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

[Cooked Crack]

20 minutes ago, s0crates said:

 

Apparently white male privilege doesn't protect you from getting fired for expressing opinions contrary to SJW groupthink.

Sharing controversial options can get you fired sometimes. I tend to keep my hot takes away from the company email. Do you think corporations should be forums for free speech?

[PeterMP]

I have a question for anybody that wants to give it a try.

 

According to s0crates post a couple of pages back 98% of dental hygienists are female, but only 29% of dentists are female.

 

http://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/total-dentists-by-gender/?dataView=1&currentTimeframe=0&sortModel={"colId":"Location","sort":"asc"}

 

What drives those differences?  Is it biologically driven interests?  Is there some biologically driven emotional component that's fulfilled by being a hygienists that being a dentist doesn't fill?

 

In 2001, it was only 16% female dentists.  Has the nature of dentistry changed over the last few decades to draw a different set of people?

[LadySkinsFan]

Dental hygiene school is less than dental school both money and time wise. Young women could get into a profession pretty easily.

[Destino]

31 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

I have a question for anybody that wants to give it a try.

 

According to s0crates post a couple of pages back 98% of dental hygienists are female, but only 29% of dentists are female.

 

http://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/total-dentists-by-gender/?dataView=1&currentTimeframe=0&sortModel={"colId":"Location","sort":"asc"}

 

What drives those differences?  Is it biologically driven interests?  Is there some biologically driven emotional component that's fulfilled by being a hygienists that being a dentist doesn't fill?

 

In 2001, it was only 16% female dentists.  Has the nature of dentistry changed over the last few decades to draw a different set of people?

 

If 98% of dental hygienists are female according to your logic sexism is keeping men out of the profession.  And I don't have to prove it, the fact that only 2% are male is proof enough. That's how this works right?  We ignore equal opportunity and focus entirely and the inequality of the result and pretend we've proven our case.

 

As for biologically driven interests, I say that's bogus.  I don't think there is a direct link between biology in profession.  Women having their first child later on average and overall fertility rate declining however, could plausibly show up in the number of women choosing to pursue longer educational paths.  Even then I'd suspect that's one of a million factors.  We're talking about a complicated system and I doubt satisfying simple answers exist.  Things entirely unrelated to gender could impact the numbers.  Things like immigration, the cost of various educational paths, and growth of certain professions. 

[s0crates]

1 hour ago, Cooked Crack said:

Sharing controversial options can get you fired sometimes. I tend to keep my hot takes away from the company email. Do you think corporations should be forums for free speech?

 

I tend to keep my hot takes away from company email too, although maybe we would be better off if people like us didn't sense that it would be imprudent to tell our colleagues what we think. 

[s0crates]

If you're going to take the IT jobs from the men, then you're going to have to give them some of the dental hygeine jobs, otherwise you're just going to have a lot of unemployed men stacking up. I'm sure men and women will both be much happier in their new careers when you guys are done with the social engineering. 

[PeterMP]

53 minutes ago, Destino said:

 

If 98% of dental hygienists are female according to your logic sexism is keeping men out of the profession.  And I don't have to prove it, the fact that only 2% are male is proof enough. That's how this works right?  We ignore equal opportunity and focus entirely and the inequality of the result and pretend we've proven our case.

 

Really?  You've been reading this thread and that's your take on my posts?

 

That's what you got?

 

I'm being serious.  You've honestly read my posts in this thread and you think that represents what I think?

 

s0crates and PokerPacker, you too?

[Cooked Crack]

20 minutes ago, s0crates said:

 

I tend to keep my hot takes away from company email too, although maybe we would be better off if people like us didn't sense that it would be imprudent to tell our colleagues what we think. 

Nah, I'm good. Don't really need to have a dialogue with Betty from HR about race realisim, religion or anything sensitive. Let me get my moneys and go.

 

10 minutes ago, s0crates said:

If you're going to take the IT jobs from the men, then you're going to have to give them some of the dental hygeine jobs, otherwise you're just going to have a lot of unemployed men stacking up. I'm sure men and women will both be much happier in their new careers when you guys are done with the social engineering. 

Isn't this guy promoting social engineering though? I was under the impression he wanted ideological diversity. He's trying to take food out of the mouth from hungry liberals!

[s0crates]

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

I have a question for anybody that wants to give it a try.

 

According to s0crates post a couple of pages back 98% of dental hygienists are female, but only 29% of dentists are female.

 

http://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/total-dentists-by-gender/?dataView=1&currentTimeframe=0&sortModel={"colId":"Location","sort":"asc"}

 

What drives those differences?  Is it biologically driven interests?  Is there some biologically driven emotional component that's fulfilled by being a hygienists that being a dentist doesn't fill?

 

In 2001, it was only 16% female dentists.  Has the nature of dentistry changed over the last few decades to draw a different set of people?

 

My first guess is motherhood might be a factor for women, and yes that has a "biologically driven emotional component."

 

For men, "the anti-diversity screed" mentions seeking status for reproductive purposes. I don't know about that, but it could be a factor.

 

I'll give you that these aren't the only factors, and I'm sure we could do more to mentor some of those hygienists who could have been dentists. I'd just caution you not to assume all those full-time mom, part-time hygienists would be happier if they had chosen otherwise.

 

The key to all this is to give everybody as much opportunity as possible and allow each individual to make his or her own choices. If you do that there will be some great stay at home dads, some outstanding women carpenters, probably more women in IT and dentistry, etc., I just wouldn't expect equal numbers of men and women to make those choices, because men and women are different, and I don't think it's sexist to say so.

[tshile]

2 hours ago, SkinsHokieFan said:

Is it wrong to ask what on earth do white 20 something men have to complain about in America

 

I think that is my biggest issue with this. 28 year old white male google engineer, at a company dominated by men, is complaining about going to some diversity classes.

 

This is where opinion creates a divide that maybe pits us against each other when we really aren't.

 

If i read that and saw it the way you did, that some young white guy was complaining about going to diversity classes, i'd have the same reaction.

 

What I saw instead was a young white male asking why every other group gets access to mentoring he doesn't. Why people seek out to employ/promote people that aren't like him (and by extension, he is at a disadvantage in those cases because... he's a white male)

 

I think there's plenty of room to recognize that, in general, white males have it the easiest because they have fewer (if any) barriers in society placed on them simply because of the way they look/are, but also that some of the proposed solutions are inherently exclusive and maybe there's a better way to break down those barriers.

 

The problem is that it always seems like trying to have that conversation results in a flood of responses like yours: wah, small violin for the white males.

 

Maybe we (people like me who think there's something to that discussion) are just going about it all wrong.

 

Or maybe you're right we should just shut up and be happy we're white males.

2 hours ago, Cooked Crack said:

Sharing controversial options can get you fired sometimes. I tend to keep my hot takes away from the company email. Do you think corporations should be forums for free speech?

 

I generally agree with you, but one thing i haven't seen anyone shed light on is what Google's culture about htis sort of thing is.

 

One of @PeterMP criticisms about the article is how it's lecturing. It claims to want to start a dialogue, but it's not formatted in such a way. It's formatted in a lecture - here's my strong opinion I just want to spread around. I think he's absolutely right in some regards.

 

What I don't know, and maybe this is public knowledge, is how are these handled internally to Google? How have people from "the other side" gone about creating dialogues on diversity and improving it within Google? To be honest, given a lot of what I've seen from diversity advocates, his article actually follows their format pretty well. So to me the whole "this is a lecture not a dialogue" isn't what sprang into my head at first, it seems like a well laid out opinion (even if the "facts" behind it are flawed.)

 

So if this is how things operate at google, then the whole complaint is utter nonsense. If this is out of line with how Google operates, then the complaint is spot on.

[tshile]

39 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Really?  You've been reading this thread and that's your take on my posts?

 

That's what you got?

 

I'm being serious.  You've honestly read my posts in this thread and you think that represents what I think?

 

s0crates and PokerPacker, you too?

 

I liked the post too, after you made this post.

 

Yes, there is an element of that in there. I've asked you about it. Your response is that they are high paying jobs so it's important to have women have access to those jobs.

 

I get it, but I'm still not satisfied with the opportunity vs outcome discussion. I'm catching up and you have responded to two posts I haven't read yet. So maybe there's more in there.

 

In the grand scheme of things, it's a huge part of the discussion. Your opinions aside, there is a huge 'outcome only' viewpoint that seems to be constantly pushed and I don't really like it.

 

At some point you said that because women were only 20% of the work force, 35% of the existing work force were "not the best possible candidates."  Is that not a direct "outcome is more important" line of thinking? I asked you about it, don't recall a response.

[Destino]

25 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

I'm being serious.  You've honestly read my posts in this thread and you think that represents what I think?

Of course not.  You've done a great job arguing against biological imperative, attacking the original memo, and showing that women can be encouraged to enter STEM fields more effectively than is currently the case in the US.  My issue is that when it comes to showing that this is all due to sexism the logic starts to break down and is not applied consistently. 

 

[tshile]

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

Physical engagement does not equal or require emotional intelligence, and I don't think is emotionally satisfying in many cases.  I think you are making assumptions on how emotional intelligence can be fulfilled in the work place.

...

Have you ever asked a female software designer?

...

I think you are over simplifying here again ...

So... i'm not exactly well versed in emotional intelligence and empathy via your profession and such. I've been lectured on them by my wife, as well as heard lots of her stories.

Like your mom she is a nurse. Well, she's upper level management running 1/3 of the hospital now, but she started a nurse. Her work is mainly with nurses and nursing activities.

What she finds appealing, however, is working with the patients and her staff. She can spend all day in a room making an elderly person's day better, and go home happy (outside of all the other work not getting done because she did that.)

 

So, this may be a simple case of you work in and/or are just more knowledgeable on the issue, and I'm working with what little experience i have in it.

 

To me, if we're talking about being attracted to the things that were listed, sitting at a computer all day hacking up programs doesn't fit the description. As usual, I'm not opposed to me being wrong though.

[tshile]

3 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

I agree.  The people in the 60s didn't have decades of research that told them things not related to natural biology like the presence of role models and mentors were important for opening up opportunities for traditionally under represented groups into those areas..

 

I'm guessing they didn't know things like exposing females to coding in middle school increases their interest in coding (or the comparable topic for the 1960s).

 

Reaching for an explanation in obvious biological differences was actually pretty reasonable.  It would be unfair to judge them and their motivations based on the knowledge we have today.

 

Today, ignoring reports of sexism in the tech industry and the decades of research on the importance of things like role models, mentors, and exposure just seems desperate.

 

That's why I said before, if ALL they were doing was making a jump from women being biologically different to they aren't interested in tech, I'd actually be somewhat okay with it.

 

But these things are going on right now. I already made a post about the growth of outreach in IT related fields (engineering, robotics, programing, etc) and how successful it's been. Participation is going up, and will continue to do so.

 

Exposure has never been higher. Kids are playing with ipads around the age they start talking.

 

You want to pretend the opinions on women in the work force in the 60's were caused by a lack of research available to them, as opposed to believing women are inferior on many levels, and be afraid to judge their motivations out of fairness, and juxtapose that asking a similar question today is inherently worse, then go right ahead. I'm not buying that bs though.

 

By the way, I haven't ignored reports of sexism. I've asked for a distinction in reports between management/clients and peers. I'm asking for what is unique to the tech industry, as we know sexism from superiors is pervasive in our society. I think that's different than ignoring reports.

[PeterMP]

27 minutes ago, Destino said:

Of course not.  You've done a great job arguing against biological imperative, attacking the original memo, and showing that women can be encouraged to enter STEM fields more effectively than is currently the case in the US.  My issue is that when it comes to showing that this is all due to sexism the logic starts to break down and is not applied consistently. 

 

 

Claims of sexism against the tech industry are not based on employment stats.  They are based on things like this

 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/12/silicon-valley-women-harassment-gender-discrimination

 

"Sexism Valley: 60% of women in Silicon Valley experience harassment"

 

https://qz.com/914946/a-female-engineers-account-of-working-at-uber-alleges-rampant-sexism-repeatedly-ignored-by-execs-and-hr/

 

http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/13/technology/business/uber-board-member-resigns/index.htmlhttp://money.cnn.com/2017/06/13/technology/business/uber-board-member-resigns/index.html

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/30/technology/women-entrepreneurs-speak-out-sexual-harassment.html

[PokerPacker]

18 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

s0crates and PokerPacker, you too?

I've mostly bowed out of this thread.  If you want to know where I stand, I think that while you are throwing out accusations of jumping to conclusions without--well--conclusive evidence, you are missing yourself doing the very same thing.  You keep referring to one study about women in other countries as if that is conclusive evidence to support your own take on the subject.  When we're looking to Iran as a role model in how to treat women, I feel we probably should have taken that left at Albuquerque.

 

It just seems to me that you've already made up your mind on this subject and that regardless of what studies may show, it is an impossibility for Women and Men to inherently have differing interests.  Personally, I don't see what is so objectionable about that.  Our evolutionary path has clearly created a bifurcation in physiology due to the differing roles of the sexes,  what makes it so absurd that our differing roles in society would cause a bifurcation in interests?  I mean, we definitely see the bifurcation in our society; there's no question about that, is there?  So it really comes down to explanation for it.  Why evidence have you come across that conclusively states that this is fully a result of nurture and that our sexes (or hormones or whatever that are related to our sex) has nothing to do with it?

[PeterMP]

12 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

But these things are going on right now. I already made a post about the growth of outreach in IT related fields (engineering, robotics, programing, etc) and how successful it's been. Participation is going up, and will continue to do so.

 

Exposure has never been higher. Kids are playing with ipads around the age they start talking.

 

You want to pretend the opinions on women in the work force in the 60's were caused by a lack of research available to them, as opposed to believing women are inferior on many levels, and be afraid to judge their motivations out of fairness, and juxtapose that asking a similar question today is inherently worse, then go right ahead. I'm not buying that bs though.

 

By the way, I haven't ignored reports of sexism. I've asked for a distinction in reports between management/clients and peers. I'm asking for what is unique to the tech industry, as we know sexism from superiors is pervasive in our society. I think that's different than ignoring reports.

 

And I agree, and as I've states I expect the gender gap in the tech industry will drop over the next few decades.

 

Do you think there is more sexism (against women) in an industry that has a larger percentage of men or women?

3 minutes ago, PokerPacker said:

I've mostly bowed out of this thread.  If you want to know where I stand, I think that while you are throwing out accusations of jumping to conclusions without--well--conclusive evidence, you are missing yourself doing the very same thing.  You keep referring to one study about women in other countries as if that is conclusive evidence to support your own take on the subject.  When we're looking to Iran as a role model in how to treat women, I feel we probably should have taken that left at Albuquerque.

 

It just seems to me that you've already made up your mind on this subject and that regardless of what studies may show, it is an impossibility for Women and Men to inherently have differing interests.  Personally, I don't see what is so objectionable about that.  Our evolutionary path has clearly created a bifurcation in physiology due to the differing roles of the sexes,  what makes it so absurd that our differing roles in society would cause a bifurcation in interests?  I mean, we definitely see the bifurcation in our society; there's no question about that, is there?  So it really comes down to explanation for it.  Why evidence have you come across that conclusively states that this is fully a result of nurture and that our sexes (or hormones or whatever that are related to our sex) has nothing to do with it?

 

I've referred to and linked to multiple studies in this thread.

 

There are many studies that show that things like mentors, role models, and early engagement are key to getting traditional minorities into a new field.

 

I even linked to a thesis on a mentoring program for male nurses.

[PeterMP]

37 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I liked the post too, after you made this post.

 

Yes, there is an element of that in there. I've asked you about it. Your response is that they are high paying jobs so it's important to have women have access to those jobs.

 

I get it, but I'm still not satisfied with the opportunity vs outcome discussion. I'm catching up and you have responded to two posts I haven't read yet. So maybe there's more in there.

 

In the grand scheme of things, it's a huge part of the discussion. Your opinions aside, there is a huge 'outcome only' viewpoint that seems to be constantly pushed and I don't really like it.

 

At some point you said that because women were only 20% of the work force, 35% of the existing work force were "not the best possible candidates."  Is that not a direct "outcome is more important" line of thinking? I asked you about it, don't recall a response.

 

I've stated that there is likely to be some gender gap due to natural differences in some jobs.  The evidence does not support that the general STEM gender gap in  the US is heavily the result of biological differences.

 

I do not expect equality of out comes in all fields.  However, in STEM it is clear there are things that we can do other than genetically engineering or interfering with pre-natal development to increase the role of women in STEM.

 

It is also clear there has been discrimination against women entering STEM historically (some of it overt and some of it not) and that then makes harder for women to enter STEM (e.g. fewer role models and people to be mentors).

 

I think a discussion of equal opportunity is worthless until I see somebody describe a reasonable metric of opportunity, which given the complexity of the situation I don't think is possible.

 

Male STEM students over evaluate the talents of fellow males with respect to females.  How does that affect opportunity and how are you going to account for it?

[PokerPacker]

2 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

I've referred to and linked to multiple studies in this thread.

 

There are many studies that show that things like mentors, role models, and early engagement are key to getting traditional minorities into a new field.

 

I even linked to a thesis on a mentoring program for male nurses.

That is not conclusive evidence that it is 100% cultural.  I don't think anyone will question that culture plays a role in our interests.  Just like when talking about who a person is, we've come to accept that they are a product of nature and nurture.  If you showed me a bunch of studies showing how nurture affects one's personality, it would not disprove they also have their own inherent nature to them.  We are not blank slates.

 

You also have not been able to adequately explain what makes the tech industry different from all of the other industries that had, at one point, been purely male industries (most of them).

[PeterMP]

10 minutes ago, PokerPacker said:

That is not conclusive evidence that it is 100% cultural.  I don't think anyone will question that culture plays a role in our interests.  Just like when talking about who a person is, we've come to accept that they are a product of nature and nurture.  If you showed me a bunch of studies showing how nurture affects one's personality, it would not disprove they also have their own inherent nature to them.  We are not blank slates.

 

You also have not been able to adequately explain what makes the tech industry different from all of the other industries that had, at one point, been purely male industries (most of them).

 

I've never claimed that anything has been proven conclusively or anything has been disproven conclusively.  I've never argued (I mean EVER) that ANYTHING (and I mean ANYTHING) can be proven conclusive.

 

There doesn't have to be anything special about the tech industry.  Just by default something has to be last.  Women entering the job market were unlikely to penetrate every career in an even distribution, if nothing else due to random chance, which then has ripple effects.

 

And I'm not saying there isn't some biological negative component to tech and women.  There just isn't any current scientific evidence to support it as a significant factor, and plenty to support things like introducing coding at an earlier age increases women's interest in coding and mentors in STEM increase interest in STEM.

[Cooked Crack]

48 minutes ago, tshile said:

 I generally agree with you, but one thing i haven't seen anyone shed light on is what Google's culture about htis sort of thing is.

 

@PeterMP criticisms about the article is how it's lecturing. It claims to want to start a dialogue, but it's not formatted in such a way. It's formatted in a lecture - here's my strong opinion I just want to spread around. I think he's absolutely right in some regards.

 

True. Not sure what Google's culture is like with this. Has someone like this been allowed before? I'm always going to assume a big corporation has some type of fine print. These guys might feel more open but at the end of the day Google will look out for Google. I'm real interested in how a NLRB in a Trump administration will handle this. Will they side with the corporation or with their politics?

[s0crates]

4 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

Has someone like this been allowed before? 

 

We used to burn them at the stake, but people won't let us do that anymore.

[PokerPacker]

Just now, PeterMP said:

I've never claimed that anything has been proven conclusively or anything has been disproven conclusively.  I've never argued (I mean EVER) that ANYTHING (and I mean ANYTHING) can be proven conclusive.

You have not said so in as many words, but when you decide that coming to a hypothesis that women tend to have differing interests to men must come from sexism, stupidity, or dishonesty, it comes off as awful conclusive statement that men and women do not have any inherent differences in interests.

 

[tshile]

26 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

"Sexism Valley: 60% of women in Silicon Valley experience harassment"

You do realize that silicon Valley is but a small portion of the tech industry right?

 

They might gobble up all the press and investor money and have the highest paying jobs, but there are tech jobs all over the place in many small and medium businesses.

 

I'm not saying you only look at silicon Valley, infact I would expect you're well versed in the bigger picture. But the sample of postings we see are almost exclusively silicon Valley. This is akin to taking the antics going on at some elite private universities and applying them to the entire university system in our country.

[tshile]

31 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

Do you think there is more sexism (against women) in an industry that has a larger percentage of men or women?

I honestly am not willing to draw conclusions on that. I could make a rational (to me) argument either way, I do not see sexism myself in my career, and I do not spend time researching it.

 

My wife works in a field dominated by women and I hear what I feel to be sexism going on quite a bit, and sometimes from other women, and in ways that I think is highly illegal.

 

Things like being a young woman who is married bringing up the potential of being pregnant as being a barrier to a promotion. Another person (woman) basically said that was a concern to my wife, multiple times. I, personally, understand that to be a barrier of sexism that women experience (in addition to being illegal?) But maybe I'm off base.

 

I'm not willing to say that the sheer presence of more women means less sexism towards them. If you say it's true, I won't argue it.