sexual-personalities/201504/are-women-more-emotional-men

 

Most studies show women tend to score higher on the personality trait most closely associated with negative emotionality—neuroticism (Feingold, 1994; Schmitt et al., 2008). In a meta-analysis across 25 studies, for instance, Feingold (1994) found women score higher in anxiety (d = -0.27). Several large cross-cultural studies have confirmed these sex differences across dozens of nations (Costa et al., 2001; Lippa, 2010; Schmitt et al., 2008). De Bolle (2015) found sex differences in neuroticism among adolescents universally emerge across all cultures at about the same age (around 14, implicating pubertal hormones as a proximate cause; see also Hyde et al., 2008, on other biological/hormonal origins of sex differences in negative emotionality). In large cross-cultural samples of adults, women have been found to score higher in overall neuroticism in studies of 26 nations (d = -0.26; Costa et al., 2001), 53 nations (d = -0.41; Lippa, 2010), and 56 nations (d = -0.40; Schmitt et al., 2008).

 

heres an article from pbs, written by a woman, which appears to say the same thing that damore is saying- 

 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/truth-women-stem-careers/

The problem with this “blank slate” interpretation of gender differences is that it doesn’t jibe with results of developmental studies. Newborn girls prefer to look at faces while newborn boys prefer to look at mechanical stimuli (such as mobiles). When it comes to toys, a consistent finding is that boys (and juvenile male monkeys) strongly prefer to play with mechanical toys over plush toys or dolls, while girls (and female juvenile monkeys) show equivalent interest in the two. (See this for summary of this research.) These sex-linked preferences emerge in human development long before any significant socialization can have taken place. And they exist in juvenile non-human primates that are not exposed to human gender-specific socialization efforts.

It is not difficult to see how such early emerging preferences can end up shaping career choices later on: Women tend to gravitate toward fields that focus on living things and agents, men to fields that focus on objects.

 

heres another article where 4 experts, as far as i can tell, give their opinons  here are a couple- 

 

"The author of the Google essay on issues related to diversity gets nearly all of the science and its implications exactly right.........."

 

 

"Among commentators who claim the memo’s empirical facts are wrong, I haven’t read a single one who understand sexual selection theory, animal behavior, and sex differences research.

When the memo went viral, thousands of journalists and bloggers transformed themselves overnight from not understanding evolutionary psychology at all to claiming enough expertise to criticize the whole scientific literature on biological sex differences.

It was like watching Trinity downloading the pilot program for flying the B-212 helicopter in The Matrix. Such fast learners! (Even Google’s new ‘VP of Diversity’, Danielle Brown, criticized the memo because it ‘advanced incorrect assumptions about gender’; I was impressed to see that her Michigan State B.A. in Business and her U. Michigan M.B.A. qualify her to judge the scientific research.)

For what it’s worth, I think that almost all of the Google memo’s empirical claims are scientifically accurate. Moreover, they are stated quite carefully and dispassionately. Its key claims about sex differences are especially well-supported by large volumes of research across species, cultures, and history."

http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/

 

as far as these apparent scientists and their conclusions, are they wrong? are they kooks? are we being duped? why are they saying this is true if its not? (i'm asking honestly, not sarcastically). how do we know they are right or wrong?

 

getting back to damore and whether or not hes stupid or sexist, i dont think i would agree that hes either one. maybe awkward, but not stupid or sexist. i say this because, as far as i can tell, hes repeating some of the same information that i've just repeated. hes working with information that appears to be scientific and basing his memo off of that. he certainly believes its accepted science, not just someones opinion. of course, if he took that information and said, 'well, since women, on average, have other kinds of interests that don't always include stem fields, i dont think we should hire women', that would be sexist. but hes saying the opposite- 'heres how we can get more diversity in the workplace'.

 

 

 

20 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

 

We now have multiple examples of it.  It is the same logic that results in believing that being a conservative at google is like being gay in the 1950s.

 

i dont know about google (not without having worked there or having an idea of the work environment), but there are situations where if you are a conservative, you are a pariah. i guess its possible?

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, grego said:

 

i'm not a scientist. so, i have to rely on what scientists say about this. are there scientists who believe evidence shows that womens and mens brains are, in general terms (which is important, because i think this is the point where is gets divisive) different in terms of what they are interested in. its appears to be a given as far as i can tell. 

 

i dont know about google (not without having worked there or having an idea of the work environment), but there are situations where if you are a conservative, you are a pariah. i guess its possible?

 

He went beyond repeating the same information you have.  He used to explain a the large gender gap at google AND then suggested what google could and should do about the gender gap.  Do you understand that difference?

 

Again, he started with something true.  The basic science is true.  It his conclusion from the basic science that leads to issues (that the basic science has resulted in the large gender gap that companies like google see).

 

Here's a person whose study he cited:

 

https://www.wired.com/story/the-pernicious-science-of-james-damores-google-memo/

 

Basic science is right:

 

"That said, Damore’s assertion that men and women think different is actually pretty uncontroversial, and he cites a paper to back it up, from a team led by David Schmitt, a psychologist at Bradley University in Illinois and director of the International Sexuality Description Project. The 2008 article, “Why Can’t a Man Be More Like a Woman? Sex Difference in Big Five Personality Traits Across 55 Cultures,” does indeed seem to show that women rate higher than men in neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness."

 

But then:

 

"The first-order criticism here is easy: Damore oversells the difference cited in the paper. As Schmitt tells WIRED via email, “These sex differences in neuroticism are not very large, with biological sex perhaps accounting for only 10 percent of the variance.” The other 90 percent, in other words, are the result of individual variation, environment, and upbringing."

 

And then obviously going from that to actual career outcomes gets even trickier and again the author of the piece he cited disagrees:

 

" “It is unclear to me that this sex difference would play a role in success within the Google workplace (in particular, not being able to handle stresses of leadership in the workplace. That’s a huge stretch to me),” writes Schmitt. So, yes, that’s the researcher Damore cites disagreeing with Damore."

 

It is possible that given natural differences between females and males that there should be some gender gap in tech in the US.  Given the totality of the evidence, there is not reason to believe that it should be as large as it is.

 

He started with a basic fact that is true (A = men and women are different) and then used to try it to explain something (B = the significant gender gap seen in tech), while ignoring plenty of evidence that B is caused by other things.

 

None of your links include anybody arguing that differences between men and women are the primary driver much less a significant driver of the gender gap in tech.

 

There's a difference between being a pariah and having the thing that is making you pariah being a crime.

[grego]

heres schmitt from one of my links- 

 

"A Google employee recently shared a memo that referenced some of my scholarly research on psychological sex differences (e.g., personality traits, mate preferences, status-seeking). Alongside other evidence, the employee argued, in part, that this research indicates affirmative action policies based on biological sex are misguided. Maybe, maybe not. Let me explain."

 

what i'm gathering is that, while the science is out there, and the science agrees that there are differences between the brains of women and men, the extent to which this impacts something like a career preference is still not agreed upon. schmitt thinks it accounts for a gap, but, a smaller gap than the other people i cited.

 

so, the disagreement is in the degree to which this accounts for the gap- and there is disagreement between experts in this field, is that correct? 

 

now, i dont get the impression that damore was ignoring other factors- he explicitly states that they exist and that they need to work on it- "I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority".

 

my impression is that he is saying that sexism seemed to be the 'only' explanation that there was a gap, and that biological factors were not being considered at all-

"At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story.

On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:

They’re universal across human cultures

They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone

Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males

The underlying traits are highly heritable

They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective

Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions."

[PeterMP]

17 minutes ago, grego said:

heres schmitt from one of my links- 

 

"A Google employee recently shared a memo that referenced some of my scholarly research on psychological sex differences (e.g., personality traits, mate preferences, status-seeking). Alongside other evidence, the employee argued, in part, that this research indicates affirmative action policies based on biological sex are misguided. Maybe, maybe not. Let me explain."

 

what i'm gathering is that, while the science is out there, and the science agrees that there are differences between the brains of women and men, the extent to which this impacts something like a career preference is still not agreed upon. schmitt thinks it accounts for a gap, but, a smaller gap than the other people i cited.

 

so, the disagreement is in the degree to which this accounts for the gap- and there is disagreement between experts in this field, is that correct? 

 

I don't see in any of your links include anybody arguing that differences between men and women are the primary driver much less a significant driver of the gender gap in tech (the guy at Rutgers wants to get there, but even he seems to understand that he doesn't have the evidence to support his argument and falls JUST short).

So I don't see where anybody is arguing over the degree at all.

 

I think your impression is guided by what you want to see.  No where does he say ONLY.

 

"that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases" 

 

The existing biases laid out in the document are biases FOR women/minorities.  Those are the existing biases that he sees.

 

This statement again suggest bias for and against men and women.

 

"Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story."

 

There's no suggestion here that negative discrimination has been more significantly focused towards women historically and that has broader implications into the future (i.e. today), including still existing bias.

[PeterMP]

Again, this reminds me of the climate change debate.  There is plenty of evidence of bias and historical discrimination of women in these fields.  Yet, rather than admitting that and doing things to correct for that, there is an effort to pin the size of the gender gap on something else.

 

I have an idea.  

 

Why don't we work to end discrimination and bias in tech and STEM and then see where we end up in terms of females in STEM?

[grego]

Maybe I lost you in my wording - extent or degree may be the wrong words. 

 

Here's Schmitt from my link 

"As to sex differences in mate preferences and status-seeking, these topics also have been heavily researched across cultures (for a review, see here).  Again, though, most of these sex differences are moderate in size and in my view are unlikely to be all that relevant to the Google workplace (accounting for, perhaps, a few percentage points of the variability between men’s and women’s performances)."

 

Schmitt is unsure of the 'relevance' of sex differences at Google (as opposed to degree like I said) 

 

What I'm saying is that other experts say that damore is right - from my above post - 

"The author of the Google essay on issues related to diversity gets nearly all of the science and its implications exactly right.........."

 

Where do we disagree? 

20 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

 

Why don't we work to end discrimination and bias in tech and STEM and then see where we end up in terms of females in STEM?

 

OK now we're getting somewhere. 

 

Damore doesn't say he's opposed to ending discrimination. Hes explicitly pro diversity. 

 

 

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, grego said:

Maybe I lost you in my wording - extent or degree may be the wrong words. 

 

Here's Schmitt from my link 

"As to sex differences in mate preferences and status-seeking, these topics also have been heavily researched across cultures (for a review, see here).  Again, though, most of these sex differences are moderate in size and in my view are unlikely to be all that relevant to the Google workplace (accounting for, perhaps, a few percentage points of the variability between men’s and women’s performances)."

 

Schmitt is unsure of the 'relevance' of sex differences at Google (as opposed to degree like I said) 

 

What I'm saying is that other experts say that damore is right - from my above post - 

"The author of the Google essay on issues related to diversity gets nearly all of the science and its implications exactly right.........."

 

Where do we disagree? 

 

OK now we're getting somewhere. 

 

Damore doesn't say he's opposed to ending discrimination. Hes explicitly pro diversity. 

 

 

 

He does get all of the science nearly right.

 

And this is what the person thinks are the key implications:

 

"Its main points are that: 1. Neither the left nor the right gets diversity completely right; 2. The social science evidence on implicit and explicit bias has been wildly oversold and is far weaker than most people seem to realize; 3. Google has, perhaps unintentionally, created an authoritarian atmosphere that has stifled discussion of these issues by stigmatizing anyone who disagrees as a bigot and instituted authoritarian policies of reverse discrimination; 4. The policies and atmosphere systematically ignore biological, cognitive, educational, and social science research on the nature and sources of individual and group differences."

 

Note, the absence of any claim that biological differences are the principle or are even a significant driver of the tech gender gap.

 

(Let me say if those are the key implications:

 

1.  There isn't much that either the left or right get completely right, which is why most people aren't really left or right.

 

2.  This is a matter of opinion and depends on who you are talking to in terms of doing the buying and selling.  There is a "blank slate" population out there and among them it has at least been over bought, and I guess the fact they have bought it could be used as evidence that it has been over sold (and then those people become over sellers).

 

3.  Is a perhaps.  Certainly google is acting in an authoritarian manner on this issue.  Most companies do on most issues.

 

4.  Yes, they are ignoring them.  There really isn't a lot of evidence that they are significant factors, and even if they are, there isn't much google can do about it other than ignore it.  I think there would be outrage if google started talking about doing biological engineering to create females that were more attracted to jobs in tech.

 

If those are they key implication, then the Rutgers guy is right.  Darmore has everything about correct. I don't know anybody else that would argue those are the key implications. )

 

Darmore got the science and implications correct as long as you claim that one of his implications isn't that biological factors are the key driving forces for the gender gap at places like google.

 

Like I already said:

 

"(the guy at Rutgers wants to get there, but even he seems to understand that he doesn't have the evidence to support his argument and falls JUST short)"

 

Now, do you honestly believe that one of the key implications of the Darmore document is NOT that the gender gap in tech is significantly related to biological differences between males and females?

 

He's opposed to the methods that have been shown best to over come the results of long term discrimination and inherent biases.  It is hard to argue you are for doing something, while simultaneously holding that you want to eliminate the methods that best accomplish that goal.

[grego]

 

Quote

He's opposed to the methods that have been shown best to over come the results of long term discrimination and inherent biases.  It is hard to argue you are for doing something, while simultaneously holding that you want to eliminate the methods that best accomplish that goal.

 

Now I think I'm understanding what's going on.  Just focusing on your last statement- you believe that he doesn't actually value diversity because he is against the means (not the ends) that you believe are proven in order to get there and this is causing you to ascribe intentions to him that he doesn't actually appear to have. 

 

 I think this explains why when he said he acknowledged sexism earlier you interpreted that as he was actually saying that there is a bias against men- not women or minorities. 

 

This is exactly what the actual Atlantic article is talking about - here are some quotes from the article-

 

even if he was determined to raise all of the same arguments), the many characterizations of the memo as “anti-diversity” are inaccurate.....

I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes........

 He may be incorrect, but even if the substance of every viewpoint that he expressed is wrongheaded and even if Google must make huge strides in its treatment of women, that won’t make characterizing the memo as an anti-diversity screed any more accurate.........

..... they are clearly and explicitly suggestions to increase diversity in a manner the author regards as having a stronger chance of actually working than some of the tactics that he is critiquing........  

 

 

I think many people (not necessarily you)  formed an opinion about the memo without first actually having read it -  people have admitted as much. 

 

I saw a CNN bit by Brooke Baldwin about it and her summation- which she actually said twice - was that he "basically doesn't want women anywhere near a computer" which is the exact opposite of what he explicitly says in the memo. His disagreement was not whether there should be woman in stem, but how to get women into stem. 

 

 

 

 

 

[PeterMP]

3 hours ago, grego said:

 

 

Now I think I'm understanding what's going on.  Just focusing on your last statement- you believe that he doesn't actually value diversity because he is against the means (not the ends) that you believe are proven in order to get there and this is causing you to ascribe intentions to him that he doesn't actually appear to have. 

 

 I think this explains why when he said he acknowledged sexism earlier you interpreted that as he was actually saying that there is a bias against men- not women or minorities. 

 

This is exactly what the actual Atlantic article is talking about - here are some quotes from the article-

 

even if he was determined to raise all of the same arguments), the many characterizations of the memo as “anti-diversity” are inaccurate.....

I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes........

 He may be incorrect, but even if the substance of every viewpoint that he expressed is wrongheaded and even if Google must make huge strides in its treatment of women, that won’t make characterizing the memo as an anti-diversity screed any more accurate.........

..... they are clearly and explicitly suggestions to increase diversity in a manner the author regards as having a stronger chance of actually working than some of the tactics that he is critiquing........  

 

 

I think many people (not necessarily you)  formed an opinion about the memo without first actually having read it -  people have admitted as much. 

 

I saw a CNN bit by Brooke Baldwin about it and her summation- which she actually said twice - was that he "basically doesn't want women anywhere near a computer" which is the exact opposite of what he explicitly says in the memo. His disagreement was not whether there should be woman in stem, but how to get women into stem. 

 

First, I quoted him.  He never acknowledges the role of sexism in creating gaps in tech or that it is happening today.

 

Second, let me clear, there are a large number of studies that looked at getting under-represented groups into fields, and they have shown that mentor programs work.

 

That isn't something that I'm making up.  It is much science as anything else.

 

Third, what happens then if you don't do that is you end up creating a loop when you have had discrimination against a group.

 

There's been discrimination against a group so that group is under-represented in that area (and nobody doubts that there has been historical discrimination against women and STEM in tech (and if you don't think it is still happening do a search of tech discrimination female, and you can read stories of women who have been discriminated against).  The end result is a lack of mentors, role models, and examples, which means females shun the field.

 

They pick other things to do.  Ten years later, guess what, you have the same problem because even females that could have gone to STEM have self-selected to not go to STEM because of the lack of females in STEM.  And ten years later, the same problem.  And it just keeps repeating.

 

It is easy to say you support diversity and females in STEM.  But that's meaningless.  You can't argue that you support diversity, spend a document arguing that women don't go into tech because they don't want to/aren't good at it, and that you want to eliminate programs that are going to help females succeed in tech.

 

Actions speak louder than words, and in this case, it is even just his proposed actions.

 

Achieving diversity is tech is not important enough to him to actually support anything that has actually shown to reduce it.  And it is not important enough to him to not misrepresent the science about why the US female gender gap is as large as it is.

 

His actions have spoken.

[PeterMP]

You can't say that you support doing something about climate change go on a diatribe about how factors other than C emissions can contribute to climate change (which is true) and say you are against reducing C emissions to prevent climate change and have me take you seriously.

 

Despite the fact that you have said you support doing something about climate change, I am going to say that you don't.

 

**EDIT**

 

Look, the guy is an idiot (at least when it comes to larger social issues).  People joining the KKK today are not doing so because of the cool names and talking about the cool names is not going to prevent people from joining the KKK.

 

His experience at google as a conservative was not similar to a homosexuals in the 1950s.  He was not under threat of criminal prosecution and there is no evidence of violence against him or any other conservative at google.  Homosexuals in the 1950s could be criminally prosecuted and there is plenty of cases of violence committed against them even beyond the 1950s.

 

His memo on diversity is just another brick in the wall.

[grego]

3 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

First, I quoted him.  He never acknowledges the role of sexism in creating gaps in tech or that it is happening today.

 

Second, let me clear, there are a large number of studies that looked at getting under-represented groups into fields, and they have shown that mentor programs work.

 

That isn't something that I'm making up.  It is much science as anything else.

 

Third, what happens then if you don't do that is you end up creating a loop when you have had discrimination against a group.

 

There's been discrimination against a group so that group is under-represented in that area (and nobody doubts that there has been historical discrimination against women and STEM in tech (and if you don't think it is still happening do a search of tech discrimination female, and you can read stories of women who have been discriminated against).  The end result is a lack of mentors, role models, and examples, which means females shun the field.

 

They pick other things to do.  Ten years later, guess what, you have the same problem because even females that could have gone to STEM have self-selected to not go to STEM because of the lack of females in STEM.  And ten years later, the same problem.  And it just keeps repeating.

 

It is easy to say you support diversity and females in STEM.  But that's meaningless.  You can't argue that you support diversity, spend a document arguing that women don't go into tech because they don't want to/aren't good at it, and that you want to eliminate programs that are going to help females succeed in tech.

 

Actions speak louder than words, and in this case, it is even just his proposed actions.

 

Achieving diversity is tech is not important enough to him to actually support anything that has actually shown to reduce it.  And it is not important enough to him to not misrepresent the science about why the US female gender gap is as large as it is.

 

His actions have spoken.

 

as far as the gender gap, how big it is, and how much is due to sexism as opposed to biology, i dont see him taking a position as to how much each accounts for it. i think where we disagree is that i see him acknowledging sexism and bias- not ignoring it at all- but choosing to focus the memo on the more biological explanations of the gap and solutions that dont involve discrimination, where you see him not acknowledging sexism or bias and dismissing solutions that you say are proven. i actually know zero about these programs youre talking about as far as closing the gender gap- which is not to say youre wrong- i suspect youre right in saying that they work. damore may even know about these programs and their effectiveness (although, as a side note, one might argue that if they are effective, why is a company as progressive and valuing of diversity as google so lacking in diversity?), its just that, on principle, he has problems with discrimination as a solution. 

 

 but an explanation for why you see him not paying much attention to how sexism plays a role in the gender gap lies in the memo. early in the memo, he says this-

"For the rest of this document, I’ll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that’s required to actually discriminate to create equal representation."

and he spends the rest of the memo talking about that position. but i dont see that, given his opening statement "I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists" and other statements in the memo-

"What follows is by no means the complete story,"

",I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more.",

"I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. "

-as saying there arent other factors. 

 

the only other thing i would add is that i think its bad policy to say that  person is against an issue when they disagree with you (or a particular method) about how to solve said issue. especially an issue like this, where affirmative action policies have been disputed for years. i think its good that people want to find workable solutions that dont discriminate against anyone. i'm not necessarily against affirmative action- i abhor racism. but i recognize the trade offs and negative aspects of that policy. still, something about racial preferences makes me cringe a bit, even if the goal is noble. it just goes against what i believe, and what i believe is a good thing. so, i get his position. 

 

anyway- gotta make dinner. looks like the family is eating late tonight. i blame you  (and my 5 page CJ paper due tomorrow). i appreciate the conversation. i wish there was more conversation like this. very refreshing. :

[grego]

last two things that i missed when i was checking this story out- 

 

first, regarding schmitt, the guy damore based some of his memo on and the guy we had both quoted- i missed something he said-

Quote

 

"Culturally universal sex differences in personal values and certain cognitive abilities are a bit larger in size (see here), and sex differences in occupational interests are quite large2. It seems likely these culturally universal and biologically-linked sex differences play some role in the gendered hiring patterns of Google employees. For instance, in 2013, 18% of bachelor's degrees in computing were earned by women, and about 20% of Google technological jobs are currently held by women. Whatever affirmative action procedures Google is using appear to be working pretty well (at least at the tech job level)"

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sexual-personalities/201708/google-memo-about-sex-differences

 

two things- first, schmitt admits that sex differences in occupational interests (not "abilities"- an important distinction- more on that below) are "quite large", which is what damore was talking about. 

 

second- if only 18% of bachelors degrees were earned by woman, why do we expect more representation than that in those fields?

 

Quote

In conclusion, based on the meta-analyses we reviewed and the research on the Greater Male Variability Hypothesis, Damore is correct that there are “population level differences in distributions” of traits that are likely to be relevant for understanding gender gaps at Google and other tech firms. The differences are much larger and more consistent for traits related to interest and enjoyment, rather than ability. This distinction between interest and ability is important because it may address  one of the main fears raised by Damore’s critics: that the memo itself will cause Google employees to assume that women are less qualified, or less “suited” for tech jobs, and will therefore lead to more bias against women in tech jobs. But the empirical evidence we have reviewed should have the opposite effect. Population differences in interest and population differences in variability of abilities may help explain why there are fewer women in the applicant pool, but the women who choose to enter the pool are just as capable as the larger number of men in the pool. This conclusion does not deny that various forms of bias, harassment, and discouragement exist and may contribute to outcome disparities, nor does it imply that the differences in interest are biologically fixed and cannot be changed in future generations.

 

https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/08/10/the-google-memo-what-does-the-research-say-about-gender-differences/

 

 interest as opposed to ability is an important distinction.

 

anyway, thats all i got. fascinating discussion, imo.

[PeterMP]

6 hours ago, grego said:

last two things that i missed when i was checking this story out- 

 

first, regarding schmitt, the guy damore based some of his memo on and the guy we had both quoted- i missed something he said-

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sexual-personalities/201708/google-memo-about-sex-differences

 

two things- first, schmitt admits that sex differences in occupational interests (not "abilities"- an important distinction- more on that below) are "quite large", which is what damore was talking about. 

 

second- if only 18% of bachelors degrees were earned by woman, why do we expect more representation than that in those fields?

 

 

https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/08/10/the-google-memo-what-does-the-research-say-about-gender-differences/

 

 interest as opposed to ability is an important distinction.

 

anyway, thats all i got. fascinating discussion, imo.

 

Google is an endpoint, which is also why at least in the short term there isn't much that google can do in terms of affirmative action.

 

The problem is why did we get to 18% of CoSci majors are female.  I've already talked about females self-selecting away from field where there are a lack of female leaders, examples, and mentors.  In a study like that, that shows up as a "lack of interest".

 

However, we know in many fields where women didn't used to be very prevalent that wasn't the case.  Things like college sports participation are up among females.  Low participation of females in college sports in the 1960s wasn't due to inherent biologically driven lack of interest.

 

Which is what somebody in the 1960s might have concluded using similar logic to what you are doing?

 

It was due to lack of opportunity and lack of female role models and mentors.

 

And now we see the same thing happening in sports journalism and coaching.  Why weren't their more female coaches and sport journalists even 10 years ago?  Based on the current trends, it doesn't appear to have been biologically driven interest, but I also don't know of any evidence that females were out right being discriminated against in those fields either.  The lack of interest was really self-selection from fields where their weren't (many) mentors and role models.

 

Female's were under-represented as lawyers into the 1990s.  The story then was that women weren't interested due to the adversarial nature of law.  Now we're at about 50% of lawyers are females.

 

The hypothesis that significant differences in gender gaps in different fields are driven by inherent biological differences has been tested over and over, and every time given opportunity, role models, mentors, and time, it has been found to be a lacking explanation.

 

(And there are good reasons to believe that there are subtle biases against females in STEM.  Given students that are identical in every measurable way, elementary school teachers will report that the male student is better than the female student in math.  Male STEM students will report that their male peers are better than female peers that are actually superior.  There are lots of studies that show things like that, which suggest subtle, but systemic biases against females that help explain then how you get to 18% of CoSci majors are female.)

[grego]

i think we actually agree. part of the gender gap can be explained by biology, some by other factors that would include bias or sexism. just how that breaks down specifically, i guess nobody really knows, but it seems to be a combination of factors. 

 

i definitely think role models and trailblazers are a great thing. my heroes are all from just before i came to be and from the civil rights era-  jackie robinson, rosa parks, mlk. even malcolm x to some extent. i love that obama was the first black president. its a hell of a wall to see knocked down and in a short amount of time since jim crow and colored water fountains. amazing stuff. 

 

i dont know (thinking out loud now) where i draw the line between saying 'we need more of X in here' and, 'ok, lets just let people choose what they want while ensuring there are as few obstacles like bias as possible'. all this 'we dont have enough actors of this color represented' or 'we need more men or women here' can become silly taken too far. 

 

as far as role models for women in stem, i think i would say that those women in stem are the role models. its not that there is nobody there for women to look up to- 1 in 5 at google, i think, is what schmitt says. 

 

so, ya, i'm kind of in between, i like the idea, but don't like it taken to an extreme. as long as we are making sure there are as few unfair barriers as possible, let people choose what they like. 

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, grego said:

i think we actually agree. part of the gender gap can be explained by biology

 

Some of the gender gap MIGHT be explained by biology, but there is little evidence to believe it is the primary or even a very significant component of it.

[PeterMP]

"We gave 32 of the 6-year-old girls and boys a robot pet to program for 20 minutes using a mobile phone app. The remaining 64 girls and boys either played a storytelling game or did no activity at all.

 

Afterward, we asked all the children how interested they were in robotics and programming, and also how good they were at these activities. Among the 64 children who did not get to program a robot, there was an observable gender gap: Boys reported greater interest in the activity, and confidence in their abilities, than the girls did.

 

But the girls who had played with the robot expressed more interest in robotics and programming and more confidence in their abilities. In fact, the gender gap in both interest and confidence completely disappeared among the children who had played with the robot."

 

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-cheryan-master-meltzoff-gender-gap-computer-science-toys-20170925-story.html

[Cooked Crack]

Far too long has the conservative white man been opressed in America.

[Cooked Crack]

Lawsuit still ongoing though