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

[PokerPacker]

27 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

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.

And why is it that women need to be specifically introduced to coding at a young age?  It's not like we're thrusting coding in front of boys at a young age and that's why a bunch of us grow up to be programmers.  Heck, I wasn't really into computers at all (well any more than the average person that could use a computer) until probably my junior year of high school, and didn't start really coding until senior year (I taught myself some TI-83 BASIC before that to do my physics calculations for me, but that was completely of my own volition exploring my own inherent interests).

[tshile]

25 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

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?

If anyone is viewed as less valuable solely because of their gender/race then that would affect opportunity.

 

I'm not opposed to addressing it. I don't know that providing mentoring programs for non-white-males, and not for White males, is a good solution.

[LadySkinsFan]

One paragraph from the referenced article, another woman heard from.

 

When men in tech listen to the experiences of women in tech, they can come to understand how this manifesto was throwing a match into dry brush in fire season.

 

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/8/11/16130452/google-memo-women-tech-biology-sexism

 

More toward the end.

 

 

In the end, focusing the conversation on the minutiae of the scientific claims in the manifesto is a red herring. Regardless of whether biological differences exist, there is no shortage of glaring evidence, in individual stories and in scientific studies, that women in tech experience bias and a general lack of a welcoming environment, as do underrepresented minorities.

 

Until these problems are resolved, our focus should be on remedying that injustice. After that work is complete, we can reassess whether small effect size biological components have anything to do with lingering imbalances.

 

 

For today — given what women in tech have had to deal with over the past week — try pouring a cup of coffee for a female coder in your office, and asking her about the most interesting bug she’s seen lately.

 

 

Cynthia Lee is a lecturer in the computer science department at Stanford. She founded peerinstruction4cs.org to support educators in flipping their computer science classrooms using peer instruction. She has a PhD in high-performance computing.

 

[s0crates]

I liked "screed" better than "manifesto."

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, PokerPacker said:

And why is it that women need to be specifically introduced to coding at a young age?  It's not like we're thrusting coding in front of boys at a young age and that's why a bunch of us grow up to be programmers.  Heck, I wasn't really into computers at all (well any more than the average person that could use a computer) until probably my junior year of high school, and didn't start really coding until senior year (I taught myself some TI-83 BASIC before that to do my physics calculations for me, but that was completely of my own volition exploring my own inherent interests).

 

It is probably related to the idea that they don't think the can code (well) or would enjoy because of a lack of female role models involved in coding.  By introducing them to it early, they learn it is something they can do well and do enjoy..

2 hours ago, tshile said:

If anyone is viewed as less valuable solely because of their gender/race then that would affect opportunity.

 

I'm not opposed to addressing it. I don't know that providing mentoring programs for non-white-males, and not for White males, is a good solution.

 

In addition, there are studies that show code put forward by women on-line actually ranks higher than code put forward by men, until people know their gender.

 

It helps because despite these biases it gets more women into the subjects (which then actually helps more women get in because then they have female mentors and role models).

 

Do you have a better one?  Or are you essentially arguing that if it isn't perfect that we shouldn't do it?

[PeterMP]

3 hours ago, s0crates said:

 

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.

 

But a desire for motherhood and men seeking status for reproductive purposes (assuming that's actually even true) haven't changed.

 

Why are the percent of female dentist going up?

[PokerPacker]

Just now, PeterMP said:

It is probably related to the idea that they don't think the can code (well) because of a lack of female role models involved in coding.  By introducing them to it early, they learn it is something they can do well.

There's an example of jumping to conclusions.  What makes it more probable that there aren't more females in coding because there aren't more females in coding, than it is that there aren't more females in coding because they less interest in coding?  So much so that the latter would be that of someone sexist/stupid/dishonest while the former is the enlightened conclusion?

[tshile]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

Do you have a better one?  Or are you essentially arguing that if it isn't perfect that we shouldn't do it?

Come on... that's not what I've been arguing at all.

 

I think outreach to younger kids is the best way to fix this.

 

I think if, as a company, you're going to invest in mentoring you should not exclude part of your work force based on their skin color or race. I fail to see how that's not better than only mentoring people of a certain race or gender. We're after best people/bettering people in positions right? If they were only targeting White males for mentoring you surely wouldn't have issue finding a problem with it.

 

I don't think you can 'fix' someone looking down on others (or their work) based on their gender or skin color. You can provide education about why that's wrong, but fundamentally you cannot 'fix' that. You can do your best to weed it out, or at least work to block them from positions of power within an organization.

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, PokerPacker said:

There's an example of jumping to conclusions.  What makes it more probable that there aren't more females in coding because there aren't more females in coding, than it is that there aren't more females in coding because they less interest in coding?  So much so that the latter would be that of someone sexist/stupid/dishonest while the former is the enlightened conclusion?

 

Because there is a large amount of evidence that indicates that for groups of people that are minorities in a field to gain entry into that field that mentors and role models are important.

 

This is supported by scientific studies for females and racial minorities in a number fields and even males in nursing.

 

To say the same is not true for tech, you'd have to actually argue that something is different in tech that these studies don't apply to tech.

 

And while I'm at, I'll give an explanation of the data for dental vs. dental hygienist.

 

1.  Traditionally, women were biased against in terms of entry into college and you can't be a dentist without going to college (this is a historical fact).  Even after that was (largely) eliminated, there was still biases against women with respect to STEM some of it overt and some of it not (e.g. people that honestly believed that due to biological differences that women weren't as good at STEM telling them they weren't good at STEM (this is a historical fact) and for many groups of people beyond women being told you aren't good at something decreases performance in that field (this is based on a large number of scientific studies).

 

2.  There were cultural and societal biases against females entering college and having extended education opportunities.  These include government policies that for generations benefited men and their access to college (e.g. the GI bill) and corporate policies (e.g. the offering of maternity leave vs. paternity leave) (historical facts).

 

These things drove down the percentage of dentists and drove up the percent of women that required less higher education (e.g. nursing, dental hygienist, etc.)

 

3.  From there, people are more likely to enter fields in which they have mentors and role models (again, not something that is related just to females, but generally found to be true) so even as educational opportunities opened and more women entered the work force, they went into fields that they were heavily more into where there were role models (e.g. as more women entered the work force, they didn't go and be dentists right away) (based on a large number of scientific studies).

 

Over the last few decades though we've seen an increase understanding that women aren't inherently worse at STEM and more role models with respect to STEM and efforts to mentor females in STEM as well as other actions (e.g. affirmative action) and that has caused an increase of women dentists (historical fact).

 

Female's biology did not change (assumption on my part, but there is no evidence supporting that their biology did change).

[PeterMP]

8 minutes ago, tshile said:

Come on... that's not what I've been arguing at all.

 

I think outreach to younger kids is the best way to fix this.

 

I think if, as a company, you're going to invest in mentoring you should not exclude part of your work force based on their skin color or race. I fail to see how that's not better than only mentoring people of a certain race or gender. We're after best people/bettering people in positions right? If they were only targeting White males for mentoring you surely wouldn't have issue finding a problem with it.

 

I don't think you can 'fix' someone looking down on others (or their work) based on their gender or skin color. You can provide education about why that's wrong, but fundamentally you cannot 'fix' that. You can do your best to weed it out, or at least work to block them from positions of power within an organization.

 

I'm not trying to fix people.  I'm trying to offer equal opportunity.

 

If males are getting a benefit in one area that is giving them a benefit with respect to opportunity, if you are truly interested in equal opportunity doesn't it make sense to off set that somewhere else.

 

You can't really say that I'm for equal opportunity and be told that there is a situation where one group is gaining an advantage and you aren't going to do anything about it.

 

Then you really aren't for equal opportunity.

[tshile]

3 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

I'm not trying to fix people.  I'm trying to offer equal opportunity.

 

If males are getting a benefit in one area that is giving them a benefit with respect to opportunity, if you are truly interested in equal opportunity doesn't it make sense to off set that somewhere else.

 

You can't really say that I'm for equal opportunity and be told that there is a situation where one group is gaining an advantage and you aren't going to do anything about it.

You devolved to "if you don't agree with me, that means you don't want to do anything/don't think there is a problem"

 

 

 

[PeterMP]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

You devolved to "if you don't agree with me, that means you don't want to do anything/don't think there is a problem"

 

Then explain it to me.  How can you claim you are for equal opportunity, be told that one group is getting an advantage, say you don't want to do any thing to off set that advantage, and expect me to take you seriously?

 

I have two daughters.  How am I supposed to look them in the eye and tell them that there are number of scientific studies that show that there are advantages being given to males in STEM fields and nothing is being done to off set those advantages and they actually have an equal opportunity to succeed in STEM fields?

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

say you don't want to do any thing to off set that advantage

Can you say there is evidence that if a company offers mentoring to anyone, regardless of skin color or gender, that non White males are still disadvantaged?

 

Is there evidence that the outreach to young kids of all races/genders for engineering, robotics, and programming disadvantages non White males?

[PeterMP]

Just now, tshile said:

Can you say there is evidence that if a company offers mentoring to anyone, regardless of skin color or gender, that non White males are still disadvantaged?

 

Is there evidence that the outreach to young kids of all races/genders for engineering, robotics, and programming disadvantages non White males?

 

It doesn't disadvantage non-white males, but it doesn't off set the advantage that they are getting else where.

 

It is like white males are being given $1,000 and you are suggesting giving everybody (including white males) $1,000.

 

Great, everybody now has $1,000 except for white males whom have $2,000.  They still have the advantage.

[tshile]

Just now, PeterMP said:

 

It doesn't disadvantage non-white males, but it doesn't off set the advantage that they are getting else where.

 

It is like white males are being given $1,000 and you are suggesting giving everybody (including white males) $1,000.

 

Great, everybody now has $1,000 except for white males whom have $2,000.  They still have the advantage.

That's a terrible analogy. We're not talking about  absolutely measurable things here. We're talking about the attractiveness of jobs, the encouragement provided by role models and mentoring.

 

Where is the evidence that if you offer mentoring programs for everyone, minority groups still struggle to enter the work force, and do well once they're in the work force?

 

Why are outreach programs dedicated to exposing youth to stem fields (before societal pressures can shape their mind) that don't operate exclusively for minorities considered important by everyone interested in fixing the issue if your analogy holds water?

 

[PeterMP]

3 hours ago, tshile said:

That's a terrible analogy. We're not talking about  absolutely measurable things here. We're talking about the attractiveness of jobs, the encouragement provided by role models and mentoring.

 

Where is the evidence that if you offer mentoring programs for everyone, minority groups still struggle to enter the work force, and do well once they're in the work force?

 

Why are outreach programs dedicated to exposing youth to stem fields (before societal pressures can shape their mind) that don't operate exclusively for minorities considered important by everyone interested in fixing the issue if your analogy holds water?

 

 

While the analogy is not perfect (none is), I think it generally holds.  It certainly seems to be logical to me.  You've created a benefit for everybody, but haven't done anything to offset the advantage that males are getting else where.

 

Where is the evidence that they do?  I've got things to do with my life than to find studies that support your views (realistically, I don't think the study has been done).

 

How about, you are for pursuing equal opportunity by enacting policies that you have no idea will actually work while ignoring approaches that there is scientific evidence that they work?

 

Does that accurately reflect your position?

 

Who is everyone?

 

These people don't seem to think that's true:

https://pagesprogram.org/

 

or these people:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rebecca-searles/stem-mentorship-program_b_2288918.html

 

or these people:

https://www.facebook.com/thestemgems/

 

or these:

https://www.nyas.org/programs/global-stem-alliance/1000-girls-1000-futures/

 

(All female only outreach and mentor programs and there are groups out there that do mentoring for only racial minorities too.)

[tshile]

9 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

Where is the evidence that they do?  I've got things to do with my life than to find studies that support your views (realistically, I don't think the study has been done).

 

How about, you are for pursuing equal opportunity by enacting policies that you have no idea will actually work while ignoring approaches that there is scientific evidence that they work?

Your becoming ridiculous and I am done with you on this subject after I address these points.

 

I imagine there is no evidence because I don't believe it's being done anywhere or has been researched.

 

I wasn't asking you to go research my ideas for me. I was asking for your knowledge on it, based on work you've already done, since you seem to have done quite a bit of work on the matter already. I imagine you actually already know this, but have decided to respond like a prick anyways.

 

The only reason I even started down that path, is because you have insisted, multiple times, that my ideas won't actually do anything to help the situation. You don't seem armed with information to actually back that up.

 

In the future please refrain from telling me I am not interested in fixing the problem or that I'm ignoring science. I would appreciate that.

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, tshile said:

Your becoming ridiculous and I am done with you on this subject after I address these points.

 

I imagine there is no evidence because I don't believe it's being done anywhere or has been researched.

 

I wasn't asking you to go research my ideas for me. I was asking for your knowledge on it, based on work you've already done, since you seem to have done quite a bit of work on the matter already. I imagine you actually already know this, but have decided to respond like a prick anyways.

 

The only reason I even started down that path, is because you have insisted, multiple times, that my ideas won't actually do anything to help the situation. You don't seem armed with information to actually back that up.

 

In the future please refrain from telling me I am not interested in fixing the problem or that I'm ignoring science. I would appreciate that.

 

Okay, I over stated that your ideas won't do anything.  Logically though, I don't see how they are going to really eliminate the gap, and even you don't seem to have any evidence that they will.  Can you even make a logical argument that it'll eliminate the gap?

 

The fact of the matter is that you think the best way to fix it is through something that you have no evidence that is going to work and will be difficult to show they ever work (studies on the long term success of youth interventions are expensive and very hard to do.  People are still debating the utility of Head Start.) when there are good studies that show other approaches work.

 

Doing something you don't know is going to work, is going to be hard to ever assess it really is working and take a long time isn't really showing an interest in fixing a problem when there are well documented things that do work while you claim you want to fix it and aren't ignoring science is what is ridiculous.

 

(Really, this is a kin to telling somebody that has cancer to try some treatment that there is no evidence that it is going to treat their cancer while ignoring well documented effective ways of treating their cancer and then claiming you really want to see the person get better, and you aren't ignoring science.  That's ridiculous.)

[s0crates]

14 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

But a desire for motherhood and men seeking status for reproductive purposes (assuming that's actually even true) haven't changed.

 

Why are the percent of female dentist going up?

 

A lot has changed since the introduction of the birth control pill. A quick Google search brings up an article titled "Women without kids up 80 percent from 30 years ago" and many more like it. We could debate whether or not the trend of fewer women having children is likely to result in the utopia radical feminists imagine, but for now I'll just note the fact that fewer women are having children is consistent with my hypothesis that motherhood is one of the factors influencing the percentage of women dentists.

 

Please note I'm not denying that sociocultural factors also contribute. You seem concerned to demonstrate that fact to me, but as I've already said, I think the correct answer to the "nature or nurture" question is "both." Or do you mean to tell me that biology is not a factor at all?

[grego]

this is the second time this week i've referenced haidt (on two different topics, no less), i was listening to an interview from march 2016 the other day and he actually referenced this very topic (quite visionary). 

 

i'm not familiar with the research in the field, but are we saying haidt is wrong with regards to prenatal testosterone?

 

jonathan haidt-  "inclusivity is a good thing, but carried to extreme, it becomes bad. in this new religion of social justice , the central virtues are inclusivity and equality and if anyone in the seven marginalized groups feels excluded that trumps everything else. and this is where it becomes bad and this is where it becomes impossible to have a university because now we cant- i cant say something. i cant present a scientific theory. if we're going to talk about why women are underrepresented in the stem fields, and if a professor were to say 'well, actually, you know, prenatal testosterone influences what children enjoy doing.", might that be relevant? you cant say that, and i just said it, but a professor on the left cant say that"

 

sam harris-  "so you, literally, if you were teaching that subject area, you would feel like you actually had to drop that fact from the lecture?"

 

haidt- "personally, umm, i would be very hesitant to say that at nyu, not that nyu is particularly bad, but because thats where they could file charges against me. but if i'm not at nyu i would be free to say it because students at other schools cant really do much to me. but, yes, ive heard from many professors. they are simply avoiding controversy because its just not worth the trouble. it can take months of your life"

[Diehard Otis]

I feel the need to post this.  Herein lies James Damore's Op-Ed published in today's Wall Street Journal.

 

Quote

Why I Was Fired by Google

By

James Damore

Aug. 11, 2017 3:54 p.m. ET

2273 COMMENTS

I was fired by Google this past Monday for a document that I wrote and circulated internally raising questions about cultural taboos and how they cloud our thinking about gender diversity at the company and in the wider tech sector. I suggested that at least some of the male-female disparity in tech could be attributed to biological differences (and, yes, I said that bias against women was a factor too). Google Chief Executive Sundar Pichai declared that portions of my statement violated the company’s code of conduct and “cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.”

My 10-page document set out what I considered a reasoned, well-researched, good-faith argument, but as I wrote, the viewpoint I was putting forward is generally suppressed at Google because of the company’s “ideological echo chamber.” My firing neatly confirms that point. How did Google, the company that hires the smartest people in the world, become so ideologically driven and intolerant of scientific debate and reasoned argument?

We all have moral preferences and beliefs about how the world is and should be. Having these views challenged can be painful, so we tend to avoid people with differing values and to associate with those who share our values. This self-segregation has become much more potent in recent decades. We are more mobile and can sort ourselves into different communities; we wait longer to find and choose just the right mate; and we spend much of our time in a digital world personalized to fit our views.

 

Google is a particularly intense echo chamber because it is in the middle of Silicon Valley and is so life-encompassing as a place to work. With free food, internal meme boards and weekly companywide meetings, Google becomes a huge part of its employees’ lives. Some even live on campus. For many, including myself, working at Google is a major part of their identity, almost like a cult with its own leaders and saints, all believed to righteously uphold the sacred motto of “Don’t be evil.”

Echo chambers maintain themselves by creating a shared spirit and keeping discussion confined within certain limits. As Noam Chomsky once observed, “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.”

Related Reading

 

• Google Uproar Highlights Questions Over What You Can or Cannot Say at Work
• Google Fires Employee Who Wrote Memo Criticizing Diversity Initiatives
• Google’s New Diversity Chief Criticizes Employee’s Memo
•  

But echo chambers also have to guard against dissent and opposition. Whether it’s in our homes, online or in our workplaces, a consensus is maintained by shaming people into conformity or excommunicating them if they persist in violating taboos. Public shaming serves not only to display the virtue of those doing the shaming but also warns others that the same punishment awaits them if they don’t conform.

In my document, I committed heresy against the Google creed by stating that not all disparities between men and women that we see in the world are the result of discriminatory treatment. When I first circulated the document about a month ago to our diversity groups and individuals at Google, there was no outcry or charge of misogyny. I engaged in reasoned discussion with some of my peers on these issues, but mostly I was ignored.

Everything changed when the document went viral within the company and the wider tech world. Those most zealously committed to the diversity creed—that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and all people are inherently the same—could not let this public offense go unpunished. They sent angry emails to Google’s human-resources department and everyone up my management chain, demanding censorship, retaliation and atonement.

 Upper management tried to placate this surge of outrage by shaming me and misrepresenting my document, but they couldn’t really do otherwise: The mob would have set upon anyone who openly agreed with me or even tolerated my views. When the whole episode finally became a giant media controversy, thanks to external leaks, Google had to solve the problem caused by my supposedly sexist, anti-diversity manifesto, and the whole company came under heated and sometimes threatening scrutiny

It saddens me to leave Google and to see the company silence open and honest discussion. If Google continues to ignore the very real issues raised by its diversity policies and corporate culture, it will be walking blind into the future—unable to meet the needs of its remarkable employees and sure to disappoint its billions of users.

—Mr. Damore worked as a software engineer at Google’s Mountain View campus from 2013 until this past week.

[PLEASE NOTE: I'm not attempting to make a point with the bolded portion, it's simply a matter a screwy formatting - I copy/pasted this article directly from the site.]

 

This is the man in his own words.  Clearly his views are relevant to this discussion.

[Destino]

He was fired because his memo was bad PR, not because of echo chambers and all that other overly dramatic bull****.  The political environment in the country isn't one that reacted positively to what he had to say and he said it in a way that put his employer unavoidably in the crosshairs.  Welcome to the corporate world, where anything that hurts the company is likely to get you fired.  That's not injustice, it's just business.  

[Mooka]

In the corporate tech world... 

 

This man committed suicide so hard, so blatantly, and so outrageously; that it must've been a very calculated move and he's going to run with this into his new career.

 

 

I wish him luck. 

[Jumbo]

 

I fired guys for saying "political" things at work back in the 60's. A lot of our customers were military personnel and over that time I had two Vietnam war opponents employed who too often voiced their views in the store. Each ignored warnings, then fired, though they were expressing views I shared. To me, at that time, it was just common sense/decency as to what would be appropriate work environment behavior and very few employees ever took issue. I remember years before, when doing a "youth apprenticeship" at a bank, there was a flare-up between a Catholic lady who worked in the mail-room and a fundamentalist lady. The fundie lady would give Bibles to new employees and stop by and talk Bible/religion and try to get people to do church stuff with her at times during work and the catholic lady kept protesting their actions and trying to build a "resistance."  Then it became a faith v faith war and then it all got shut down---the upper mgmt sent out a memeo--no more religious talk at work and the fundie group went nuts (details available) and the head fundie lady quit.

 

[PeterMP]

On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 0:26 PM, s0crates said:

Peter Singer thinks Google is in the wrong here, but what does he know about ethics anyway? He's probably an alt-right misogynist.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/amp/opinion/google-wrong-article-1.3399750

 

Some orchestras now conduct blind auditions — the musician plays from behind a screen, so that those making the appointment do not know if they are listening to a man or a woman. That has led to a dramatic increase in the number of women in orchestras. More businesses should look at the possibilities of similarly blinding themselves, when hiring, to the gender 

 

I wanted to come back to this.

 

This idea works ok, but only at specific points.  If there is biases in the pipeline (which seems to be the case for google), then you still have a non-equal oppirtinity system.  You have done nothing to help with that bias.

 

The other issue is at the top level.   Google is never going to be able to hire upper level management in a gender blind manner.  They will know who the person is based on the resumee.

 

An orchestra is never going to be able to hire a conductor in a gender blind manner.

 

Oh- I forgot the reason women dont rise to the top is not hiring biases but because they do not have enough drive because of biology.  Even though there is no evidence for that.